Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin

[iceaura]

If we are tempted, and we yield to that temptation, yes.

And if we do not yield.

We are human beings. We have that level of free will.

No one can avoid temptation by an act of will.

Temptation only exists because of desires, urges, etc..
It is not something we fall into, or something that is imposed upon us.

Inevitable, unavoidable, desires and urges.

The urge to do, or have things that you know is wrong, or unwise, comes from us.

Along with hunger, thirst, curiosity, the desire to travel and talk to people, the perception of beauty, etc.
The "knowledge" that it is "wrong" often comes from outside. It is imposed, by sinful people (in a society with the concept).
Their sin is greater, if the concept makes any sense at all.

We first have to accept that we are in this condition

You have spent an entire thread denying the condition we are in, and who is responsible for it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And if we do not yield.

There is no temptation to yield to.
If you have no intention of drinking liquor, being in a room full of people drinking and laughing does nothing to tempt you. So you don’t have to not yield to it.

But a person who is tempted in that scenario has to not yield to that temptation, in order not have a drink.

No one can avoid temptation by an act of will.

We can. By losing the taste for the thing that is a temptation, and replacing it with a taste for something that right, and is inline with wisdom.

Inevitable, unavoidable, desires and urges.

Not necessarily.
It depends in the individual state of mind.
Are they ready to give up lifestyles that are wrong, and unwise. And embrace a lifestyle that is right, and good use of wisdom?

Along with hunger, thirst, curiosity, the desire to travel and talk to people, the perception of beauty, etc.

A fairly eclectic mix there.

The "knowledge" that it is "wrong" often comes from outside. It is imposed, by sinful people (in a society with the concept).
Their sin is greater, if the concept makes any sense at all.

Why would you accept knowledge, that is not knowledge? If you accept something as knowledge, that is not knowledge, then you are to blame.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

If you have no intention of drinking liquor, being in a room full of people drinking and laughing does nothing to tempt you.

Unless it does.

We can. By losing the taste for the thing that is a temptation, and replacing it with a taste for something that right, and is inline with wisdom.

Too late. We are already born human.

There is no temptation to yield to.

There is. For everybody.

Not necessarily.
It depends in the individual state of mind.

Necessarily. For all human states of mind.

Are they ready to give up lifestyles that are wrong, and unwise. And embrace a lifestyle that is right, and good use of wisdom?

And are they infallible, in that assessment? You are not.

Why would you accept knowledge, that is not knowledge?

Because - like you and your Bible stories - they don't know any better.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And are they infallible, in that assessment? You are not.

You don’t have to be infallible to change your lifestyle.

Because - like you and your Bible stories - they don't know any better.

Why the ad homs?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

There is no temptation to yield to.
If you have no intention of drinking liquor, being in a room full of people drinking and laughing does nothing to tempt you. So you don’t have to not yield to it.

There are a great many alcoholics out there who do not drink.

In a room full of people drinking, they will generally have a great desire to drink. They have no intention of drinking, because they know what that does to them. So they do not.

 

[iceaura]

Why the ad homs?

Those are not "ad homs".
You asked why it is that you accept "knowledge" that is not knowledge, with Bible stories about human origins mistaken for coherent factual knowledge of human origins as the current example. That's one reason.

You don’t have to be infallible to change your lifestyle.

You have to be infallible to be sure of avoiding, rather than abetting, "temptation" (sin) by changing your lifestyle.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Those are not "ad homs".

Yes it was.
You accused me of accepting knowledge which isn’t knowledge, because, you say, I don’t know any better. That is an ad hominem.

mistaken for coherent factual knowledge of human origins as the current example. That's one reason.

You have zero coherent facts about human origins. What you have are weak ideas, just so stories. Piltdown man fiasco should give some idea as to how desperate some people are, to claim just so stories as fact. Nobody believes those stories, they are accepted as opposition to God’s creation.

Jan.

 

[Hapsburg]

So the INTERPRETERS were not bigiots OK

Considering that you're using "interpreters" here to refer to the millions of people that converted to, or were raised into, Christianity, you're deliberately underselling it to support some bizarre point. It's plainly obvious that certain kinds of bigotry originated with Christianity.

The concept The concept of affronting a deity, pissing off some god or another, does not seem equivalent, to me.

Well, the dictionary would disagree with you there.

 

[iceaura]

You accused me of accepting knowledge which isn’t knowledge, because, you say, I don’t know any better. That is an ad hominem.

No, it isn't. It isn't even an argument.
Consult a decent dictionary - one with usage advice.
If you fundies want to present yourself as scholarly folk, you are going to have to get rid of a few basic illiteracies your agenda has saddled on you: what a scientific "theory" is, what an ad hominem argument is, that kind of thing.

You have zero coherent facts about human origins. What you have are weak ideas, just so stories. Piltdown man fiasco should give some idea as to how desperate some people are, to claim just so stories as fact.

And all of biological, geological, paleontological, and archaeological science. All the theory, all the evidence, and all the argument, from more than a century of honest research.

 

[iceaura]

"The concept of affronting a deity, pissing off some god or another, does not seem equivalent, to me."
Well, the dictionary would disagree with you there.

None of mine do.
For example: Greek mythology is full of stories of various people - and other gods - affronting various gods, angering them, without committing "sin". https://www.greeka.com/greece-myths/arachne.htm
On the other hand, and kind of interesting, there appear to be some religions - such as the Navajo claim - who have a concept of falling away from a path of righteousness established by mythological figures, being tempted into wickedness they were warned against and consequential damnation, apparently similar to the Abrahamic "sin" but without the deity.

Go figure.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes it was.
You accused me of accepting knowledge which isn’t knowledge, because, you say, I don’t know any better. That is an ad hominem.

You are forbidden to complain about ad homs.
Your only valid response is: "OK, well I guess I deserved that."

 

[billvon]

By losing the taste for the thing that is a temptation, and replacing it with a taste for something that right, and is inline with wisdom.

That is a fool's errand. People come pre-programmed with a lot of behaviors that worked well circa 50,000 BC - but don't work so well today. We can't make people "lose the taste" for that - for sex, for food, for greed. It's hardwired. But what we CAN do is override those with our intellect.

Are they ready to give up lifestyles that are wrong, and unwise. And embrace a lifestyle that is right, and good use of wisdom?

Many people change their lifestyle to achieve their goals. That is NOT the same as "losing the taste for the thing that is a temptation."

Why would you accept knowledge, that is not knowledge? If you accept something as knowledge, that is not knowledge, then you are to blame.

You are confusing knowledge with social mores, and you are confusing both of those with basic drives. They are not the same.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That is a fool's errand. People come pre-programmed with a lot of behaviors that worked well circa 50,000 BC - but don't work so well today. We can't make people "lose the taste" for that - for sex, for food, for greed. It's hardwired. But what we CAN do is override those with our intellect.

This is just-so-stories talk.
There are people for whom controlling bad habits like overindulgence in sex, and food, is completely no problem

Many people change their lifestyle to achieve their goals. That is NOT the same as "losing the taste for the thing that is a temptation."

Who said anything about changing goals?
Why don’t you actually take in what is being proposed, then agree or object accordingly.

You are confusing knowledge with social mores, and you are confusing both of those with basic drives. They are not the same.

You are confused, period.
I bet you don’t even know why you object to God, or why you lie about what’s written in the bible?

You are aware that you are an atheist, and you lie about what is written in the bible?

I can understand that as far as you are aware, there is no God, hence you are an atheist. But why do you blatantly lie about what is written in the bible?

Do you want to convince yourself and others, that the bible is incomprehensible, by supporting ideas that you know does not come from the bible, but make the bible out to be nonsense?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You are forbidden to complain about ad homs.
Your only valid response is: "OK, well I guess I deserved that."

I’m not the one that is lying, either outright, or indirectly. You are. You attack the person because your position is weak, and below.
Nothing you say has any credibility, until you start being truthful.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, it isn't. It isn't even an argument.
Consult a decent dictionary - one with usage advice.
If you fundies want to present yourself as scholarly folk, you are going to have to get rid of a few basic illiteracies your agenda has saddled on you: what a scientific "theory" is, what an ad hominem argument is, that kind of thing.

You’re basically saying I have no credibility in this discussion/argument, because I can only present knowledge that is not knowledge.
So far I have presented good evidence that A+E were not considered the first ever humans, the original parents of mankind. While you have perpetuated a belief you have no regard for, and the lie that the bible does contain such information.

If you lefties want to portray yourself as honest people, you are going to have to stop lying to yourselves.

And all of biological, geological, paleontological, and archaeological science. All the theory, all the evidence, and all the argument, from more than a century of honest research.

There’s nothing wrong in saying you don’t know what the origin of mankind is. Isn’t that the line atheist apologists use? Maybe you should actually take heed and actually apply it to yourselves.

Jan

 

[iceaura]

You’re basically saying I have no credibility in this discussion/argument, because I can only present knowledge that is not knowledge.

No, that's not what I said. Not "basically", or any other way.

While you have perpetuated a belief you have no regard for, and the lie that the bible does contain such information.

I have never claimed that the Bible contains biological information, and explicitly stated that it does not.
btw: The inability of Abrahamic fundies like you to paraphrase accurately seems to be a consequence of your dishonest approach

There’s nothing wrong in saying you don’t know what the origin of mankind is.

But there appears to be a great deal wrong with saying - to you - what it was not. The people who do that are targets of your personal attacks, and the entire body of knowledge involved is dismissed as "just so stories" by you. (from this guy, who was inspired by religious myth and traditional tale-telling in theistic cultures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudyard_Kipling)

So far I have presented good evidence that A+E were not considered the first ever humans, the original parents of mankind.

You have not.
The plain fact is that they were so considered, and still are, by almost all Abrahamic fundamentalists who read or study the Bible in English - including, if you remember, the very people who wrote the exact words you claim to be exact about, the translators into English of those many legends and stories. You are in conflict with the English authors of the stories you are interpreting.

 

[billvon]

There are people for whom controlling bad habits like overindulgence in sex, and food, is completely no problem

Ding ding! Exactly! There are people who have bad habits but are able to control them. That does NOT mean that "there is no temptation to yield to" as you claim. It means that they are tempted - but their intellect is in charge, and says "sure I want to drink, smoke and get laid all the time - but I will choose to do something different, because I don't like where those activities will take me."

Thank you for proving my point.

Who said anything about changing goals?

You did. They take their bad habits and change their goals, so they can control their temptations. Again, that is not "losing the taste for the thing that is a temptation." It is making a conscious decision to not give in to the temptation.

I bet you don’t even know why you object to God, or why you lie about what’s written in the bible?

Wow. You lost that argument so badly now you are bringing it up in other threads?

The only one lying about the Bible here is you. That's been demonstrated dozens of times already.

Now how about staying on topic? You are confusing knowledge with social mores, and you are confusing both of those with basic drives. They are not the same. The temptations you talk about above (overindulgence in food for example) is a basic drive. Evolution drives us to put on fat for lean times, even when there are no more lean times. So we are TEMPTED to eat too much.

As you pointed out above, people can control those temptations by using their intellect to override those temptations. They use their knowledge that eating too much can make you fat and unhealthy, and they use that knowledge to diet and exercise to keep themselves healthy.

There is a third issue which is social mores. People may have additional reasons to eat too much or too little. Perhaps they are in a society that promulgates guys watching sports and drinking together. So they get a circle of friends who go to a bar every Friday night to drink and eat nachos. If they do this they might get fat, because social mores interfere with the above process.

Or perhaps the social mores say that women have to be not fat to be attractive. That can help with the above issue. Or perhaps it tells women that they have to be super skinny to be attractive at all; they may then not eat enough to stay healthy or even become bulimic. That's a potentially negative effect.

Three different issues.

 

[James R]

Just quickly...

I bet you don’t even know why you object to God, or why you lie about what’s written in the bible?

Pointing out the apparent lack of good reasons to believe in God, or in the bible as His infallible Word, is not quite the same thing as objecting to God.

As for the bible, these disputes we have here are not usually about what's written in the bible. After all, all the translations are readily available if there's debate as to what the words are. The disputes arise due to differences in interpretation of those words, most of the time. Disputes tend to heat up, especially, when you try to nuance or adjust the interpretation you are promoting to suit your argument of the moment.

Historically, Christians have been taught to believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, ancestors of all living people. That teaching is based, as it must be, on the words in the bible.

You, of course, are free to interpret the same words differently, to pick and choose your meanings according to the religious variant you have constructed to your own liking. But there's very little point in getting all hot under the collar when the more common interpretation is pointed out to you.

Do you want to convince yourself and others, that the bible is incomprehensible, by supporting ideas that you know does not come from the bible, but make the bible out to be nonsense?

The problem is not that the bible is incomprehensible, although doubtless there are certain parts that don't make a lot of sense. (It's been a while since I read it in full.) The problem is that it is very open to conflicting interpretations. There are also, of course, numerous self-contradictions in its text, all of which an inventive Abrahamic theist like yourself can no doubt rationalise away, but only at the expense of creating a very tortured reading with lots of unstated assumptions.

 

[Sarkus]

We can. By losing the taste for the thing that is a temptation, and replacing it with a taste for something that right, and is inline with wisdom.

I suggest you attend an AA meeting or two, so you can appreciate just how much BS you're talking.
Temptation is always in front of us. Always. We can't lose taste for it. We simply rationalise our way away from it as best we can. Those with adequate will power will be able to do that. Those without succumb. We can try to distract ourselves from the temptation, but it is always there, always nagging. Always.

 

[davewhite04]

Just quickly...


Pointing out the apparent lack of good reasons to believe in God, or in the bible as His infallible Word, is not quite the same thing as objecting to God...

The question is relative to billvon being a "why" question.