[Ca$h68]

One question: Should black people still be pissed at all of us honkies?

Just wondering.

- Ca$h

[El Pre$idente]

How to prevent Original Shin.

[ringo]

I am deeply offended by your use of the word "Honky."

The correct term is "Cracker."

Thank You, that is all.

[malvolio]

I thought the Original Sin was letting Ca$h register at MacNN.com.

[Hinson]

Ah, Ca$h being silly again.

Couple of basic points: First, the fact of the matter is that many blacks ARE still mad at "white" America because of what was done to their ancestors. It's not a matter of "right" or "wrong," it's simply part of the way things are for human beings. When one generation does something wrong, it follows us, like it or not!

Second, this actually has little to do with original sin in Christianity. As I read it, the point of the original sin of Adam and Eve was two fold:

First, it showed that human nature (in fact, the nature of any free willed being apart from God) will lead humanity to choose different from God's perfect will. Second, because we are descendent from the first man and woman, we too inherit that sinful nature.

As for why their actions were "bad," it's because they went against the will of the sovereign God. It's because God--the creator of reality itself--defines it as bad, and justice then dictates condemnation for the descendants of Adam. You're not God (I know, that's hard to take), and you don't get to decide what can rightfully condemned someone's descendants. But the love of God alone provides the power to overcome the condemnation of sin, as was his plan knowing what man would do. He worked that loving miracle through Christ (God's begotten Son--God in flesh beget of himself) along side and in spite of our free willed desire to turn from him over and over. It is therefore a blessing to be saved by grace in spite of oneself, and God alone deserves glory for the salvation.

Remember, you brought it up!


-Jay

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by malvolio:
I thought the Original Sin was letting Ca$h register at MacNN.com.

Heh, Ca$H I thought you said you was going to stop this sillyness?

[Ca$h68]

Hrm. No good answers. Not a surprise either.



- Ca$h

[UNTeMac]

What a perfectly stupid thread to use my ...

250th POST!!

It's getting old Cash.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Hrm. No good answers. Not a surprise either.



- Ca$h

Lets see cash, you put in crap, expect to recieve crap.

It's just common sense.

[Ca$h68]

I don't see how this is crap.

LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL SINS LOGIC. Okay, so Adam and Eve ****ed up, and isntead of punishing JUST THEM, God perpetuates the punishment indefinitely.

However, some white people enslave black people for a few hundred years, ... and.. you get the picture.

IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE. Christians = hypocrites. You either accept hte fact that the original sin is bullshit, and that your ancestor's wrongs are not YOUR wrongs, or you go kiss the feet of all black people.

- Ca$h

[Phanguye]

"Hell is other people..."
-Sartre

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
I don't see how this is crap.

LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL SINS LOGIC. Okay, so Adam and Eve ****ed up, and isntead of punishing JUST THEM, God perpetuates the punishment indefinitely.

However, some white people enslave black people for a few hundred years, ... and.. you get the picture.

IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE. Christians = hypocrites. You either accept hte fact that the original sin is bullshit, and that your ancestor's wrongs are not YOUR wrongs, or you go kiss the feet of all black people.

- Ca$h

LOL! Cash this only makes sense to YOU. You're logic isn't very profound as you think it is.

10 years from now you'll read things you posted and be embarrased. I promise you.

[Ca$h68]

Highly doubtful.

- Ca$h

[malvolio]

To get serious for a moment, it's not just about slavery 150 years ago. Racism is alive and well today. Ever hear about DWB? Racial profiling? Allowing cops to take photos & fingerprints from every male black student at a mostly-white college because a black guy mugged someone in the college town?
Don't be naive. There are plenty of reasons for black rage right here and now.

[Hinson]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
I don't see how this is crap.

LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL SINS LOGIC. Okay, so Adam and Eve ****ed up, and isntead of punishing JUST THEM, God perpetuates the punishment indefinitely.

However, some white people enslave black people for a few hundred years, ... and.. you get the picture.

IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE. Christians = hypocrites. You either accept hte fact that the original sin is bullshit, and that your ancestor's wrongs are not YOUR wrongs, or you go kiss the feet of all black people.

- Ca$h

So, do you just ignore posts with reason in them, Ca$h? I addressed these points.

Adam and Eve proved the sinful nature of mankind. We as human beings�specifically as descendent from Adam and Eve--also have that sinful nature. We are rightfully condemned because we each individually sin. We sin because of our nature: we have free will but are not God, and thus will choose to go against the perfect will of God. We sin because it�s our nature, and Adam and Eve proved that and passed that sinful nature to all of humanity. If it all started over with you (or ANYONE else), you would also have failed and proved the sinful nature of yourself and all humanity to follow. That's a reasoned look at original sin.

It's not that Christians = hypocrites, its that Ca$h = willingly oblivious.


-Jay

[Ca$h68]

Every time you Speak Hinson, I'm that much closer to shooting myself in the f*cking head because I'm ashamed to belong to the same species.

- Ca$h

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Every time you Speak Hinson, I'm that much closer to shooting myself in the f*cking head because I'm ashamed to belong to the same species.

- Ca$h

Does the truth hurt that much?

BTW you are one to talk about legit responses. This is why no one gives you any.

You reply to legit responses with silly tripe like this.

it's a waste of time discussion anything with you.

You just want to make knee-jerk uninformed posts and then expect people to take your seriously.

Wise up.

[Hinson]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Every time you Speak Hinson, I'm that much closer to shooting myself in the f*cking head because I'm ashamed to belong to the same species.

- Ca$h

And yet you never provide a rational response! Perhaps you want to shoot yourself in the head to punish it for not providing you with a properly reasoned argument?


-Jay

[Ca$h68]

Adam and Eve proved the sinful nature of mankind. We as human beings�specifically as descendent from Adam and Eve--also have that sinful nature.

They ate from the tree of knowledge. Apart from God saying NO, I don't see what was bad about it. They gained reason, desire, and rational thought process by going to the tree of knowledge.

We are rightfully condemned because we each individually sin.

What is bad and what is good? Exactly. "Bad/good" is an opinion. What you consider a sin may be acceptable to people of another faith. Does this mean your god is going to send them to hell? By being born and raised in China, a country where religon is basically illegal, are they going to hell for refusing to accept Jesus as their Savior? Is that a sin? That's what your book says. Course, your book also says god forgives everything, so in an effort to save everyone some time, ABANDON all this Christian stuff and right before you die ask for forgiveness. More free time. Technically, there's nothing wrong with that (according to your book).

We sin because of our nature

Right. I got it. Mankind= bad, horrible, pieces of ****. Wonderful motto. See Ayn Rand's view of the original sin. Oh wait, you won't. Ever.

: we have free will but are not God, and thus will choose to go against the perfect will of God.

I'm not getting into this whole 'free will' debate. First off, its ****ing loaded. "BE GOOD, or suffer ETERNAL DAMNATION!" yeah. real free choice there. Anyway, this is about the ORIGINAL SIN. Not free will. If you'd like to talk about free will, start another topic.

We sin because it�s our nature, and Adam and Eve proved that

How? BEFORE Adam and Eve ate from the tree of Knowledge they posessed no logic, no rational thought, no reason. Why? Because God gave them none.

and passed that sinful nature to all of humanity.

"Our white ancestors proved how horrible white people are and passed their sin to all their offspring". Do you agree? No, you don't. But you can't have just one. Your views are conflicting.

If it all started over with you (or ANYONE else), you would also have failed

So now you are a prophet AND a religous man? Geez, I've never seen that combination.... pfft.

and proved the sinful nature of yourself and all humanity to follow. That's a reasoned look at original sin.

Yeah. Sure. Funny thing, god actually talked to me last night. He told me that it was bullshit. He was like "Robert, Hinson and Zimphire a figgity ****ed up in the head. They're brainwashed to the point where I'm considering sending them to hell. I mean, I know they love me, but I think tis out of fear. Hrm. I dunno, in any case, they're a bunch of tards".

No, I swear. Maybe if I get killed and have someone write a book about it you'll believe me.

- Ca$h

[Chuckmcd]

Ca$h,

If you insist on going back this topic again and again... please get some new arguments. The old ones have been address on these boards, via PM's and e-mail from what I understand... You keep asking the same questions and Christians keep giving the same answers. Wherever you're getting your "this is what the Bible teaches", or "this is what Christianity says" stuff from is out right WRONG!

Again read the Bible for yourself, I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of this.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
Ca$h,

If you insist on going back this topic again and again... please get some new arguments. The old ones have been address on these boards, via PM's and e-mail from what I understand... You keep asking the same questions and Christians keep giving the same answers. Wherever you're getting your "this is what the Bible teaches", or "this is what Christianity says" stuff from is out right WRONG!

Again read the Bible for yourself, I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of this.

And all his silly points have been shot down over and over again. It's like he doesn't listen, or is in denial.

Ireally think he needs some therapy.

But actually, it's probably just because he is young, and still thinks he knows it all.

I think everyone went through that. I know I did. Boy was I wrong.

[Phanguye]

i think it is funny how most of his arguements revolve around the logical fallacy of 'personal attack'... i mean if you are going to argue try to at least not commit something as basic as this

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


And all his silly points have been shot down over and over again. It's like he doesn't listen, or is in denial.

Ireally think he needs some therapy.

But actually, it's probably just because he is young, and still thinks he knows it all.

I think everyone went through that. I know I did. Boy was I wrong.

I can understand that, but many of the people on these boards are young... They don't act like this.

He has flat out refused to listen to a reasoned arguement and everyone who has tried to talk with him has been treated as if we are not capable for logical thought. There is a difference between thinking you know everything and then insisting you are right just because. I will admit that Christianity takes faith... by definition it should. I will not admit that i have to abandon reason and logic to believe in it. Ca$h will be happy with nothing short of the later.

[Cipher13]

They've no right to be mad, at all.

Same situation with the Aboriginals (Australia). They've got no damn right, yet they whinge and whinge, and ask for national apologies, get holidays devoted to them, get lower tax, free education, etc...

All for what?

We did jack to them - it was our ancestors. Why should we apologise?

[ort888]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
Every time you Speak Hinson, I'm that much closer to shooting myself in the f*cking head because I'm ashamed to belong to the same species.

- Ca$h

This is your chance Hinson. Post until your fingers bleed.

[Mastrap]

Ca$h, can you stop baiting Zimphire please

Zimphire, can you stop jumping at every bait like a starved guppy please

[Hinson]

Ca$h, first let's agree that you aren't going to change my beliefs and I'm not going to change yours. My hope is to show you that your viewpoint isn�t the only one that any reasoned person must have (which seems to be your basic way of seeing things). However, to argue rationally we have to consider each other�s viewpoint in its ENTIERTY and deal with it.

You are constantly taking only pieces of the Christian viewpoint and adding your non-Christian interpretations to produce arguments that don't logically condemn Christianity but rather show your own bias. You aren't "getting it" because you ignore key elements in one place and then put them in at other places when you see fit. Consider my response fully, and I'll try not to be offensive:

Hinson:Adam and Eve proved the sinful nature of mankind. We as human beings�specifically as descendent from Adam and Eve--also have that sinful nature.

Ca$h: They ate from the tree of knowledge. Apart from God saying NO, I don't see what was bad about it. They gained reason, desire, and rational thought process by going to the tree of knowledge.

They ate from the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL. It wasn't general knowledge or the ability to reason, it was specifically concerning good and evil. What that means is a bit open to interpretation, but as I see it, when they went against the specific word of God, that alone gave them the knowledge of what it was to do evil--to go against God. Some argue that this placed man into a LOWER state of knowledge so that all they understood after eating was relative ideas of good and evil, not the perfect ideas God initially instilled in them. In any case, the tree didn�t provide basic knowledge or reason in general, man already had that.

Here you also seem to again reject the Christian notion that a sovereign God has a right to define what is good and what is evil. You don't have to understand it for it to be true.

Hinson: We are rightfully condemned because we each individually sin.

Ca$h: What is bad and what is good? Exactly. "Bad/good" is an opinion. What you consider a sin may be acceptable to people of another faith. Does this mean your god is going to send them to hell? By being born and raised in China, a country where religon is basically illegal, are they going to hell for refusing to accept Jesus as their Savior? Is that a sin? That's what your book says. Course, your book also says god forgives everything, so in an effort to save everyone some time, ABANDON all this Christian stuff and right before you die ask for forgiveness. More free time. Technically, there's nothing wrong with that (according to your book).

Lots of stuff here� Remember that according to Christianity, from the beginning mankind knew God. As people chose to ignore that knowledge, generations were born who didn�t know God and obviously didn�t follow His will. By our very nature, mankind passed this unfortunate situation down to future generations. HOWEVER, the underlining point is that God is sovereign, and anyone who for any reason goes against His will is justly condemned. Not because you understand it, but because of what it means to be _sovereign_! That which goes against God is by definition evil and justly condemned. No one, not even Christians, deserve eternity in the presences of a perfect God. But God created us knowing that he would provide a way for some to be saved by His grace. I don�t know why he chose Abraham, which lead to His people being the Jews and ultimately produced Christianity in the west and not the East. But God does know why! That�s why HE is to thank for my salvation, its not because of me, and so I am humbled and thankful.

Further, yes, someone can conceivably come to repentance and be saved at the last moment, but that�s not what Christianity is about! When you become a Christian, you make Christ lord of your life. Though you aren�t perfect, God WILL draw a Christian to repent and life is MUCH better when you are following God�s will. That�s the joy of Christianity, Ca$h! Not just going to heaven, but having something to show for this life by following God here and now.

�

Hinson: we have free will but are not God, and thus will choose to go against the perfect will of God.

I'm not getting into this whole 'free will' debate. First off, its ****ing loaded. "BE GOOD, or suffer ETERNAL DAMNATION!" yeah. real free choice there. Anyway, this is about the ORIGINAL SIN. Not free will. If you'd like to talk about free will, start another topic.

Free will is an integral part of the concept of sin! You have to understand that! Free will is not the ability to choose something without repercussions; it�s the ability to choose, period. God could simply use us as puppets�taking over your body, forcing it to bow, forcing it to prey, etc. But he doesn�t. That�s not what He wants. He provides us with the capability to make choices truly of our own accord. It is when we choose against His will that we, by definition, sin. That�s the Christian point of view. I know you don�t agree with it, but it is logically valid within the context of Christianity as a whole. That�s the point.

Hinson: We sin because it�s our nature, and Adam and Eve proved that[/b]

How? BEFORE Adam and Eve ate from the tree of Knowledge they posessed no logic, no rational thought, no reason. Why? Because God gave them none.

Again, you�ve got this wrong. The tree did not give mankind the ability to reason, it gave him the understanding of the concepts of good and evil. You�re incorrect in your understanding of Christianity here.

Hinson: and passed that sinful nature to all of humanity.

"Our white ancestors proved how horrible white people are and passed their sin to all their offspring". Do you agree? No, you don't. But you can't have just one. Your views are conflicting.

They didn�t pass the sin itself, they passed the nature--because its HUMAN nature. Ants don�t have it because they weren�t born from humans. I have it because I was born from a human. Ultimately we all come from Adam and Eve, the first to be human and thus the first to have and prove our sinful nature.

Again, I note that its also the nature of things that no matter HOW anti-racist any white person is today, he or she still must live in a society where there are threads of racism still existing and where a black person is likely to be inherently distrustful of the white person. That�s the nature of things--the nature of time and continuity. But a man is not properly condemned as a racist, even if he grows up in a racist house, until he himself becomes a racist. His past can haunt him and even guide his future, as is the nature of things, but his actions themselves condemn him.

Hinson: If it all started over with you (or ANYONE else), you would also have failed

[B]So now you are a prophet AND a religous man? Geez, I've never seen that combination.... pfft.[\B]

You just trying to ignore my reasoning! I�m obviously not trying to prophesy--I'm telling you the teaching of Christianity as best as I understand them. It teaches that everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Thus, any human being in Adam�s shoes would have ultimately gone against God. That�s the nature of a being who has free will and is not God.

You finished up by pretending to have spoken to God and claiming that I only believe in Him out of fear. Again you speak of things you know so little about. That basically marked the tone of this whole post. Yet you argue that I am the one who doesn�t know what I�m talking about. I�ve put a lot of thought through my life into most every concept you have raised. I�m not brainwashed--I've simply tried to keep myself well studied.


-Jay

[Hinson]

Originally posted by ort888:


This is your chance Hinson. Post until your fingers bleed.

Have you read many of my posts? They're long enough already. Ca$h is just procrastinating.

-Jay

[Millennium]

Ca$h, let's try this on for size.

What would you say if I told you that we are not being punished for Adam and Eve? What would you say if I put this theory forward? That Adam and Eve knew this would happen. That they tampered with our makeup, and as a consequence of it, we all suffer because of them. We suffer, but we are not the ones being punished; we are the collateral damage of their attempt to unseat God. And they knew it would happen, and they did it anyway.

We are not being punished, per se. We are part of the punishment of Adam and Eve: death, plus the fact that they, not God, did this to us.

But I don't think you'll accept what I say anyway, because it doesn't fit your Skeptics' Annotated Bible look-at-this-gross-sounding-stuff-God-must-be-ever-so-nasty schtick. However, if you're willing to actually debate this, I'm mote than willing.

[Tigerabbit]

Original Sin by Jim Steinman, performed by Meat Loaf (Marvin Lee Aday) on the album Welcome to the Neighborhood

I've been looking for an original sin.
One with a twist and a bit of a spin.
I've done all of the old ones.
Till they've all been done in.
Now I'm just looking -
Then I'm gone with the wind -
Endlessly searching for an original sin.

You can dance forever.
You got a fire in your feet.
But will it ever be enough?
You know it'll never be enough.
You can fly and never land.
And never need to sleep.
But will it ever be enough?
You know it'll never be enough.

Not enough to make the nightmares go away.
Not enough to make the tears run dry.
Not enough to live a little better everyday.
Everything that they taught us was nothing but lies.
Everthing thing they brought us was nothing but bribes.

But it'll all be over now -
All I wanted was a piece of the night.
I never got an equal share.
When the stars are out of sight.
And the moon is down -
The natives are so restless tonight.

I've been looking for an original sin.
One with a twist and a bit of a spin.
I've done all of the old ones.
Till they've all been done in.
Now I'm just looking -
Then I'm gone with the wind -
Endlessly searching for an original sin.

You can lose yourself in pleasure until your body's going numb.
But will it ever be enough?
You know it'll never be enough.
You can always take whatever you conceivably could want.
But will it ever be enough?
You know it'll never be enough.

Not enough to make the nightmares go away.
Not enough to make the tears run dry.
Not enough to live a little better everyday.
Everything that they taught us was nothing but lies.
Everthing thing they brought us was nothing but bribes.

But the lies are over now -
All I wanted was a piece of the night.
It never had to get so dark.
When the stars are out of sight and the moon is down - the natives are so restless tonight.

I've been looking for an original sin.
One with a twist and a bit of a spin.
I've done all of the old ones.
Till they've all been done in.
Now I'm just looking -
For an original sin.

I've been looking for the ultimate crime: infinite victims, infinitesimal time.
And I'm so guilty for no reson or rhyme.
So now I'm just looking and killing some time.
Endlessly searching for the ultimate crime.

I've been looking for an original sin.
One with a twist and a bit of a spin.
I've done all of the old ones.
Till they've all been done in.
Now I'm just looking -
Then I'm gone with the wind -
Endlessly searching for an original sin.

I'm applying for a license to thrill.
Going out on the edge, moving in for the kill.
They'll be Hell to pay someday, so put it all on the bill.
Cause we'll always be paying!
And paying until -
We're beyond expiration.
With a license to thrill.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Ca$h, can you stop baiting Zimphire please

Zimphire, can you stop jumping at every bait like a starved guppy please

Actually if I took the bait I would have seriously replied to him

[Ca$h68]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hinson:
Ca$h, first let's agree that you aren't going to change my beliefs and I'm not going to change yours.

First lets define "FAITH". FAITH- A belief in something when there is no reason to; Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. K? Good.

They ate from the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL. It wasn't general knowledge or the ability to reason, it was specifically concerning good and evil.

Wrong. It gave them the power to reason. Your myth declares that she ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge- and they acquired a mind and became rational beings. It was the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL- they became MORAL beings. You cannot have morals without an understanding of good and evil. They were sentenced to earn their bread by their own labor- they became productive beings. They were sentenced to experience desire- they became beings capable of sexual enjoyment.

What that means is a bit open to interpretation,

Oh but of course it is. Heaven forbid (pun intended) you Christians give a solid answer on ANYTHING. With this 'open interpretation' you automatically give yourself the option to immeadiatly defend the bible against whatever I can possibly say by looking at it a completely different way.

but as I see it, when they went against the specific word of God, that alone gave them the knowledge of what it was to do evil--to go against God.

Funny, I would think it might be considered evil to be an immorale, unproductive robot with no sexual desires >cough ADAM AND EVE cough<

In any case, the tree didn�t provide basic knowledge or reason in general, man already had that.

Disagree. Prove that they had reason beforehand please. I dont' see it.

Here you also seem to again reject the Christian notion that a sovereign God has a right to define what is good and what is evil. You don't have to understand it for it to be true.

Ah. So even if you don't understand, its probably true. Right. See, the problem with this is "God" defines what is good and evil, but goes back on his word a billion times. He slaughters cities, murders people, lets horrible things happen, but he forgives you, loves you, and parts the seas in some cases. God doesn't DEFINE good or evil, because he's responsible for both. He says one thing, and does something completely different.

THE BIG problem with this logic is that you, yes YOU, attempt to define what is good and what is evil. Yes, YOU, a Christian. You see, if there is a "GOD", I would be pretty sure that us humans would be almost incabaple of comprehending him (but the parts we would be able to understand would make sense); but you claim that god's WORD can be converted into English. You claim that your BOOK tells you what is good and what is evil. You claim that a book WRITTEN BY MEN (horrible corrupt vile beigns with a tendency towards evil) proclaims what is good and what is bad. By giving god all the credit, by sayings "God works in mysterious ways", by saying "Who are we to know how god works" by saying "God defined good and evil" YOU, a putrid disgusting HUMAN, are attempting to provide all the answers. You define yourself as incompetent, evil, and horrible, and yet you're trying to give answers to everyone else.

Lots of stuff here� Remember that according to Christianity, from the beginning mankind knew God.

And from the beginning people assumed lightening was god's wrath, sickness was god's anger or curse, death was by god's hand, and what else... God was in charge of the weather..uh... what else did uneducated savages believe in....

As people chose to ignore that knowledge, generations were born who didn�t know God and obviously didn�t follow His will.

Or there were people who were never exposed to Chrisianity in the first place, who are apparently going to hell according to your book.

That�s why HE is to thank for my salvation, its not because of me, and so I am humbled and thankful.

I understand that perfectly. If anything bad happens, tis because of man. If anything good happens, anywhere, its because of god. So take hte blame for all the bad, and give up all the credit for eveyrhting good. >cough SLAVE cough<

Further, yes, someone can conceivably come to repentance and be saved at the last moment, but that�s not what Christianity is about!

Will you read a book if I send it to you?

Free will is an integral part of the concept of sin! You have to understand that! Free will is not the ability to choose something without repercussions; it�s the ability to choose, period. God could simply use us as puppets�taking over your body, forcing it to bow, forcing it to prey, etc. But he doesn�t. That�s not what He wants. He provides us with the capability to make choices truly of our own accord.

MAKE CHOICES OF YOU OWN ACCORD, yet be punished for things you did not do. Do you not see the conflicting views here? If you have free will, the original sin is complete bullshit. If we DONT have free will, and the original sin is true, then..well... we're mindless robots anyway, and everything we do is predetermined anyawy.

Look, if you believe in the 'one light many lanterns' type of thing, I have more respect for you. People in different regions in different cultures are all 'swayed' toward their certain 'belief systems'. However, Christianity is intertwined with "THE ONLY WAY TO GOD IS THROUGH ME". If you're a christian, you cannot believe this. Hence, if you are Christian, anyone non christian is going to hell. Its BULLSHIT. But I'd like to keep this on the original sin topic.

- Ca$h

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ca$h, let's try this on for size.

What would you say if I told you that we are not being punished for Adam and Eve? What would you say if I put this theory forward? That Adam and Eve knew this would happen. That they tampered with our makeup, and as a consequence of it, we all suffer because of them. We suffer, but we are not the ones being punished; we are the collateral damage of their attempt to unseat God. And they knew it would happen, and they did it anyway.

We are not being punished, per se. We are part of the punishment of Adam and Eve: death, plus the fact that they, not God, did this to us.

But I don't think you'll accept what I say anyway, because it doesn't fit your Skeptics' Annotated Bible look-at-this-gross-sounding-stuff-God-must-be-ever-so-nasty schtick. However, if you're willing to actually debate this, I'm mote than willing.

Pardon me, Ca$h, I'd like to step in...

I'll grant you, Mil, that this is a novel (at least to me) theory of how Original Sin works. But you imply in your explanation that Adam and Eve sought to mess with God, to f*ck with existence at the risk of punishment, and that "they knew it would happen, and they did it anyway." I can only assume you mean that by "messing with God" you mean eating the forbidden fruit. But if Adam and Eve were perfect images of God before the fall, before they gained knowledge of right from wrong, reason, and free will, how did they "decide" to eat the fruit? If they were perfect beings, how could they have made a 'mistake' like eating the fruit? Was treason a knowledge not in the fruit, one that Adam and Eve already posessed?

I'm hoping you can expand your theory, or correct my assumptions...

--Josh

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Gene Jockey:
I can only assume you mean that by "messing with God" you mean eating the forbidden fruit.

Correct assumption. It should be noted, incidentally, that the motive came from a mistaken impression, planted by none other than our good buddy the serpent. I'll get to this later...

But if Adam and Eve were perfect images of God before the fall...

What is a "perfect image"? If, indeed, they were exactly like God, then that would mean that God is a human being, just as they were. This leads to all sorts of interesting logical contradictions.

...before they gained knowledge of right from wrong, reason, and free will, how did they "decide" to eat the fruit?

Did they not have knowledge of right from wrong, reason, and free will beforehand? I wonder.

They knew of the difference between good and bad (or, if you prefer, not-good). This is made rather clear earlier on. It was part of the point of Eve not being created at the same time as Adam; "It is not good for the man to continue by himself..." Why wouldn't God just make them at the same time, if this wasn't a good thing? The only answer that seems to make sense is that this was deliberate, to teach the lesson that not all things were good.

Were they unable to reason? I don't think so. Two interesting details here. First, we deal with Adam first seeing Eve. What does he do? He writes a poem. Not a very good poem, at least not in the English translations (I have not read the Aramaic), but if this was the first poem ever written then that's kind of understandable. We see usage of artistic imagery on the part of the man. You can't do that kind of thing without the ability to reason.

Turning to Eve, let's look at her conversation with the serpent. First off, the serpent asks her if it's true that they're not allowed to eat from every tree in the garden (a question it already knew the answer to). Eve, believing she's just correcting a mistake on the part of the serpent (note that this would require that she know what a mistake is), says that they're allowed to eat from every tree except one (which she says they're not even allowed to touch; more on that in a moment), or they will die (note that this would also imply that she knew what death was). Let's look some more about that bit for not touching the tree. That was never in the commandment. Why did she say that, then? Perhaps she misunderstood it. Perhaps that was a personal safety measure she decided on for herself. Or perhaps it was something else. Regardless, it would still have required the ability to reason.

If they were perfect beings, how could they have made a 'mistake' like eating the fruit? Was treason a knowledge not in the fruit, one that Adam and Eve already posessed?

Was the knowledge truly even "in" the fruit? I don't think so. Look back over my observations. Clearly, these people already knew what good and bad were. Certainly the tree helped provide that knowledge. But not through its fruit: through its existence. It was by giving Adam and Eve the ability to cut themselves off from God that they were given the ability to choose whether or not to. Eating the fruit certainly did give them knowledge of good and evil, but it wasn't through some mystical transfer from the fruit; it was from the experience of having betrayed their Creator.

And if a perfect being can't choose to become imperfect through its own actions, then that, too, is a flaw, and they cease to be definable as perfect.

Now, I'd like to address something from Ca$h here. A rather interesting assertion that before eating, Adam and Eve hadn't ever experienced sexual desire. How do you know this?

Allow me to explain. We know that after they ate the fruit, we got the whole bit with the fig leaves; they made loin coverings. But why loin coverings? If they didn't know what sex was before this, they wouldn't have really known what to do about this new desire of theirs. But what's the first thing they do? Cover up the ol' nads.

Here's my theory. Remember, Adam hadn't ever talked to the serpent, so he didn't have the excuse of having been tricked, as Eve might have (though she, too, should have checked her sources; I mean, if a talking snake came up to me and started saying stuff, you can bet I'd want a second opinion). So why did he eat? Some say it was out of love, but I wonder; by this point he hadn't even called his wife by name yet.

I say it ran more like this. Adam was alone for some period of time before Eve's creation. Quite possibly a long time, given that in his poem, he mentions "this is at last bone of my bones..." If Eve died, he'd be alone again. And that would have had serious implications for his love life. With apologies to Limp Bizkit, I wonder if he didn't do it all for the nookie. And once they'd eaten, Eve realized this, that he'd done it only for what she could give him and not out of any kind of love, and covered herself up to deny him that. And when Adam realized this too, he was ashamed and likewise covered himself.

Opinions?

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Correct assumption. It should be noted, incidentally, that the motive came from a mistaken impression, planted by none other than our good buddy the serpent. I'll get to this later...

What is a "perfect image"? If, indeed, they were exactly like God, then that would mean that God is a human being, just as they were. This leads to all sorts of interesting logical contradictions.

I'm not going to get into god again, but for the sake of semantics, perhaps perfect beings in the image of god would be more apropos.

Did they not have knowledge of right from wrong, reason, and free will beforehand? I wonder.

They knew of the difference between good and bad (or, if you prefer, not-good). This is made rather clear earlier on. It was part of the point of Eve not being created at the same time as Adam; "It is not good for the man to continue by himself..." Why wouldn't God just make them at the same time, if this wasn't a good thing? The only answer that seems to make sense is that this was deliberate, to teach the lesson that not all things were good.

Were they unable to reason? I don't think so. Two interesting details here. First, we deal with Adam first seeing Eve. What does he do? He writes a poem. Not a very good poem, at least not in the English translations (I have not read the Aramaic), but if this was the first poem ever written then that's kind of understandable. We see usage of artistic imagery on the part of the man. You can't do that kind of thing without the ability to reason.

Turning to Eve, let's look at her conversation with the serpent. First off, the serpent asks her if it's true that they're not allowed to eat from every tree in the garden (a question it already knew the answer to). Eve, believing she's just correcting a mistake on the part of the serpent (note that this would require that she know what a mistake is), says that they're allowed to eat from every tree except one (which she says they're not even allowed to touch; more on that in a moment), or they will die (note that this would also imply that she knew what death was). Let's look some more about that bit for not touching the tree. That was never in the commandment. Why did she say that, then? Perhaps she misunderstood it. Perhaps that was a personal safety measure she decided on for herself. Or perhaps it was something else. Regardless, it would still have required the ability to reason.

Very well. So they appear to have all the faculties supposedly imparted by the fruit before eating it....

Was the knowledge truly even "in" the fruit? I don't think so. Look back over my observations. Clearly, these people already knew what good and bad were. Certainly the tree helped provide that knowledge. But not through its fruit: through its existence. It was by giving Adam and Eve the ability to cut themselves off from God that they were given the ability to choose whether or not to. Eating the fruit certainly did give them knowledge of good and evil, but it wasn't through some mystical transfer from the fruit; it was from the experience of having betrayed their Creator.

So, in essence, the imperfection in mankind amounts to Adam and Eve disobeying God? If that's all it is, then we really would simply be paying for the mistakes of our ancestors with this 'Original Sin' concept, in the same way Ca$h is arguing about slavery.

And if a perfect being can't choose to become imperfect through its own actions, then that, too, is a flaw, and they cease to be definable as perfect.

I'd be more likely to just point out how this sort of thing makes the existence of a "perfect being" a logical impossibility. If it can't choose to become imperfect, it lacks options (an imperfection) and if it actually becomes imperfect, it obviously wasn't so perfect before, or it would have stayed that way.


I'll let someone else tackle the "nookie" part of the theory

--Josh

[Chuckmcd]

Ca$h,

I'm tired of this...

Look up the words you use so flipantly. I don't expect you to have mastered the English language, but at know the basics.

Look up reason it will point you to think:

"1 a : to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference : REASON b : to have in the mind or call to mind a thought"

Which will then point you back to reason...

From Genesis:

3:6
When R67 the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make {one} wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate

The woman, and the man also, saw the fruit and based upon the (erroneous) information they had been given the thought it would make them "wise" or "like God"(verse 5). knowing what they knew they decided to eat the fruit. They weighed the consequences, and... by their reasoning, decided it was an acceptable risk. I mindless robot without the ability to reason would have never disobeyed. A computer cannot do anything but what it instructed to do, because it cannot reason, or think on it's own. Adam and Eve thought the serpent was a good source to listen to, they thought the fruit would bring them wisdom like God's wisdom and they thought the consequence of their action would be worked out.... They also reasoned amongst themselves and decided to not trust God's command, or God's motive for the command. I would take it a step further and say that they believed God was untrustworthy... a conclusion that their reasoning brought them to.

I would go on about your other objections but it's pointless. You don't want to hear logical arguments based on Christian thought. You want to sling mud, and supply half truths in hopes of doing something that I can't figure out. You are completely unopen to any point of view but your own.

"Bigot
big.ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

[Ca$h68]

yep. Sure. Just pray to jesus for me.

- Ca$h

PS: God=Jesus=Man=Sinner

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
yep. Sure. Just pray to jesus for me.

- Ca$h

PS: God=Jesus=Man=Sinner

God=Jesus=Only man that has never sinned.

Jesus came from God's seed, not man's.

[Ca$h68]

Uh huh.

- Ca$h

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
yep. Sure. Just pray to jesus for me.

Unfortunately, those of us who don't believe in the Trinity can't do that. Would you accept a prayer to God instead?[/sarcasm]

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
yep. Sure. Just pray to jesus for me.

- Ca$h

PS: God=Jesus=Man=Sinner

Mil and I both provided "proof" of rational thought processes before the fall (thought kudos to Mil for doing a much better job than I did), and this is how you respond to it.

You're proving my point. You do not want to have a rational conversation about this, or even a cordial one. Exactly what is the logic behind this, and please don't give me that altruistic garbage about trying to make me a better person by showing me the error of my ways.

[Ca$h68]

Whatever. [snip]

- Ca$h

PS: I give up. Hopefully other people will read this thread and see your ignorance and hypocrises.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:


Uh huh.

- Ca$h

Cash's words of wisdom for the day.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:


You're proving my point. You do not want to have a rational conversation about this, or even a cordial one.

He is a attention whore.

[Hinson]

Ca$h: First lets define "FAITH". FAITH- A belief in something when there is no reason to; Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence....

Actually, all logical proof must start from some set of premises that are assumed without proof. If you actually BELIEVE your world-view is correct, then you believe without ultimate proof of those premises. But I went through all of this discussion of logic before.

Hinson: They ate from the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL. It wasn't general knowledge or the ability to reason, it was specifically concerning good and evil.

Ca$h: Wrong. It gave them the power to reason...

Perhaps that�s what you want to believe, but it�s not what the Bible says. You can�t attack a belief system by assuming the belief system agrees with something that the belief system does not agree with. You base much of your comments here on your erroneous view of the Christian concept of original sin.

Here are some points to counter some of your arguments: First, man had to work before original sin as noted in Gen 2:15 (The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.). You also believe that sexual desire came from original sin, but it�s in the first chapter of Gen where God tells us to be fruitful and multiply. When Eve is made, we are told that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The very next verse says that the man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. The clear indication is that sex was a perfect part of their relationship from the beginning. You claim that they didn�t have the ability to reason before the fall, and while there�s not much in the Bible about man�s actions before the fall, what we do have indicates reasoned beings: Adam has to work the land. His is also able to name the animals and realize that he needs another like himself to be with. Eve is lied to and tempted by the serpent, who reasons with her to convince her to eat of the fruit.

Hinson: Here you also seem to again reject the Christian notion that a sovereign God has a right to define what is good and what is evil. You don't have to understand it for it to be true.

Ah. So even if you don't understand, its probably true. Right. See, the problem with this is "God" defines what is good and evil, but goes back on his word a billion times. ....

The God of the Bible does not say one thing and do another. This is something you bring up over and over again--but I�ve addressed it before. God is sovereign. Do you understand what that means? He alone has the absolute, justified right to do as He wishes to serve His will. That�s what it is to be the all-powerful creator and definer of reality. Yes, we don�t see all of time at one instance as He does, so we don�t know what He knows, and we aren�t going to understand it. But in general terms, as a Christian I can rest assured that God is working His will while not revoking the free will of man--a free will that inherently produces evil and suffering in this world. A just God cannot take away all consequences of wrongdoing, but he can use suffering to teach and produce good while knowing ALL the consequences that would happen if he allows OR disallows certain outcomes. Still, He Himself bore the ultimate punishment of our sins for us so that justice and mercy could both be served and we could receive salvation.

Ca$h: THE BIG problem with this logic is that you, yes YOU, attempt to define what is good and what is evil... You see, if there is a "GOD", I would be pretty sure that us humans would be almost incabaple of comprehending him...You claim that your BOOK tells you what is good and what is evil. You claim that a book WRITTEN BY MEN (horrible corrupt vile beigns with a tendency towards evil) proclaims what is good and what is bad....

You�re trying to argue Christianity has a problem but you�re only using part of its beliefs and ignoring other parts. According to Christianity, the Bible was written under the inspiration of God�s holy spirit. It was written as God wanted it. It tells us what we need to know about God, though obviously we can�t know everything. If you don�t believe that, then fine, but you can�t argue that Christianity is messed up based on a non-Christian belief that you happen to hold.

I know that mankind can misinterpret the Bible, but the basic teachings of God that we need to know are made clear over and over again. I admit that I can make a mistake when interpreting scripture, but if I use scripture to argue for a self-consistent view of Christianity, you can�t say �But I interpret it differently, therefore NO Christian world-view can make sense.�

Compare this to world-views that claim there is no God. There are plenty of basic questions those world-views can�t answer. People who hold such a world-view may have different opinions about how it answers certain questions as well. But not of that can logical invalidate such a world-view.

Hinson: ... Remember that according to Christianity, from the beginning mankind knew God.

Ca$h: And from the beginning people assumed lightening was god's wrath, sickness was god's anger or curse, death was by god's hand, and ...

Hinson: As people chose to ignore that knowledge, generations were born who didn�t know God and obviously didn�t follow His will.

Ca$h: Or there were people who were never exposed to Chrisianity in the first place, who are apparently going to hell according to your book.

The point you missed, Ca$h, is that Adam and Eve knew God--the true God. Their children knew God. Every human after them should have known of God, but they didn�t strictly due to the failure of the human race to follow God. Yes, people are born, live, and die without ever seeing a Bible. Many realize the might of God from creation around them, but certainly they don�t have the story of Jesus to read. But that�s a failure of mankind.

The ONLY reason anyone does know the truth is because God chose to reveal himself in specific ways--as is his right as the sovereign creator. Why didn�t he pick another group as his chosen race? Why wasn�t Jesus born in eastern Asia? We can postulate some reasons (for example, perhaps Abraham was the one person on earth who would follow God�s instructions at the time?), but in the end, a Christian must trust in God�s plan and just be thankful that he or she was exposed to the gospel and willing to accept it. That�s also a key reason to support ministries that spread the Bible�s teachings around the world, but anyway...

...

Will you read a book if I send it to you?

I could send you books too, Ca$h. But the point here is that it�s not that I don�t get what you�re saying or need further explanation. We are disagreeing on fundamental points of the Christian belief system. Besides, I�ve got too many books I�m trying to read at once these days anyway. I�ve read arguments for Christianity, counter arguments to those arguments, counters to those counters, etc. I always find that it all boils down to different people starting with different premises. This is no exception: you have a view of the Bible�s teachings that is contrary to the view I have, and I argue that if you were to truly take on my viewpoint, then you too would see that its perfectly reasonable and does not contain the problems you claim Christianity has.

Hinson: Free will is an integral part of the concept of sin! ...

Ca$h: MAKE CHOICES OF YOU OWN ACCORD, yet be punished for things you did not do. Do you not see the conflicting views here? If you have free will, the original sin is complete bull****. If we DONT have free will, and the original sin is true, then..well... we're mindless robots anyway, and everything we do is predetermined anyawy.

Again, Ca$h, your original assertion is wrong according to the teachings of the Bible. We are not condemned because of what Adam and Eve did, we are condemned because we each individually commit sin ourselves. All have sinned, Ca$h, and that is what you are justly punished for. We choose to sin for the same reason Adam and Eve did. We are free willed beings who will eventually choose to disobey God. They did it first because they were the first. They first broke the bond with God, and we live in the world that created. But we are condemned specifically because we sin.

Finally, you noted that Christianity claims to be the only way, and that you�d have more respect for a �one light many lanterns� belief system. But I argue my belief system is right based on faith in that system and study of its consistency. You claim that your world-view is right based on the pure power of superior intellect and reasoning. I argue that your world-view may very well be completely logically valid (though logic can�t be used to prove its absolute truth). You claim that only a person who hasn�t really thought about things can believe what I believe (even though I have made reasoned arguments that bring about conclusions different from yours). I argue that it�s your personal convictions that lead you to your beliefs and away from Christianity (and my convictions that lead me to Christianity). You argue that its your superior reasoning of the information that proves your view is correct and Christianity is wrong.

If my world-view is right, then you have a very basic, very human problem in your unwillingness to accept the authority of a sovereign God. If your worldview is right, then I�m just an idiot with a PhD in Physics. I�d say your world-view (not all non-Christian world-views, but yours in particular) is the more unreasonable one.


-Jay

[elzinat]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
I give up.

good. go away and stay away. your ideas aren't worth a thing if you can't express them in a socially acceptable way. you have proven yourself incapable of expressing your ideas in such a way far too many times. leave now. you are no longer welcome here.

[wtfwasibanned68]

Elzinat---> <---- Ca$h

Look Elzinat, I appreciate your concern for banning me without even sending me an email, but I already discussed this matter with Demonhood. I told him I'd be good.

Anyway...

>annoyed<

- Ca$h

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by wtfwasibanned68:
Elzinat---> <---- Ca$h

Look Elzinat, I appreciate your concern for banning me without even sending me an email, but I already discussed this matter with Demonhood. I told him I'd be good.

Anyway...

>annoyed<

- Ca$h

And now you are ban evading.

[wtfwasibanned68]

Hrm. Guess you don't know about my history here. Heh.

- Ca$h

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by wtfwasibanned68:
Hrm. Guess you don't know about my history here. Heh.

- Ca$h

Yes, plenty of people have told me.

Ban evading is silly.