Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Goldtop, Jan 31, 2019.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I was quoting you. Make of your words whatever you meant - it read to me like one of your misrepresentations for setting up a personal attack (clearly nothing "left" is involved in any of my posts here).
    You are misrepresenting, in order to attack. That's your response to everything here.
    There's nothing to "take" - it's a suggested topic of discussion, since the more interesting matters of the OP etc are unavailable as long as you guys are around:
    Why are you, and every other overt Abrahamic theist who posts here, fundamentally dishonest in all of your posting?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Sure.

    Indohyus looked like a big rat. We have fossils so we have a pretty good idea of what he looked like.

    Pakicetus evolved from Indohyus. We have fossil proof of this. They were ALMOST the same but not quite. You would call this "small scale evolution" or "adaptation" or something.
    Ambulocetus evolved from Pakicetus. Again, fossil proof. Minor changes, so again you would call this "small scale evolution" or "adaptation" or something.
    Kutchicetus evolved from Ambulocetus. Again, fossil proof. You would call this "small scale evolution" or "adaptation" or something.
    Rodhocetus evolved from Kutchicetus. Again, fossil proof. You would call this "small scale evolution" or "adaptation" or something.
    Dorudon evolved from Rodhocetus. Again, fossil proof. You would call this "small scale evolution" or "adaptation" or something.
    Physeter macrocephalus evolved from Dorudon. Again, fossil proof. You would call this "small scale evolution" or "adaptation" or something.

    Physeter Macrocephalus is a sperm whale. It evolved from something that looked like a large rat through the method you have already admitted works - small scale evolution, one step at a time.

    Your "Adam and Eve weren't the first people" thing.
    That it is worth studying - not worth obeying.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,233
    It doesn't matter what he died for.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Here's an idea. Let's start a thread called Evidence for the Existence of Darwinian Evolution.

    We'll keep a tally alongside Evidence for the Existence of God.

    I'll even cut you a huge break. All extant fossils in a given museum (tens to hundreds of thousands) only count as one piece of evidence. That's still several thousand museums around the world.

    Hm. That may not be practical. Even granting such a huge break, I would still take us most of the rest of our lives to visit them.

    That doesn't even count the thousands of peer-reviewed papers, the professionals, all the pet shops, etc.

    It seems there is literally too much evidence of Darwinian evolution...
     
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Might one call it a -- preponderance? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Jan Ardena:

    You tell me. I think we worked out that you're an ex Hari Krishna or something, didn't we? As far as I can tell, you've invented your own idiosyncratic belief system, cobbled together by picking and choosing elements from various preferred "scriptures" from various major religions. There must be some fringe influence or influences thrown in for good measure, because you're fairly far out on a limb when it come to science denial, fear of imminent Judgment and a few other things that come up with you from time to time.

    No, I'm talking about my ideas now about what I've managed to glean from your fairly long posting record regarding your beliefs. The truth can be uncomfortable. I understand that having one's own irrationality held up as a mirror can be uncomfortable, hence the projection and the desire to deflect.

    It's fascinating to observe the lengths you will go to in order to avoid examining your own beliefs, Jan. Really. A real eye opener.

    See what you did there? You took a statement about your own knowledge and tried to distance yourself from it by turning into something abstract about God.

    Doesn't it get old that I can now catch you out on your attempts at distraction, without even trying? Why do you persist in the attempt?

    iceaura is right. The only really interesting question that remains regarding your postings here is: why do you post in such a fundamentally dishonest fashion? Is it self-protection? Are you so far down the rabbit hole that you're no longer able to discern reality from fantasy, perhaps? Is it that you regard the atheists here as your enemy, and you adopt a Scientology-style "fair game" strategy to answer the perceived threat?

    Why not just admit that you believe in direct revelation? Why toss around words like "evidence" as if they mean something to you? Your belief system, as far as I can tell, is based entirely on some dubious gut feelings you have about what the universe is like. Why not just tell me that you think that you have a direct line to God, and be done with it?

    Again with the attempted deflection?

    You're afraid that if you don't abide by what you believe to be God's divine law, then God will judge you in whatever afterlife you believe in. Perhaps you're worried you'll be reincarnated as something unsavory. Or perhaps you think the Final Judgement is coming soon. It's not clear. What is clear is that, either way, you're afraid of your God. Apparently, you also think that this God of yours is vengeful. It must give you some comfort to think that we atheists will get our comeuppance when we die, sinners that we are.

    There was no pretence about it. I was a theist, not very different from you. Less dogmatic, certainly. More willing to explore the foundations of my own beliefs, unquestionably. But a believer in the same kind of Higher Power you believe in. To describe me as anything other than a theist is just denial that it is possible to change one's views on the God question.

    Years ago, there was an opportunity for you to have that discussion with me. I opened up to some extent to you about my prior beliefs. There was zero quid pro quo from you. You jealously guard your most cherished beliefs. I think it's because you're worried about being embarrassed if you were ever to express them honestly. It's all about the small target with you. That alone cannot account for the fundamentally dishonest way you choose to conduct yourself in our discussions, of course. That behaviour demands its own explanation. I can only assume that you think that your belief system somehow licenses you to be evasive and intellectually dishonest. I'd like to know why, but I only have theories.

    I must say that you strike me as a person who is immensely insecure about his own beliefs, in a way that is unusual among theists whom I have met. So, maybe it all comes back to a kind of self-defence mechanism that got out of control. Then again, it could be something more sinister.

    Actually, no. Unlike yourself, I was never a biblical literalist fundamentalist. I regarded the Adam and Eve story as a foundation myth, almost from the first time I heard it. Same for Noah's Ark and that kind of thing. I understood that Jesus told parables - stories to make a moral or other point, that were not to be taken as literally true descriptions of events. In the same way, I understood some biblical stories to be fairly obvious parables.

    It was never vital to my theistic belief that I accept "scripture" as the literal truth in all its particulars. This is why it is interesting to me to come across people like you who do invest in "scripture" to a quite obsessive and unsustainable degree. I mean, going out of your way to reject science on the basis that you demand your scripture to be literally true in all respects is quite an impressive act of self-deception - especially so since it is unnecessary.

    "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them"

    They'll be "put to death". Oh, but that doesn't mean that anybody will (or should) kill them. Right, whatever you say, Jan. (I must say, I expected this kind of nonsense come-back from you on this. You're nothing if not boringly predictable.)

    Oh, I see. It tells extraordinary people to kill. Is that what it's doing?

    What about the part where God tells Joshua to take his armies and kill all the woman and children in one town or another, just for example? Is that another example of God not telling "ordinary" people to kill? Did Joshua get special instructions because he was extraordinary? Is that what you're saying?

    Did God say "All you ordinary, regular people, listen up! Don't kill anything or anybody, okay? But all my Chosen ones, please kill and rape and maim as I direct you to, because you're all Extraordinary!"

    Is that how it went, Jan?

    It seems to me that God doesn't do a very good job in the bible of clearly distinguishing between those who are directed to kill in His name and those who are not.

    Also, what about the role modelling? Why does God himself get a free pass with his killings, all the while telling us "ordinary" people not to kill? Can you explain that?

    Of course. There are many hundreds of such examples in the bible.

    I see. God can do what he likes because, being the dictator as to what is Good and Evil, he gets to ignore his own rules, which are set down for mere "ordinary" mortals. Is that what you're saying?

    Are you saying you're a baby, in this context?

    I see. So Adam and Eve is part of the Jan Ardena Canon of Things that Shall Not be Questioned, but the notion that Jesus died for our sins is an optional belief that Jan is excused from in Jan's particular religious mish-mash of ideas? Is that how it works for you?

    What you're saying is equivalent to saying something like "Nobody actually knows that the Earth orbits the Sun", or "Nobody knows that the Sun is a big ball of hydrogen".

    After all, such statements are merely well-established scientific theories, supported by persuasive scientific evidence. So, all such statements can be safely discounted, particularly if they conflict with an ancient scripture that one considers vital for propping up one's religious belief system. Right?

    It matters not a jot what you think about evolution. It is quite clear that you're in no position to venture an informed opinion on the topic.

    You rightly ought be embarrassed that you're willing to expose this level of ignorance on a science forum, of all places.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2019
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Let's not.

    Fundamentalist religionists like Jan will never be satisfied with the evidence. Show them a "missing link" and they'll tell you that you've resolved nothing, but rather have merely created two new "gaps" where previously there was only one.

    These people have no interest in learning about evolution. Their aim is only to try their best to get the teaching of science replaced with the teaching of their own preferred religious dogma.

    Pandering to them risks giving the false impression that their views deserve to be given serious consideration.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2019
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    And is also a tremendous waste of the only life you're likely to get.
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Prediction

    Let Darwin evolution go first thread will be one post in length

    Let evidence for god go first your post will be zero

    Make a rule for the thread, the presented evidence must alternate

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    I'm not entirely sure of that. It depends on how loosely you define "sin". It's broadly considered any human action that transgresses against a divine law. Most religions in history have considered their social customs to be at least partly informed by divine inspiration. But social taboos don't necessarily carry the same existential weight that Western Christianity assigns to the concept of "sin". And even religions that did consider social taboos to be transgressions against the gods, didn't think of it as any more than just the action itself, not some kind of "sinful nature" that condemns all mankind as St Augustine purported.

    Never said it wouldn't have been? There's a difference between a the personal hangups of the writers, and the transmission of those hangups onto a society to the extent that they become social taboos punishable by death. Again, I did give a specific example in the post, which you ignore for whatever reason.
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    You mean this one?

    So the INTERPRETATIONS were NOT made by bigiots

    OK

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Of course not. It would be like saying 'let's recreate half the world's knowledge, here, in a thread'.

    It highlights the absurdity of Evidence for God compared to Evidence of Evolution.
    There is literally too much support for Darwinian Evolution to even begin collating it*.
    Contrast with Evidence God: which has produced zero.

    * and visiting it physically, anytime we want- something we can do with Evolution**, but not for God.

    **because evolution is founded on physical evidence, not ancient hearsay
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That's an Abrahamic definition, where the source of "divine law" has been so established.
    Careful. "Divine inspiration"?
    In the numerous atheistic religions, for example, "divine inspiration" in that context would have to mean something quite different from its meaning in Abrahamic "divine law". It would probably be safer to avoid such terminology in the beginning, until its relevance had been established and one were very sure no questions had been begged.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_views_on_sin

    Westerners are heirs to hundreds of years of intellectual efforts to describe other people's religions, societies, beliefs, and practices within a Catholic Christian conceptual framework. That's a lot of baggage.
     
  17. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    I think the definition is, while loaded towards Abrahamism, vague enough that it can apply elsewhere. Pre-Christian religions did conceive of the gods being an anchor for their social taboos and traditions. The Greeks had many etiological myths that described how some aspect of their society came about, often due to the intrigues of a god. And that's before we get to gods who specifically pertained to divine order and law, or the epithets of major gods that pertain to some aspect of social law-- for instance, hospitality being taken as a sacred duty, protected by Zeus Xenios. Or that murder was seen as such a crime against nature, that it had to be expiated or goddesses of vengeance (the Erinyes) would haunt you until your death.

    I think you're not understanding here. You're implying that the people who converted to Christianity were already homophobic, which is probably not the case. It was something that was taught to them, which means that it originates, not with the inherent biases of the, but with the social teaching of the religion to which they converted.
     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    So the INTERPRETERS were not bigiots OK

    As I know nothing about what they INTERPRETED I will leave it there

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The concept of sin - as the Abrahamic societies feature - is what is at issue, here.
    Whether or not the ancient theistic Greeks, for example, shared such a concept with the Abrahamic cultures seems debatable. The concept of affronting a deity, pissing off some god or another, does not seem equivalent, to me.
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    iceaura,

    Why do you regard it as a concept?
    To sin, is to transgress laws.
    In that sense it is a sin to exceed to speed limit, where it has been enforced by law.
    Because you don’t accept God, as a reality, does not do away with what sin is.
    There are sins, or transgressions, as you know, that people don’t abide by, or respect, because they don’t accept, responsibility etc the law.
    Some people aren’t aware of the laws they transgress, or they don’t respect the authority who lays down these laws.

    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Because nouns fall into distinct categories: person, place, thing, idea. That which has no existence outside of human minds is a concept.
    No. There is a very clear distinction between sins and crimes, misdemeanours and lapses of etiquette.
    A whole lot of criminal activity is not considered sinful and a whole lot of sinning doesn't break any laws.
    Breaking a law is criminal. Breaching a commandment is sinful.
    "Thou shalt not drive thine ox-cart in excess of one league per hour in a schul zone...."
    Nope, can't find it in Leviticus.
    That's just exactly what it does do. You can only commit a sin if you have a god who forbade that act.
     
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Against divine law

    Looked for any book on divine law in the legal section of the library

    Was suggested to me try the religious section

    What happened at the Vatican meeting

    Pope

    "I will call down the wrath of god on the transgressors"

    Victims

    "Not good enough. They broke secular law, we want secular justice"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    My parents raised me like that.
    I became religious in my adult life.
    IOW, in the broader picture, 10 year leap plans by social engineering tends to be just another facet (in this case) of atheist wet dreams in action.
     

Share This Page