Moderator: Community Team
crispybits wrote: if we're all forming personal opinions about God, then nobody can tell anybody what God is, and therefore religion is pointless and defunct.
puppydog85 wrote: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)
puppydog85 wrote: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 wrote:AAFitz wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote: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?
AAFitz wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:AAFitz wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote: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.
crispybits wrote:Plainly put, the question is "what is the cause/reason/nature of the difference between what the bible says and what is commonly accepted?"
crispybits wrote: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)
BigBallinStalin wrote: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.
BigBallinStalin wrote:AAFitz wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:AAFitz wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote: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.
crispybits wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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)
crispybits wrote:One small correction - atheists say "I see no evidence for the point existing, therefore I will base no belief on the point" (a rational atheist is genuinely open to be shown the point exists, but failing someone being able to demonstrate that the point does exist maintains that it makes no sense to base any other beliefs on it - it's not really to do with exactly where the point is)
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
crispybits wrote:The fact we perceive things as being more good or more evil is no more significant than the fact that the vast majority of people would agree that (for example) Charlize Theron is more physically attractive than Rosie O'Donnell. There are some outliers who will think the opposite, just like there are some outliers that think that evil actions are good ones.
crispybits wrote:An atheist will say that these are simply psychological tricks the mind employs in order to make sense of the world around us,
stahrgazer wrote:The bible is man's way to explain the universe.
crispybits wrote:But if there is an absolute "good" and "evil", and they aren't purely man-made concepts tied to cultural morals and standards, then the existence of outliers disproves a loving Christian God.
crispybits wrote:Or are you seriously claiming that not believing in God means I cannot tell the difference between good and evil, the difference between Lanza and Ghandi or Dalmer and Mother Theresa (who wasn't necessarily the best example you could have picked there by the way)?
crispybits wrote:Most people would agree that flowers smell better than sewage, does that mean that there is some objective reality that exists independently of us that governs which smells are pleasant and which are horrible? Or is it a subjective judgement, and the consensus of society defines how we describe those two smells?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee