The Meaning Of The Bible

[Stranger]

There is no design flaw since the Adam and Eve are described as walking with God i.e. a situation where they are neither sinning sinners, or in a state of sin. This is how mankind is 'designed' as you put it. Sin, sinning and sin are self mods if you like.

I didn't mod myself. According to your story book, it was god that introduced the modification when he had a hissy fit at Adam and Eve and decided to blame the whole of humanity from that time on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that was brought to an end for everyone because of the actions of two people (or whatever they represent), that makes god unjust and unfair.

Which is where we run in to an even more bizarre parody of justice in the bloodthirsty, sadomasochistic, incarnation, tortured to death, and magicked back to life nonsense.

However you dress it up, most versions of Christianity claim that we are all sinners, which directly corresponds to being created sick and then being condemned for it, unless we swallow the absurd nonsense about Jesus.

If everybody sins, that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw.

But only if you're prepared to accept this bizarre nonsense and its monstrous god.

But it's only a story of bizareness and monstrosity in your version of it.

The way to God, thanks to Christ, is open to you. You are not especially evil so it doesn't apply to you too.

[Stranger]

But it's only a story of bizareness and monstrosity in your version of it.

So (regarding the bizarreness) you think it's normal that god can forgive us only if it incarnates itself, then arranges to be tortured to death, and then gets magicked back to life? This strikes you as normal and reasonable, does it?

The monstrosity follows from sadomasochistic nature of the bizarreness and in injustice of making us all sinners because of what Adam and Eve did.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't mod myself. According to your story book, it was god that introduced the modification when he had a hissy fit at Adam and Eve and decided to blame the whole of humanity from that time on.

Since humanity is nurtured by er, humans we find our selves in a sinful environment so sinlessness is never an example also we have the capacity to self mod. Note self not God. As many eastern patristic christians have commented, we recaptulate Adam's sin ourselves.

However your response exemplifies the common error of atheists...They only give one part of the story and omit the part where Christ undoes Adam's sin. Any subsequent sin is of our own design.

The omission of Christ's work from the atheist version is not the only omission.
Man walking with God in a state of sinlessness is also ignored.

I guess we don't like owning up to being the guilty party in all this.

God has provided the remedy in Jesus Christ.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't mod myself. According to your story book, it was god that introduced the modification when he had a hissy fit at Adam and Eve and decided to blame the whole of humanity from that time on.

Any displeasure on God's part happens after Adam's self modification.

[Stranger]

Since humanity is nurtured by er, humans we find our selves in a sinful environment so sinlessness is never an example also we have the capacity to self mod. Note self not God. As many eastern patristic christians have commented, we recaptulate Adam's sin ourselves.

Again, if that's what everybody does, it can't be a free choice. Regardless of the details, your story says we are all sinners, so we are being judged for being the way god made us and being in the environment that god put us in.

However your response exemplifies the common error of atheists...They only give one part of the story and omit the part where Christ undoes Adam's sin. Any subsequent sin is of our own design.

This is patently false - I've addressed it multiple times and you've just ignored my comments on it. What's more it's obviously false that "Christ undoes Adam's sin" otherwise Christians could be sinless, which they're obviously not.

Man walking with God in a state of sinlessness is also ignored.

Again, this is not ignored. The opportunity to do this was only afforded to Adam and Eve - hence the injustice.

I guess we don't like owning up to being the guilty party in all this.

According to your story book and any credible notion of justice, we aren't the guilty parties, the guilt is with your monstrous god.

Any displeasure on God's part happens after Adam's self modification.

And applying it to every human since is monstrously unjust and unfair.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, if that's what everybody does, it can't be a free choice. Regardless of the details, your story says we are all sinners, so we are being judged for being the way god made us

No, we are judged on what we make of us. Don't forget, Adam's work has been overturned by Christ's work. It's now down to us. The way to God is open. What will each one of us make of that?

[Stranger]

Don't forget, Adam's work has been overturned by Christ's work.

Obviously not, otherwise we'd be in Eden and have the same choice as Adam and Eve had.

What will each one of us make of that?

The story clearly makes your god a monster. This really is as plain as day, yet Christians seem totally blind to monstrous, perverse absurdity of it all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Obviously not, otherwise we'd be in Eden and have the same choice as Adam and Eve had.

We do have the same choice.... namely trust God or not.
As for Eden,or Utopia as it is now morphed into.......

[Stranger]

We do have the same choice.... namely trust God or not.

Drivel. Firstly they had the advantage of a "state of sinlessness" (as you put it). Secondly, we have no objective reason to think there even is a god, it doesn't come round for a chat like in your story book, we have to play its cruel game of hide-and-seek (assuming it exists). Thirdly, the whole story is contradictory nonsense that makes the god character a perverse monster.

[Outrider]

You take a very legalistic approach and thus imv. make yourself prone to look for loopholes.

It's a discussion about, effectively, allegations of crime and punishment, so some parallels with the legal system are perhaps inevitable - that said, I've not been citing technical interpretations or particular phrasings, I've been talking to the substantive heart of the matter, the 'spirit' of the law if you will.  Whether or not 'sin' - this alleged spiritual marker of guilt - is something that can be inherited or not, whether we can justify the punishment of people with what we would these days describe as a mental deficiency these are not nitpicky details, these are fundamental questions about  system of justice.

This story though is looked at relationally. God, like any good parent takes the penalty of the breakdown of the relationship(alienation) on himself through Christ (god) in an effort to reopen the relationship.

There is no 'relationship' - there is a dictator handing down rules - in some instances rules that appear totally arbitrary - from on high and demanding unquestioning obedience.

However it still requires us to accept the offer of the restored relationship.

Do as you are told or suffer eternal punishment isn't an 'offer' - except, perhaps, in the mafioso-styling of an offer you can't refuse - it's a threat.  This isn't something on a line from 'no relationship' to 'relationship' this somewhere between coercion and blackmail.

If we want alienation then we have repeated Adam's actions as it were.

Why is all the onus on us?  You make the comparison of a parent and child, which I appreciate is slightly limited but it's perhaps the best we've got: I don't expect my children to have to change to accommodate me, I change to accommodate them, because it's not their fault they're here it's mine.

I also though think Spud's take is fair enough. There is nothing monstrous about God given that he has opened the way of restoration.

He closed it; him offering to open it up if we do as we're told is not being nice, it's being controlling.

It sounds like you prefer a system whereby there are no actual consequences either for Christ or yourself.

I prefer a system where punishments are doled out to the people at fault for things that have actually caused harm or problems, not people who got their feelings hurt because they didn't child-proof their house and their kids disobeyed them.  If someone's kids are unruly, we rightly look at least in part at the parents...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel. Firstly they had the advantage of a "state of sinlessness" (as you put it). Secondly, we have no objective reason to think there even is a god, it doesn't come round for a chat like in your story book, we have to play its cruel game of hide-and-seek (assuming it exists). Thirdly, the whole story is contradictory nonsense that makes the god character a perverse monster.

yes they did have the advantage of living aimlessly then they chose the sin option and thus create the background for us all.

You yourself talk of a virtuous moral norm. Since morality is never impersonal that is where and what God is. That is hardly hidden.

[Stranger]

yes they did have the advantage of living aimlessly...

So you're saying god's initial creation made human lives aimless? Perhaps it's no wonder they tried something else, then...?

...then they chose the sin option and thus create the background for us all.

According to the rules that god made - making said god a monster.

Since morality is never impersonal that is where and what God is. That is hardly hidden.

Gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a discussion about, effectively, allegations of crime and punishment, so some parallels with the legal system are perhaps inevitable - that said, I've not been citing technical interpretations or particular phrasings, I've been talking to the substantive heart of the matter, the 'spirit' of the law if you will.  Whether or not 'sin' - this alleged spiritual marker of guilt - is something that can be inherited or not, whether we can justify the punishment of people with what we would these days describe as a mental deficiency these are not nitpicky details, these are fundamental questions about  system of justice.

There is no 'relationship' - there is a dictator handing down rules - in some instances rules that appear totally arbitrary - from on high and demanding unquestioning obedience.

Do as you are told or suffer eternal punishment isn't an 'offer' - except, perhaps, in the mafioso-styling of an offer you can't refuse - it's a threat.  This isn't something on a line from 'no relationship' to 'relationship' this somewhere between coercion and blackmail.

Why is all the onus on us?  You make the comparison of a parent and child, which I appreciate is slightly limited but it's perhaps the best we've got: I don't expect my children to have to change to accommodate me, I change to accommodate them, because it's not their fault they're here it's mine.

He closed it; him offering to open it up if we do as we're told is not being nice, it's being controlling.

I prefer a system where punishments are doled out to the people at fault for things that have actually caused harm or problems, not people who got their feelings hurt because they didn't child-proof their house and their kids disobeyed them.  If someone's kids are unruly, we rightly look at least in part at the parents...

O.

If this is a divine dictatorship why arent atheists in the dungeon. Right now the doors of the Kingdom are open. There is no enforced entry.

In any case your argument merely makes you a rebel rather than an atheist surely.

What is it you are rebelling against?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If this is a divine dictatorship why arent atheists in the dungeon.

Presumably because the story describes a divine dictatorship. There’s no reason to suppose a word of it actually to be true though.

Right now the doors of the Kingdom are open. There is no enforced entry.

So you assert with no cogent reasoning or evidence to support the claim. You might also note though that there are countless other such stories from different faith traditions. Can you think of a good reason for someone to believe yours rather than any of the others?

Personally I’m rather fond of the faith belief of the Kastom people in the Yaohnanen village of Tanna. According to ancient Yaohnanen tales, the son of a mountain spirit travelled over the seas to a distant land. There, he married a powerful woman and in time would return to them. Naturally, Prince Philip is therefore the real god. All you have to do is to embrace the truth.   
   

In any case your argument merely makes you a rebel rather than an atheist surely.

No, because not for a minute has he suggested that he believes a word of it.

What is it you are rebelling against?

If he thinks as I do, the only “rebelling” here is to object to the overreaching of the religious who demand that their guessing (or, as they call it, “faith”) should have special privileges in the public space.   

Incidentally, it’s hard to tell what with your long history of near pathological lying here, but you seem now actually to believe your guff to be literally true. Is that the case? Are you shifting ground from just misrepresenting the arguments that falsify you to eructating fundie assertions?   

[Outrider]

If this is a divine dictatorship why arent atheists in the dungeon.

For the same reason we're not still clearing up Sauron's mess from the end of the third age...

Right now the doors of the Kingdom are open. There is no enforced entry.

There's just the threat of eternal punishment if you don't 'choose' to go in...

In any case your argument merely makes you a rebel rather than an atheist surely.

I'm making the case for why that particular Christian argument makes no sense, you've surely heard of accepting certain premises for the sake of the argument?

What is it you are rebelling against?

Authoritarian world-views with deleterious effects on human happiness and wellbeing.  And marshmallows, but mainly the authoritarian world-view thing.

O.

[Outrider]

yes they did have the advantage of living aimlessly then they chose the sin option and thus create the background for us all.

How is them, without understanding the idea of 'sin', choosing the 'sinful' option something worthy of punishment?  How is it that people with no understanding of right and wrong are considered to be at fault, but the so-called adult in the room doesn't bear the responsibility for negligence?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

[/quote]

How is them, without understanding the idea of 'sin', choosing the 'sinful' option something worthy of punishment?  How is it that people with no understanding of right and wrong are considered to be at fault, but the so-called adult in the room doesn't bear the responsibility for negligence?

O.

I think I would say they had understood ''right'' since right was focussed on God and chose to do wrong, to turn away and sin and court the consequences of alienation against God and each other. However God reopens the way to himself through Jesus Christ. Adam therefore is now not an excuse for why one still turns away from God. You are your own ''adult in the room.''

[Outrider]

I think I would say they had understood ''right'' since right was focussed on God and chose to do wrong, to turn away and sin and court the consequences of alienation against God and each other.

Except that this is a decision taken before they have eaten from the tree whose fruit grants an understanding of right and wrong, is it not?

However God reopens the way to himself through Jesus Christ. Adam therefore is now not an excuse for why one still turns away from God. You are your own ''adult in the room.''

This would be a god that closed that way because he couldn't adequately look after Adam and Even?  This would a god that closed himself away until he went all drama-queen blood-sacrifice on himself in order to feel like we'd apologised and atoned for his lack of adequate care in the first place? You are so, so right that I would be adult in that room...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that this is a decision taken before they have eaten from the tree whose fruit grants an understanding of right and wrong, is it not?

The decision comes before the consequence yes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that this is a decision taken before they have eaten from the tree whose fruit grants an understanding of right and wrong, is it not?

This would be a god that closed that way because he couldn't adequately look after Adam and Even? 

The decision and the act constitute the fall since it is the decision to turn from God. The way to God is reopened because of Jesus Christ. To miss it requires continuing in the manner and act of turning away as Adam did. It seems, then,  peculiar to choose to turn away from God and expect it to be the same as turning toward God.

[Outrider]

The decision comes before the consequence yes.

More to the point, the decision comes before the accused have the capacity to judge...

O.

[Outrider]

The decision and the act constitute the fall since it is the decision to turn from God.

A decision by two other people for which I am still having to overcome the threat of punishment?  A decision by two people not capable of appreciating the impact?

The way to God is reopened because of Jesus Christ.

Why was a blood sacrifice required?  Why was the way to God closed for those who had nothing to do with the initial situation?

To miss it requires continuing in the manner and act of turning away as Adam did.

To miss it requires developing a capacity for determining right and wrong for yourself - what is it about moral independence that your god doesn't like?

It seems, then,  peculiar to choose to turn away from God and expect it to be the same as turning toward God.

It seems, then, peculiar to come to that conclusion from what's been said.

O.

[Stranger]

The way to God is reopened because of Jesus Christ.

Via the bizarre and barbaric sadomasochistic blood sacrifice nonsense.

To miss it requires continuing in the manner and act of turning away as Adam did.

To 'see' it requires us to swallow this absurd, nonsensical story of a barbaric and monstrous god, for which there is bugger all reasoning or evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A decision by two other people for which I am still having to overcome the threat of punishment? 

Again you have completely ignored the overturning work of Jesus Christ.

A Blood sacrifice? Tackling humanity and it's spiritual death is a bloody business but the physical anguish is accompanied by the spiritual anguish.