|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2006 : 05:07:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I've said before the whole idea of claiming Jesus suffered and died for the sins of humans is absurd.
Who are you?
An evidence based believer.
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigalWhy should having more humans torture and kill your child move you to forgive the same people for your earlier complaints about them?
It didn't move Him to forgive. Jesus dying on the cross was penance for our sins. Therefore by accepting him and giving your life to Him, His blood symbolically covers our sins and allows us to be acceptable to God thereby gaining acceptance into heaven.
Well that's your interpretation. My interpretation is there is no logic in that at all. What's the sacrifice? You know the verse, "For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son"? In other words, God supposedly sacrificed something dear to him to appease himself. No matter how you twist it into symbolic blood, it's still absurd if you actually think about it.
Actually, it's a little more absurd. He sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself and save the dirt critters He made. lifeloss later claims that Jesus was God. In order to keep consistancy with the "Thou shalt not have other Gods before me" commandment, one would have to assume that Jesus was not a demi-God, but God Himself.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigalIs there even any logic to that? Why not just forgive people. Why not just forgive them after they say 10 hail Marys or something?
Because, like I've read many times in these forums, that would just be trying to do enough to avoid hell. God created us with the ability to choose right or wrong. If we choose wrong and choose to live without Him, he grants us that same wish after we die and vice versa. He wants us to choose Him without becoming robots that have to choose Him. He wants us to have a relationship with Him and we can't truly have that if we're forced to be with Him or don't have to worry about consequences for the wrong things we do. Therefore, He won't just look the other way when we commit sins.
This is more nonsense. The only sin that matters is not believing. The creepiest child raping torturing murderer can just ask for forgiveness and the noblest self sacrificing altruistic person gets to burn in hell for not worshiping. Even if you believed in the Biblical God, who would worship something so cruel and claim it was voluntary? Either you think letting that raping torturing child murderer rape torture and kill children is OK because God has some reason or you have to be in denial about it. I wouldn't worship a horrible God even if I thought there was any evidence one existed.
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigalAnd calling Jesus God's son. So beings God made out of dirt and called children aren't as good as an offspring God implants in one of those dirt creatures later on. That makes Jesus a son?
I think I know what you mean but I'm not sure. Jesus is better than us because He is God. He is part of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) as the Son. He came to earth willingly to die for our sins because we could never be good enough to save ourselves. Everyone commits sins.
Speak for yourself.
Let's just see how that pans out. God of the Bible punished Eve and all women to follow with the "pain of childbirth". Well that certainly doesn't depend on believing in Jesus or God. Now we can have anesthesia, and that wasn't invented 2,000 years ago. So how does that fit in your scenario? And BTW, do you toil? What if you are a rich atheist, or Hindu? Do they toil? How about a good Christian subsistence farmer?
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
Now, these explanations are based on the bible and not from my own mind. These things are the way they are because that's the way it has to be. I don't know why. We're not meant to know everything. It doesn't matter because it won't change. If you think they are fairy tale stories that's fine. I think people believing species evolve from other species is a fairy tale. We can disagree. If you have honest questions of me than by all means.... If you have criticisms then by all means.... I am here to debate.
No, they aren't based on the Bible, they are based on either your or your church's interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a hodge podge of mixed messages and vague stories.
I would also add that I am very familiar with the Bible. I have read most of it and can probably point out more nonsense in it than you can point out stuff to support your interpretations. I do appreciate your effort, but you are wrong to assume I am just ignorant of the Christian religion. I am well informed, I just don't buy the nonsense like the Emperor bought new clothes.
I've read the Bible cover to cover 7 times and have researched some passages as they were cited as sources by people I was debating with. I will be more than happy to help you point out the inconsistancies in lifeloss's argumentation and errors in quoting context of passages. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
lifeloss
New Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 10:40:55 [Permalink]
|
To beskeptigal:
First, thank you for your response and I hope I can be of some help.
quote:
You know the verse, "For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son"? In other words, God supposedly sacrificed something dear to him to appease himself. No matter how you twist it into symbolic blood, it's still absurd if you actually think about it.
Again, God sending His son had nothing to do with appeasing Himself. It was solely to help us. To offer us life.
quote:
This is more nonsense. The only sin that matters is not believing. The creepiest child raping torturing murderer can just ask for forgiveness and the noblest self sacrificing altruistic person gets to burn in hell for not worshiping.
A person has to do more than just ask forgiveness to receive it. he/she must accept Christ and turn their life to His will. Only then can one receive forgiveness. So yes, a child raping torturing murderer can be forgiven but along with that he will have completely turned his life around and won't be a child raping torturing murderer anymore. This is hard for anyone to accept but the bible says that every sin is equally as bad. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy and there is some debate as to what exactly that includes. The point is that none of us have the right to judge another person; not even a child raping torturing murderer.
quote:
Either you think letting that raping torturing child murderer rape torture and kill children is OK because God has some reason or you have to be in denial about it. I wouldn't worship a horrible God even if I thought there was any evidence one existed.
Why would I think it was ok? That doesn't even enter into the debate. Of course it is horrendous. That murderer chose his own path. Nobody made him do it. He definitely had influences, but, ultimately, he chose his own way. Why did God let it happen? The same reason he lets you do all the stupid stuff you do and the same for all of us. We have free will. We may have never done something so terrible but who are we to judge somebody else when we have our own baggage? Evil things happen in an evil world and that's the consequences of not including God in our world. We try and root Him completely from our lives and countries but then blame Him for the bad that is going on. It's not logical to exclude God from your life and then say, "if there is a God I don't want anything to do with Him because of all the bad that has happened." when that bad happened in the first place because of a lack of inclusion.
quote:
Let's just see how that pans out. God of the Bible punished Eve and all women to follow with the "pain of childbirth". Well that certainly doesn't depend on believing in Jesus or God. Now we can have anesthesia, and that wasn't invented 2,000 years ago. So how does that fit in your scenario?
I don't understand why you said this. I never said that accepting Christ takes all pain away. It covers your sins. Childbirth and "toiling" was a consequence of Adam and Eve's sin. It doesn't pertain to Jesus dying on the cross because feeling pain during childbirth is not a sin. Anesthesia doesn't take all the pain of childbirth for 9 months. It is only used for the delivery and sometimes not even then.
quote:
And BTW, do you toil? What if you are a rich atheist, or Hindu? Do they toil? How about a good Christian subsistence farmer?
All men are destined to work during their lives. Whether it is considered easy or hard work or if you're a trust-fund-baby, they will have to work during their lives. It is not a curse for any one group.
quote:
I would also add that I am very familiar with the Bible. I have read most of it and can probably point out more nonsense in it than you can point out stuff to support your interpretations. I do appreciate your effort, but you are wrong to assume I am just ignorant of the Christian religion. I am well informed, I just don't buy the nonsense like the Emperor bought new clothes.
Every time I debate this subject this comment always happens to surface without fail. In fact, you and another have already said it on this board. "I know the bible and Christianity and I came to this conclusion well informed." I'm sorry but you have shown that you do not. I think the comment about childbirth and the comment earlier about what makes Jesus God's son really showed a lack of knowledge or understanding or whatever the case may be. That's ok though, we can still have a discussion.
Looking forward to your next response
To Valiant Dancer:
quote:
Actually, it's a little more absurd. He sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself and save the dirt critters He made. lifeloss later claims that Jesus was God. In order to keep consistancy with the "Thou shalt not have other Gods before me" commandment, one would have to assume that Jesus was not a demi-God, but God Himself.
He didn't sacrifice Himself and it definitely wasn't to Himself but it was to save the "dirt critters". This is how the bible explains it: God is made up of a "Trinity of beings", if you will. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are all separate yet they all make up one God. How can this be? How can it not be. God sent his son, Jesus, who is part of Him, but not specifically Him, to earth. So, you are correct in stating that Jesus is not a demi-god. He is God Himself.
quote:
I've read the Bible cover to cover 7 times and have researched some passages as they were cited as sources by people I was debating with. I will be more than happy to help you point out the inconsistancies in lifeloss's argumentation and errors in quoting context of passages.
As I said before, I always here this. So many people claim to "know" the bible and "know" Christianity but when faced with elementary biblical concepts, they don't understand them. I'm not talking about accepting them I'm merely talking about understanding. I welcome your challenges and wonder why you only wrote about your ability to put them forth and didn't just put them forth.
To Moakley:
quote:
lifeloss as you can tell by the responses your |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 11:50:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Where do want to start? I am still confused as to the evidence supporting macro-evolution. So, maybe you could go with one piece of evidence at a time and we'll discuss that. Otherwise, my evidence lays with the bible and its ability to withstand scrutiny and, despite all its efforts, the inability of science to explain basic things like the VERY BEGINNING of our universe, the human mind, feelings and emotions, the brain, and the building blocks of all living things, the cell. When science is able to explain the origin of everything without much of a doubt, then I'll be a believer. Otherwise, it is only good to discover how some things work such as electricity, bodily functions to aid doctors in keeping us more healthy, different technologies, and things of that nature. Science is good when can observe an entire process in a relatively short amount of time. It cannot possibly tell us what happened before science existed. There is no scientific record. The earth could've had completely different variables (I think that's what you guys believe anyway, right?). How can we measure or make an assumption about something when we don't know the conditions? Throw out God and Christianity and all of that and I still have a problem with that type of science.
Okey-dokey, let's start here with a general description of so-called 'Macro-evolution.' quote:
What is macroevolution?
n science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, a macrophage means a bigger than normal cell, but it is only a few times bigger than other cells, and not an order of magnitude bigger.
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.
The long and short of it is that it is all just, plain, old evolution. Micro/Macro are no more than terms describing degrees and have little meaning in and of themselves.
So allow me ask: how many micros, do you think, might it take to make a macro? And what of the transitonals? What if a fossil reptile was found to have mammalian inner ears and roughly conforming dentation, at a time when no mammals whatsoever existed? Would that qualify as a transitional species on it's way to becoming something else?
Must we go through the origins of the universe nonsense yet again? That has nothing to do with evolution, which simply describes certain, biologic process' that came into play after the origins. Here on earth, those origins are known as 'abiogenesis' and the study of it remains ongoing. I suggest that you look up the Miller/Uray(sp?) experiment. Far from conclusive, but very interesting.
And as to those origins of the universe, your guess is no better nor worse than mine. Neither of us has any emperical evidence in support of our hyopthesis, and I don't even bother with a hypothesis because
I simply don't know enough about it. Indeed, the scientists studying it have come to little, firm consensus. The more they study, the more they find that they must study more, and develope more refined tools to aid that study.
Further, I do not think it is possible to know what was before the universe. Certainly the authors of the Bible and all other religious texts and legends did not, and thus gave it all a supernatural origin; the common and expedient, and utterly unprovable explanation for the unknown.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 12:32:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
To Valiant Dancer:
quote:
Actually, it's a little more absurd. He sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself and save the dirt critters He made. lifeloss later claims that Jesus was God. In order to keep consistancy with the "Thou shalt not have other Gods before me" commandment, one would have to assume that Jesus was not a demi-God, but God Himself.
He didn't sacrifice Himself and it definitely wasn't to Himself but it was to save the "dirt critters". This is how the bible explains it: God is made up of a "Trinity of beings", if you will. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are all separate yet they all make up one God. How can this be? How can it not be. God sent his son, Jesus, who is part of Him, but not specifically Him, to earth. So, you are correct in stating that Jesus is not a demi-god. He is God Himself.
I am aware of the dogma of the Triune God. You cannot, however, get away with your argumentation style.
"They are all seperate, yet make up one God" - logically inconsistant. If we ascribe to the concept that Jesus was God, then Jesus may not truely be described as a seperate being. Knowing that the God of the Bible is considered to be able to occupy all places at all times, Jesus as personification of the whole still makes Jesus The God and not a seperate entity. To describe Jesus as a seperate entity is to grant him independant divinity from God and violates the 10 C's.
"How can this be" is the question you think I have. The answer equates to the parents response to a three year old who asks "why". "Because" doesn't cut it. You are describing Jesus as both God and a seperate entity. This is congruent to saying 1=2. It is logically and dogmatically inconsistant.
quote:
quote:
I've read the Bible cover to cover 7 times and have researched some passages as they were cited as sources by people I was debating with. I will be more than happy to help you point out the inconsistancies in lifeloss's argumentation and errors in quoting context of passages.
As I said before, I always here this. So many people claim to "know" the bible and "know" Christianity but when faced with elementary biblical concepts, they don't understand them. I'm not talking about accepting them I'm merely talking about understanding. I welcome your challenges and wonder why you only wrote about your ability to put them forth and didn't just put them forth.
Which ones don't you think I understand?
I wrote about my ability to put them forth because I have had discussions with a great many purveyors of "The Only Way"(TM) and found that each group have standard agendas and misinterpretations. The list is long, I do not have the time nor inclination to expound on every radical subsect's errors. Especially if it would not apply to your particular subsect.
Christianity has some basic tenants, but the interpretation of the Bible is unique in some ways to each subsect of Christianity. Any comprehensive list would necessarily be overbroad and unfair. I'll deal with what you present. It's fairer to you and your subsect than to assume that all Christians believe like every radical subsect.
I have noted that common misinterpretations tend to be about political hot button issues such as homosexuality and creationism. Each subsect has their own tack and must be addressed accordingly. Likewise, there are some subsects which have focused on a particular translation. There are differences between translations and some later texts differ contextually from the older texts. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 14:02:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
You mean like an idea that concludes species evolve to other species based on blind faith?
There is no faith in evolution. You are projecting.quote:
I just want to ilustrate that while Christians are people who believe in fairy tales that have no basis or evidence and trust in blind faith, you are seen the same way.
Your poor perception may be the heart of the issue. After all, millions of biologists agree that evolution has occured, while millions of "Christians" can't agree with one another over whether faith in Jesus is enough to get to Heaven.quote:
What's to say that you all haven't been brainwashed by evolutionists with a remove-God-from-everything attitude?
What does God have to do with evolution? What about all the biologists who are Christian?quote:
Yeah, He must be a big bully to give us the opportunity to spend eternity in paradise even though we don't deserve it.
Speak for yourself.quote:
Not to mention the fact that your life on earth would be a million times better by accepting Him.
Wow, you must be a psychic! How do you know anything about anyone's life here that you can pass such judgements?quote:
What a horrible God.
Indeed, since his believers don't seem to follow his rules, he's a pathetic and impotent God. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2006 : 17:59:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
Yeah, He must be a big bully to give us the opportunity to spend eternity in paradise even though we don't deserve it. Not to mention the fact that your life on earth would be a million times better by accepting Him. What a horrible God.
That is completely ridiculous. For an omnisicient being, creating a bunch of inferior critters that may or may not "choose" to worship it is an ultimately futile exercise.
According to every christian splinter group I've ever met that goes in for the whole heaven/hell thing, God designed/created us knowing and more importantly, to me at least, intending that we wouldn't "deserve" it. Here's an analogy I've used in the past.
I have a 2 year old daughter. How about I write down the rules for my household (naturally, worship of me would have to be included), have a few friends make copies by hand, from memory, making sure it gets translated into a few different languages on the way. Then I'll read it to my daughter out loud. Over the next 2 weeks I'll judge her behaviour and depending on whether she gets it right or not, I'll either let her live a "normal" life for 70-80 years, or, if she gets it wrong lock her in a cupboard somewhere for the next 10 years, visiting her daily just long enough to provide the minimum of nourishment and a good beating with whatever I have handy. After that she can come out and try again, Hell I'll even fork out for the rehab. This is a much fairer deal than that proposed by the figurehead(s) of many christian cults. Compare 2 years study & preparation for 10 years punishment/reward to anywhere between 0 and 80 years preparation for eternal punishment. If I actually proposed such a series of events, I would hope someone would lock me up. You can scream "Straw man" all you want, I think my point is clear. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2006 : 18:06:56 [Permalink]
|
| A being that knows exactly how the future will be negates free will, therefore the "choice" is an illusion. QED. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2006 : 19:21:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
You mean like an idea that concludes species evolve to other species based on blind faith?
I think you know yourself that what you just said here was wrong, as a bit further down in the same paragraph you say:
quote:
And I already know I will hear some response like, "evolution is based on years of verifiable evidence including trends and fossils and .........."
You surely have to agree that there is a difference between blind faith and following the evidence(?) Science accepts something BECAUSE of the evidence. Faith can accept anything IN SPITE of the evidence.
quote:
Does anyone know what really happened billions of years ago? Were you there? I wasn't.
Your second question above (the one you also left a bit of an answer to)......... Darn, you got "us". No, we weren't there. But do you really have to observe everything in order to come to some reasonable conclusions? Example: Put in a room: 1 child + 1 bar of chocolate. Leave the room and guard the door. Re-enter the room after 5 minutes. If the chocolate bar is gone and the child has got chocolate around its mouth, is it not then reasonable to conclude that the child ate the chocolate EVEN THOUGH YOU NEVER OBSERVED IT?
Following on from this: does anyone know what really happened billions of years ago? Not with 100% certainty. But just like the child/chocolate example above, we can look at the evidence and propose some possible explanations.
quote:
How do you know that you're interpreting the data correctly?
This is a question that any self-respecting scientist whould be asking him/herself all the time. There is ALWAYS the possibility of misinterpretation. Science is just honest enough to admit to this and propose the best (natural) explanation it can think of. Saying that, there is no absolute reason why science would have to be the best way to answer any questions we might have. But, past experience shows that it has managed to propose some pretty impressive explanations.
quote:
Have you personally verified this information yourself? Are you sure nothing was biased or altered? ...... What's to say that you all haven't been brainwashed by evolutionists with a remove-God-from-everything attitude? You claim I'm brainwashed are you exempt from that possibility? If so, why?
I wouldn't have a clue as to whether you have been brainwashed or not. What you say above does seem a bit paranoid, though.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2006 : 21:40:47 [Permalink]
|
I'll respond further to your post, lifeloss, but this comment, "Why would I think it was ok? That doesn't even enter into the debate. Of course it is horrendous. That murderer chose his own path. Nobody made him do it. He definitely had influences, but, ultimately, he chose his own way. Why did God let it happen? The same reason he lets you do all the stupid stuff you do and the same for all of us. We have free will. We may have never done something so terrible but who are we to judge somebody else when we have our own baggage?", requires immediate reply.
I was asking why the child was tortured, raped and murdered and you went off of the free will of the murderer. Excuse me, what did the child choose here? What did the people who love that child choose here? I have no interest whatsoever in why your god should let the murderer choose his path.
Sadly, your answer reflects on your complete brainwashing. You don't even see the suffering. It's all 'OK', it's in some mysterious plan. That attitude is frankly disgusting. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 07/02/2006 21:41:15 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2006 : 23:02:06 [Permalink]
|
Well, just because he isn't here daily I'll assume he's still around. OTOH, anyone who can twist everything into, [paraphrased of course] "I know and you are ignorant" regardless of logic and evidence presented isn't really going to read these replies with any kind of objective assessment. Oh well, I'm compelled to answer anyway.quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
To beskeptigal:
First, thank you for your response and I hope I can be of some help.
...God sending His son had nothing to do with appeasing Himself. It was solely to help us. To offer us life.
I repeat, the only one requiring the sacrifice was the god the sacrifice was to. Just as putting forbidden fruit in front of someone then claiming obedience is the prime directive, then calling everything thereafter contaminated by Eve's actions which must be purified by this ritual of Christ on a cross were all, if you believe the Bible, rules god made up. Who else made these rules? Were they some rules of the Universe god was just following?
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
A person has to do more than just ask forgiveness to receive it. he/she must accept Christ and turn their life to His will. Only then can one receive forgiveness.
I'm forgiven, lifeloss. I must be. I had anesthesia during childbirth.
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy and there is some debate as to what exactly that includes.
So the only unforgivable sin is a secret? Oh, that makes sense. 
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
The point is that none of us have the right to judge another person; not even a child raping torturing murderer.
I'll repeat Dave's comment, speak for yourself.
So does this mean you don't agree with Evangelical Death Penalty George?
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
We may have never done something so terrible but who are we to judge somebody else when we have our own baggage? Evil things happen in an evil world and that's the consequences of not including God in our world.
Should we let everyone out of jail so they can exercise free will then?
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
We try and root Him completely from our lives and countries but then blame Him for the bad that is going on. It's not logical to exclude God from your life and then say, "if there is a God I don't want anything to do with Him because of all the bad that has happened." when that bad happened in the first place because of a lack of inclusion.
Right, that horrible sinful child who was raped, tortured and murdered is really the result of evil atheists like me.
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
quote:
Beskep:"Let's just see how that pans out. God of the Bible punished Eve and all women to follow with the "pain of childbirth". Well that certainly doesn't depend on believing in Jesus or God. Now we can have anesthesia, and that wasn't invented 2,000 years ago. So how does that fit in your scenario?"
I don't understand why you said this. I never said that accepting Christ takes all pain away. It covers your sins. Childbirth and "toiling" was a consequence of Adam and Eve's sin. It doesn't pertain to Jesus dying on the cross because feeling pain during childbirth is not a sin. Anesthesia doesn't take all the pain of childbirth for 9 months. It is only used for the delivery and sometimes not even then.
Figures. The reason you don't understand what I am saying is you don't know what's in your own Bible.
God inflicted two punishments for Adam and Eve's little disobedience. The punishments were to be carried out on all of their children and their children's children and so on. At least that's the supposed interpretation of why childbirth is painful. So I guess god had second thoughts about 100 years ago? That's when anesthesia was first used in childbirth. Oh, and I suppose god decided to dole out the forgiveness to certain women since anesthesia for childbirth is only available in the countries and for the people who could afford it.
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
All men are destined to work during their lives. Whether it is considered easy or hard work or if you're a trust-fund-baby, they will have to work during their lives. It is not a curse for any one group.
Somehow I don't think all sons from rich families toil by my definition of toil.
quote:
Originally posted by lifeloss
Every time I debate this subject this comment always happens to surface without fail. In fact, you and another have already said it on this board. "I know the bible and Christianity and I came to this conclusion well informed." I'm sorry but you have shown that you do not. I think the comment about childbirth and the comment earlier about what makes Jesus God's son really showed a lack of knowledge or understanding or whatever the case may be. That's ok though, we can still have a discussion.
Interesting. Perhaps you could point to me where in the Bible the curse of original sin was lifted and god took back his two punishments that were given to all of Adam and Eve's offspring?
There are several versions:
The Woman's Curse
Jewish Bible
Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, 'I will greatly increase your anguish and your pregnancy. It will be with anguish that you will give birth to children.
American Standard Bible
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children;
New American Bible
Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.
The fact that giving birth is painful certainly implies the writers of the Bible were c |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 04:56:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"How can this be" is the question you think I have. The answer equates to the parents response to a three year old who asks "why". "Because" doesn't cut it. You are describing Jesus as both God and a seperate entity. This is congruent to saying 1=2. It is logically and dogmatically inconsistant.
This is the first lesson in how to double-think. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 05:27:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"How can this be" is the question you think I have. The answer equates to the parents response to a three year old who asks "why". "Because" doesn't cut it. You are describing Jesus as both God and a seperate entity. This is congruent to saying 1=2. It is logically and dogmatically inconsistant.
This is the first lesson in how to double-think.
Is it really double-think? The inevitable argument is that a god can do anything, even break its own rules and make up new ones. God is outside of logic, so saying that a religious idea is logically inconsistent really doesn't matter. This is a question of a "non-rational faith", and since this type of "faith" cannot be reasoned with, aruged with, or tested/falsified, we are left with nothing of substance. This is all the ravings of an irrational, delusional mind.
Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". (NIV) (my emphasis)
"Superstition always directs action in the absence of knowledge." - Issac Asimov
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/03/2006 05:29:36 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 13:19:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"How can this be" is the question you think I have. The answer equates to the parents response to a three year old who asks "why". "Because" doesn't cut it. You are describing Jesus as both God and a seperate entity. This is congruent to saying 1=2. It is logically and dogmatically inconsistant.
This is the first lesson in how to double-think.
Is it really double-think? The inevitable argument is that a god can do anything, even break its own rules and make up new ones. God is outside of logic, so saying that a religious idea is logically inconsistent really doesn't matter. This is a question of a "non-rational faith", and since this type of "faith" cannot be reasoned with, aruged with, or tested/falsified, we are left with nothing of substance. This is all the ravings of an irrational, delusional mind.
Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". (NIV) (my emphasis)
"Superstition always directs action in the absence of knowledge." - Issac Asimov
I think doublethink is part of this mix. The trick of doublethink is, in the pursuit of some abiding greater need to deceive, keeping reality in a firewalled compartment of one's mind while both believing and dishing out the "greater truths," (lies). Because facts are likely to come back like a pack of abused dogs to bite a liar in the ass, it's a good idea to keep one eye on them. The special quality of doublethink is to be able to mainly believe the lies one is telling, while keeping careful defensive attention to known truths. When working at his job of literally rewriting history books, Orwell's protagonist had to remember the history he was expunging, as political changes sometimes required that he go back and restore history to an earlier version. And, of course, he had to sincerely "believe" each new official version of history that he was making up.
Orwell's "doublethink" could be considered a close relative of Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" (knowledge coming from the heart and guts, not from the brain or from facts.) Also, Hitler's "The Big Lie" (people may reject a lot of little lies, but they'll believe one huge lie if repeated often enough) is another related term. All these and other techniques are used by the religious, as well as politicians who wish to generate heat, not light.
Although it is appropriate and honest to call doublethinkers liars or see them as delusional, stopping there could be a dangerous underestimation of what they are up to. It is important to see how they are using doublethink as a deliberate psychological tool to attain their goals, using a heady mixture of lies, delusion, and propaganda.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/03/2006 13:28:37 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 13:53:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
"How can this be" is the question you think I have. The answer equates to the parents response to a three year old who asks "why". "Because" doesn't cut it. You are describing Jesus as both God and a seperate entity. This is congruent to saying 1=2. It is logically and dogmatically inconsistant.
This is the first lesson in how to double-think.
Is it really double-think? The inevitable argument is that a god can do anything, even break its own rules and make up new ones. God is outside of logic, so saying that a religious idea is logically inconsistent really doesn't matter. This is a question of a "non-rational faith", and since this type of "faith" cannot be reasoned with, aruged with, or tested/falsified, we are left with nothing of substance. This is all the ravings of an irrational, delusional mind.
Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". (NIV) (my emphasis)
"Superstition always directs action in the absence of knowledge." - Issac Asimov
In the matter of physics, perhaps. But what he's breaking is a tautology. A thing exists or it does not. It is either part of something or it is a seperate entity. (And if anybody gives me crap about having no tea and tea at the same time in the computer game Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I'm gonna give them such a pinch.)
If we are going to such extremes, why not say that God can make Himself exist or not exist by whim and whimsy. In that form of existentalist mental circle jerk, truth and reality cease to have meaning.
In that way, the concept of a God which can both be whole and seperate entities of itself is insanity itself. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2006 : 19:44:30 [Permalink]
|
| If you think about it, the story of some serpent in a garden and that's how childbirth came to be painful and people came to wear clothes is just as silly as any other myth of the same caliber. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
