Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

[KoolBak]

D. The bible is (primarily) a work of fiction meant to support a system of faith.

(again, from the teachings of catholic priests in an objective college classroom ;o)

[premio53]

Atheist George Carlin (who passed into eternity in 2008) said, "But I want to you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is...wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption...Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed."

When an atheist rejects Genesis 1 (about creation), he automatically rejects Genesis 3 (about the Fall of mankind). God created all things perfect, but when Adam sinned agtainst God, it brought God's curse on all of creation. Thus, disease, suffering, pain, and death are ultimately the fault of man, not God. Reject that explanation and you wind up with a philosophy similar to George Carlin. The sufferings of this world shouldn't be used as an excuse to reject the Scriptures, but should be seen as a very real evidence that what the Bible says is true. (The Evidence Bible)

[crispybits]

There are a lot of subtleties. I don't really want to get into another "free will" discussion. I am just saying that there is a difference between what is commonly accepted and what the Bible actually says.. and the difference is important.

And all I keep trying to get down to and keep getting stonewalled is why that difference is there.

To borrow a literary tool from BBS, either:

(a) The bible is absolute truth, and humans have misinterpretted it and corrupted it, and therefore it can no longer be trusted as a path to absolute truth without a big exercise to attempt to genuinely undo the damage we have caused to the message.

(b) The bible is something just close to the truth, and as humans it is our purpose to keep refining that truth, distilling it through reason and morality and the tools God gave us in our own search for the absolute truth.

(c) The bible is absolute truth, and we as humans cannot truly access it properly as are doomed to always be a little bit off from the true message.

(d) Something else (please specify)

NO stonewalling, just revisit the "free will" thread.

some discussions just don't have a true resolution. Pretending that it is only religious individuals who are "stonewalling" instaed of it being a case of no real clear answer from any direction may be convenient, but it is hardly truth. I have spent enough time debating this here. Repetition won't gain anything.

You mean this one?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=56110&start=270

I haven't read it all yet but I will, but if that is the thread you're referencing to say "I've already said I this I can't be bothered going through it all again" and referencing a discussion you had 5 years ago without a link is a bit... meh

[PLAYER57832]

You mean this one?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=56110&start=270

I haven't read it all yet but I will, but if that is the thread you're referencing to say "I've already said I this I can't be bothered going through it all again" and referencing a discussion you had 5 years ago without a link is a bit... meh

OK, fair enough, I probably should have said earlier discussions I had with you, but that might have been in another thread.

Anyway, to simplify it, the bottom line is that to have free will means we have to have the option for bad choices. Having free will is critical to us being human, without it we would not BE human. So, its not really a matter of “God chose to create this, including bad stuff for his reasons”, so much as “God, for whatever reason, chose to create humanity” . Also, as john, dimes and I have all variously mentioned, our determination of evil is based on our time, not God’s.

It doesn’t take a great deal of thinking to come up with scenarios in which committing what otherwise might be a truly heneous act, say killing someone or cutting off their leg, would be justified. My imagination is pretty active so I REALLY don’t want to go down this path more, but if there are situations when we, humans can conceive of justification for doing virtually anything horrible we can imagine, then it is not unreasonable to think that an almight God would have reasons for allowing the things we see and consider evil, even great ones.

As an aside, near the end of the thread (page 17-18 or so), there was another “evolution is wrong” discussion.. this one about the Big Bang.

[2dimes]

the apple

This is a good example of the fact that we should be smarter but can't understand some things. So to make discussion easier someone years ago dumbed it down to something ridiculous. I'm drained right now and would like to pull that in a way.
"Sin is bad mmkay? Don't sin." So anyway..

The tree of knowledge and it's fruit can't possibly be something we still have. I've seen people eat apples everyday. No change.

This tree of knowledge if it's not a metaphor, (possible, I'm agnostic toward it) would basically in my opinion have to be magic, not awesome illusion magic like "Chris Angel." Biological magic like, having sex then a baby is formed inside the womb of the woman.

Explain that to a four year old without using a stork.

That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

Sin is cumulative so by the time of the "messenger." The people from generations before that who were able to catch a glimpse of God in the temple, were gone and their replacements had become too separated from him just like the rest of us.

This is why Priests are no longer closer to God than anyone else. In fact you only get closer to God now through your own personal random acts of kindness and earnestly seeking him. Not because you were voted in followed by white smoke, a cool hat and trying to tell people to be more like yourself.

Since we lack confidence to seek our own answers and understanding of God, we turn to Priests and cult leaders such as Christopher Hitchens to tell us about God, or a lack there of.

All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

I'll go with, "No." for now, I don't have the energy to chase down specifics in the bible. Partially because I won't be able to avoid debating people, who will come in fresh and try to disprove it with things they heard or read, instead of considering it for themselves. And I might need to go for a nap instead.

[crispybits]

Anyway, to simplify it, the bottom line is that to have free will means we have to have the option for bad choices. Having free will is critical to us being human, without it we would not BE human. So, its not really a matter of “God chose to create this, including bad stuff for his reasons”, so much as “God, for whatever reason, chose to create humanity” . Also, as john, dimes and I have all variously mentioned, our determination of evil is based on our time, not God’s.

It doesn’t take a great deal of thinking to come up with scenarios in which committing what otherwise might be a truly heneous act, say killing someone or cutting off their leg, would be justified. My imagination is pretty active so I REALLY don’t want to go down this path more, but if there are situations when we, humans can conceive of justification for doing virtually anything horrible we can imagine, then it is not unreasonable to think that an almight God would have reasons for allowing the things we see and consider evil, even great ones.

As an aside, near the end of the thread (page 17-18 or so), there was another “evolution is wrong” discussion.. this one about the Big Bang.

And this is where I think the fundamental flaw in your reasoning lays (and by the way none of that actually answered the question I asked)

"Having free will is critical to us being human, without it we would not BE human."

Really? On what grounds do you assert this? If we are fully deterministic physical sacks of blood and bone, with no more free will than a rock, how does that make us any less human?

You're making a claim of special status that is so extremely arrogant that I don't even think you can even see it. I don't think you're being purposefully arrogant, but in the end that's the only conclusion from pretty much all religious claims. "We are special, made in the image of God, blah blah blah". Unless you have a real basis to back up that claim then it's pure arrogance, and until you understand that you're deceiving yourself just the same as Viceroy does with all his evolution nonsense.

[2dimes]

So, no surprise. Look at dimes, he's too stupid to go for that nap.

You say I'm arrogant because I think I'm better than a rock? You know what else? I'm better than a dog too. Not in loyalty but I defy you to show me a dog that can drive a car.



Oh. Never mind, I'm just arrogant.

[PLAYER57832]

Really? On what grounds do you assert this? If we are fully deterministic physical sacks of blood and bone, with no more free will than a rock, how does that make us any less human?

It makes us different from the other animals on Earth.

You're making a claim of special status that is so extremely arrogant that I don't even think you can even see it. I don't think you're being purposefully arrogant, but in the end that's the only conclusion from pretty much all religious claims. "We are special, made in the image of God, blah blah blah". Unless you have a real basis to back up that claim then it's pure arrogance, and until you understand that you're deceiving yourself just the same as Viceroy does with all his evolution nonsense.

LOL.... not quite. Its really one of the most fundamental philosophical issues. Rather like "I think... therefore I am".

In truth, I by passed most of the argument because it would just drive this off tangent. i can get into that, though it may take me a day or two to get back here.

However, what question? Seriously, having pretty major computer issues, so hard for me to backtrack now.

[BigBallinStalin]

That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

Not mysterious. I will have to look it up, but I am pretty sure that it is implied or said that when Christ was crucified He went down and brought some who were dead up. I really can't remember off the top of my head, but I think that is when those who died prior to Christ were given a chance.

Gee, what a queue that must've been!

Anyway, given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?
(referring to all those years prior to any Religious Code being released--thus the right way to live, being revealed).

[crispybits]

Plainly put, the question is "what is the cause/reason/nature of the difference between what the bible says and what is commonly accepted?"

And arrogance at an ability to drive or do complex maths or whatever is a VERY different thing to arrogance that we are special beings distinct from every other being that exists because of some supernatural "soul" or however you wish to describe it (because I know the definitions vary depending on the religious basis for the claim)

[AndyDufresne]

Anyway, given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

BBS, could you explain this question in more detail?


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Atheist George Carlin (who passed into eternity in 2008) said, "But I want to you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is...wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption...Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed."

When an atheist rejects Genesis 1 (about creation), he automatically rejects Genesis 3 (about the Fall of mankind). God created all things perfect, but when Adam sinned agtainst God, it brought God's curse on all of creation. Thus, disease, suffering, pain, and death are ultimately the fault of man, not God. Reject that explanation and you wind up with a philosophy similar to George Carlin. The sufferings of this world shouldn't be used as an excuse to reject the Scriptures, but should be seen as a very real evidence that what the Bible says is true. (The Evidence Bible)

Can you distinguish between "fundamental cause" and "proximate cause"?

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyway, given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

BBS, could you explain this question in more detail?


--Andy

Okay, suppose you and I own a very large and powerful business/nation-state. Our company provides numerous goods, and everyone's all happy and stuff.

One day, I discover that a certain product--if anyone used it--would lead to the death and serious injury to millions of our current and future customers over the span of 200,000 years. I say, "hey, Andy, I'm bored. Let's put this product right there in the aisle, and advertise, 'don't use this product!'"

Then (of course) someone uses it, then another, and *boom* the business kicks Adam and Eve out, and with that event, it all goes downhill for the humans--and for animals too.


Given this management fiasco, how exactly are BBS and Andy not at all culpable for any of the consequences?

[AndyDufresne]

Gotcha. Your question reminded me of something I read just yesterday. Maybe I'll post something in the longest thread about it. I find strange things interesting.


--Andy

[2dimes]

Plainly put, the question is "what is the cause/reason/nature of the difference between what the bible says and what is commonly accepted?"

Free will and the ability to teach one's ideas about religion. Also the ability to question what cult leaders teach.

And yes of course portions of my posts in this thread are. My religion or "cult" concepts.

My intent is not to lead you into agreeing with my ideas. They are too complex to share and many are personally experienced by me. My intent is to show enough of them in the hope that some people will decide. "Hey, I want to actually read parts of the bible and form my own personal ideas about God."

And arrogance at an ability to drive or do complex maths or whatever is a VERY different thing to arrogance that we are special beings distinct from every other being that exists because of some supernatural "soul" or however you wish to describe it (because I know the definitions vary depending on the religious basis for the claim)

The knowledge and ability to do maths makes us distinct. Maybe it is partially due to great great great great great... Grandma and Grandpa eating the "apple."

[crispybits]

I'll point you over to the literalism vs relativism posts in the evidence for God thread for this to continue, but the main point is that if we're all forming personal opinions about God, then nobody can tell anybody what God is, and therefore religion is pointless and defunct.

You do realise that animals like dogs, chimps and dolphins have been taught the ablity to do maths right?

[puppydog85]

wow, quick post here, but it's clear there are no decent theologians in the this group.
BBS- are you asking what the Christian idea of original sin is?
Answering Hitchens (fyi- Stein/Bahnsen is best) short answer- reject evolution (gets rid of 196,000 years). 2- He did not change his message from old to new testaments- that's the fault of ignorant people who cannot read a literary text properly. 3- no, they were not condemned to hell out of ignorance.

I'll hop in here and represent one branch of Christianity if anyone has questions about original sin
(btw: Chesterton rocks)

[2dimes]

if we're all forming personal opinions about God, then nobody can tell anybody what God is, and therefore religion is pointless and defunct.

As a requirement or the only source of learning/development of ideas, I could not agree more.

Hearing other people's ideas is good. Adopting them without question always goes bad eventually.

Having said that a healthy church, while difficult to find and sometimes restricted to a very short shelf life. Is a wonderful social form of community.

[puppydog85]

but just in case you are asking what original sin is:

Adam (1st human, father of all the human race) was created by God and given a job + rules by which to abide.
He failed his job and broke the rules.
He was cursed by God to bear the taint of sin in his actions.

Original sin is the concept that sin infects and affects all the human race from birth through their connection to Adam(father of the human race and all). Federal head is the strict term for it.

Now for the Gospel in a nutshell (if you want to hear it). Christ (Son of God) took the punishment for sin upon himself and became the *new* Adam in that all who believe in Him can acquire that which is needed to again find favor in the eyes of God.

So,
Action= Reaction
New Action= New Reaction

[BigBallinStalin]

wow, quick post here, but it's clear there are no decent theologians in the this group.
BBS- are you asking what the Christian idea of original sin is?
Answering Hitchens (fyi- Stein/Bahnsen is best) short answer- reject evolution (gets rid of 196,000 years). 2- He did not change his message from old to new testaments- that's the fault of ignorant people who cannot read a literary text properly. 3- no, they were not condemned to hell out of ignorance.

I'll hop in here and represent one branch of Christianity if anyone has questions about original sin
(btw: Chesterton rocks)

1 makes no sense. The species, homo sapiens, existed for more than 4000 years.

2 depends on the problems of various interpretations--i.e. there is no clear, absolute interpretation; and if there is, we have no way of determining which is correct (of course, in your mind, you possess the 'correct' interpretation, but that doesn't resolve the problem).

3 leads to more problems, e.g. in today's world, by implication, those who haven't heard the Word of Christ would consequently forego their access to heaven--since Christ is salvation and all that.

[BigBallinStalin]

but just in case you are asking what original sin is:

Adam (1st human, father of all the human race) was created by God and given a job + rules by which to abide.
He failed his job and broke the rules.
He was cursed by God to bear the taint of sin in his actions.

Original sin is the concept that sin infects and affects all the human race from birth through their connection to Adam(father of the human race and all). Federal head is the strict term for it.

Now for the Gospel in a nutshell (if you want to hear it). Christ (Son of God) took the punishment for sin upon himself and became the *new* Adam in that all who believe in Him can acquire that which is needed to again find favor in the eyes of God.

So,
Action= Reaction
New Action= New Reaction

So, what about the issue of the fundamental cause (god) and proximate cause (humans)?

e.g. godlike mismanagement and culpability, thus sin

[puppydog85]

1. Ok so my math is off. YECer's will say about 6,000. This is a major problem in Christian circles and the most consistent on original sin are the Young Earth Creationists. But anyway if you hold to that view, Hitchens' statement does not apply in the main to you.
2. Well, I would say that I did . When you read the actual words of Christ it's quite clear. Paul makes things a little hard and that is where most people get off track. But anyway the point is that I think I can make a consistent argument that God did not change his mind, hence Hitchens' critisism does not apply to me.
3. Yes, if you don't hear it you don't go to heaven. That's why Christians were so big on missionary work. Essentially you are positing the problem of evil argument which would be glad to discuss if you want.

I'll look at those other points later.

[BigBallinStalin]

In other words,

RE: #1, belief in a particular non-scientific method leads one to conclude: homo sapiens (humans) existed for 6000 years.
-We can roundly reject this approach as incompetent, insufficient, and false.

#2 remains unresolved, thus your position remains either unsound or fails to establish its soundness.

Your #3 leads to the conclusion that "god works in mysterious, dickish ways," which doesn't sync well with the "all merciful/all loving" hypothesis of God.

[AAFitz]

Is original sin really used to resolve the inconsistencies between (1) God must be totes good and (2) some people have bad morals?

Only if there are inconsistencies with your logic.

So what's your response to Chesterton?

To be honest, Id just say I disagreed with the logic of it, and that other possibilities exist.

The detail would take some time though, and Im not convinced it deserves it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is original sin really used to resolve the inconsistencies between (1) God must be totes good and (2) some people have bad morals?

Only if there are inconsistencies with your logic.

So what's your response to Chesterton?

To be honest, Id just say I disagreed with the logic of it, and that other possibilities exist.

The detail would take some time though, and Im not convinced it deserves it.

Chesterton told me to tell you that you and Isaac Asimov are toilet-heads.