Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mike_decock · 05-07-2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Had that been a legitimate excuse, he would have used it. He'd have had no need to foist the blame onto someone else.

Not necessarily. How smart was Adam? What was his mental state when God quizzed him? Just because Adam didn't use the excuse, doesn't mean it isn't legitimate.

-Mike...

Defiant Heretic · 05-07-2003, 03:57 PM

If original sin was merely the inheritance of a predisposition towards sin, then why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself in order to redeem humanity?

Calzaer · 05-07-2003, 04:14 PM

Result of Jesus's "sacrifice": Christians still sin just as much, but now they feel better about it.

Net evil in world now = Net evil in world then
Net guilt in world now < Net guilt in world then

Tarnaak · 05-07-2003, 05:05 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a concept to wiggle your grey matter:

Next time someone claims to not be responsible for slavery, never to have owned slaves, etc... Can you or can you not be responsible for the sins of your ancestors?

If you can, then you ARE responsible.
If you cannot, then original sin is false.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, your concept is flawed in that we are each born of sin individually. The "original sin" is just that. Each person born, is born of sin. The original sin is just where the process started. It is not Eve or Adam's sin we carry, but that of our birth unto sin.

Badfish · 05-07-2003, 05:18 PM

Forgot about this thread, here I am being trashed and I am missing it.

Slavery was a way to repay the debts that poor people had accrued, it is not my story or contention that it is to be seen as righteous.

God did make laws protecting these slaves.

Thanks reverendmoss, you are right IMO, we cannot fathom the concept of slavery being just, but it is impossible to assign feelings for that which was traditional or seen as ok by God back in the day.

I made a thread about this on one of these messageboards, it could have been at ChristianForums, I don't remember, but there was a lot of good information to be considered.

I didn't express my own thoughts that I found it to be just personally, but apparently it was traditional as people more closely followed a hierarchal society.

People back then didn't seem to find it oppressive or unjust, it was apparently tradition, today man has increased knowledge and freedoms unprecedented by history and cannot understand or see how this could be just.

That's why the bible and the account of God so dramatically changes with generations in it's context. i.e. the New Testament fulfills and supercedes in most ways the OT as a guide for this generation.

yguy · 05-07-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
There is your evidence of original sin, that's what. We are all made of the same stuff Adam became when he did what he shouldn't have.

Which was what, eating the forbidden fruit or making an excuse?

Eating the fruit was a sin, but had Adam not made an excuse and admitted his mistake, they might never have been thrown out of Eden.

Quote:

Playing left field, I dropped the ball. Coach called me on it. "The sun was in my eyes, Coach." A BONG sounds from heaven - "Thou artst condemned to an eternity of suffering in Hell, young man, for thou hast made an excuse for dropping the ball."

Yup, sounds fair to me.

Sounds like a strawman to me.

More realistic would be when you screw up at work, the boss calls you on it, you try to blame your coworker, and he fires you.

Quote:

That wasn't His mistake, it was Cain's.

Sounds like you're making excuses for God. Bad boy, hell for you I guess.

Who created Cain, capable of making such a blunder? God, supposedly, and he fesses up to it. <snip>

Dad: Son, what happened to the car I gave you?

Son: I drove it over a cliff.

Dad: I'm sorry I gave you the car.

It's Dad's fault he gave his son the car, not the son's fault he drove it off a cliff, huh?

hinduwoman · 05-07-2003, 06:03 PM

Dark Jedi, great argument. Mind if I used it elsewhere?

Tarnaak · 05-07-2003, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sarpedon
The archangel Raphael says he was. (conceived sans intercourse) (or was it gabriel?) and it wasn't Jesus who was concieved immaculately, that was his mother. If she had had original sin, she would have passed it on to her son. That is not mentioned in the bible, but is dogma of the Catholic church. Btw, I consider the views of the catholic church to be the most intellectually defensible of the christian sects, which is why I spend the most time with them. Other sects don't hold with the idea of Mary's immaculate conception, as it is not in the big book of myths. Jesus was concieved without sexual intercourse, by God (who is sinless) and Mary (who is without original sin) and therefore his conception is also without sin.

Unless Mary's mother and father were born immaculately, then Mary was still born of sin. Unless Mary's grandmother was born immaculately, then Mary mother is born of sin.

So go figure...

Starboy · 05-07-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Not necessarily the sins, but the inclination to sin.

When Adam was caught by God with his hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, he tried to blame Eve (and God by extension) for his misdeed - IOW, he made an excuse.

How many of you have never made an excuse for a mistake you made?

Originally posted by Starboy
So god originally made Adam with the inclination to sin?

So yguy, you gonna answer this or not?

Starboy

yguy · 05-07-2003, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
So god originally made Adam with the inclination to sin?

So yguy, you gonna answer this or not?

He created him with the capacity for it. Satan recreated him with the inclination, and he passed it on to us.

05-07-2003, 05:05 PM	#74
Tarnaak Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 106	Re: Hehe... I think I broke their minds. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a concept to wiggle your grey matter: Next time someone claims to not be responsible for slavery, never to have owned slaves, etc... Can you or can you not be responsible for the sins of your ancestors? If you can, then you ARE responsible. If you cannot, then original sin is false. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, your concept is flawed in that we are each born of sin individually. The "original sin" is just that. Each person born, is born of sin. The original sin is just where the process started. It is not Eve or Adam's sin we carry, but that of our birth unto sin.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2003, 03:57 PM	#72
Defiant Heretic Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,288	If original sin was merely the inheritance of a predisposition towards sin, then why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself in order to redeem humanity?

05-07-2003, 04:14 PM	#73
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	Result of Jesus's "sacrifice": Christians still sin just as much, but now they feel better about it. Net evil in world now = Net evil in world then Net guilt in world now < Net guilt in world then

05-07-2003, 05:18 PM	#75
Badfish Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Death Valley, CA Posts: 1,738	Forgot about this thread, here I am being trashed and I am missing it. Slavery was a way to repay the debts that poor people had accrued, it is not my story or contention that it is to be seen as righteous. God did make laws protecting these slaves. Thanks reverendmoss, you are right IMO, we cannot fathom the concept of slavery being just, but it is impossible to assign feelings for that which was traditional or seen as ok by God back in the day. I made a thread about this on one of these messageboards, it could have been at ChristianForums, I don't remember, but there was a lot of good information to be considered. I didn't express my own thoughts that I found it to be just personally, but apparently it was traditional as people more closely followed a hierarchal society. People back then didn't seem to find it oppressive or unjust, it was apparently tradition, today man has increased knowledge and freedoms unprecedented by history and cannot understand or see how this could be just. That's why the bible and the account of God so dramatically changes with generations in it's context. i.e. the New Testament fulfills and supercedes in most ways the OT as a guide for this generation.

05-07-2003, 06:03 PM	#77
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Dark Jedi, great argument. Mind if I used it elsewhere?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.