About christ paying for our sins to save us from hell.

[MayNilad Man]

On your first statement, two points:
- saying 'Adam made the choice for us' is different from saying 'we chose'. You need to settle on one or the other, rather than flitting beteween them as your argument demands.

Adam gave us the predilection to commit sin, but we still have the choice to do sin or not. It's like the dichotomy between peer pressure and ind. responsibility.

- second, again if Adam and his choice are myths then the whole structure falls to the ground. A myth or story may explain or deliver a message, I fully agree, but we are not dealing with a message here. If it is real, Original Sin is a fact, a reality which is one of the most important to affect every living human. And if it is not real then it is the perhaps the most vile deceit ever perpetrated on humanity, driving hundreds of millions of decent people into guilt, fear and obedience on the strength of a fairy story.

Right. First of all, Original Sin refers to our predilection towards committing sin, which is not hinged upon the factuality of the Genesis account. Our genes did not develop just because it was needed. It was also developed due to certain environmental stresses which we had control over.

On the problem of evil, I think you misunderstand the issue.
Abrahamaic religions stipulate a God who is:
- benevolent
- all-powerful
- all-knowing
The problem of evil relates to how to resolve the contradiction that bad things happen if God is omniscient so knows about every bad thing, is all powerful and therefore can stop all bad things, and is benevolent and therefore wants to stop all bad things. How can evil exist in a world alongside God?

I was addressing your claim that Catholic theologians created the whole Original Sin doctrine to solve the problem of evil. I was not addressing the problem of evil.

In order to release this contradiction the Christian religions require a reason why God permits evil to happen which does not compromise His benevolent nature. Original Sin is necessary, because it's key component, Adam's fall, requires God to allow evil to occur.

It is true that free will allows Adam to act wrongly, but it is the act of wrongdoing itself that unknots the contradiction posed by the Problem of Evil. It explains why God acts in an apparently unbenevolent way - Adam's action forces God to do so.

Without Original Sin we need some other explanation of why a benevolent and all-powerful God allows evil to exist. Whether there is such a thing I don't know, but I am not aware of it.

To test our faith as beings with free will.

Some theologians (as I understand it) believe there is no other viable explanation for evil, hence Original Sin is necessary, and therefore (in a leap of reverse logic) it must be true!
As regards the statements I made that you have some problem with:
1. Solving the problem of evil is a necessary condition for God (= Allah, Yaweh or the Christian God for this purpose)
You may have never said this, but the Church acknowledges it as true - to theorise a God that meets the all-powerful, all-loving definition there must be a satisfactory explanation of why evil exists. That is the definition of the problem of evil.

So she does.

2.The doctrine of Original Sin is a necessary condition to solve the problem of evil.
A I have demonstrated above, free will is a necessary condition of the doctrine of Original Sin, but it is not the thing which 'solves' the problem of evil - the key is that with the free will Adam received he acted to remove himself and humanity from God's grace. This is the key statement that 'solves' the problem of evil.

So it does.

3. The Withdrawal of Grace as a result of the disobedience of a father of all humanity is a necessary condition for the concept of Original Sin.
The Catholic Church itself, on thelink you sent, refers to the Withdrawal of Grace. However, whether you describe it as withdrawal by God or refusal by Adam, the argument remains unaffected.

Iunno about that. Can't see the text.

4. The act that is directly responsible for the Withdrawal of Grace is mythical and did not take place.
I think you have to make up your mind here. Did someone (call him Adam for teh sake of argument) actually do something so heinous that every descendant is removed from God's Grace, becomes subject to death, accident and illness, etc.? If so, what did they do that was so unbelievably wrong? What about all the people who aren't descended from that individual?

It did take place, and in different ways, just not in the way described in Genesis. Did I not say that?

Alternatively, if it is a myth or allegory, how can we be totally physically altered (subject to death, etc) by a myth? And why should millions of people base their lives on this myth, and not so many others? Is it healthy to biuold your moral framework on a myth?

Who said we were physically altered?

Neither explanation makes sense IMHO, but - please - choose which way you are jumping so we can debate properly!

BFR

 

[MayNilad Man]

Um, this is entirely false.

Even if there are 'sin genes' (which, I can kinda understand), you don't get the gene by sinning and then passing it on to your kids!

Then how do these 'sin genes' exist?

Anyway, if Original Sin exists then commanding people to 'be fruitful and multiply' is basically commanding people to increase the quantity of sin in the world.

Sinning is still the people's prerogative.

 

[El_Machinae]

Then how do these 'sin genes' exist?

Same way all genes exist, through a complex interplay of mutation plus natural selection. But the mutation happens before the selection.

 

[EdCase]

Example: Alcoholism, the predilection to addiction to alcohol.

Excessive alcoholism is a sin, but unfortunately, due to the excessive alcoholism of one of our forebears, the gene for the addiction developed and is now with us.

Point one there is bo such thing as excessive alcoholism. You either are or not an alcoholic.
Alcoholism is a "disease" of the body. You physically crave it. Much the same as any other addictive substance.
So from this I draw the conclusion that you believe my body craves to be sinful.
Therefore I am at the core evil or at least a walking vessel of sin ?
Since I do not ascribe any truth to the existence of a divine creator, should this not logically lead to me being depraved and beyond redemption ?
While in fact I am (so I have been told) tolerant, helpful,kind and loving.
I only see circular logic once again.
Deity creates us with capacity for sin-
we sin -
only deity worship (through the vessel of his earthly representation) can absolve us of the said sin-
we must therefore worship the being who made us this way,begging his forgiveness for being that which he made us.

The kicker of course is forgiveness is a limited condition deal. It does not help your offspring in anyway ( would not want to diminish the potential ,paying,customer base).

 

[MayNilad Man]

Same way all genes exist, through a complex interplay of mutation plus natural selection. But the mutation happens before the selection.

*shrug* There's a lot more to evolution than just that, I think. Although I am given to understand that the more a gene is manifested, the more it is developed.

Anyway, we still be learning about the world.

 

[MayNilad Man]

Point one there is bo such thing as excessive alcoholism. You either are or not an alcoholic.

Message received and understood.

Alcoholism is a "disease" of the body. You physically crave it. Much the same as any other addictive substance.
So from this I draw the conclusion that you believe my body craves to be sinful.

Apparently.

Therefore I am at the core evil or at least a walking vessel of sin ?

Yes.

Since I do not ascribe any truth to the existence of a divine creator, should this not logically lead to me being depraved and beyond redemption ?

No. If you keep his laws, then you are eligible and deserving of redemption. Theism merely helps you in that endeavor, by giving you hope and all.

While in fact I am (so I have been told) tolerant, helpful,kind and loving.

So you are, by the grace of God who has supported you in that endeavor.

I only see circular logic once again.

I don't

Deity creates us with capacity for sin-
we sin -
only deity worship (through the vessel of his earthly representation) can absolve us of the said sin-
we must therefore worship the being who made us this way,begging his forgiveness for being that which he made us.

Who said? And what does deity worship entail?

The kicker of course is forgiveness is a limited condition deal. It does not help your offspring in anyway ( would not want to diminish the potential ,paying,customer base).

Wrong. If you were truly apologetic, you would go out and try to correct the wrongs in the world, which in turn helps your offspring.

 

[El_Machinae]

Even if there is a link between manifestation and probability of development (which I kinda doubt, I think there's a link between utility and development), there's nothing the parent can do with the gene to make it more strongly expressed in his offspring.

No matter how much you drink, you're not going to increase the 'alcoholicness' of your offspring, genetically.

 

[warpus]

Example: Alcoholism, the predilection to addiction to alcohol.

Excessive alcoholism is a sin, but unfortunately, due to the excessive alcoholism of one of our forebears, the gene for the addiction developed and is now with us.

You can't create a gene by drinking too much!!

You don't really understand how evolution works You would be best not to use this line of thinking again, as it makes no sense.

 

[MayNilad Man]

You can't create a gene by drinking too much!!

You don't really understand how evolution works You would be best not to use this line of thinking again, as it makes no sense.

Well, we don't really understand all the nuances of evolution. But I shall digress from such a line of argumentation, as I really have no authority to do so. Though one could argue, for the sake of it, that the drinking of alcohol made it all the more likely to develop.

 

[EdCase]

If you keep his laws, then you are eligible and deserving of redemption. Theism merely helps you in that endeavor, by giving you hope and all..

Been waiting for this one... So if I a non-believer act like a responsible,caring civilized person. The Deity gets the credit anyway ?
Sweet deal. I understand now why God would want his job. He gets all the credit and none of the blame.

So you are, by the grace of God who has supported you in that endeavor..

See above. But to expand on it. Why do we then need formalized religion. Since it appears that "poncing around" espousing what a wonderfully devout christian/jew/moslem etc.... gains you absolutely nothing. Since apparently I can fail to believe and still have God take the credit.
Maybe its time to dissolve the church (all of them) and plow the massive amounts of resources and wealth they have built over over the years into saving mans all to fragile body. Because apparently god has his "immortal soul" covered and doesn't need our help.

Who said? And what does deity worship entail?..

Two words.. Crowd control.

Wrong. If you were truly apologetic, you would go out and try to correct the wrongs in the world, which in turn helps your offspring.

I am trying to correct the wrongs in the world and help my offspring.
By highlighting and questioning the greatest spinjob in history.
Truely the world would be a safer (and probably happier) place without organized religion.

 

[MayNilad Man]

Been waiting for this one... So if I a non-believer act like a responsible,caring civilized person. The Deity gets the credit anyway ?
Sweet deal. I understand now why God would want his job. He gets all the credit and none of the blame.

You could put it that way, though to be fair, the praise must also fall to us for actually bringing about the current society that helps you maintain your morals, and of course the unbelievers must also take credit for actually accept ting the morals imposed upon them and helping us improve upon the laws.

See above. But to expand on it. Why do we then need formalized religion. Since it appears that "poncing around" espousing what a wonderfully devout christian/jew/moslem etc.... gains you absolutely nothing. Since apparently I can fail to believe and still have God take the credit.

Belief in God helps one maintain his morals.

Maybe its time to dissolve the church (all of them) and plow the massive amounts of resources and wealth they have built over over the years into saving mans all to fragile body. Because apparently god has his "immortal soul" covered and doesn't need our help.

I disagree.

Two words.. Crowd control.

I meant, what do you think Deity worship entails?

I am trying to correct the wrongs in the world and help my offspring.
By highlighting and questioning the greatest spinjob in history.
Truely the world would be a safer (and probably happier) place without organized religion.

How so? It is Org. Religion that has elucidated upon the idea that Man is inherently valuable without any rationale reason. It is Org. Religion that prevents nutjobs with an inflated view of their own self-worth from amassing an army of fanatics. It is Org. Religion that maintains the idea that everyone is the children of God and shows this by supporting social justice.

I fail to see how a purely rational world view would lead to the society you are accustomed to.

 

[Moonsinger]

Well, since you strongly believe in the Original Sin and how Jesus died on the cross to wash away our sins. Assuming that everything are true (the Original Sin, the Virgin Mary, etc), can one sinner save another?

Since all humans inherited the Original Sin, that means Jesus has the Original Sin too. According to the Bible, Mary was Jesus mother and God was Jesus father. Unless you are saying that Mary doesn't inherit the Original Sin, it implies that Jesus inherits it from Mary. Therefore, how do you explain that one sinner can save another?

 

[MayNilad Man]

Well, since you strongly believe in the Original Sin and how Jesus died on the cross to wash away our sins. Assuming that everything are true (the Original Sin, the Virgin Mary, etc), can one sinner save another?

Yes. That is, after all, the reason why so much effort is being put into putting prayer into action.

Since all humans inherited the Original Sin, that means Jesus has the Original Sin too. According to the Bible, Mary was Jesus mother and God was Jesus father. Unless you are saying that Mary doesn't inherit the Original Sin, it implies that Jesus inherits it from Mary. Therefore, how do you explain that one sinner can save another?

Apparently, Mary did not inherit Original Sin. Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[EdCase]

You could put it that way, though to be fair, the praise must also fall to us for actually bringing about the current society that helps you maintain your morals, and of course the unbelievers must also take credit for actually accept ting the morals imposed upon them and helping us improve upon the laws..

Last time I checked religion had very little to do with bringing about any society.
Religion rides as a parasite upon the back of ignorance,fear and hate.

Belief in God helps one maintain his morals..

If one is weak and NEEDS moral support. (sorry that was just begging to be said)

I meant, what do you think Deity worship entails?

Conforming to the rigid standard. Never deviating and spending ones whole life in service in the fond hope that "my reward will come in heaven"
....spinjob

How so? It is Org. Religion that has elucidated upon the idea that Man is inherently valuable without any rationale reason. It is Org. Religion that prevents nutjobs with an inflated view of their own self-worth from amassing an army of fanatics. It is Org. Religion that maintains the idea that everyone is the children of God and shows this by supporting social justice.

I fail to see how a purely rational world view would lead to the society you are accustomed to.

Hehe an army of fanatics ?
Really only one answer to that....
"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Inflated views of their own self worth?
Such as Bishops, Cardinals etc ? You know the guys who believe the Laws of Men don't apply to the priesthood. [Hate to say it again... but reference child molesting and the Catholic church]

A purely rational world where one would treat his neighbour according to his merits rather than his religious beliefs,sexual orientation,skin color etc....
Good God ! We wouldn't want that now would we?

 

[MayNilad Man]

Last time I checked religion had very little to do with bringing about any society.
Religion rides as a parasite upon the back of ignorance,fear and hate.

Then check again.

If one is weak and NEEDS moral support. (sorry that was just begging to be said)

Wow. How nice to know that you aren't weak. I hope you can say that in less mundane situations.

Conforming to the rigid standard. Never deviating and spending ones whole life in service in the fond hope that "my reward will come in heaven"
....spinjob

Yeah. You need to get out more.

Hehe an army of fanatics ?
Really only one answer to that....
"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Interestingly, the Spanish Inquisition wasn't under the authority of the Pope, and unfortunately, the guy in charge of it was a fanatic, but I'm more inclined to think that it is an exception rather than the rule.

Inflated views of their own self worth?
Such as Bishops, Cardinals etc ? You know the guys who believe the Laws of Men don't apply to the priesthood. [Hate to say it again... but reference child molesting and the Catholic church]

Is that the only thing you can bring up? And yes, we do not believe that the laws of men apply. Helping the Negro was considered unlawful. Protecting the Amerindians from the depredations of the Conquistadors was considered unlawful. Helping the Jewish refugees was considered unlawful.

A purely rational world where one would treat his neighbour according to his merits rather than his religious beliefs,sexual orientation,skin color etc....

Merit? Define Merit.
And might I remind you that even in a rational world, sex orientation would still be discriminated against as he would be seen as weakening the species. Skin color would still be discriminated against, since they would be sequestered into certain parts of the world, as it was in A Brave New World.

Good God ! We wouldn't want that now would we?

No we would not, after all, there are so many things that are valued but wouldn't be considered to have any merit in a purely rational world.

 

[bigfatron]

Back after a bit away, and just a few things to follow up...

First to flow up on one key point that has never been answered:

Me:
4. The act that is directly responsible for the Withdrawal of Grace is mythical and did not take place.
I think you have to make up your mind here. Did someone (call him Adam for the sake of argument) actually do something so heinous that every descendant is removed from God's Grace, becomes subject to death, accident and illness, etc.? If so, what did they do that was so unbelievably wrong? What about all the people who aren't descended from that individual?

MayNilad Man:
It did take place, and in different ways, just not in the way described in Genesis. Did I not say that?

OK - so this is the single most important thing that has ever happened to humanity and it did happen, but not like Genesis says.

When did it happen? What historical record (besides one allegory in Genesis) or evidence do we have to support it as a real event? Since there is not one single progenitor of humanity (we know this from genetics), what about those not related to the individual who fell - are they exempt? I think we should be told!


Next...
Quote MayNilad Man:
Is that [child moelstation cover ups] the only thing you can bring up? And yes, we do not believe that the laws of men apply. Helping the Negro was considered unlawful. Protecting the Amerindians from the depredations of the Conquistadors was considered unlawful. Helping the Jewish refugees was considered unlawful.

This would run better as an argument if there hadn't been so many appalling misjudgements (some of which you list) in the past by the Catholic Church. Was the church right - in your opinion - to support the massacre of indigenous peoples? Given God's laws are immutable, rather than developing over time and from experience like the laws of man, how can you defend something like that being right in the past but wrong now? Or should we complete the process of massacring the few indigenous survivors in the 'colonies'?

The reality is that 'God's law', as the church defines it, is really Church Law, defined by men in the past and refined by them over time within the confines of a particular philosophy. It is not inherently better or worse than any other set of laws, but should be judged on its merits which are, frankly, pretty unclear. From past support of gross evils to current stances on AIDS prevention, there are numerous examples where the straitjacket of religious adherence prevents a rational view being adopted by the church.

That is one hallmark of a bad legal framework - we have a law not because it is sensible, moral or effective in preventing wrong, but because it makes us feel better, in this case by not contradicting our religious susceptibilities.

BFR

 

[Veritass]

BFR is my new hero, for bringing well-reasoned argument to religious discussion.

 

[CurtSibling]

About christ paying for our sins to save us from hell.

JC was the latest of many Messiah/Superhero figures in religion.

Some power-hungry Romans wished to control Europe with a rebranded religion that could replace the old, tired Mitharism.

And all the dogma about this wonder-man vacuum cleaning up all 'sin'?

That to me is all part of the wonderfully demented part of religion that appeals to Human arrogance and sense of melodrama...

The climatic ascension to heaven and the ultimate sacrifice...How very grand and touching. And totally devoid of reality.

..

 

[MayNilad Man]

Me:
4. The act that is directly responsible for the Withdrawal of Grace is mythical and did not take place.
I think you have to make up your mind here. Did someone (call him Adam for the sake of argument) actually do something so heinous that every descendant is removed from God's Grace, becomes subject to death, accident and illness, etc.? If so, what did they do that was so unbelievably wrong? What about all the people who aren't descended from that individual?

MayNilad Man:
It did take place, and in different ways, just not in the way described in Genesis. Did I not say that?

OK - so this is the single most important thing that has ever happened to humanity and it did happen, but not like Genesis says.

When did it happen? What historical record (besides one allegory in Genesis) or evidence do we have to support it as a real event? Since there is not one single progenitor of humanity (we know this from genetics), what about those not related to the individual who fell - are they exempt? I think we should be told!

The Genesis account is meant to be an allegory of what has happened to the Human race. It is not meant to be a history. And it applies to all of Humanity. It is not one single event, but a series of events that transpired with different actors, but with similar motives and effects.

Next...
Quote MayNilad Man:
Is that [child moelstation cover ups] the only thing you can bring up? And yes, we do not believe that the laws of men apply. Helping the Negro was considered unlawful. Protecting the Amerindians from the depredations of the Conquistadors was considered unlawful. Helping the Jewish refugees was considered unlawful.

This would run better as an argument if there hadn't been so many appalling misjudgements (some of which you list) in the past by the Catholic Church. Was the church right - in your opinion - to support the massacre of indigenous peoples? Given God's laws are immutable, rather than developing over time and from experience like the laws of man, how can you defend something like that being right in the past but wrong now? Or should we complete the process of massacring the few indigenous survivors in the 'colonies'?

It supported the massacre? Considering how set the culture of Human Sacrifice was in ancient Aztec society, regardless of whether the Church indeed supported the massacre, one could still argue that the massacre was 'necessary'. God's Laws are immutable, and God has said that it is right to raise arms, if only to prevent greater evil from transpiring, in this case, the continuation of Human Sacrifice.

The reality is that 'God's law', as the church defines it, is really Church Law, defined by men in the past and refined by them over time within the confines of a particular philosophy. It is not inherently better or worse than any other set of laws, but should be judged on its merits which are, frankly, pretty unclear. From past support of gross evils to current stances on AIDS prevention, there are numerous examples where the straitjacket of religious adherence prevents a rational view being adopted by the church.

Have you even studied the Church's statements with regards to its stance in the moral issues you have enumerated? Call the Church dogmatic if you will, but never make the accusation that it is irrational and unreasonable.

That is one hallmark of a bad legal framework - we have a law not because it is sensible, moral or effective in preventing wrong, but because it makes us feel better, in this case by not contradicting our religious susceptibilities.

BFR

 

[bigfatron]

The Genesis account is meant to be an allegory of what has happened to the Human race. It is not meant to be a history. And it applies to all of Humanity. It is not one single event, but a series of events that transpired with different actors, but with similar motives and effects.

But what evidence do you have to support this contention? Religious texts the world over include allegories of events affecting the human race, the difference here is that this 'allegory' is used to explain and justify an actual, physical change to humanity (humanity used to be immortal, not subject to death or disease FFS!), yet you expec people to accept it on simple 'say-so'.

If something actually happened to humanity that made us subject to death when we were previously immortal then it is the single most important event in history and we should have some evidence of its existence - not just an unsupported assertion.

Of course, the other option is that it is just an allegory, a myth. But it inevitably then follows that Original Sin is also a myth or allegory. And that gets us into difficult territory for the church - if Original Sin is not real then the Problem of Evil is insurmountable and God is either not real or not as the Bible describes Him, and Jesus did not die to save us.

Thus the whole philosphical structure of Christianity depends on something being accepted which is both a myth and yet real simultaneously - not a problem two hundred years ago when people didn't know that the Adam and Eve story was a myth, but a massive problem now, if only people would consider the church's proposition rather than accepting it without question...

It supported the massacre? Considering how set the culture of Human Sacrifice was in ancient Aztec society, regardless of whether the Church indeed supported the massacre, one could still argue that the massacre was 'necessary'. God's Laws are immutable, and God has said that it is right to raise arms, if only to prevent greater evil from transpiring, in this case, the continuation of Human Sacrifice.

Was every inhabitant of south and central America a heart-rending aztec sacrificer? Of course not, and you know it. I'm frankly staggered that you are trying to defend religious genocide.

Have you even studied the Church's statements with regards to its stance in the moral issues you have enumerated? Call the Church dogmatic if you will, but never make the accusation that it is irrational and unreasonable.

Yes, I have studied the basis of at least some of their assertions (e.g. action on AIDS), and I would go beyond irrational and unreasonable toward irresponsible at best, totally immoral at worst.

For example, the Vatican has knowingly invented and promulgated 'science' that it knows is false in order to persuade the faithful (and other unfortunate people) not to use condoms, despite not a single piece of scientific evidence to support their contention. As a result they condemn people to die rather than accept that their moral contention (condom use is wrong) leads to an immoral outcome (lots of people die unnecessarily due to following church teaching, lots of children are orphaned, and themselves die of poverty & malnutrition).

Actually, describing the church's actions in this area as immoral is understating the case - frankly it is downright evil.

I think you should find out more about the Church's actions before trying to defend them...
All the best
BFR