Original Sin Question

[OmegaPsi]

Though this is probably one of the least populated areas of religious people, I was wondering if any of you knew the ansewer.

If Jesus died for our sins, then how come mankind still has the original sin on us? Or even how come are we still able to commit sins?

[Hdier]

I'm pretty sure that he died in order to have our sins forgived, not to extripate them. I don't put much stock in organized religion (or translations of the bible, for that matter), though, so I may not be the best person to respond.

[Mechanical Messiah]

There are several theological positions (i.e. word-games) explaining exactly how/why sins (including original sin) are forgiven. See, when the ONLY two ancestors of our human population (with shocking genetic diversity, having come from two ancestors) sinned, God became unable to forgive them... and for quite a long time, His anger could only be placated by burning animal corpses on top of a pile of stones. But this 'old covenant' was pretty messy- and inhibited the spread of Jehovah's meme... hence a mutated offshoot of the original mess has spread well beyond its bronze-age-goatherder roots: The "new covanent".

It was explained to me during my childhood Christian brainwashing that Gawd CAN'T be in the presence of sin (odd for an omnipotent being). So when Jebus was stuck up on a stick and croaked (where God essentially sacrificed himself to himself), then this means that when we go before Gawd to be judged in the afterlife, we will literally be covered in Christ's blood (God's forgiveness is ALWAYS a messy business)... effectively 'tricking' our omnipotent/omniscient magical Skydaddy into being able to forgive us. Glory!

But like many fundamental concepts in Christianity- "original sin" is purely a traditional construct designed to make sense of the selected collection of cryptic ancient texts that (in many cases) were NEVER intended to be assembled into a single work, nor present a unified and cohesive story. Matter of fact, I remember some passages in Ezekiel that directly refute the concept of "original sin". Not that it'll matter to the vast majority of Christians.





Mechanical Messiah added to this post, 4 minutes and 30 seconds later...

I forgot to mention- there are some folks who call themselves "Christian Universalists" who truely believe that Jesus died for our sins. They reckon that now that Christ(who is also magically God) has sacrificed himself to himself... then any halfway decent person will go to heaven.

Lots of stuff there that I don't understand... and more still that I simply disagree with. But these folks are generally better company than those who believe that love and forgiveness require luck and mind-games.

[Danisty]

Pretty much what MM said and I find it to be complete bullshit. God can't forgive us? That's the best excuse they can come up with for torturing and murdering his own son? Honestly, is there any way to read the Bible where God doesn't end up being a complete jerk? I respect Christians and their right to believe whatever they want, but I will never actually understand it.

[Tarrick]

The curse of original sin is there because Jesus' death didn't lift the curse but rather provides a way out. An analog to this would be like saying that God didn't remove the disease, but provided a doctor to help the sick.

As for if God couldn't just remove sin, or why he can't exist with it...well I would guess it had to do with the nature of God, and he's pure. And any taint would be forcibly expunged if it were exposed to him. Again, why have punishment at all? Why do we incarcerate criminals?

[Tsuru]

Seems like a pretty shitty deal to have mankind's collective soul forever tainted at birth because some nude broad ate an apple she wasn't supposed to. ;P

Rather than examine the folly just look at what it does: it makes people feel guilty even if they've done nothing wrong and ensures they keep going to church.

[OmegaPsi]

Uhuh...so god is just pissed off at humanity because his little puppets strings got crossed and they ate some apples? hmm god sounds like a 2 year old having a tantrum.

Also, I was always confused about the trinity thing, I keep trying to think of it logically but it just doesent come out straight. WHY would anyone find a God who Incarnated himself and sacrificed himself to himself noble brave or worthy to be revered? It just doesent make since at all.

[Tarrick]

First of all, God isn't "pissed". "God so loved the world..." (John 3:16) It's just he cannot/will not coexist with the taint of evil/sin.

Also, Jesus had to do it because he (being "God Incarnate") was immune to the curse. The Cause and Effect of the curse of sin is that if you sin, then you die. However, this was broken when Jesus, who did not sin, died. It was an effect without cause. Therefore, since that happened, he is able to take our place in death, and allow us to be forgiven.

[OmegaPsi]

Wait, by god sacrificing himself he stopped his own curse?

[Tarrick]

He didn't stop it, but rather provided a way out. And the curse wasn't exclusively done by him either. Adam and Eve violated the Law that he put in place. Is it the lawmakers fault that someone committed a crime by breaking the rules?

[OmegaPsi]

If the rules are excessive or built in such a way that its impossible not to break them.

"Law 1: You are not allowed to vote
Law 2: If you do not vote you will be shot on the spot."

Of course thats not the situation were not discussing. But do you not find it excessive of putting a curse on the etirety of humanity forever? When all of us obviously did not take that apple. And besides, how was there a evill talking snake in the garden of eden in the first place? [Sorry side question on that..]

[Tsuru]

Allegory guys. Allegory. :\

[BadMojo]

Original sin (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._Sin) is by some considered more like our humanity. Original sin is also our free will. After Jesus sacrificed himself, humans were once more able to get into heaven, if we have been good and nice and so on. But we are still marked by our original sin, since we have the potential of doing good/evil.
St. Augustine (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (354 – 430) believed that God, being all knowing, had already "selected/knew" those who would enter heaven. Thought or belief projected and evolved all the way to the puritan movement that we see in American society today - That people work their butts of to show that God is with them, thus they can enter heaven.
Anyway. St. Augustine believed that humans were born ’bad’ because of original sin. Humans were born sinners because of human nature; and the human nature should be banished by the God given nature though faith and direction of the church (By divine grace).
But, since it was a God given nature, it was God who chose those who would enter Paradise.
This changed a bit several hundreds years later when Thomas Aquinas (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (1225 – 1274) felt that humans had the choice of seeing the beauty of God, and by will alone, could abolish the sinful human nature and seek redemption. This differs from Augustine’s view, since it was no longer God who selected humans, but humans who selected God (With Gods help).
Martin Luther (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (1483 –1546) came later, who also thought that humans were born sinners, who became known for translating the bible into German. He believed that salvation came from the text in the bible and by faith in it (Sola Scripture, sola Fidé), and through the scripture, the individual could fill himself by God… or something like that.

To summon it all up. Since we are born with free will, we have the ability to be either good or remain bad. I guess that’s the core of it. If we want to become good, we can, and we will go the heaven… whiiii! Or, we can remain bad, and go to hell.

[OmegaPsi]

Oh ok got it now thank you for the great ansewer =) Now though, I thought John Calvin came up with predestination?

[xhaan]

Though this is probably one of the least populated areas of religious people, I was wondering if any of you knew the ansewer.

If Jesus died for our sins, then how come mankind still has the original sin on us? Or even how come are we still able to commit sins?

I think the 'default Christian' beliefis that humans are not able to follow the laws of God, but that God allowed humans to try, and see that it is impossible to do, and when he felt the time was right, Jesus was born as a man, to live, experience, and teach as a living avatar of God in flesh, and then was punished in lieu of us, so that people would then acknowledge it, accept the sacrifice and repent, and therefore be cleansed and not punished. As the bible says, jesus came to 'uphold the laws', in the sense that God's justice was carried out on him instead of normal human beings. Also, when he asks why God forsakes him, it is not because he was suffering and being killed, but because the presence of God left him during that time, this made the punishment complete because it was 'entirely just', i.e. God was not there to intervene or show mercy to his own son, Jesus was killed as a human, separate from God with no God powers, the same as we would be as normal humans.

[blueback]

Original Sin is a catch-all.

For example, the Unifrom Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) includes a rule that says that it is illegal to do anything which is contrary to "good order and discipline." Which basically means they can punish you for any action which didn't specifically violate one of the other rules in the UCMJ.

Original Sin is the same thing. It is the rule that catches you even when you haven't broken any of the other rules. You can obey every commandment and still be guilty because you were born with sin "on you." That way the Church can make you feel guilty even when you do everything they tell you to do.

Guilt, after all, is the Church's primary power source. They have to ensure a steady supply.

[xhaan]

Original Sin is a catch-all.

For example, the Unifrom Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) includes a rule that says that it is illegal to do anything which is contrary to "good order and discipline." Which basically means they can punish you for any action which didn't specifically violate one of the other rules in the UCMJ.

Original Sin is the same thing. It is the rule that catches you even when you haven't broken any of the other rules. You can obey every commandment and still be guilty because you were born with sin "on you." That way the Church can make you feel guilty even when you do everything they tell you to do.

Guilt, after all, is the Church's primary power source. They have to ensure a steady supply.

That may or may not be the Church's (capital C) idea, but I don't feel it has to be that way. I think it frees you from guilt, if anything, it is a "catch all" I guess, but has already been paid for.

[Tarrick]

Original Sin is the same thing. It is the rule that catches you even when you haven't broken any of the other rules. You can obey every commandment and still be guilty because you were born with sin "on you." That way the Church can make you feel guilty even when you do everything they tell you to do.


Original Sin, at least in my opinion, doesn't mean that you are born guilty; it means that you are born with the tendency to sin. Flawed human nature will at some point lead you to do something that is inherently wrong. Infants, for example, don't have the knowledge to knowingly do wrong. It is only when you can begin making choices and knowing right from wrong can you "sin".

[xhaan]

Original Sin, at least in my opinion, doesn't mean that you are born guilty; it means that you are born with the tendency to sin. Flawed human nature will at some point lead you to do something that is inherently wrong. Infants, for example, don't have the knowledge to knowingly do wrong. It is only when you can begin making choices and knowing right from wrong can you "sin".

Indeed, going back to Adam and Eve, they gained the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. They became ashamed of their nakedness and hid, even though they were already naked up until that point, but it was the knowledge and then shame which was the problem. What once wasn't a bad thing became corrupted.

[Danisty]

I think the 'default Christian' beliefis that humans are not able to follow the laws of God, but that God allowed humans to try, and see that it is impossible to do, and when he felt the time was right, Jesus was born as a man, to live, experience, and teach as a living avatar of God in flesh, and then was punished in lieu of us, so that people would then acknowledge it, accept the sacrifice and repent, and therefore be cleansed and not punished.What I don't understand is how any of this can be viewed as a good thing. Whenever Christians explain it as something that was planned, to me it just goes from being murder to premeditated murder.

Original Sin, at least in my opinion, doesn't mean that you are born guilty; it means that you are born with the tendency to sin. Flawed human nature will at some point lead you to do something that is inherently wrong. Infants, for example, don't have the knowledge to knowingly do wrong. It is only when you can begin making choices and knowing right from wrong can you "sin".I think that's a much more reasonable view on it. There are a lot of Christians out there that would condemn an infant due to original sin. Personally though, I think the whole idea is screwed up.

This is how I see it. God gives the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve. He tells them that they can't eat from one of the trees. They do anyway and learn the knowledge of good and evil. Now how could they have done something evil before they knew good and evil? If you told your child not to touch the stove and they then burned themselves, would that make them sinners? Would you have to kill your other kid to forgive her? The idea that God put something there knowing that they would disobey him is just a trap. Did your parents trap you like that? Would you think that was fair? Then he chooses not to forgive them despite the fact that God is supposed to be love itself. If God could not choose to forgive them, then that kind of causes problems too since God can do anything, being a god and all. Then he turns around and preaches that we should turn the other cheek? That's completely hypocritical. Then we're supposed to think he's awesome and he loves us because rather than forgiving us (as he's asked us to do), he has a son for the sole purpose of slaying him. Why is blood the only thing that satisfies God?

[OmegaPsi]

I completely agree with you Danisty, even if God himself were to appear right in front of me, Id still wouldent worship him, id wait untill he gave me a good answer to all my questions for why he did the things he did.

and damnit I better not get "I work in mysterious ways you wouldent understand,human."

[Tarrick]

I completely agree with you Danisty, even if God himself were to appear right in front of me, Id still wouldent worship him, id wait untill he gave me a good answer to all my questions for why he did the things he did.

and damnit I better not get "I work in mysterious ways you wouldent understand,human."

And to that I ask you this, "Does the program have the right to demand an answer from the programmer?"

[Danisty]

And to that I ask you this, "Does the program have the right to demand an answer from the programmer?"Honestly, this is comparing apples and oranges. I understand your analogy, but I don't think it's even close to comparable.

[Mechanical Messiah]

The curse of original sin is there because Jesus' death didn't lift the curse but rather provides a way out. An analog to this would be like saying that God didn't remove the disease, but provided a doctor to help the sick.


Like I said earlier... original sin is a traditional/theological contruct. You won't find "original sin" in the bible. I'm fully aware of LOTS of verses in Tha Bible that state that sin is essentially inhereted... but as is often the case with the bible, it directly contradicts itself. Here's the Ezekiel verse I had in mind (there are several similar ones throughout the old testament:

Ezekiel18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

If sin ain't passed from father to son... that kinda renders original sin moot.

But there are several verses that directly contradict this, of course. What a glorious Word your Lord has left us.

He didn't stop it, but rather provided a way out. And the curse wasn't exclusively done by him either. Adam and Eve violated the Law that he put in place. Is it the lawmakers fault that someone committed a crime by breaking the rules?emphasis mine.

Is is MY fault that some clay-man and his rib-woman were tempted by a magical talking snake and ate forebidden magical fruit? You see THAT as a justifiable reason for your Skydaddy to torture billions of people eternally??

Original Sin, at least in my opinion, doesn't mean that you are born guilty; it means that you are born with the tendency to sin. Flawed human nature will at some point lead you to do something that is inherently wrong. Infants, for example, don't have the knowledge to knowingly do wrong. It is only when you can begin making choices and knowing right from wrong can you "sin".

I see that you're deviating significantly from most mainstream Christian viewpoints... and may have rendered my previous question moot. How does it feel to be a heretic?

A Luthuran preacher told me once that he believed (and it was church doctrine) that unbaptized infants go to hell. Burn Baby Burn!

And to that I ask you this, "Does the program have the right to demand an answer from the programmer?"

The RIGHT? That's a big discussion in and of itself... as I doubt any two of us could agree on just what a "right" is.

Personally, I don't think it matters much whether or not we have such a "right". I would ask said programmer how it felt to kill thousands of innocent children. I'd ask if he gets a boner when he thinks about it... like he used to do when people burned animal corpses for him.

But I'm sure you reckon that he had a "right" to do that. 'Cause Christianity is based on the notion that 'might makes right'.

[Danisty]

The RIGHT? That's a big discussion in and of itself... as I doubt any two of us could agree on just what a "right" is.

Personally, I don't think it matters much whether or not we have such a "right". I would ask said programmer how it felt to kill thousands of innocent children. I'd ask if he gets a boner when he thinks about it... like he used to do when people burned animal corpses for him.

But I'm sure you reckon that he had a "right" to do that. 'Cause Christianity is based on the notion that 'might makes right'.That's a good point too. Does it matter if I have the "right" to do something in the eyes of God? Why should I care if he believes I have a right or not? I'll put him on the spot whether he likes it or not.

[Tarrick]

Like I said earlier... original sin is a traditional/theological contruct. You won't find "original sin" in the bible. I'm fully aware of LOTS of verses in Tha Bible that state that sin is essentially inhereted... but as is often the case with the bible, it directly contradicts itself. Here's the Ezekiel verse I had in mind (there are several similar ones throughout the old testament:

Ezekiel18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

If sin ain't passed from father to son... that kinda renders original sin moot.



The sin of what they did is not put on the son. What we're talking about is the tendency to sin.



Is is MY fault that some clay-man and his rib-woman were tempted by a magical talking snake and ate forebidden magical fruit? You see THAT as a justifiable reason for your Skydaddy to torture billions of people eternally??



No it's not your fault. However, should you be held accountable for everyone you lied? Or harmed someone in some way? Those are the things that we are guilty of and can be called on account for if we are not forgiven.



I see that you're deviating significantly from most mainstream Christian viewpoints... and may have rendered my previous question moot. How does it feel to be a heretic?

A Luthuran preacher told me once that he believed (and it was church doctrine) that unbaptized infants go to hell. Burn Baby Burn!



Christians disagree about more things than I care to have a developed opinion about. However, in the end it doesn't matter what anyone thinks; what is, is and will be carried out the way it will.



The RIGHT? That's a big discussion in and of itself... as I doubt any two of us could agree on just what a "right" is.

Personally, I don't think it matters much whether or not we have such a "right". I would ask said programmer how it felt to kill thousands of innocent children. I'd ask if he gets a boner when he thinks about it... like he used to do when people burned animal corpses for him.

But I'm sure you reckon that he had a "right" to do that. 'Cause Christianity is based on the notion that 'might makes right'.

You know...it would be interesting to compare how many people have died by God directly, and those that have been killed by people. God gave us a free will so that we could decide whether or not to serve him. It also opened the door for atrocities the likes that pale to anything that God did in the bible.

Why God does what he does, I don't know. I don't pretend to know. I do know that God has done more good than harm though, even if some of it did require some pain.

[Tsuru]

And to that I ask you this, "Does the program have the right to demand an answer from the programmer?"

Well in that spirit of things, as a programmer do I have any right to be wrathful towards a program I wrote because it has major bugs in it?

[Tarrick]

Well in that spirit of things, as a programmer do I have any right to be wrathful towards a program I wrote because it has major bugs in it?

Did God cause people to malfunction? I suppose you COULD say that it was caused by free will. God should just do away with that, then everything will be good. Remove the bug in the code, so to speak.

[arnsworth1026]

. Whenever Christians explain it as something that was planned, to me it just goes from being murder to premeditated murder.

God, being outside the universe, and thus outside the time domain, knows what is going to happen. So yes, it was His plan for this to happen. And yes, from His perspective, it would be premeditated. But Jesus said on the cross "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke23:34) so for us, it was just manslaughter.

I think that's a much more reasonable view on it. There are a lot of Christians out there that would condemn an infant due to original sin. Personally though, I think the whole idea is screwed up.

it is isn't it. but babies and children aren't held accountable for their sins until a certain age (that I don't know). David talks about this in 2 Samuel 12:16-23 (key versus being 22-23) this isn't to say that a child is sinless, just the God overlooks it up to a point. (Paul talks about it too in Romans 7)

this sums it up better than I can:
Age of accountability (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


This is how I see it. God gives the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve. He tells them that they can't eat from one of the trees. They do anyway and learn the knowledge of good and evil. Now how could they have done something evil before they knew good and evil? If you told your child not to touch the stove and they then burned themselves, would that make them sinners? Would you have to kill your other kid to forgive her? The idea that God put something there knowing that they would disobey him is just a trap. Did your parents trap you like that? Would you think that was fair? Then he chooses not to forgive them despite the fact that God is supposed to be love itself. If God could not choose to forgive them, then that kind of causes problems too since God can do anything, being a god and all. Then he turns around and preaches that we should turn the other cheek? That's completely hypocritical. Then we're supposed to think he's awesome and he loves us because rather than forgiving us (as he's asked us to do), he has a son for the sole purpose of slaying him. Why is blood the only thing that satisfies God?

God is love yes, but God is also Holy. Since He is infinitely both these things, he must satisfy both of the them fully. God, being love, has already forgiven us (from before the earth was made), but since God is also holy, there must be a judgment and a punishment (or reward, as the case may warrant). It's not what they did that was the sin, it was the fact that they disobeyed God that was the sin. God, being infinitely holy, had to judge them. thus the fall, and it wasn't just adam and eve the fell under the curse, it was all of the creation. (this, by the way, is where we learn that prostitution isn't the oldest profession, advertising is :) ) but God, ALSO being infinitely love, had a way out. It's not just the blood that does it, its the blood of an innocent (animals are under the curse, but not subject to the law, and are thus innocent). The shedding of innocent blood covers our sins.

I completely agree with you Danisty, even if God himself were to appear right in front of me, Id still wouldent worship him, id wait untill he gave me a good answer to all my questions for why he did the things he did.

the answer has been given. It was the only way (Matthew26:36 "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.")

A Luthuran preacher told me once that he believed (and it was church doctrine) that unbaptized infants go to hell. Burn Baby Burn!

then he had no idea what he was talking about. the thief on the cross went to heaven SOLELY based on his belief that Jesus was who He said He was. seeing as how the guy was being crucified for his crimes, he didn't get in by works nor was he baptised on the cross before he died.

That's a good point too. Does it matter if I have the "right" to do something in the eyes of God? Why should I care if he believes I have a right or not? I'll put him on the spot whether he likes it or not.

of course you have the right. if you didn't, you wouldn't be able to do it. But by that same token, doesn't the creator have the right to expect some type of service for putting in all this effort?

Well in that spirit of things, as a programmer do I have any right to be wrathful towards a program I wrote because it has major bugs in it?

not that I programmed it, but its called AutoCAD and I hate it :)

[Danisty]

You know...it would be interesting to compare how many people have died by God directly, and those that have been killed by people. God gave us a free will so that we could decide whether or not to serve him. It also opened the door for atrocities the likes that pale to anything that God did in the bible.Yeah, mostly because they were worshiping God. :suspicious: If God does not like violence, perhaps he should set a better example.

Why God does what he does, I don't know. I don't pretend to know. I do know that God has done more good than harm though, even if some of it did require some pain.How do you know God has done more good than harm?

[Oica]

This topic has no rationality or logic within it.

The Bible was not written in a literal sense. Prophets are 'visionaries.' They had extreme detailed dreams and interpreted them.

The Bible is an entire book. It cannot be quoted by verse ACCURATELY. That is the way of a manipulative preacher.

God created the universe. He can do no wrong. Wrong is what he doesn't want.

God allows free will. It makes for a better test.

The Bible has been translated and retranslated for thousands of years. Not every word is accurate to take as is.

There is much too much picking and choosing of the facts here. The argument is invalid. Whole truth is required to continue such a debate. As belief in God requires faith, there will never be whole truth until said God manifests itself, if it so chooses to make itself manifest.

[Danisty]

Okay, why does innocent bloodshed wipe out sin? As far as I can see, innocent bloodshed should be a sin. How is it good to drag in somebody that isn't even involved and force them to pay up for someone else's mistake? I swear the more explanations I get, the less it makes any sense.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Thats an interesting point that you've implied, there. According to Christianity... two wrongs make a right!

Oh... and might makes right- but we've already covered that.

Hell of a moral code ya'll got, there.


You know...it would be interesting to compare how many people have died by God directly, and those that have been killed by people. God gave us a free will so that we could decide whether or not to serve him. It also opened the door for atrocities the likes that pale to anything that God did in the bible.

Thanks for going OFF TOPIC. I've been looking for an excuse to post this. I came across an estimate the other day of just how many people Gawd killed according to The Bible. Note that, according to The Bible, there is only one (well, no more than three) God. I don't reckon it's fair to compare ONE guy's murders to those of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of humans. So let's just compare God to... me.

Now, in my lifetime, I've killed exactly zero humans.

Take a look at this estimate of just how many people Gawd killed in Tha Bible:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.-56

Now, you might not agree with the exact numbers in this estimate... but I don't reckon it's unreasonable. Looks to me like God has killed several million more people than I have. I reckon that means I'm better than God.

Seriously... just scroll quickly down that list. Is that what you'd call a "loving" god?

No it's not your fault. However, should you be held accountable for everyone you lied? Or harmed someone in some way? Those are the things that we are guilty of and can be called on account for if we are not forgiven.

Hell yes I should be accountable. Do you reckon that I deserve eternal torment?

Do you think that infinite punishment is appropriate for finite sins?

Christians disagree about more things than I care to have a developed opinion about. However, in the end it doesn't matter what anyone thinks; what is, is and will be carried out the way it will.

According to lots of Christians, you're hell-bound. I've read in passing that there are over 30,000 different denominations of Christianity... who (by definition) can't agree on exactly what Gawd's rules are. Hope you picked the right one... or you'll be seeing me later!

[xhaan]

Okay, why does innocent bloodshed wipe out sin? As far as I can see, innocent bloodshed should be a sin. How is it good to drag in somebody that isn't even involved and force them to pay up for someone else's mistake? I swear the more explanations I get, the less it makes any sense.

If you punish someone who deserves it anyway, that isn't sacrifice.
e.g. Just hypothetically, mind you, if you murdered someone, and a different murderer was punished instead of you, how does that redeem you? The other person was a murderer to begin with, they got their punishment for it, that still leaves you unaccounted. An innocent taking your punishment, however, is different because they aren't deserving of it, they are actually taking it upon themselves in lieu of you, i.e. the punishment is not 'used up' on their own guilt.

Really, it is the opposite, in a way, of a selfless act. For example, giving up your life in order to save an innocent baby, the baby doesn't have a chance or a choice, but you do, so you sacrifice yourself. But inversely, if you have guilt, and just punishment MUST be made, someone else can be sacrificed for you as a way of mercy to you, but that person/thing must not be also worthy of the punishment. I guess it's hard to explain well...

[Danisty]

If you punish someone who deserves it anyway, that isn't sacrifice.
e.g. Just hypothetically, mind you, if you murdered someone, and a different murderer was punished instead of you, how does that redeem you? The other person was a murderer to begin with, they got their punishment for it, that still leaves you unaccounted. An innocent taking your punishment, however, is different because they aren't deserving of it, they are actually taking it upon themselves in lieu of you, i.e. the punishment is not 'used up' on their own guilt.

Really, it is the opposite, in a way, of a selfless act. For example, giving up your life in order to save an innocent baby, the baby doesn't have a chance or a choice, but you do, so you sacrifice yourself. But inversely, if you have guilt, and just punishment MUST be made, someone else can be sacrificed for you as a way of mercy to you, but that person/thing must not be also worthy of the punishment. I guess it's hard to explain well...That doesn't really make it any better. All you've done is expand on why I think it's twisted. People should be held accountable for their own actions. Why should an innocent person be sacrificed if I'm guilty? How is that more just than punishing me for my own crime? If innocent sacrifice is so good, why don't we just implement it in our justice system? I'll go kill my mother-in-law and you can stand in for me, okay?

[xhaan]

That doesn't really make it any better. All you've done is expand on why I think it's twisted. People should be held accountable for their own actions. Why should an innocent person be sacrificed if I'm guilty? How is that more just than punishing me for my own crime? If innocent sacrifice is so good, why don't we just implement it in our justice system? I'll go kill my mother-in-law and you can stand in for me, okay?

Well, (now, this isn't me trying to convince you, just stating views)

God is perfect, and we are not, he is righteous in all he does.
'Everyone is guilty'. He can not allow guilt to go unaccounted, so everyone in the world would be condemned (except a few people depicted in the bible who were righteous by faith) - but! God wants to save us also, because he loves us, yet he isn't going to magic away all our problems directly. Everything must be accounted in time. So, as a way out, he had someone else pay for all crimes of those who accept the sacrifice, and acknowledge that it should have been them instead (Jesus). Jesus was pure, and not worthy of being crucified, yet he was so that we would not have to atone for every single thing we have done, and God had the right to do that, because he -is- right.

Edit:
And also, Jesus was crucified because of the hate of man. God knew it would happen, of course, but he didn't directly tell people to do it, he just had the foresight that they would.

[Mechanical Messiah]

I never understood why it's considered a "sacrifice" anyway. Yeah, he was stuck up on a stick... but he didn't stay dead. He knew he wouldn't stay dead. It was all a show. Where's the sacrifice?

[OmegaPsi]

You know over the last couple of days, I came to the conclusion that god must have been really really borde to create the world and humanity, being Omnicient. He knew exactly what would happen at what time so whats the point other than not being borde?

[xhaan]

I never understood why it's considered a "sacrifice" anyway. Yeah, he was stuck up on a stick... but he didn't stay dead. He knew he wouldn't stay dead. It was all a show. Where's the sacrifice?

It amuses me how incredulous people are.

sac·ri·fice /ˈsækrəˌfaɪs/
–noun
1. the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.
2. the person, animal, or thing so offered.
3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.
4. the thing so surrendered or devoted.

–verb (used with object)
7. to make a sacrifice or offering of.
8. to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else.

It doesn't say anywhere in there that it has to be permanent.
The fact that it was done is enough, he suffered and then physically died, just the same as we die.

I suppose next you will presume to tell us that torture is ok, if it isn't permanent. How about we do the same to you, and see how much PTSD you end up with afterwards. Oh, it will be undone after three days, so it doesn't count. You said so yourself.

I make this distinction because theres a difference between lack of belief, and sheer stubborn mindedness.

Edit:
Sorry if I seemed a bit frustrated there, but man. I don't get it sometimes. I understand not believing, but many refuse to even try to understand the way. I understand why people -don't- believe, yet many don't give me the same concessions, they use their own perceptions to prop up their lack of belief, which is just as bad as what 'religious' people tend to do.

I'm not trying to convince or convert here, but it can make sense, even if you don't take it seriously. Jesus was sacrificed, by definition. He wasn't sacrificed to God, but to mankind, by mankind, for mankind. He was tortured, killed, and then subsequently lost, physically, people grieved for him, because he didn't deserve it, and people wanted him to stay among them but he was taken away/left the physical world, after vistiting select people to show that the prophecies were fulfilled, and comfort them.

[Mechanical Messiah]

If Jesus is magically also God, as most Christians believe... then Jesus was also magically omnipotent/omniscient unless perhaps he magically (temporarily) chose otherwise. Any suffering that such a magical skydaddy endured was purely by choice, only to the extent of his choice, and only for the duration of his choice. In other words, he was in complete control the whole time- it was all for show. Sure, he "died"... but then he came right back because he's magic! Glory!

An interesting little tangent here: There's an apocryphal book that wasn't included in the bible (Enoch) that describes Jesus hanging out in Hell for a few days after he was stuck up on a stick.

So even though there wasn't much of a sacrifice made... I gotta ask: Why does an omnipotent/all-loving being REQUIRE a sacrifice to forgive? I don't require one... 'cause I don't reckon that two wrongs make a right. If I feel like forgiving somebody, then I just decide to.

Of course, from the perspective of a bronze-age-goatherder... two wrongs probably DID make a right. And God was created in the image of his creators: A violent, nomadic tribe of bronze-age-goatherders.

---------------------------------------------------
Edit:

Don't worry about typing out your frustration. I don't take it personally... I know it's just the Meme talking. I know you probably don't THINK that you're trying to 'convert' people, evangelize or whatever... but when you're argueing that this disjointed, contradictory, cryptic, murky mythology makes ANY kind of sense that can be universally agreed upon, then that's EXACTLY what you're doing. Just as a virus takes over a cell and forces the cell to replicate said virus, this virulent form of contageous schitzophrenia is forcing you to spread it to other hosts.

Do you understand why there are roughly 30,000 separate denominations of christianity?? It's because even professed Christians can't agree on what The Bible means... even on some of the most basic tenets of your 'faith'. That's because it's largely nonsense.

Well, that and the fact that Christianity mutates and evolves EXACTLY like a virus.

[xhaan]

If Jesus is magically also God, as most Christians believe... then Jesus was also magically omnipotent/omniscient unless perhaps he magically (temporarily) chose otherwise. Any suffering that such a magical skydaddy endured was purely by choice, only to the extent of his choice, and only for the duration of his choice. In other words, he was in complete control the whole time- it was all for show. Sure, he "died"... but then he came right back because he's magic! Glory!

An interesting little tangent here: There's an apocryphal book that wasn't included in the bible (Enoch) that describes Jesus hanging out in Hell for a few days after he was stuck up on a stick.

So even though there wasn't much of a sacrifice made... I gotta ask: Why does an omnipotent/all-loving being REQUIRE a sacrifice to forgive? I don't require one... 'cause I don't reckon that two wrongs make a right. If I feel like forgiving somebody, then I just decide to.

Of course, from the perspective of a bronze-age-goatherder... two wrongs probably DID make a right. And God was created in the image of his creators: A violent, nomadic tribe of bronze-age-goatherders.

---------------------------------------------------
Edit:

Don't worry about typing out your frustration. I don't take it personally... I know it's just the Meme talking. I know you probably don't THINK that you're trying to 'convert' people, evangelize or whatever... but when you're argueing that this disjointed, contradictory, cryptic, murky mythology makes ANY kind of sense that can be universally agreed upon, then that's EXACTLY what you're doing. Just as a virus takes over a cell and forces the cell to replicate said virus, this virulent form of contageous schitzophrenia is forcing you to spread it to other hosts.

Do you understand why there are roughly 30,000 separate denominations of christianity?? It's because even professed Christians can't agree on what The Bible means... even on some of the most basic tenets of your 'faith'. That's because it's largely nonsense.

Well, that and the fact that Christianity mutates and evolves EXACTLY like a virus.


I agree, but your perception is just as much a perception as mine. :p

Jesus also wasn't just omnipotent, he had the human side as well, a perfect (righteous) human, but still human. He (his human part) did not WANT to die. And when God left him during the crucifiction, he asks 'father, why have you forsaken me?' this is his human part speaking, IMO, at this point, he could have no more miracled himself out of death than you or I could. His body remained DEAD, not just appearing to be dead, but dead, for three days.

And yeah, I knew a bit about Enoch, too.

Edit:
Also, remember, that Jesus was born a man, and grew up into a man from childhood. He was a human being. A righteous human being, with direct connection to God, but he was still human with human emotions and potential flaws.. flaws which were surpassed by the nature of his righteousness, not omnipotent superiority. This is why 'the devil' came to try and tempt Jesus, and Jesus 'fought him off'.

And also, let me get something straight. ;D
I do have schizophrenic tendencies, but not with religion.
I'm not of the opinion that 'Christianity', <insert denomination>, is the only way. I'm also not against Islam, or anything else, I find religions interesting. They are BELIEFS, and I have my preference of belief, but I know it is not based on facts that I can truly know, so it is a belief, nothing more.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Well, I have several fairly close relatives who are quite schitzophrenic (two of them are even properly diagnosed!). So you're in good company.

Yes, I've been told that Jesus, who was also magically God, was magically human at the same time. And I think the Holy Spirit was also magically Jesus and God, but not magically human. God, I think, is magically Jesus and the Holy Spirit at the same time, but only Jesus is magically also human.

Magic doesn't hold much water with me, though, and I can't take it seriously. I realize that much of our disagreement is a matter of perspective. You've been stating some of these Christian viewpoints as if they're fact, hence my reaction. I don't know what your beliefs are... I'm just pointing out that all this christian mythology is a long, long way from fact. It's mostly myth and conjecture.

Have you ever read the book of Enoch? I've never got around to it. One of my favorite 'lost books', though, is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Available here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Danisty]

'Everyone is guilty'. He can not allow guilt to go unaccounted, so everyone in the world would be condemned (except a few people depicted in the bible who were righteous by faith) - but! God wants to save us also, because he loves us, yet he isn't going to magic away all our problems directly. Everything must be accounted in time. So, as a way out, he had someone else pay for all crimes of those who accept the sacrifice, and acknowledge that it should have been them instead (Jesus). Jesus was pure, and not worthy of being crucified, yet he was so that we would not have to atone for every single thing we have done, and God had the right to do that, because he -is- right.But why should I want someone to be sacrificed for my own wrongdoings? I mentioned that briefly in my last post, but it seems to have been looked over in favor of explaining Christian beliefs. I don't doubt that Christians believe what they believe. I would just like an explanation of why anyone would feel good about that. How can you feel good knowing an innocent man died (even though you pointed out that he didn't want to) just because his father couldn't forgive you? Now, I know the answer. The answer is because God the father does not have to be held to the same standards as human fathers. If human fathers did any of these things, people would be horrified. What I don't understand is why God shouldn't be judged? I will never understand this and it's not for a lack of trying like you claim.

It amuses me how incredulous people are.

sac·ri·fice /ˈsækrəˌfaɪs/
–noun
1. the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.
2. the person, animal, or thing so offered.
3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.
4. the thing so surrendered or devoted.

–verb (used with object)
7. to make a sacrifice or offering of.
8. to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else.

It doesn't say anywhere in there that it has to be permanent.
The fact that it was done is enough, he suffered and then physically died, just the same as we die. I'm sorry, but I have to agree that I don't see how someone dying and coming back is a true sacrifice. How about I have a litter of kids and sacrifice 5 years of my life to them and after that, I just do whatever I want. Does that temporary sacrifice satisfy my obligation? Did I really make the appropriate sacrifice for my kids?

Sorry if I seemed a bit frustrated there, but man. I don't get it sometimes. I understand not believing, but many refuse to even try to understand the way.It's not a lack of trying, xhaan. It's an inability to understand it. I've tried for 29 years and it still doesn't make any sense at all. It's possible for me to understand what you believe, but not why or how you believe it. Basically I can piece it together and follow the story (and I'm sure MM can too), but I'm just never going to see how a person can read the story and conclude that God is not only good, but perfect. The more I piece the story together, the more God has to be the bad guy because no sane or benevolent being could go from one chapter to the next making so many contradictions and causing so much destruction. The only thing I can conclude is that God is petty and hateful. I'm just as puzzled as you xhaan. For the life of me, I cannot understand how so many Christians don't see what I see. I've met Christians who can understand what I believe, but not how or why. I don't expect that this problem will ever actually be resolved.

[xhaan]

But why should I want someone to be sacrificed for my own wrongdoings? [...]

I'll answer this, because the rest follows it, IMO.

You don't have to. The fact that someone (God) has perfect knowledge, yet love, and the nature of who Jesus was, is enough for some people to want it... it's hard to explain more than that, if you don't already 'comprehend'. Though, if you personally don't recognize it, don't 'get' it, or feel you should be punished yourself or not at all, then it isn't for you anyway. I won't say you're going to hell, I can't condemn you like that, but at the same time, I think you will get what you ask for.

Edit:
Oh, and:
I'm sorry, but I have to agree that I don't see how someone dying and coming back is a true sacrifice. How about I have a litter of kids and sacrifice 5 years of my life to them and after that, I just do whatever I want. Does that temporary sacrifice satisfy my obligation? Did I really make the appropriate sacrifice for my kids?

Apples and oranges.
1. What you say isn't necessarily a sacrifice, as you would be considered obligated anyway.
2. It is not quantifiable, in the case of Jesus, due to the reason the sacrifice was made and the nature of it. It doesn't 'add up', because there's no way it can. Would YOU let yourself be crucified, even only temporarily, just because someone lied, and you had nothing to do with it at all? I tend to think not.

Futher edit:
Think of it this way.
A conscript which fights in a war is not necessarily sacrificing himself, the government may be sacrificing him, but he may be only preserving himself because he thinks it's better to fight and take things into his own hands than be executed or jailed.

However, a volunteer sacrifices himself for the good of others, or his country, or whatever reason, and because he doesn't have to do it, he is more selfless than the conscript. Both may act for the 'greater good', but one is sacrificed by others, (and makes sacrifices to himself), and the other sacrifices himself to others, out of his own sense of duty and selflessness.

[Danisty]

I'll answer this, because the rest follows it, IMO.

You don't have to. The fact that someone (God) has perfect knowledge, yet love, and the nature of who Jesus was, is enough for some people to want it... it's hard to explain more than that, if you don't already 'comprehend'. Though, if you personally don't recognize it, don't 'get' it, or feel you should be punished yourself or not at all, then it isn't for you anyway. I won't say you're going to hell, I can't condemn you like that, but at the same time, I think you will get what you ask for.I hope so. I hope everyone gets what I ask for, actually. If there is going to be a final judgment, I want it to be fair.

It is not quantifiable, in the case of Jesus, due to the reason the sacrifice was made and the nature of it. It doesn't 'add up', because there's no way it can. Would YOU let yourself be crucified, even only temporarily, just because someone lied, and you had nothing to do with it at all? I tend to think not.No, but this is the whole point. It shouldn't have been done at all. However, if it was going to be a sacrifice, it ought to have been a real sacrifice. Ancient people didn't sacrifice animals knowing they'd come back next week. It was a sacrifice because it was something they could never have again. Otherwise, they'd be loaning their livestock to God.

[xhaan]

No, but this is the whole point. It shouldn't have been done at all. However, if it was going to be a sacrifice, it ought to have been a real sacrifice. Ancient people didn't sacrifice animals knowing they'd come back next week. It was a sacrifice because it was something they could never have again. Otherwise, they'd be loaning their livestock to God.

See, that's the thing. Being permanent isn't necessarily the point. They didn't sacrifice animals because they die forever, the animals were sacrificed because they were innocent. It would work the same way even if they did come back next week.

The state of death also isn't the sacrifice, it's the act of dying. The animals have no loss in death, Jesus had no loss in death, it's the pain and act of dying itself that matters.

If you threw yourself on a grenade and died, then went to heaven and were rewarded there, and heaven was a good place, and you were much better off there than you were on earth, which is the sacrifice? The pain of dying, or being dead? If you came back to earth, does that undo the fact that you threw yourself on the grenade and saved other people from pain and loss?

Most people don't want to die, they don't know what comes afterwards because it hasn't been experienced yet. So even though dying could be better, not many people willingly do it.

And it's rather ironic that you bring up the idea that they sacrificed because they were 'losing something', yet the very same people believed that God could provide anything they needed, so losing something seems like it would be pointless to me if something else comes along anyway.

Edit:
This reminds me of one of the stories about Abraham.
God asked him to sacrifice his son, kill his own son, and he was going to do it, he had his kid on the altar, knife in hand, and just as he was going to stab, an angel called out and stopped him, then Abraham noticed a ram caught in some bushes, and sacrificed the ram instead of his son. God was pleased that Abraham was so willing to obey, Abraham was subsequently blessed for his obedience, and he kept his son. The ram didn't even have anything to do with it, it was of no loss to Abraham, but it was still sacrificed anyway.

[Danisty]

I really wish this was beginning to make sense, but it's not.
See, that's the thing. Being permanent isn't necessarily the point. They didn't sacrifice animals because they die forever, the animals were sacrificed because they were innocent. It would work the same way even if they did come back next week.I really don't get your definition of sacrifice. If you aren't giving something up, it isn't a sacrifice. Like I said, it would be like a loan. The whole point of sacrifice, as far as I can see, is to give up something that is valuable and important to you in order to please someone else. If the animal were to come back to life, you didn't really give anything up. If you're going to argue that animal sacrifices weren't the act of giving up something valuable to appease a god, then I'm not sure where this conversation can go.

And it's rather ironic that you bring up the idea that they sacrificed because they were 'losing something', yet the very same people believed that God could provide anything they needed, so losing something seems like it would be pointless to me if something else comes along anyway.Just because they believed they would get something in return, it does not mean that they weren't losing something in the first place. In fact, to me, that seems like the whole point. They have to destroy something they need to show God they trust that he will provide. If they destroyed something they don't need or didn't destroy it completely and permanently, how would that show any trust in God? To me it seems like hedging your bets.

This reminds me of one of the stories about Abraham.
God asked him to sacrifice his son, kill his own son, and he was going to do it, he had his kid on the altar, knife in hand, and just as he was going to stab, an angel called out and stopped him, then Abraham noticed a ram caught in some bushes, and sacrificed the ram instead of his son. God was pleased that Abraham was so willing to obey, Abraham was subsequently blessed for his obedience, and he kept his son. The ram didn't even have anything to do with it, it was of no loss to Abraham, but it was still sacrificed anyway.Here's a thought. Don't kill anything! The fact that Abraham would kill his own child because God asked for it makes me sick. It makes me sick that God would ask something like that and it makes me sick that any parent would actually do it. The fact that he felt like he had to kill a random animal to get out of being in trouble when he chose not to kill his own child is pretty sad too.

[xhaan]

I really don't get your definition of sacrifice. If you aren't giving something up, it isn't a sacrifice.

I'll just answer this, because I totally understand the rest of what you say.

it depends on the context. I've been trying to say this all along.

In the dictionary definition, or one of the definitions, it specifies 'giving up' something. But that doesn't necessarily make it something you -need-. nor does it specify that it must be permanent Many cultures have sacrificed fruits and vegtables, just a token amount of what they have, it's truly no loss in the long run but yet they did it anyway.

3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

Anyways. This is going to get nowhere. Maybe we should all go do something else.

As a parting note, lets put it this way.
If I give you something, as my sacrifice to you (just example), then you give it back, or I get another one for whatever reason, does that undo the fact that I gave up something? No. If it had to be that way, then all animals would have to either be killed forever, or never domesticated again. Giving up is giving up, how can you quantify how long it should be given, or when it's ok to have another one?

You don't have to respond to that, just a thought.

Late edit:
To put it another way.
If I kill an animal as a sacrifice, with the full intent of it being dead, gone and burnt to ashes, never to be seen again, yet it came back to life three days later without me asking it to, is that my fault?
I'd say my sacrifice wasn't undone, I'd say I was just fortunate, and that it was miraculous.

Late late edit again:
I think you are confusing intents.
I also think you are confusing need with desire.
You NEED to eat. you don't need to eat lambs, you certainly don't need to eat a very specific lamb, so killing one, by your view, isn't a sacrifice even if you never ever see it again. You'd have to stop eating food period, and die, to give up something you need.

Heh, another edit: (they just keep coming)
Dying is a sacrifice too, even though you don't NEED to live, technically, unless you are living only for someone else to live. (your death precludes your need for life)


[...]
You've been stating some of these Christian viewpoints as if they're fact, hence my reaction. I don't know what your beliefs are... I'm just pointing out that all this christian mythology is a long, long way from fact. It's mostly myth and conjecture.
[...]

I overlooked this post, hadn't seen it til now.
I will say right now, there is NO WAY whatsoever that anything I try to tell you about a religion, is being stated as a fact. It may be stated 'matter of factly', as they say, but that is more a manner of my speaking, because I believe certain things, they are my perceptions. Newton's Theories are based on fact. My belief that Jesus died for me, is a viewpoint, a belief.

[Danisty]

I'll just answer this, because I totally understand the rest of what you say.

it depends on the context. I've been trying to say this all along.

In the dictionary definition, or one of the definitions, it specifies 'giving up' something. But that doesn't necessarily make it something you -need-. nor does it specify that it must be permanent Many cultures have sacrificed fruits and vegtables, just a token amount of what they have, it's truly no loss in the long run but yet they did it anyway.

3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

Anyways. This is going to get nowhere. Maybe we should all go do something else.

As a parting note, lets put it this way.
If I give you something, as my sacrifice to you (just example), then you give it back, or I get another one for whatever reason, does that undo the fact that I gave up something? No. If it had to be that way, then all animals would have to either be killed forever, or never domesticated again. Giving up is giving up, how can you quantify how long it should be given, or when it's ok to have another one?

You don't have to respond to that, just a thought.

Late edit:
To put it another way.
If I kill an animal as a sacrifice, with the full intent of it being dead, gone and burnt to ashes, never to be seen again, yet it came back to life three days later without me asking it to, is that my fault?
I'd say my sacrifice wasn't undone, I'd say I was just fortunate, and that it was miraculous.

Late late edit again:
I think you are confusing intents.
I also think you are confusing need with desire.
You NEED to eat. you don't need to eat lambs, you certainly don't need to eat a very specific lamb, so killing one, by your view, isn't a sacrifice even if you never ever see it again. You'd have to stop eating food period, and die, to give up something you need.

Heh, another edit: (they just keep coming)
Dying is a sacrifice too, even though you don't NEED to live, technically, unless you are living only for someone else to live. (your death precludes your need for life)
I think the only productive thing we can do is agree to disagree. Your points still don't make any sense to me and clearly my points don't make any sense to you either. The best thing we could have gotten out of this was sharing views and I think we've done a pretty thorough job of that already. Unless someone else can jump in with another point, I'm not sure what else we would actually say. :)

[xhaan]

I think the only productive thing we can do is agree to disagree. Your points still don't make any sense to me and clearly my points don't make any sense to you either. The best thing we could have gotten out of this was sharing views and I think we've done a pretty thorough job of that already. Unless someone else can jump in with another point, I'm not sure what else we would actually say. :)

Yup, I'm cool with that. I don't continue to harp to people when neither one of us is seeing eye to eye. It's a bit fruitless, and can get irritating for both. ;D

[thod]

Before eating from the tree of knowledge Adam was naked, after eating he covered his nakedness in shame. The tree gave him the concept of right and wrong.

Prior to this he was like the animals. An animal is never sinful. It can perform whatever acts it wishs and they are not wrong.

Humans are not so lucky. They feel guilt and remorse after some actions. Its the feelings that some acts inspire that gives rise to the concept of sin, or wrongful action. A sinner is plagued by these feelings, he doesnt just burn in hell when he dies, he is burning now.

Some would argue that humans have a nature that forces them to act in a certain way. Just as dogs have different temperaments they are still dogs, they do doggy things, they have a doggy nature. Anything that forces the human to go against his nature will create stress in the human and these acts will be labeled as sin.

The actual definitions may vay from culture to culture and time to time. An islamic terroist may have no problem wih violence but object to nudity, a Swedish naturist may have no problem with nudity but hate violence. Yet we see common threads running through history.

How about the totaly immoral man that feels nothing no matter what acts he commits, much as a robot. Well he is not a man, he lacks that which is called a soul, just as animals do not have a soul for the same reason. He will no more go to hell than would a mouse.

In seeking to deny your human nature and becoming a more logical machine you are not enhancing your humanity you are diminishing it. For you there is less pain but less pleasure too. You break the connections that tie you to others and deny they exist. Instead you follow a ghost abstraction and in so doing become more a ghost yourself. You walk through the world and interact but fail to see it.

[Danisty]

Before eating from the tree of knowledge Adam was naked, after eating he covered his nakedness in shame. The tree gave him the concept of right and wrong.

Prior to this he was like the animals. An animal is never sinful. It can perform whatever acts it wishs and they are not wrong.

Humans are not so lucky. They feel guilt and remorse after some actions. Its the feelings that some acts inspire that gives rise to the concept of sin, or wrongful action. A sinner is plagued by these feelings, he doesnt just burn in hell when he dies, he is burning now.

Some would argue that humans have a nature that forces them to act in a certain way. Just as dogs have different temperaments they are still dogs, they do doggy things, they have a doggy nature. Anything that forces the human to go against his nature will create stress in the human and these acts will be labeled as sin.

The actual definitions may vay from culture to culture and time to time. An islamic terroist may have no problem wih violence but object to nudity, a Swedish naturist may have no problem with nudity but hate violence. Yet we see common threads running through history.

How about the totaly immoral man that feels nothing no matter what acts he commits, much as a robot. Well he is not a man, he lacks that which is called a soul, just as animals do not have a soul for the same reason. He will no more go to hell than would a mouse.

In seeking to deny your human nature and becoming a more logical machine you are not enhancing your humanity you are diminishing it. For you there is less pain but less pleasure too. You break the connections that tie you to others and deny they exist. Instead you follow a ghost abstraction and in so doing become more a ghost yourself. You walk through the world and interact but fail to see it.This is interesting because it reminds me of something I thought of way back in high school. I figured that the only people suffering in hell were the ones who felt guilt for what sent them there.

[OmegaPsi]

Before eating from the tree of knowledge Adam was naked, after eating he covered his nakedness in shame. The tree gave him the concept of right and wrong.

Prior to this he was like the animals. An animal is never sinful. It can perform whatever acts it wishs and they are not wrong.

Humans are not so lucky. They feel guilt and remorse after some actions. Its the feelings that some acts inspire that gives rise to the concept of sin, or wrongful action. A sinner is plagued by these feelings, he doesnt just burn in hell when he dies, he is burning now.

Some would argue that humans have a nature that forces them to act in a certain way. Just as dogs have different temperaments they are still dogs, they do doggy things, they have a doggy nature. Anything that forces the human to go against his nature will create stress in the human and these acts will be labeled as sin.

The actual definitions may vay from culture to culture and time to time. An islamic terroist may have no problem wih violence but object to nudity, a Swedish naturist may have no problem with nudity but hate violence. Yet we see common threads running through history.

How about the totaly immoral man that feels nothing no matter what acts he commits, much as a robot. Well he is not a man, he lacks that which is called a soul, just as animals do not have a soul for the same reason. He will no more go to hell than would a mouse.

In seeking to deny your human nature and becoming a more logical machine you are not enhancing your humanity you are diminishing it. For you there is less pain but less pleasure too. You break the connections that tie you to others and deny they exist. Instead you follow a ghost abstraction and in so doing become more a ghost yourself. You walk through the world and interact but fail to see it.

Just out of curiousity was that directed at me? Or at people in general, No offense.

[blueback]

Before eating from the tree of knowledge Adam was naked, after eating he covered his nakedness in shame. The tree gave him the concept of right and wrong.



1) God created Adam with the capability to know right/wrong
2) The capability was unfulfilled, Adam didn't know right from wrong
3) Adam ate the apple, awakening his ability to know right from wrong
4) Adam realized that certain things were inherently wrong all on his own
5) Adam acted on his new knowledge
6) Adam's living standards became more right
7) God didn't like that
8) God banished Adam (and friends) from Eden because they were acting more right

Everything makes a certain a mount of sense (as much as a religious story could) except for steps (4&7). Adam didn't have anyone to teach him right/wrong which means the knowledge must have already been in his brain, just waiting to be released. So, before Adam remembered right/wrong, he must have been doing whatever he felt like. . .but after he remembered right/wrong he must have been acting more correctly. However, God didn't like the fact that Adam was suddenly following the rules God had hidden in Adam's head. I don't get that. If you program something, and it follows your instructions, why would you get upset at it?


Prior to this he was like the animals. An animal is never sinful. It can perform whatever acts it wishs and they are not wrong.

Humans are not so lucky. They feel guilt and remorse after some actions. Its the feelings that some acts inspire that gives rise to the concept of sin, or wrongful action. A sinner is plagued by these feelings, he doesnt just burn in hell when he dies, he is burning now.




So, Adam had the knowledge of right/wrong in his head, but because he wasn't aware of it he couldn't do anything wrong. Right and wrong existed but not for Adam because he was ignorant of the distinction.

When he became aware of the distinction he felt guilty and began to burn in hell?


In seeking to deny your human nature and becoming a more logical machine you are not enhancing your humanity you are diminishing it. For you there is less pain but less pleasure too. You break the connections that tie you to others and deny they exist. Instead you follow a ghost abstraction and in so doing become more a ghost yourself. You walk through the world and interact but fail to see it.


Okay, so a creature that is a slave to its nature, like a dog, can't commit sin. But, a creature that is rational enought to distinguish between its nature and everything else can commit sin. Wouldn't that meant that the way to remove sin from the world would be to destroy rationality, sentience, self-awareness wherever it is found?

Why do you assume that a logical person breaks their connections to other people? I would say that only a person who understands who they are can truly appreciate who someone else is. A dog doesn't know who it is which is why its affection is so 1-dimensional.