critical thinking made ez

Free thought and the instinct or human traits are two different things. I don't believe that Free thought is the root of original sin as free thought has a choice that goes along with it. While Christians would love free thought as the reason (because they can point to a choice being made as they do with the Gay Issue), I claim it was an instinct to achieve, to have what others have etc (an instinctual envy). I don't believe that comes with making a choice nor acting or not acting on the urge but rather, how long can it be suppressed before man acts on it. It will happen, it is a matter of time. Therefore, God stacked the deck with a no-win situation for man. Just as a starving man will eat anything that can be chewed, man will also act on these survival instincts that God ruled would destroy man yet he gave man no choice in the matter.

Devnet, I would like hearing back from you on these points on Free Thought vs Instinct, since you have been reading on the subject lately.

Amos

.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Amos

Sorry, edited to remove my comment becasue I may have the wrong author in mind.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

critical thinking made ez

Amos, please stay off my posts until you start using the same Bible the rest of us do. You're just taking up space and no one will address your hair-brained ideas you wrote in a "Bible by Amos".

Amos

Please tell me where your bible states that God created Adam and Eve and perhaps you might want to ponder why "they [man and woman] were naked and felt no shame" (Gen.2:25). Of course if you insist on remaining in the dark, I will leave you there.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

vaelarin

Since God and the Bible are both myth, the origin of the myth and how it came to be believed are relevant to the discussion of so-called 'original sin'.

And my post directly addresses this comment made by Liquidrage:

"There is no logic to original sin.
It's just a story and, by today's standards, a poorly designed one at that. Though it serves the purpose of enforcing the belief that it is a sin to question god. Which is a very important trait of the Abrahamic religions..."

Your tone is entirely hostile and condescending. "So please stay with us on this point. You will soon learn Facts mean nothing to Christians unless they back-up their current or previous beliefs" I was a Christian for 25 of the 30 years of my life. I sure as hell don't need you to tell me about them as if I am some sort of child listening to his grandpa. If you can't handle critical comments then I will refrain from bothering to respond to your future posts.

-DM-

No, Amos, the mistake YOU make is either in being unaware of the facts or of keeping them to yourself.

Although many translations do not identify "the man" by the name "Adam" until GE 2:19, or 2:20, or 3:17, or 4:25 -- depending on the translation -- the fact is that when "God" allegedly created "man" [GE 1:26-27] he created "Adam." The Hebrew word for "man" here is "Adam" or "aw-dawm" transliterated; this is Strong's H120, which is "âdâm" in the Hebrew.

--Don--

-DM-

Man = Adam (Strong's H120, Hebrew âdâm) allegedly created by "God" as related in GE 1:16-27.

Woman allegedly created by "God" as related in GE 2:22. This same woman allegedly named "Eve" (Strong's H2332, meaning "lifegiver") by Adam as related in GE 3:20. Eve is identified as the first woman, the wife of Adam, under the definition of "Eve" by Strongs Hebrew Dictionary, Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions, and others.

--Don--

critical thinking made ez

That is the way I handle comments made that bring irrelevent issues into the discussion. But don't let my hostile and condesending nature push you out of the discussion. Surely you deal with this type of attitude in real life, don't you?

While you brought in nice facts, they didn't connect with details of what we are discussing here. Too many general posts like that willlead it away from the issues and into mud like pool of general posts. I don't like it, and have the right to correct others on my posts to keep MY subject on course. If others choose not to do likewise then they usually end up with no answers nor a well balanced discussion.

Bull Shit you don't have to let others derail your discussions. But you could end up sounding like an asshole to do it. I do, and so be it! I hope you and others don't take this personally, you should want "your" discussions to proceed in the same way if you like organized discussions that can develop the central theme of the Discussion. No hard feelings?

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

Amos

Please Don understand well that I am not here to win an argument but just to point at the errors made when interpreting the bible. Strong is wrong, and I have no trouble telling you and the entire Secular Web that Strong is wrong.

Amos