Orignal Sin on Trial
by Gray
Here is my question: Would the charge of original sin and the imposition of the sentence of death on all people born after Adam and Eve stand up in an American Court? I think this question is a pivotal one, because the foundation for the need of a savior in Christian theology is based on original sin. I have explored this question with many Christians and I have never gotten a satisfactory response. Most Christians say that God is God and He can do what He wants with us because we are His creation. But, is that an acceptable answer? Others will say to me, “Well, God’s ways are not ours, so we have to believe that He is just and moral in charging us with original sin.” Still, others will say, “Well, no matter who was in Adam and Eve’s shoes, they would have disobeyed God, so we all are guilty.”
I will address each of those popular responses later, but first I want to explore the concept of original sin within the context of our criminal justice system. When a person commits a crime, the prosecutors will usually submit their evidence of the crime to a Grand Jury, who will weigh the evidence, including testimony from witnesses and investigators and then either hand down and indictment against the suspect, or refuse an indictment. If an indictment is handed down, the accused is formally charged with the crime and then arraigned in court. There, he can plead “guilty” and go straight to sentencing or plead “not guilty” and demand a trial. If he is convicted and there are no accomplices, then he and he alone bears the full burden of guilt. He is sentenced to a punishment, whether it be jail time or death and no one else shares the punishment.
If you apply the facts of God’s case against mankind in the doctrine of original sin to our criminal justice system, you can immediately see that it does not fit. According to the doctrine of original sin, God holds everyone born after Adam and Eve wholly responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. He punished Adam and Eve and He also punished all of their progeny. Is that just? Imagine if we held the children of a murderer responsible for his crime and punished his children the same way we punished him. What would we say about a system of justice like that? First of all, from a legal standpoint, the prosecutor in our American criminal justice system would never get the indictment against the children of a murderer, unless they were involved in the murder in some way. Secondly, from a moral standpoint, it would be considered barbaric and inhumane to punish the children of a murderer, if they had nothing to do with the crime itself.
But Christians refuse to look at the doctrine of original sin through the lens of justice and fairness. Why is that? Why can’t they see the glaring moral implications of holding everyone responsible for the sins of two people? As I said above, the most popular answer that I get in response to my objection to original sin is, “God is God and He can do what He wants to us, since we are His creation.” This is exactly what the Apostle Paul said to similar criticism of the concept of Predestination in Romans, chapter 9. When Paul's controversial doctrine of Predestination was challenged, Paul replied, "Does the clay pot ask the potter, 'Why did you make me this way?'" I have always wanted to respond to Paul, "If the clay pot could talkm you better bet it would ask, why".
Back to my point about the "God is God" response: Is God above acting moral? Can He circumvent the very moral laws that He imposes on us? I have a huge problem with that. It is one thing if you create an inanimate object, like a clay pot and then decide to destroy it because you do not like it. It is another thing if you create an independent being, with a conscience and emotions and then decide to destroy it because you do not like it. It seems very hypocritical that God would be able to treat us differently than He commands us to treat one another. I doubt if executing the children of a murderer for the crime committed by their father would be considered just under any circumstances. After all, isn't our system of justice is derived from the concepts taught in the Bible?
The next response I always get to my objection to original sin follows the one I just talked about above. Christians will say, “Well God’s ways are not our ways and we just have to believe that He is just and moral in charging us with original sin.” And I have to hand it to them, there are specific verses in the Bible that support their response to my objection. However, do you really believe that there is some hidden moral justification for original sin that only God knows about? And even if there is, why would He withhold that from us? I challenge anyone reading this to come up with a valid, moral justification for holding the children of a murderer responsible for their father’s crime. You cannot do it. Trust me, I have tried.
Another response I get from Christians to my objection to original sin is this: “Well, no matter who was in Adam and Eve’s shoes, they would have done the same thing, so we all are guilty.” Think about that response for a minute. If no one could have resisted the fruit, then that means we lack free will, which raises even more questions of fairness and morality. If no one could have said to the serpent, “No, I think I will just eat something else”, then that means God predestined the fall of man. How could God hold us responsible for doing something that we are unable to resist doing? Believe it or not, the Apostle Paul addressed this very question in the same chapter 9 in the Book of Romans.
Paul was asked by someone listening to his Predestination sermon, “Who can resist God’s will?” In other words, the person was asking how is God just in punishing us for doing what He willed us to do. And do you know that all Paul could muster in response to that very thoughtful and compelling question was, “Who are you, O’ man to question the motives of God?” That was it. I call that the “Wizard of Oz” response to the moral objection to Predestination. “Who are you to question the great and mighty Oz”, said the Oz to Dorothy and her companions. Paul’s response is no response, in my opinion. Of course it is wrong for God to hold someone responsible for something that He willed them to do.
Original sin makes a mockery of our concept of justice and fairness and would never pass muster with us, if it was a rule that we enforced in our criminal justice system. But for some reason, God gets a pass and Christians just accept that God can do what He wants, even if it means doing something that violates His own concept of morality. Christians approach original sin from a biased point of view – God gets the benefit of the doubt. But at some point, you have to draw a line and begin to question foundational issues like original sin. I understand that there is room to argue over things like the Immaculate Conception, women in the pulpit, faith versus works, and other issues that do not implicate basic moral principles. But when the very foundation upon which a faith like Christianity is based –original sin – implicates those principles, you cannot just ignore it and give the Maker of the faith a pass. For if you do, then the faith itself becomes meaningless.
Image via Wikipedia
I am a former Christian and a lawyer. Soon after becoming a Christian, I struggled with the concept of original sin and its moral implications. According to Christian theology, man is born into this world with the stain of original sin – the sin committed by Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God’s direct command and ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The consequences of original sin are two-fold. First, man is doomed to spend the rest of eternity in Hell, unless he accepts Jesus as his savior. Second, man is a slave to a sinful nature that he cannot escape during his lifetime, although accepting Jesus is supposed to curb the "lusts of the flesh".Here is my question: Would the charge of original sin and the imposition of the sentence of death on all people born after Adam and Eve stand up in an American Court? I think this question is a pivotal one, because the foundation for the need of a savior in Christian theology is based on original sin. I have explored this question with many Christians and I have never gotten a satisfactory response. Most Christians say that God is God and He can do what He wants with us because we are His creation. But, is that an acceptable answer? Others will say to me, “Well, God’s ways are not ours, so we have to believe that He is just and moral in charging us with original sin.” Still, others will say, “Well, no matter who was in Adam and Eve’s shoes, they would have disobeyed God, so we all are guilty.”
I will address each of those popular responses later, but first I want to explore the concept of original sin within the context of our criminal justice system. When a person commits a crime, the prosecutors will usually submit their evidence of the crime to a Grand Jury, who will weigh the evidence, including testimony from witnesses and investigators and then either hand down and indictment against the suspect, or refuse an indictment. If an indictment is handed down, the accused is formally charged with the crime and then arraigned in court. There, he can plead “guilty” and go straight to sentencing or plead “not guilty” and demand a trial. If he is convicted and there are no accomplices, then he and he alone bears the full burden of guilt. He is sentenced to a punishment, whether it be jail time or death and no one else shares the punishment.
If you apply the facts of God’s case against mankind in the doctrine of original sin to our criminal justice system, you can immediately see that it does not fit. According to the doctrine of original sin, God holds everyone born after Adam and Eve wholly responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. He punished Adam and Eve and He also punished all of their progeny. Is that just? Imagine if we held the children of a murderer responsible for his crime and punished his children the same way we punished him. What would we say about a system of justice like that? First of all, from a legal standpoint, the prosecutor in our American criminal justice system would never get the indictment against the children of a murderer, unless they were involved in the murder in some way. Secondly, from a moral standpoint, it would be considered barbaric and inhumane to punish the children of a murderer, if they had nothing to do with the crime itself.
But Christians refuse to look at the doctrine of original sin through the lens of justice and fairness. Why is that? Why can’t they see the glaring moral implications of holding everyone responsible for the sins of two people? As I said above, the most popular answer that I get in response to my objection to original sin is, “God is God and He can do what He wants to us, since we are His creation.” This is exactly what the Apostle Paul said to similar criticism of the concept of Predestination in Romans, chapter 9. When Paul's controversial doctrine of Predestination was challenged, Paul replied, "Does the clay pot ask the potter, 'Why did you make me this way?'" I have always wanted to respond to Paul, "If the clay pot could talkm you better bet it would ask, why".
Back to my point about the "God is God" response: Is God above acting moral? Can He circumvent the very moral laws that He imposes on us? I have a huge problem with that. It is one thing if you create an inanimate object, like a clay pot and then decide to destroy it because you do not like it. It is another thing if you create an independent being, with a conscience and emotions and then decide to destroy it because you do not like it. It seems very hypocritical that God would be able to treat us differently than He commands us to treat one another. I doubt if executing the children of a murderer for the crime committed by their father would be considered just under any circumstances. After all, isn't our system of justice is derived from the concepts taught in the Bible?
The next response I always get to my objection to original sin follows the one I just talked about above. Christians will say, “Well God’s ways are not our ways and we just have to believe that He is just and moral in charging us with original sin.” And I have to hand it to them, there are specific verses in the Bible that support their response to my objection. However, do you really believe that there is some hidden moral justification for original sin that only God knows about? And even if there is, why would He withhold that from us? I challenge anyone reading this to come up with a valid, moral justification for holding the children of a murderer responsible for their father’s crime. You cannot do it. Trust me, I have tried.
Another response I get from Christians to my objection to original sin is this: “Well, no matter who was in Adam and Eve’s shoes, they would have done the same thing, so we all are guilty.” Think about that response for a minute. If no one could have resisted the fruit, then that means we lack free will, which raises even more questions of fairness and morality. If no one could have said to the serpent, “No, I think I will just eat something else”, then that means God predestined the fall of man. How could God hold us responsible for doing something that we are unable to resist doing? Believe it or not, the Apostle Paul addressed this very question in the same chapter 9 in the Book of Romans.
Paul was asked by someone listening to his Predestination sermon, “Who can resist God’s will?” In other words, the person was asking how is God just in punishing us for doing what He willed us to do. And do you know that all Paul could muster in response to that very thoughtful and compelling question was, “Who are you, O’ man to question the motives of God?” That was it. I call that the “Wizard of Oz” response to the moral objection to Predestination. “Who are you to question the great and mighty Oz”, said the Oz to Dorothy and her companions. Paul’s response is no response, in my opinion. Of course it is wrong for God to hold someone responsible for something that He willed them to do.
Original sin makes a mockery of our concept of justice and fairness and would never pass muster with us, if it was a rule that we enforced in our criminal justice system. But for some reason, God gets a pass and Christians just accept that God can do what He wants, even if it means doing something that violates His own concept of morality. Christians approach original sin from a biased point of view – God gets the benefit of the doubt. But at some point, you have to draw a line and begin to question foundational issues like original sin. I understand that there is room to argue over things like the Immaculate Conception, women in the pulpit, faith versus works, and other issues that do not implicate basic moral principles. But when the very foundation upon which a faith like Christianity is based –original sin – implicates those principles, you cannot just ignore it and give the Maker of the faith a pass. For if you do, then the faith itself becomes meaningless.
Comments
Now why the hell would I want to worship someone who is stained with blood? I would get them medical attention if it was their blood or call the police if it was not. What a morbid god/Christ concept, but go ahead and dream on, because it will never happen. I really don't call such concepts loving at all, but YOUR fantasy.
if you are offended then it's because the conscience that God lovingly created in you is warning you of the danger that lies ahead. Take heed!!
Bullsh** Such a silly and morbid concept came purely from the human mind, not some badly written fictional crap. Maybe aureliom is right, you need to get out of here, regardless if you think you have the right to be here. Such ignorance of the human is ridiculous. Try learning some science and other religions before spouting total stupidity and lies.
Now that's comical!
Things change.
Being male and full grown with children is no guarantee of escaping magical, mythological or silly thinking.
Do you really believe that nothing died prior to this Adam and Eve eating that fruit? Really? Nothing died? Not even plants?
Nothing?
Think about it.
Would you accept the words of scientists as authoritative in a discussion about theology? If not, then why would you go to theological apologists to validate the findings of scientists?
I don't know is an honest admission that encourages us to search for answers. GOD DID IT is religious dogmatism which shuts down all inquiry, because "No one can ever understand god."
If humankind was still confined to religious dogmatism, there would be no medicine, no science, no understanding of simple thunder and lightning. In fact, if we were to rely on religious dogmatism for our answers in life, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages.
Think about it.
God sends his one and only son down to Earth from heaven into the womb of a young woman who gives birth to a baby who grows up and is crucified because Adam and Eve did what is an entirely natural act to maintain the species, then the son(who is actually the father anyway, some think the mother, also)after he is dead, comes back to life and zooms back up to heaven saying, "I'll be back!" but 2000 years on it still hasn't happened.
It's an old story, used by the Egyptians, Persians and others(research Mithra). It's just a story, nothing more.
So what about the 4.6 billion people on the planet who've never heard of the Christian god? Wouldn't an all-loving god have wanted the whole World, all of his children to know about it or is he happy for 4.6 billion people to go to hell without getting a chance to redeem themselves?
Does any of it make any sense whatsoever to you? It doesn't to me!
To sin requires a knowledge of good and evil, a knowledge which neither Adam not Eve had before eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge thereof.
The fact still is that the first sin recorded after creation was committed by god, who still will not own up to it.
Peace,
David
You know what, Sean? You don't get to use that argument. You don't get to pull out the translation card, because when these texts are read in their original languages, by scholars who understand them in their nuanced complexity, and who don't have a theological agenda - they don't come anywhere close to meaning what you think they mean.
This whole business of "purity" and of God being unable to stand the presence of sin has been promulgated from day one by damaged, fragmented personalities, and you've just bought right into it because your self-esteem is in the same place. It's as simple as that.
Your attempt to defend Noah's Ark through fossil evidence is beyond comical. John Woodmorappe (whoever he really is) is a nut.
According to Christian tradition, the story of Noah's Ark was believed to have taken place sometime within the last 4,000 or so years (approximate). It is obvious to any credible anthropologist that civilizations in the areas of present day Egypt, China, Mesoamerica and Mesopotamia existed longer ago than that. Funny, those civilizations were not wiped out and eliminated by a global flood.
The ICR is an absolute joke. Let them offer their evidence to the broad scientific community for peer review. Let's see how much credibility they have... and PLEASE don't tell us that Satan is blinding the minds of scientists who refute ICR claims.
You have zero credibility. I am amazed webmdave hasn't pulled the plug on you.
Any chance you might pull the plug on this nut and clean his posts out? I appreciate all you do for this forum. This person is nuts.
Heeheeheeheehee! Já, riiight...
"...I can firmly say that my loving and yes, blood-stained savior is someday going to stand on this earth that He created again and even ex-christians will worship him on that day."
No, Sean. You will *never* see your alleged saviour. At the end of your life, you will simply die, forget everything you ever thought, and automatically become an ex-Christian.
There is no evidence for your god, no evidence for life after death, and no evidence for either heaven or hell.
Furthermore, if 'Jesus' ever existed he's no more than a bunch of broken bones in a mass grave outside Jerusalem... Which is where the Romans would have dumped the body after it had hung and rotted on the cross, and after the carrion birds had had their fill of his ordinary and almost certainly non-resurrecting flesh.
And you, Sean, are a superstitious, arrogant intruder who has forfeited all respect here. I, Myself, have neither need nor desire for your ridiculous and blood-drenched superstition.
May you lose your faith and never regain it, and may each and every one of your children, grandchildren and other descendants in perpetuity also escape Christianity in ample time to live long and prosperous lives of reason.
seansqrl, the Institute for Creationist Research is a group that says the earth is 6000 years old in addition to claiming that evolution is not true. I was wondering if you could name just one prominent non-religious scientist or science organization that claims the same. I highly doubt you will be able to.
If there are other scientists that critically examine our world and then conclude it is just 6000 years old, and they also do not have any preconceived assumptions (ie. a religious worldview), it would give credence to the claims of ICR. Why? Because it would show that other scientists, regardless of their background, religion, place of birth, etc. have examined the data and evidence and have come to the same conclusions. One of the important characteristics of science is that it is based on empirical evidence: someone living on the other side of the world will come to the same conclusions as I do after performing the same test or experiment and examining the same data.
The "scientists" at ICR, in addition to any other young earth creationist group, are not interested in the search for scientific truth. They are only interested in data and arguments that support their already preconceived notions about the world. What these people do cannot classify as science.
This troll has moved beyond tiresome to downright annoying. I second the motion to ban him - and kick him down the stairs when you show him the door. Perhaps he'll land on his head (although I suppose that wouldn't do him any real damage).
Sean, may you live to see your children reject everything you hold most dear.
No, it isn't. To the contrary - legitimate Biblical scholars, who, unlike your evangelical hacks, don't spend their lives attempting to shore up all the holes in the Bible, agree that those "predictions" were written after the fact. It's easy to get it right when you're writing it after the event has happened!
For FSM's sake, are you capable of expressing any thought, any idea that your pastor hasn't pulled out of his ass?
Can we PLEASE lose this cretin?
Thanks for the post. I am familiar with the writings of "John Woodmorappe" and his attempts to defend Creationism and the story of Noah's Ark etc. The reason I added the following comment is that "John Woodmorappe" is not his real name. "John Woodmorappe" is a pen name for someone. I don't know who that someone really is. Whoever "John Woodmorappe" is, he's a nut.
"John Woodmorappe (whoever he really is) is a nut".
Read an evolutionary geology book. Hey, guess what else....the Sahara Desert was a lush tropical place on earth for a few million years. The fossil record confirms it!
Now if your Creationist 'scientists' ever produce the remains of the Ark and it matches up with the origianl dimensions (the Ark being twice as wide as it is long and not near large enough to carry even a minute portion of the land dwelling animals [especially the dinosaurs that creationists say lived along side of man]) and carbon dates to about 5 thousand years ago, etc., etc.......then you can claim they have some concrete evidence.
You are very simple minded....and I don't mean that in a good way, e.a. like the scripture...."except ye become as a little child ye cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." I mean that you are very dull in your mental faculties and your ability to think and reason are pathetically immature and stunted.
You can't even read and understand the disclaimer. You truly do not belong here.
Take a hike, Fu(tard!
XPD (Ex-Pastor Dan)
Hmmmphf....speaks volumes about your reading comprehension skills.
First and foremost:
"The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind."
Perhaps we ExC members should storm your church's pulpit next Sunday giving OUR testimonies. You have intruded here long enough. Go away.
BP
This book has some wonderful insights in the back. I only had it for a two-week period, but I am either going to have to buy it or check it out again (hate to buy religious material, even if it is R. Crumb-illustrated.) I would recommend all christians read it, including the author's notes at the end.
ERGO..
They did not know it was sine before they ate the fruit but afterwards!
If they do not know it is sin, and you must remember they were innocent children, then it may not be counted as sin against them.
Did you punish your children when they did not know what they were doing was wrong? Of course you did not but then, as a human being, you have a sense of justice which your god lacks.
Reason's Greetings,
David
I suggest walking away (I also reiterate my support of the motion to ban, but that's Dave's decision). Nothing is to be accomplished here.
The reason why we find sea life fossils on the tops of mountains is because the ground that is making up the mountains used to be the sea floor. When the mountains were formed by two plates smashing into each other all the fossils lifted to the mountain top as well.
http://external.oneonta.edu/hessf77/students/sc...
"Folded Mountains are the most common type of mountain. They are created by tectonic plates pushing against each other. This creates intense pressure. Therefore, the only direction for these mountains to move is up. When two plates move away from each other, they create a rift valley in between them. Sometimes, if plates collide, one will force the other under itself. This is another way that folded mountains occur."
Then don't eat. That way you won't be sinning. Of course, there is a problem with this... You will die of starvation. That too is a sin. So you now have a catch-22 on your hands.
Others seem to keep adding layers to the defense mechanisms. So much so, that even the tiniest fact cannot get through to them.
There was no moral rule to violate at the moment the fruit was eaten, for morality presupposes knowing what is right and what is wrong - the knowledge of good and evil - which, until they had eaten the fruit of the three of the knowledge of good and evil, neither Adam nor Eve possessed.
Note to sefl: stop banging you head on this wall David. You know you will only have to live with the echo in your cranium for a week or so.
His brain is unlikely to notice or display any effects of oxygen deprivation.
Therefore
(and I will shout here in the vain hope that some of it will register with Sean and his ilk)
ADAM WAS NOT ABLE TO HAVE COMMITTED A SIN BY EATING THE FRUIT. IF HE WAS WITHOUT SIN, EATING THE FRUIT WAS NO SIN AND THE STORY IS EXPOSED NOT ONLY AS A MYTH BUT AS A PILE OF LOGICAL REJECTA ON THE DEBATING FLOOR!
Reason's Greetings,
David
So you have written down the noises you made when speaking in tongues and posted them here. Could you please arrange for someone with the gift of interpretation to translate them into rational-speak?
Remember, FACTS don't matter, only FAITH matters! LOL (:D
That is why I contend that Faith is a four-letter word. I think it is the absolute worst concept ever created by human kind.
FAITH = The root of all evil
Just my opinion,
XPD
The ICR is a joke. I believe they wanted to be able to confer actual degrees on "scientists". They are proponents of "Intelligent Design" which is hokum disguised as "science".
Those are scary people. They want to ignore overwhelming scientific data in defense of dogma.
You will be there with us, for the sin of not having used the brain god gave you for anything more productive than cooling your blood!
I was so sure that we could find it, somewhere under the earth, and tap it to solve the world's energy shortage.
Now, that would be a worthwhile goal to use the energies of the creation "scientists" more productively.
You know the "god helps those who help themselves" BS the believers pull on you when they realise god has, yet again, failed to keep his promises?
As you know, it doesn't exist in the wholly babble. It is, in fact, the last line of one os Aesop's fables. Can't remember which one though.
As you say, the fables make some sense.
A man was driving a heavy cart that got bogged down in the mud, so he prayed to Hercules to get him out of the mud. Hercules came down and told him to stop praying and put his shoulder to the wheel. "The gods help those who help themselves."
So, christians are quoting "pagans" and proclaiming it to be biblical. typical.
Not so with god.
Another thing that cracks me up about the ark is the mere thought of EVERY dinosaur species aboard also ! Recently there was a new dinosaur species discovered in Patagonia called " Argentinosaurus " which was 110 feet long and over 100 tons.
Two of those aboard must have created a lot of mischief, huh?
The answer to all of this is; it's made up.
The bible god shoots himself in the foot constantly if he really is the inspiration behind that book. He knows it all, but has to have Jesus come to save everyone, even AFTER he tells people how to get saved.
Pure rubbish. I'd rather believe in Santa. At least he gives you a new shot each year. Freddy
;o))
Reminds me of an old Bill Cosby routine called "Noah". If you haven't heard it, it is the LORD speaking to Noah and telling him to build an ark and load two of every animal, etc. and Noah's reaction to these orders. Pretty funny. Pretty blasphemous at the time, I would think.
I think they're divided on this matter. Some think they were killed in the flood (which invalidates the Bible's assertion that Noah included two of every unclean and seven of every clean species - although how he distinguished between them before the dietary laws were given at Sinai, I have no idea), and some think at least some of them were saved and were killed off later by humans, hence the tales of "dragons".
There are fundies who've done mathematical gymnastics and arrived at "proof" that Noah could have fit one of every "kind" (their fictitious precursor to species) on the ark, as long as they didn't move around too much. I imagine God gave them some sort of magical Valium.
In that vein, I even came across a reference to one who (as a lot of them do, apparently) believes that hell is in the center of the earth, and did the requisite math to demonstrate that it's actually physically possible to fit all of the billions of souls who have ever lived in there, if each is confined to a space of a few cubic feet. Basically, he thinks God stacks them up, lights them on fire and walks away.
One woman whose website I stumbled upon handles it a different way - she says the molten core of the Earth grows to accommodate all of the millions of souls who are rushing in there daily, and is only a few miles beneath the surface, now - and that scientists are aware of it. They despise science, yet they're always ready to tell you that there's "scientific proof" of whatever batshit insane thing they believe.
These people are clinically insane. How anyone can defend their right to vote or hold public office is beyond me.
"What I cannot help wishing is that Adam and Eve had been postponed, and Martin Luther and Joan of Arc put in their place -- that splendid pair equipped with temperaments not made of butter, but of asbestos. By neither sugary persuasions nor by hell fire could the serpent have beguiled them to eat the apple."
- Mark Twain
"The mistake was in forbidding the serpent [as food]; then Adam and Eve would have eaten the serpent."
- Mark Twain
"Can we return to the Garden of Eden? Well, if we returned completely, if we entered again into the complete state of innocence, we would no longer have the knowledge to prevent us from eating the apple again. And so again we would fall out of grace. It seems, therefore, that to regard the Garden of Eden, the state of innocence, as the perfect state is simply a mistake. It has the obvious imperfection of being internally unstable and self-annihilating."
- Raymond Smullyan, "The Fruit of Knowledge," This Book Needs No Title
I have a Word Doc called "Useless Sayings and Aphorisms" which grows regularly, particularly after visiting here and reading through the daily dose of wisdom to which we are always treated.
Peace,
David
You're making me cry.
(I am such a flipflopper when it comes to religious whackos -- wavering back and forth, back and forth -- amusement, pity, horror...)
LOL
BP
And one more thing ... If you're waiting for Jesus to return, I'm afraid you missed it. According to Jesus himself, it already happened about 2000 years ago.
Matthew 16:28 - Jesus says to his disciples, "There are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Matthew 24:33-34 - After prophesying a wide assortment of events including the second coming, Jesus said to his disciples, " . . . when you shall see all these things, know that it (the 2nd coming) is near, even at the door. This generation shall not pass till these things be fulfilled." He was obviously referring to the contemporary generation.
Matthew 26:64 - When brought before Caiaphas, the Chief Priest, Jesus said to him, "I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man . . . coming on the clouds of heaven." According to this the second coming was to happen during Caiaphas' lifetime.
Sorry Sean, you missed it.
I'm going to assume that you're serious for a moment.
There are seashells on mountain tops because those mountain tops used to be at the bottom of the ocean. The sea floor was pushed up over millions of years due to tectonic plate movement. The Himalayas were formed by the Indian plate colliding with the Asian plate.
Those seashells that you were talking about are burried in layers of hardened silt several meters thick. That process takes millions of years, not the forty days and forty nights that the Bible claims.
Here's an article on plate tectonics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
And, yes, scientists do agree that flood geology is in error
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology
Happy reading
You're just taking the piss out of us now. You can't be serious!
He took brown bears, and all the other species of bear evolved from them after the ark landed.
;o))
i must disagree with you on your opening sentence.
here's no such thing as a christian lawyer.
God sends his one and only son down to Earth from heaven into the womb of a young woman who gives birth to a baby who grows up and is crucified because Adam and Eve did what is an entirely natural act to maintain the species, then the son(who is actually the father anyway, some think the mother, also)after he is dead, comes back to life and zooms back up to heaven saying, "I'll be back!" but 2000 years on it still hasn't happened.
It's an old story, used by the Egyptians, Persians and others(research Mithra). It's just a story, nothing more.
So what about the 4.6 billion people on the planet who've never heard of the Christian god? Wouldn't an all-loving god have wanted the whole World, all of his children to know about it or is he happy for 4.6 billion people to go to hell without getting a chance to redeem themselves?
Does any of it make any sense whatsoever to you? It doesn't to me!
Hmmmphf....speaks volumes about your reading comprehension skills. No wonder you're still stuck in those juvenile fairytale beliefs.
First and foremost:
"The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind."
Perhaps we ExC members should storm your church's pulpit next Sunday giving OUR testimonies. You have intruded here long enough. Go away.
BP
I think they're divided on this matter. Some think they were killed in the flood (which invalidates the Bible's assertion that Noah included two of every unclean and seven of every clean species - although how he distinguished between them before the dietary laws were given at Sinai, I have no idea), and some think at least some of them were saved and were killed off later by humans, hence the tales of "dragons".
There are fundies who've done mathematical gymnastics and arrived at "proof" that Noah could have fit one of every "kind" (their fictitious precursor to species) on the ark, as long as they didn't move around too much. I imagine God gave them some sort of magical Valium.
In that vein, I even came across a reference to one who (as a lot of them do, apparently) believes that hell is in the center of the earth, and did the requisite math to demonstrate that it's actually physically possible to fit all of the billions of souls who have ever lived in there, if each is confined to a space of a few cubic feet. Basically, he thinks God stacks them up, lights them on fire and walks away.
One woman whose website I stumbled upon handles it a different way - she says the molten core of the Earth grows to accommodate all of the millions of souls who are rushing in there daily, and is only a few miles beneath the surface, now - and that scientists are aware of it. They despise science, yet they're always ready to tell you that there's "scientific proof" of whatever batshit insane thing they believe.
These people are clinically insane. How anyone can defend their right to vote or hold public office is beyond me.
Read an evolutionary geology book. Hey, guess what else....the Sahara Desert was a lush tropical place on earth for a few million years. The fossil record confirms it!
Now if your Creationist 'scientists' ever produce the remains of the Ark and it matches up with the origianl dimensions (the Ark being twice as wide as it is long and not near large enough to carry even a minute portion of the land dwelling animals [especially the dinosaurs that creationists say lived along side of man]) and carbon dates to about 5 thousand years ago, etc., etc.......then you can claim they have some concrete evidence.
You are very simple minded....and I don't mean that in a good way, e.a. like the scripture...."except ye become as a little child ye cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." I mean that you are very dull in your mental faculties and your ability to think and reason are pathetically immature and stunted.
You can't even read and understand the disclaimer. You truly do not belong here.
Take a hike, Fu(tard!
XPD (Ex-Pastor Dan)
I find it simply incredible that you actually believe the above, Sean. It's all very well and fine to put stuff like that into a work of fiction, but to think that it's true boggles My imagination.
"...a spiritual stain... passed on to all of their offspring..."
Even more ludicrous. Suffice it to say that science has yet to discover a 'sin' allele in human DNA. (Disclaimer: My brother is a geneticist; and I, Myself work in the medical field and have a pretty darned good idea of how genetic inheritance actually works.)
"The only thing that is able to wash away sin is a perfect sacrifice. The blood of the perfect, unspotted Lamb of God. Ä´esus."
And this is the worst of the lot -- Pure fancy on the part of apologists and an absolutely ghastly way for a god to run a planet. Sorry, Sean; we don't do blood sacrifices around here.
I had been told that the reason that humans were "created" with free will was so that we could choose to worship and love god. I had been told that the angels worshiped god, but did not have the free will that humans were given, that is one of the reasons why we are more special, etc.
So how did Lucifer and the other demons fall from heaven if they did not have a free will, huh?
It is all a bunch of mumbo jumbo, of course. This is just another theological hole in Christian dogma that does not make sense to me.
Surprisingly the bible has hardly any specific details about angels and demons throughout it’s pages in light of some of the things that have been dreamt up about them. Like this kind of crap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy
Heeheeheeheehee! Já, riiight...
"...I can firmly say that my loving and yes, blood-stained savior is someday going to stand on this earth that He created again and even ex-christians will worship him on that day."
No, Sean. You will *never* see your alleged saviour. At the end of your life, you will simply die, forget everything you ever thought, and automatically become an ex-Christian.
There is no evidence for your god, no evidence for life after death, and no evidence for either heaven or hell.
Furthermore, if 'Jesus' ever existed he's no more than a bunch of broken bones in a mass grave outside Jerusalem... Which is where the Romans would have dumped the body after it had hung and rotted on the cross, and after the carrion birds had had their fill of his ordinary and almost certainly non-resurrecting flesh.
And you, Sean, are a superstitious, arrogant intruder who has forfeited all respect here. I, Myself, have neither need nor desire for your ridiculous and blood-drenched superstition.
May you lose your faith and never regain it, and may each and every one of your children, grandchildren and other descendants in perpetuity also escape Christianity in ample time to live long and prosperous lives of reason.
No, it isn't. To the contrary - legitimate Biblical scholars, who, unlike your evangelical hacks, don't spend their lives attempting to shore up all the holes in the Bible, agree that those "predictions" were written after the fact. It's easy to get it right when you're writing it after the event has happened!
For FSM's sake, are you capable of expressing any thought, any idea that your pastor hasn't pulled out of his ass?
Can we PLEASE lose this cretin?
Reminds me of an old Bill Cosby routine called "Noah". If you haven't heard it, it is the LORD speaking to Noah and telling him to build an ark and load two of every animal, etc. and Noah's reaction to these orders. Pretty funny. Pretty blasphemous at the time, I would think.
Post a Comment