God as the ultimate child abuser

[Jon Miller]

God didn't create sin... that is far afield from most Christianity.

Sin is a rejection of God... the possibility exists because God exists, and he gives us free will.

Resisting sin doesn't make us closer to God, when did I ever say that? That goes against the basis of Christianity... a single sin gives us infinite distance (if you will) on our side.

Resisting a sin just makes it easier to resist that sin in the future.

JM

[Jon Miller]

So many people focus on a works based view.. when the good news (the gospel) is that we aren't saved by works..

JM

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Straybow
"Violations of the natural order" = supernatural
"are to be discounted" = distaste

Or are you saying that you have no distaste for the supernatural, you only insist that nobody tell the story when it happens?

No. It's simply irrational to believe in historical miracles, as Hume demonstrated so wittily. It's only reasonable to believe in miracles if the denial of the miracle would be more miraculous than the miracle itself.

It's not my fault if people are raving loonies who believe a man walked on water and arose from the dead. It's patently ridiculous to believe those things. Given what we know of human beings and human nature, it's simply more likely that it was made up.

It's funny how someone who claimed that he had seen others rise from the dead or who spoke in gibberish claiming to be inspired by fairies would be considered a candidate for a lunatic asylum, but religious people, who believe exactly the same sort of thing, get off the hook because it is a collective delusion.

The truth is, if you believe in Christianity, you are mentally ill. You are delusional in any reasonable sense of the word. You are no better than people who believe in things like faith healers and fairies or vampires or other mythical creatures. You are only saved from the consequences of your insanity (medication, deprivation of voting and civil rights or ostracism) by the fact that many others subscribe to your lunacy.

The madness of the whole thing becomes evident once you consider sentences like this: "I think that people who believe that physical illness is caused by evil spirits and can be cured by the sacrifice of animals, but I believe fervently that a Jewish carpenter was the progeny of an invisible divine being and he rose from the dead and could make bread and wine by waving his hands in the air along with curing leprosy and other ills by touch, and he once cured mental illness by magically transferring the "bad" into some pigs".

For ****'s sake, if you believe this ****, you are a 24 carat nutter.

Unless the successors don't struggle for dominance.

They almost always do. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe, given the lack of evidence, that they did in this case. See.. that's reason...

The Book of Acts is about how the members were unified and acted to preserve Jesus' teachings.

Except it is written after the fact and as part of an attempt to codify a religion. They weren't going to write: "the influential members argued, fought and schemed to get their version of the truth accepted by the majority", because that would impugn the divine character of the religion. No religion says "the truth you are about to hear is the one that won out after lots of theological squabbling because its proponent was a better orator and had more allies than its detractors". But that's almost always the truth. You need only look at the development of every single recent fringe religious cult.

But that's a religiously inspired record, so you must discard it and substitute your own wisdom.

Not at all. You just cannot take it on its own. It needs independent confirmation. And that is just what early Christianity does not have. If we were honest, we would say that we knew about the state of Christianity by about AD 100, but that we knew almost nothing about it 70-80 years earlier, and we have absolutely no idea of whether the later product resembled the former, since the only record we have is by people who could hardly claim anything else.

But that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.

Meanwhile, you completely ignored my case. Xnity was initially Jewish in every way. Jesus' teachings, and the Apostles' in keeping them, were Jewish midrash. They expounded from Hebrew scripture upon the themes in Hebrew scripture. Everything that has been added since the fall of Jerusalem is Greco-Roman and can be easily distinguished.

Utter rubbish. You are talking about Jesus' teachings as if we actually knew what they were. What you should say is: "according to later sources, which may or may not be accurate, Jesus teachings were reported to be..."

But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.

So, the standards of modern historical research are to ignore the context of the events in question? Then we are to insist that ancient texts be dismissed if they don't miraculously duplicate standards of modern historic recording?

Not dismissed. But treated with scepticism unless there is some independent confirmation. In the case of early Christianity, there is no independent confirmation worth ****, so we should remain sceptical.

But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.

Ah, so where is this fact checking? The Romans didn't record census data by name and occupation. They didn't issue birth certificates, marriage certificates, or keep official records of the sort.

They didn't keep records of criminal accusations, trials, executions, and disposal of remains. The Romans had no official interest in religious disputes among the Jews.

If there's no evidence, remain sceptical.

But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.

We have one guy who wrote about it, but you say that his writings were tampered with and unreliable.

Which is the scholarly consensus. You can read them yourself. The Christian material simply doesn't make sense in the context of what Josephus was writing about, and the fact that Josephus (a Romanized Jew) wrote it.

But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.

There's no evidence, besides the Gospels themselves, to believe that the events they describe are true. We also know that they were written long after the facts, and that it is likely that their content had been influenced by subsequent disputes. We also know that the function of the Gospels was not to record history, but to present religious doctrine to new believers.

We have absolutely no independent confirmation of the details in the Gospels. What later documentation we do have consists of self serving diatribes by members of the cult (and we know that these sorts of people have a habit of leaving out unpleasant facts).

If a Jewish or Roman historian had written in AD 40 or so "There was a man called Jesus of Nazareth, who was a religious leader. His doctrines were X,Y, and Z, and the stories A, B, C and D, were told about him. He was claimed to be the Christ. He fell afoul of the religious authorities and was crucified in the year P", then we would have independent confirmation of the Gospel story from a non-biased source (or at least a source with a different bias). Indeed, someone tried to create such a source by meddling with Josephus' text, but they weren't subtle enough.

In the absence of such confirming evidence, we have to be extremely sceptical about the early Christian cult, and admit that we are justified in claiming very little about it, and very little about the ideas and life of its leader.

But again, that would be to use reason... which religious people seem incapable of when it comes to these subjects.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
God didn't create sin... that is far afield from most Christianity.

Um.. If I build a robot and program it to kill everyone it can, and then put him outside my front door I've killed people. That's pretty much what God did. You said it yourself that Adam didn't have to resist sin because that's the situation that God created. Then God created women who was then tempted by sin, and who tempted Adam to sin. God created the serpent and the women (why does Eve tempt Adam by the way, not the other way around). God created a situation where people sin, just like if I were to create a situation where people would be murdered. That follows too if you accept that resisting sin makes us stronger. God, wanting us to be stronger, created sin to make us so.

Sin is a rejection of God... the possibility exists because God exists, and he gives us free will.

But the serpent plays a key role. Adam didn't have to resist sin because he was not tempted by sin. Sin doesn't just exist because God exists. It exists because God created the serpent and a situation where Adam is tempted. Sin didn't exist and then it did exist. It came into existance from Gods doing. That's pretty straight forward right?

Resisting sin doesn't make us closer to God, when did I ever say that?
That goes against the basis of Christianity... a single sin gives us infinite distance (if you will) on our side.

Well I said it and you are just refuting it now. God tempts us (or allows the serpent to tempt us) to make us stronger right, or is it just to give us choice for choice sake alone? You are saying here there sin exists so that we can have choice. I've clearly been taught and have read passages in the Bible that say that God makes us stronger by offering us the option to sin. Sometimes we pass and sometimes we fail. Sometimes we get strong and sometimes we don't.

Resisting a sin just makes it easier to resist that sin in the future.

JM

What about the idea that you can sin and then see the consequences of your sin; learn from your sin; become stronger, and not sin the next time. Are you saying that the Bible doesn't say that you can do that. Does it say that that doesn't happen?

[Jon Miller]

Err, you claim a lot about it?

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
So many people focus on a works based view.. when the good news (the gospel) is that we aren't saved by works..

JM

If sin makes us weak why not? Sin seperates us from God. How can we then sin and be saved?

[Jon Miller]

No, God didn't create people to sin. He put them in a situation and there was the possibility of sin.. since they could disobey God. I didn't get into particulars of whether Eve sinned first or not... it isn't crucial to the main messgae of the myth.

Christian's view is that the serpent is the devil... but I would expect you to know that? Also, that the devil did not start out sinful, but rather fell himself (this is in the old testament, Isaiah). We know less the reasons for the devil's fall then for our own.

Have you never read the gospel? The good news is that Christ died for us. He saves us, even though we are sinners. This religion, that God introduced sin to us, and that the goal is to make us stronger through resistance, is the same as that of buddaism or many others. The good news is why I am a Christian, if I didn't beleive in it, I wouldn't be Christian... but would be something that takes a bit less beleif. I am not a Christian because I beleive Christ walked on water or fed the multitudes. I beleive He did those things because I beleive in Christ.

I am thinking that you are entirely ignoring most of the history of theology. Sin existed once God existed.. as having existence He must have identity. Part of that identity is that He is just... and the symbol for the disobedience of God (the refusal of man of God's identity) is the direction regarding the tree of good and evil. The devil just argued against God, but it wasn't the act of following his directions which caused the sin, but rather the action of disobeying God.

Jonathan Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What about the idea that you can sin and then see the consequences of your sin; learn from your sin; become stronger, and not sin the next time. Are you saying that the Bible doesn't say that you can do that. Does it say that that doesn't happen?

The Bible pretty much says the opposite. As does current understanding.

Actions are habit forming. If you steal once, you are more likely to steal again, rather then if you have never stolen anything at all.

I think that someone has graviously misrepresented Christianity to you.

JM

[Kontiki]

I must say, I've always been a bit confused regarding the whole ability to sin = free will concept. There's lots of things that we can't will into action - I can't decide to be taller, or be able to fly on my own power, for example. Why is it that the ability to sin is absolutely necessary for free will to exist but these other things aren't?

[Jon Miller]

How important is the ability to fly or grow taller? How much more important is the ability seperate yourself from God.

If you had a child, but always held on to them and never let them make their own choices, are you allowing that child choices or not? The most crucual choice you can allow that child is the choice to disobey you, or not.

The Christian view is similar, but unlike with a person and their child, God is entirely our reason for being. Also, unlike a parent, God is always right... and going against Him is wrong.

So while God allows disobediance (or choices not in line with His), they aren't beneficial, they aren't a needed part of the path, the possibility, however, is required for us to have any (real) choice at all.

Jonathan Miller

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No, God didn't create people to sin. He put them in a situation and there was the possibility of sin..

I didn't say that God created people to sin. I'm saying that the Bible says that God has a plan for us. That plan involves sinning. Sinning makes us closer to God, because it's part of his plan. God planned for all of us to sin. That's pretty dang evident. Why is the serpent (devil) placed in the tree? Does God create women to tempt man, not just to give Adam companionship? That's the way I read it. And you are reading things into the Bible that the Bible doens't explicitely state, so why shouldn't I. Why is the way I see how God works wrong, and the way you see it right?

since they could disobey God. I didn't get into particulars of whether Eve sinned first or not... it isn't crucial to the main messgae of the myth.

How do you know what is crucial or not? Why else would it be there? Does God require us to figure out for ourselves what is crucial and what isn't?

Christian's view is that the serpent is the devil... but I would expect you to know that? Also, that the devil did not start out sinful, but rather fell himself (this is in the old testament, Isaiah). We know less the reasons for the devil's fall then for our own.

That shouldn't concern us. The question is why is he able to tempt Eve.

Have you never read the gospel? The good news is that Christ died for us. He saves us, even though we are sinners.

Connection? That's a whole nother can of worms.

This religion, that God introduced sin to us, and that the goal is to make us stronger through resistance, is the same as that of buddaism or many others.

If we aren't strong, won't the devil be successful and convince us to turn away from God, like Adam did?

The good news is why I am a Christian, if I didn't beleive in it, I wouldn't be Christian... but would be something that takes a bit less beleif. I am not a Christian because I beleive Christ walked on water or fed the multitudes. I beleive He did those things because I beleive in Christ.

That's fine, but not the issue.

I am thinking that you are entirely ignoring most of the history of theology. Sin existed once God existed..
as having existence He must have identity. Part of that identity is that He is just... and the symbol for the disobedience of God (the refusal of man of God's identity) is the direction regarding the tree of good and evil. The devil just argued against God, but it wasn't the act of following his directions which caused the sin, but rather the action of disobeying God.

Jonathan Miller

What in the ......

Sorry, no I don't know the history of theology. I'm asking you why you believe those things. For example, I'm thinking that it doesn't say in the Bible that sin existed once God existed. So why do you believe that?

And I don't understand what you are saying either.

[Kidlicious]

Jon,

If sin doesn't play any part in saving us. We are too weak and stupid to do anything, and learn anything about God. Then the only thing is Jesus saves us?



How is that a choice?

[Jon Miller]

We have the choice of wether to accept Christ's gift or not. I don't see how it isn't a choice?

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


The Bible pretty much says the opposite. As does current understanding.

Actions are habit forming. If you steal once, you are more likely to steal again, rather then if you have never stolen anything at all.

I think that someone has graviously misrepresented Christianity to you.

JM

Does God need sin or find it usefull in anyway?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We have the choice of wether to accept Christ's gift or not. I don't see how it isn't a choice?

JM

Well, I'm too weak and stupid from my life of sin. What choice to I have? If I'm a 90 pound weakling can I choose to pick up a 300 lb barbell?