DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Many things occur anyway, yet others are free to ignore them.
You, for example, believing that God tells you right from wrong has no bearing on how others live their lives.
Last edited:
Raising Children Without the Concept of Sin
- Thread starter Goldtop
- Start date
You, for example, believing that God tells you right from wrong has no bearing on how others live their lives.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And if that weren't a parable, you might have a point. I'm not sure even the Pope still upholds the stories in Genesis.
The problem here, is that you are assuming in your premise that God exists, and therefore that sin is decided by him.
I acknowledge you believe this, but it is not granted as fact, here.
So all your arguments are provisional.
Look, no one (including you) refutes that the bible and scriptures were physically written down by a person with a pen. This is accepted as fact.
But you assert that God told them what to write - but since that is not a given, the issue rests - by default - with the bible and scripture - including of the definition of sin - was handwritten by humans. The onus remains on you to show that it is more than that.
Until that happens, your arguments involving God are begging the question: they assume your conclusion in your premise. That is a logical flaw. It is invalid.
Indeed. The Bible clearly states that good slaveowners are following divine law. And divine law was used, at times, to convince people to go out and kill Muslims.
Jan's argument is easily refuted. Are all non-Christian cultures in chaos? How much chaos even qualifies as true chaos? Certainly not all Christian cultures can be called utopian. Does original sin mean that we can never have non-chaos? Does the existence of sin in general even among Christians mean that a non-chaotic state is impossible to achieve? Is it possible that sin codifies laws that secular society determined necessary for social cohesion?
Extra credit:
Does the commandment not to have other gods before me mean that other gods exist?
Extra credit:
Does the commandment not to have other gods before me mean that other gods exist?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Certainly. Every one of Jan's arguments presume God exists, and that is not a given - even in a discussion about sin.
So, all his arguments are provisional.
But sin, as a concept in human culture, has real consequences, so sin's origin is still a valid discussion point.
(Like discussing superstitious people and their behavior does not oblige curses into existence.)
In its defense, I think the wording is "shall not worship false gods before me." i.e. the act of worshipping even nonexistent gods is verboten.
This is born out by the fact that God got his knickers in a bunch over the Golden Calf. While obviously not a real god, it was still worshipped as a symbol ... of God.
That's what he meant by "false idols". God wants people to worship him directly - and not some fake statue of him - certainly not some trident-wielding merman, or other mockery of him.
Last edited:
Ouch
Good one
Why make a pronouncement about having no other gods, if there are no other gods in existence?
Did the one god appoint himself as the only one?
Did the one god understand man was capable of making up other gods?
Pissed off with the 10 commandments? Come and meet our God. He has only 5 and no original sin. Much more friendly
The specificity of the prohibitions on other God worship would seem to suggest that all the world except for Jews and Christians should be a hellscape of God's punishments.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Agreed.
It has been a while since his last flood. I guess he's mellowing in his old age.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Its crazy, right. Its like dropping a lit match and having the Earth disintegrate, you're dumbfounded how one could have possibly led to the other.
Because I ate of a particular tree? Embrace the apple, Jan. Free the Spartan, Fuji or Red Delicious within you.
Psst. Is this an appropriate moment to mention that chaos has not, in fact, ensued?
After those mythical people ate that mythical fruit, they got dressed, got expelled, and went forth to work, have babies and establish civilization. Without them exiting the walled garden, none of us would ever have heard of God or his commandments. indeed, none of us would exist, since Adam and Eve didn't know they had genitalia until after they ate that pomegranate.
There may have been some very bad orders in human civilization; there have been periods of upheaval, conflict and confusion, but there has never been chaos.
After those mythical people ate that mythical fruit, they got dressed, got expelled, and went forth to work, have babies and establish civilization. Without them exiting the walled garden, none of us would ever have heard of God or his commandments. indeed, none of us would exist, since Adam and Eve didn't know they had genitalia until after they ate that pomegranate.
There may have been some very bad orders in human civilization; there have been periods of upheaval, conflict and confusion, but there has never been chaos.
Last edited:
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Or maybe A & E were fucking each other passionately before eating the forbidden fruit. But after it was revealed to them that they should not do so, they decided to put on clothes, and thereby rebel against god's commandment that they should be fruitful and multiply? Poor god, he just can't catch a break in the logic world.
Think incorrect
One man + one woman - no instruction manual = no action
The forbidden fruit (knowledge) was the kick start what to do
You don't see in the stained glass windows Adam dragging little Cain and Abel and Seth and Awan and Azura and Eve lugging baby More-sons-and-daughters as they flee the garden. How come they didn't get fruitful until after the expulsion?
We're not welcome in his back yard; he's not welcome in ours.
Don't mean we can't be good neighbours, just so's we mind our own beeswax.
Yet this perspective seems utterly devoid of human sympathy. That is to say, I'm sorry, but I would find it hard to believe you are utterly unaware of sentiments in this world running along the lines of Hell on Earth.
To wit, people should never complain about their job again, or taxes, or landlords, or nosy neighbors, or religious people; or anyone or anything else. Compared to to the idea of living without scarcity or fear, civilization feels a bit like settling for lesser outcomes; but that's only an idyll from a story, right? And what reasonable critique of the story would actually pay attention to how the story goes and what it says?
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty to wonder about in the story, such as what God was actually thinking. But complaining and criticizing without attending what you're on about is largely an act of futility, unless, of course, the point is to pretend complaint regardless.
Nobody is certain quite how things were supposed to be according to What God Wanted If Not This Outcome, but hey, speaking of genitals, take a look at mgtows and incels°, and think of a world without divinely directed enmity 'twixt men and women. And even that raises particular questions about good and evil. But, hey, what does anybody need to worry about that? All anyone needs to know, it seems, is that there is someone in the world they don't like.
Don't blame religious people for your own decision to set your own priorities.
In order:
1) "Is this an appropriate moment to mention that chaos has not, in fact, ensued?" — Nope. Or, well, if you want, I guess. You've managed a two-bit joke that reads more like a gaffe in ignorance. To wit ...
2) "After those mythical people ate that mythical fruit, they got dressed, got expelled, and went forth to work, have babies and establish civilization." — ... the civilization we know is a lower-shelf surrogate for the plentitude we should, according to legend, experience. It probably helps to remember, at this point, that economic perceptions, not religion, cause war. That is to say, compared to a legendary plentitude, the world we face is shot through with scarcity. Civilization is, analogously, more like we're getting by for the time being, despite everything that has gone wrong. Sure, the species puts on a pretty good show in its own right, but if the sentiment of an accursed world is somehow so foreign to you, then, sure, whatever.
3) "Without them exiting the walled garden, none of us would ever have heard of God or his commandments. indeed, none of us would exist, since Adam and Eve didn't know they had genitalia until after they ate that pomegranate." — That's not necessarily accurate, and while it makes for a nifty punch line, the superficial treatement of subject matter seems more lazy than anything else. Meanwhile, we might look back to the mgtows and incels, because, quite clearly, knowing we have genitals, such as you put it, has really worked out well. Indeed, the proposition that "chaos has not, in fact, ensued" is pretty much as laughable as the two-dimensional, paper doll of a straw man you complain about.
4) "There may have been some very bad orders in human civilization; there have been periods of upheaval, conflict and confusion, but there has never been chaos." — History is not without its tales of overcoming. Hellen Keller is exploited as an American legend, for instance. Anne McDonald's story made it to the U.S. thirty-five years ago in a film. Both did great work, but in neither case do we overlook the complicating factors about their stories. They and their teachers overcame powerful obstacles in order to accomplish what they did. To the other, from their perspectives, some part of what they did is, quite simply, life. Then again, if we set aside the fact of those obstacles, then their stories become nothing more than tales easily outpaced by a Mack Bolan novels. Your idea of chaos is your idea of chaos, and, quite honestly, seems on this occasion more fashioned for contrarianism than anything else. One of the largely consistent characteristics of atheistic evangelism these days is fallacious imposition of definitions. In this case, while there are particular definitions of "chaos" that don't apply, your literalism is entirely subject to your subjective beliefs.
2) "After those mythical people ate that mythical fruit, they got dressed, got expelled, and went forth to work, have babies and establish civilization." — ... the civilization we know is a lower-shelf surrogate for the plentitude we should, according to legend, experience. It probably helps to remember, at this point, that economic perceptions, not religion, cause war. That is to say, compared to a legendary plentitude, the world we face is shot through with scarcity. Civilization is, analogously, more like we're getting by for the time being, despite everything that has gone wrong. Sure, the species puts on a pretty good show in its own right, but if the sentiment of an accursed world is somehow so foreign to you, then, sure, whatever.
3) "Without them exiting the walled garden, none of us would ever have heard of God or his commandments. indeed, none of us would exist, since Adam and Eve didn't know they had genitalia until after they ate that pomegranate." — That's not necessarily accurate, and while it makes for a nifty punch line, the superficial treatement of subject matter seems more lazy than anything else. Meanwhile, we might look back to the mgtows and incels, because, quite clearly, knowing we have genitals, such as you put it, has really worked out well. Indeed, the proposition that "chaos has not, in fact, ensued" is pretty much as laughable as the two-dimensional, paper doll of a straw man you complain about.
(Meanwhile, sure, it is entirely possible you or I might not have existed; it's harder to discern how the story was supposed to go, though between the telling of the story and what it actually says, there remains an argument that what happened at Eden might well have been part of the Plan, as such, and thus life would have likely gotten around to us, eventually.)
4) "There may have been some very bad orders in human civilization; there have been periods of upheaval, conflict and confusion, but there has never been chaos." — History is not without its tales of overcoming. Hellen Keller is exploited as an American legend, for instance. Anne McDonald's story made it to the U.S. thirty-five years ago in a film. Both did great work, but in neither case do we overlook the complicating factors about their stories. They and their teachers overcame powerful obstacles in order to accomplish what they did. To the other, from their perspectives, some part of what they did is, quite simply, life. Then again, if we set aside the fact of those obstacles, then their stories become nothing more than tales easily outpaced by a Mack Bolan novels. Your idea of chaos is your idea of chaos, and, quite honestly, seems on this occasion more fashioned for contrarianism than anything else. One of the largely consistent characteristics of atheistic evangelism these days is fallacious imposition of definitions. In this case, while there are particular definitions of "chaos" that don't apply, your literalism is entirely subject to your subjective beliefs.
Consider, for juxtaposition, the appearance bigotry shown by Spidergoat, DaveC, and Michael345 in posts #124-128↑. I know, I know, bigotry is a harsh word. How about mere ignorance—e.g., basic relevant ideas like henotheism or kathenotheism—instead? To wit, the basic question:
• "Does the commandment not to have other gods before me mean that other gods exist?"
And the commentary↑:
• "In its defense, I think the wording is 'shall not worship false gods before me.' i.e. the act of worshipping even nonexistent gods is verboten.
The basic answer to this uninformed critique is that the commandment recognizes the existence of other people.
The story itself is not unclear about the fact that a people just emerged from captivity before receiving the Commandments; the context of the decalogue itself is usurped in the English language by the Geneva Bible (1560 CE); they are referred to in Hebrew as the Ten Words or Ten Sayings, and the legendary collection on stone is referred to as the Tablets of Covenant.
The question, "Does the commandment ... mean that other gods exist?" is incorrect. Any atheist who has ever complained of Islamic dissimulation, known as taqiyya, should already understand at least something about the purpose of the commandment, the contracted rule of the Covenant, to have no other gods before Him.
There arises a question of malice and competency: Sinister or stupid? The two conditions are not mutually exclusive, but I did use the word, bigotry, so we ought to at least take a moment to consider the purpose of asking: Do I accept, for instance, the presupposition that these are intelligent, reasonable people willfully behaving with vice verging on malice? Or do I accept the presupposition of their innocence, that they simply do not understand what they're on about, and are therefore embarrassing themselves through ignorance?
There comes a point at which the dearth of comprehension challenges belief; the easiest reconciliation is to release the presupposition that these are intelligent, reasonable people. Which, in turn, is an unfortunate prospect, either in abstract example or living practice.
If the basis of criticism is itself fallacious, then the critique is no less fallacious than whatever fallacies move the critic to criticize.
Still, though, such excursions into fancy, especially by people who ought to know better, are as revealing as they are reminding; the commentary noted above insists, as a necessary matter of its function, on a religious assertion of its own. That God behaves in a perfectly human way reflects the point that God is an invention of human imagination, but the critique prefers to not attend the reality, because the point is more about personal satisfaction than anything else. Still, though, scrubbing the context of the story in order to present a personally-fashioned God is pretty much the heart of a broad atheistic complaint about theists.
Additionally, as the discussion goes↑, it turns out some critics are at ease explicitly endorsing a religious argument in order to make a fallacious point. That is, in order to argue against a religious notion, one promotes fallacy, both historical and immediate, in order to tee up. Watching someone empower a fallacy in order to broaden the impact range of a criticism isn't exactly new; indeed, it is a behavior people tend to complain about in general, and atheists often accuse of religion and religious people especially. Furthermore, hostility toward particular religious creed, code, and cult does neither licenses nor requires the attempted erasure of a people.
At some point, it takes on a couple of potential appearances: Maintaining the presuppositions of intelligence, rationality, and good faith actually points toward sinister intent not unaware of itself; releasing that proposition alleviates certain questions—i.e., particular ranges of culpability—according to potential noncompetency. In any case, what it looks like is a bunch of religious people arguing about God.
Which, in turn, is only conducive to one's argument if that is the point.
____________________
Notes:
° We should note that Sanhedrin 75a:2 (Talmud Balvi), compiled in the fifth century CE, reaches back before the Talmud itself in order to prescribe a cure for incels. Furthermore, if Rav Yehuda says Rav says, then it is unlikely that discussion, ca. 200-215 CE, is the original iteration.
I think you missed the point. The extra credit question was also the least relevant. Can you point to a time before the fall? When did people not do war? Is life more or less difficult after we learned how to grow crops? Indeed, how do you quantify chaos? I can easily argue that modern times are also NOT the time of scarcity for a larger number of people than ever existed in ancient times. We can look at ancient bones and see they lived a hard life. Mo people, mo problems, of course, but god also told us to be fruitful and multiply, so who's fault is that? I freely admit I'm anti-religion (not anti religious-people, mostly), for good reason, namely the bullshit that makes people anti-sex, anti-women, anti-other religions besides their own, pro-genocide, and... the covenant premises are stupid. Full of loopholes and omissions. Which is what one would expect if it were the codification of secular rules using divine fear as enforcement. We have examples of living pre-civilization societies, and there's fear, brutal patriarchy, war, disease, strict religious taboos, rape and abduction of women, and early death. A romanticized notion of the primitive is largely a modern fantasy.
A. Why should the characters in that story need more sympathy? Compared to surely dying, (which is what God threatened, and since it was explicitly stated in the very same chapter that eternal life was to be denied them anyway) they did okay with another 900 or so years.
B. I have not complained - merely remarked that this is not chaos.
You don't need to approve of war to acknowledge that armies are organized and military campaigns are far from random. The same goes for taxation, highway construction, the internet, jurisprudence, book printing and other activities of civilization. Good, bad, indifferent, ill-advised or ugly, it's not chaotic.
C. I have not blamed religious people for anything except forcing their notions on people with different notions.
D. I have not named anyone I dislike.
B. I have not complained - merely remarked that this is not chaos.
You don't need to approve of war to acknowledge that armies are organized and military campaigns are far from random. The same goes for taxation, highway construction, the internet, jurisprudence, book printing and other activities of civilization. Good, bad, indifferent, ill-advised or ugly, it's not chaotic.
C. I have not blamed religious people for anything except forcing their notions on people with different notions.
D. I have not named anyone I dislike.
The notion that the clever theologians and agenda-driven historians who have - in great reams of turbid and slippery prose - managed to reconcile their theological presumptions with the inherently incompatible stories collected in the Bible are somehow in possession of superior knowledge of what they are on about in these matters has little basis in evidence.
Right or wrong it may be, but fallacious it is not. Neither is it "religious" - the common slur of those running interference for the fundies in the US.
Not to the exclusion of their Gods. Vanishingly improbable. For one thing, the Biblical accounts - even as cleaned up over the millenia by diligent and agenda-driven editors and translators - contain multiple allusions to other (lesser, naturally) deities. "In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth" is a perfectly sound translation, for example.
Refusing to acknowledge the nature of religious creeds, codes, or cults, more resembles an attempted "erasure" than disparaging them.
No it’s not.
If a society deviates from divine law, it becomes corrupt, and usually ends in chaos.
Not false.
It’s not personal.
It is what it is.
A society can exist for a while, being a law unto itself, but eventually it will implode.
Not false.
It’s common sense.
You know it’s true, but you’re trying to be rebellious.
What are you talking about Dudley?
How would you know?
As far as you’re aware, there is no God. Hence you are an atheist.
That the Ten Commandments have to be proven to be factual, or scientifically approved, kind answers the mindset behind this assertion.
Some folk have to learn that it is not good to murder someone because they don’t like the shoes someone wears.
Other folk have no need to be taught that, because they already know, without being told.
How does that prevent God from teaching anyone?
Jan,
It makes no difference what you say.
You are forced to operate under divine law. And you will be judged by it.
Those who try to sidestep it, and make up their own rules, will be judged by divine law.
Get over it!
Jan.