Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Haven't we already been judged by divine law? Didn't Adam and Eve take care of that for us? Aren't we all cursed by God, evil sinners who will eventually die?
Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin
- Thread starter Goldtop
- Start date
Haven't we already been judged by divine law? Didn't Adam and Eve take care of that for us? Aren't we all cursed by God, evil sinners who will eventually die?
Agreed. Act responsibly, no matter that some tinpot leader says about divine law.
Sucks to be then, them. They get the responsibility but no power.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Your point applies only to those those who willingly abide by the Bible.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Only why you mentioned it at all.
The Bible is the conscience only for those who choose to abide by it.
Jan Ardena:
Is it because it's in your favorite "scriptures", all of which were written down by human beings?
How do you know that whatever "laws" are in your scriptures come from God?
As a secondary question, how do you pick and choose among the scriptural laws you follow? Obviously, there are many scriptural laws that you think don't apply to you, like the one saying that you ought to be putting homosexual people to death. How do you decide?
Also, on that topic, you seem to think that the putting-the-gays-to-death law was appropriate for the Old Testament Israelites. Would you like to explain why that law was appropriate for that time and place?
I guess that, along with Adam and Eve, you also believe that God personally handed the Ten Commandments to Moses. Correct?
You hold that every sin is original sin, do you? Why tack on the word "original", then?
"Sin" is not a central concept in Buddhism.
You say they have "great power". How is this evidenced, according to you?
Sure, but how does anybody know what this "divine law" is?
Is it because it's in your favorite "scriptures", all of which were written down by human beings?
How do you know that whatever "laws" are in your scriptures come from God?
As a secondary question, how do you pick and choose among the scriptural laws you follow? Obviously, there are many scriptural laws that you think don't apply to you, like the one saying that you ought to be putting homosexual people to death. How do you decide?
Also, on that topic, you seem to think that the putting-the-gays-to-death law was appropriate for the Old Testament Israelites. Would you like to explain why that law was appropriate for that time and place?
Yes, hypothetically. But how can mere mortals know about God's divine commandments?
I guess that, along with Adam and Eve, you also believe that God personally handed the Ten Commandments to Moses. Correct?
It seems to me that your fear of divine judgement is central to your belief in divine law. Perhaps this is a blind spot for you.
Including the ones that say to kill the gays?
Your view appears to differ from the general understanding of that term.
You hold that every sin is original sin, do you? Why tack on the word "original", then?
Humanity is the collection of human beings. I'm not sure why you feel a need to split hairs here.
Well, for example, consider Buddhism. There, the main "problem" is dukkha and the endless cycle of reincarnation. The "solution" that Buddhism offers is the Eightfold Path.
"Sin" is not a central concept in Buddhism.
Yeah, via the magical God sense you claim we all have. Right.
Do you believe that the Israelites are God's chosen people and are therefore not "ordinary human beings"?
You say they have "great power". How is this evidenced, according to you?
Not really, because all who claim to abide by it pick and choose what it is, exactly, that they abide by. The bible is always read selectively, even by the fundamentalists. They never seem particularly concerned about mixing clothes of different cloths, or eating shellfish, or whatever. They don't tend to get concerned about money lending. But when it comes to bigotry against homosexuals, a lot of them are all for that.
Point is, their consciences operate largely independently of what their holy book actually says.
Last edited:
Yes and no. It's clear that there are some societal taboos that would not exist if Christianity was not a thing, and based at least some of its social/ethical stances on its holy book. Homophobia, for instance, would probably not be an institutionalized form of bigotry in the West were it not for certain interpretations of the Book of Leviticus and the Pauline epistles.
Not so sure that would be correct
Since the holy book was written by men those defects were present in those people
All they did when they wrote them down was blame god for the rules
To much being a coward, so blame Sky Daddy
"Look it's not me who says it's bad it's the boss in the sky"
Just because they were taboos at the time of writing does not mean that they would be now.
Society's views change over time.
The argument would be that religion refuses to change its views as easily, and thus taboos are held as such for longer as a result.
True but I was going by...
in particular...
I contend it is far from clear
More central here, it's reasonably likely that the concept of "sin" as we know it would not exist in our society without the roots in Abrahamic monotheism.
Irrelevant.
Why would I “pick and choose”? Is that what you did as godless Christian.
The law regarding homisex activity, is just one among many other sinful activities. The bible states that the wages of sin is death. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were put to death.
In the case of the Israelites,?they fell from their superior, lofty position of being divine/holy, to performing all kinds of sinful activity. Not just homosexual activity,
Why do you only focus on that one?
Because of the law. The wages of sin is death, and the gift of God is eternal life.
Different topic.
You need to start a “ Does God Exist” thread, because that is what you trying to turn this thread into.
I believe in God (Theist), that’s my position.
I take it you don’t believe in God (atheist). Correct?
I’m not aware of that one.
Can you quote it?
Really?
In what way?
The original sin is the beginning of sinful activity.
It’s not “splitting hairs” from my perspective.
Ok.
In what way are they a “main problem”?
It doesn’t matter how it is evidenced according to me. That is what is on the table, if we’re going to have a discussion about whether or not sin is a mere concept, and whether we should raise our children with the alleged concept.
Jan
The wages of sin is death.
If I remember correctly, the serpent was cursed, and the ground was cursed.
Jan.
Last edited:
As a person who claims not to be an atheist, you sure act like one.
Do you believe in God , bilvon?
Jan,
How do?
That would mean that people who don’t have access to a bible, or have never come into contact with the bible have no conscience. No means comprehension of God.
But that’s not what we see. Everybody knows God, whether or not they accept God.
Jan.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
exploiting a human behavioral emotion to gain power & control over individuals and groups
part 1
sin(insert word that sounds kinda catchy)
it appears there are roughly 3 types of behavior
1 passive acceptance
2 pro-active control
3 re-active attempted assertion of control
"sin" merely exploits the human natural desire to fit in with the other humans in the group
most religions use all 3 of these mixed together to deliver power and control to an idea or symbology
regardless of the religion, the concept of the behavior may be found in all human group interactive behaviors. more so pronounced in behavioral intellectual and ideological control of groups.
the main difference being the assertion of ownership of spirituality of another person by asserting a set of behaviors to form actions(including thought)
maybe theologians might wish to debate "who belongs to spirituality"
it is hard for most to differentiate between material connectivity and intellectual theory and freedom of thought.
this drives a need to physicalise ideas(bang a rock with the stick to see what it sounds like).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten#Akhenaten_and_monotheism_in_Abrahamic_religions
note the pro-active actions to remove previous culture and history etc to seek to install an intellectual thought(ideology)...
the stick will always need to be banged on the rock at least once or many times during the life of the human to assert known variables of the physical realm.
to see ideas like sin be used(created crafted and interpreted) to encumber the intellectual development of the species is annoying. but then many things are annoying. some less so, some more so.
Jan Ardena:
Do you advocate putting men who have sex with men to death, Jan Ardena? If not, why not?
If you're going to tell me that this particular part of the bible only applied to a particular time and place, make sure you explain how you came to the conclusion that it is no longer part of God's divine law.
It's irrelevant to you whether your "divine laws" really come from God? Okay then.
Do you eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed cloths? They are abominations, you know.
Godless Christian? What? When I was a Christian my God was the same as yours.
Didn't they have children who went on to populate the world?
I don't. I just gave one example.
Why does that law no longer apply, according to you? Or does it still apply, for you?
I already have one of those running. You and other theists couldn't come up with any evidence for God's existence, so I've moved on to other topics. It's still there, though, if you ever come up with any evidence.
Why didn't you answer the question I asked you? Why repeat this mantra of yours? Nobody disputes that you believe in God, or that I don't. Why do you feel the need to keep proclaiming this, as if it is News? Is it just an avoidance tactic?
Sure. Consider Leviticus 20:13, for example: "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."
Do you advocate putting men who have sex with men to death, Jan Ardena? If not, why not?
If you're going to tell me that this particular part of the bible only applied to a particular time and place, make sure you explain how you came to the conclusion that it is no longer part of God's divine law.
Original sin is typically taken to describe the inherent tendency to evil in human beings, supposedly inherited down the generations as a result of Adam's disobeying God and eating an apple.
i.e. Adam eating that apple.
If that was really the case, you'd be able to explain why. But you didn't offer anything, did you?
Sorry, I won't teach you the basics of Buddhism in this thread. Try wikipedia for starters, if you're interested.
Evidence just isn't a very big thing with you, is it? I guess all that magical knowing makes evidence irrelevant.
How so?
No. You line of questioning is irrelevant.
I don’t eat shellfish, and I wear bin bags.
Atheists deny God.
You were never a theist.
Prove me wrong by explaining who and what God was, in relation to you.
Where are they now?
Yes you do.
We all die don’t we?
There is evidence that should satisfy any atheist, but they just keep on denying it, then make out no one has given any.
They seem to think they do not have to explain their denial, but theist should explain their belief. So I remind them that there are two positions, not just one.
Can you point to the verse where it mentions “killing gays”?
Every scripture advocates no killing.
In the bible it specifically states “Thou shalt not kill”
Sure...
Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Those punishiments were specifically for those spiritually advanced people. Not for ordinary ones. That would be like ignoring the hungry cries of a toddler because he hasn’t got the Gaul to go out, find a means of income, so he can fend for himself.
It is still the law (the wages of sin is death...)
We are all put to death because we sin.
Adam disobeyed God, the original sin.
Well done! There’s hope for you yet.
No.
I have done, but your atheism prevents you from comprehension.
Because you can’t.
I already know about Buddhism. But more importantly, I know about the Buddha.
You describe yourself well, here.
Dog types turning magically into whales, come to mind.
How so, what?
Jan
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No it doesn't. It means having a conscience is independent of the Bible, despite your insistence otherwise.
As everybody knows UFOS. Knowing of a thing does not make it real.