exceptionally unsettling fundy experience

[southernhybrid]

My question remains.

Your position, if I understand it, is that--babies and wolf-boys aside--practically everybody understands sin and agrees on the meaning.

I'm asking this: What is this meaning of sin that most people understand and agree upon.

I'm not one of the people who understands a common meaning, so I'm asking.

Since you're saying you didn't understand the biblical context, even though you were exposed to a Christian (of sorts) environment. Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws. We can determine here, some of our forum friends seem to acknowledge this.

I assume you mean the Christian god, since that's your religion, but what about all the other gods and the rules they have? Plus, why does your god have such a big ego that their most important sin is not believing he exists, assuming he's a male god. It's odd that a god would have a gender, but I digress.

Shouldn't your god be doing things to help people? And, if they really did exist, why not appear and make it easier for people to believe. Why this silly game of taking it on faith? Just read the stuff in this really old book that was put together long before we knew about evolution and we still thought the earth was flat. If your religion makes you a better person, and gives you community, that's good, but the problem I see with your type of Christianity is that it's too
obsessed with belief instead of good works and being a positive role model for others.

Anyway......getting back to sin, I've learned that many Conservative Christians in the South do dance, drink, play cards, gamble, and I've even known one that smoked weed with her atheist son. She was a Pentecostal, and a very nice woman. Different sins for different Christians. Do you see where some of us are coming from? I think you mean well, but your beliefs don't make sense and a lot of us have studied them for years.

 

[Learner]

My question remains.

Your position, if I understand it, is that--babies and wolf-boys aside--practically everybody understands sin and agrees on the meaning.

I'm asking this: What is this meaning of sin that most people understand and agree upon.

I'm not one of the people who understands a common meaning, so I'm asking.

Since you're saying you didn't understand the biblical context,

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

(responding in no particular order)

Apologies, a misunderstanding. You do know sin, from a Christian concept.

even though you were exposed to a Christian (of sorts) environment.

I take offense on behalf of my parents.

Oh dear, the amount of things atheists have said about Christianity.

You're seeing things that are not there, maybe?

But I do like this definition: A Christian is one who points at another Christian and says, "You're not a real Christian."

You can't distract me by playing no true Scotsman.

You're seeing things you like to see.

Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws. We can determine here, some of our forum friends seem to acknowledge this.

Thanks.

Okay, here's the definition I learned in a Western Civ class:

To sin is to doubt or disobey god. Doubt is worse than
disobedience.

Yes you do seem to get the gist of sin, indeed.

So the first sin was not when Eve tasted the apple. It was
before that, when she entertained the serpent's argument
that Jehovah didn't have her best interests in mind when
he forbade eating the apple. That was the Fall.

Well spotted. Eve was not the first sinner....

The first lie is the first sin.

Evil is the sources of unhappiness. Anything that makes
anyone unhappy is evil.

By extension, we often use evil to refer to unhappiness itself.
Thus, the problem of evil is often called the problem of suffering.

No problem with this definition, in this context.

Good is the sources of happiness. Anything that makes anyone
happy is good. By extension, we can say that happiness is good.

Moral evils are sins that make people unhappy. Gluttony comes
to mind. The existence of moral evils (sins that are evil) may
account for why so many people conflate sin and evil.

All that is needed is clarification in any conversation.

Now imagine a poker hand that Sara wins and Joe loses. Sara
may be happy about her win while Joe is unhappy about his
loss. If so, then the poker hand is neither unadulterated good
nor unadulterated evil. It is both.

Both are willing participants in a game, in which both take part to win against each other.
No issues with this context, being of a particular conversation.

I like these definitions. They seem serviceable and not self
contradictory. I'm happy with them. They are good.

But I don't claim that practically everybody agrees with me.

Clarification is all that's needed.

 

[Wiploc]

Apologies, a misunderstanding. You do know sin, from a Christian concept.


Yes you do seem to get the gist of sin, indeed.

So the first sin was not when Eve tasted the apple. It was
before that, when she entertained the serpent's argument
that Jehovah didn't have her best interests in mind when
he forbade eating the apple. That was the Fall.

Well spotted. Eve was not the first sinner....

The first lie is the first sin.

Mmm.

The interpretation I favor is that the serpent was more subtle than the creatures (the created things). Which means the serpent was the gods, and--in this case--spoke the truth.

No problem with this definition, in this context.

All that is needed is clarification in any conversation.

I like these definitions. They seem serviceable and not self
contradictory. I'm happy with them. They are good.

But I don't claim that practically everybody agrees with me.

Clarification is all that's needed.

This is downright weird.

You seem to be agreeing with my definition of sin.

I've never heard anyone but my Western Civ teacher say anything like this.

Do you maintain that almost everybody agrees with this definition of sin?

 

[Learner]

My question remains.

Your position, if I understand it, is that--babies and wolf-boys aside--practically everybody understands sin and agrees on the meaning.

I'm asking this: What is this meaning of sin that most people understand and agree upon.

I'm not one of the people who understands a common meaning, so I'm asking.

Since you're saying you didn't understand the biblical context, even though you were exposed to a Christian (of sorts) environment. Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws. We can determine here, some of our forum friends seem to acknowledge this.

I assume you mean the Christian god, since that's your religion, but what about all the other gods and the rules they have? Plus, why does your god have such a big ego that their most important sin is not believing he exists, assuming he's a male god. It's odd that a god would have a gender, but I digress.

According to the biblical theology, people were worshipping false gods, i.e. the narrative being... there could only be one ultimate creator. What about all the other gods? That's an interesting question, because you could be talking of the conceptual idea that 'many gods would always have existed at the exact same time', or they came into being at the same time, like magic - therefore all gods are equal.

An inventor or creator of a new concept, idea or 'material built thing' is usually called the father of that new concept or material thing (unless its a woman of course). I suppose gender came about when a second human type arrived on the scene, as it's written.

Shouldn't your god be doing things to help people? And, if they really did exist, why not appear and make it easier for people to believe. Why this silly game of taking it on faith?

Jesus did, by feeding the poor and hungry, healing the sick, teaching to love your neighbor... but that didn't do it for those who wanted to do the opposite, wanting him dead and gone.

Just read the stuff in this really old book that was put together long before we knew about evolution and we still thought the earth was flat.

Quite simply, each generation describes their world environment, through their scope of understanding, in that timeline they're living in. Which obviously should mean, I wouldn't expect to see them write about the biblical God, creating the earth describing in a futuristic 'language & knowledge description' we know today, about the earth with modern terminology. Reminds me of the verses Daniel 12:8-10

8. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9. And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

If your religion makes you a better person, and gives you community, that's good, but the problem I see with your type of Christianity is that it's too
obsessed with belief instead of good works and being a positive role model for others.

So therefore by your statement, there IS a type of Christianity unlike "my type" that do good works and are also positive role models for others? If being the case that my type is a problem, on the whole-scheme-of-things, this would be fine, as long as the Gospel message is out there, given by the positive role model types!

Anyway......getting back to sin, I've learned that many Conservative Christians in the South do dance, drink, play cards, gamble, and I've even known one that smoked weed with her atheist son. She was a Pentecostal, and a very nice woman. Different sins for different Christians. Do you see where some of us are coming from? I think you mean well, but your beliefs don't make sense and a lot of us have studied them for years.

Yes well people have studied the Bible for years sure but we don't see things the way we saw them 10 years later. Christian from all backgrounds are still doing the research continuously, and have found better understanding and new discoveries, you may not notice them like you would notice big Church TV.

 

[steve_bank]

Tree Of Thre Knowledge of Good And Evil. a mtephor if there ver was one.

Self awareness. They became self aware and ran to hide nakedness. Humans were no longer 'in paradise', aka the neatrual world.

Something I read. The fall wqs ab bout the transition form a [storal nomadic life to a fixed life based on agriculture. Loss of innicene abd freedom.

Arguing there was a real tree and a real talking snake is like argimg Aesop's Fables were real. Was there really a race between a talking tortoise and hare?

What is The Tortoise and the Hare moral?

What is the summary of hare and tortoise story?


Aesop's famous fable tells the story of a tortoise who, ridiculed by the hare for being slow, challenges it to a race. The hare soon leaves the tortoise behind and, confident of winning, takes a nap midway. Upon awakening, he finds that his competitor, crawling slowly but steadily, has arrived before him.Jan 14, 2015

Tree of the knowledge of good and evil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Learner]

Apologies, a misunderstanding. You do know sin, from a Christian concept.


Yes you do seem to get the gist of sin, indeed.

So the first sin was not when Eve tasted the apple. It was
before that, when she entertained the serpent's argument
that Jehovah didn't have her best interests in mind when
he forbade eating the apple. That was the Fall.

Well spotted. Eve was not the first sinner....

The first lie is the first sin.

Mmm.

The interpretation I favor is that the serpent was more subtle than the creatures (the created things). Which means the serpent was the gods, and--in this case--spoke the truth.

You remind me of a similar concept to the poster 'Gnostic Christian', (come to think of it, I vaguely recall you having a conversation with him on one of his threads, if I'm correct). The above is not quite the Christian convention, but anything with the word Christian in it makes it another Christian sect I suppose to the "logic".

No problem with this definition, in this context.

All that is needed is clarification in any conversation.

I like these definitions. They seem serviceable and not self
contradictory. I'm happy with them. They are good.

But I don't claim that practically everybody agrees with me.

Clarification is all that's needed.

This is downright weird.

You seem to be agreeing with my definition of sin.

I've never heard anyone but my Western Civ teacher say anything like this.

Do you maintain that almost everybody agrees with this definition of sin?

Previously in post#99 you stated below:

"Okay, here's the definition I learned in a Western Civ class: To sin is to doubt or disobey god. Doubt is worse than
disobedience."

The underlined is pretty much what others have said on the thread. This is what would still maintain.

 

[bilby]

The first lie is the first sin.

According to your religion, that makes God the first sinner.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Spoiler: Adam goes on to eat of it, and doesn't die that day.

God says this, before He even created Eve. It's unequivocally a lie, as it is a knowingly false statement. Adam hasn't even said a word yet, and doesn't have anyone other than God to speak to anyway.

 

[Learner]

The first lie is the first sin.

According to your religion, that makes God the first sinner.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Spoiler: Adam goes on to eat of it, and doesn't die that day.

God says this, before He even created Eve. It's unequivocally a lie, as it is a knowingly false statement. Adam hasn't even said a word yet, and doesn't have anyone other than God to speak to anyway.

Obviously to leave this issue in the scriptures would contradict the purpose of Adam and Eve to have offspring. Why leave such a verse IF that was what the verse meant?

I feel seeing from a simpler perspective view to some answers, (the aim to be read by all people on all levels). The verse doesn't seem to have the same warning effect as a result of a judgment, like for example being 'put to death' by some laws, meaning death instantly:
I'd say the verse would be written thus instead: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die be put to death.

I've seen other suggestions that the original Gen 2:17 could also mean a spiritual death. But what we see in relation to all the other verses in the bible, would say in a manner of speaking: The day that Adam ate the fruit, his life started counting down, i.e. he will surely die, although taking Adam 930 years to come to a final end! God spoke the truth!

 

[bilby]

The first lie is the first sin.

According to your religion, that makes God the first sinner.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Spoiler: Adam goes on to eat of it, and doesn't die that day.

God says this, before He even created Eve. It's unequivocally a lie, as it is a knowingly false statement. Adam hasn't even said a word yet, and doesn't have anyone other than God to speak to anyway.

Obviously to leave this issue in the scriptures would contradict the purpose of Adam and Eve to have offspring. Why leave such a verse IF that was what the verse meant?

I feel seeing from a simpler perspective view to some answers, (the aim to be read by all people on all levels). The verse doesn't seem to have the same warning effect as a result of a judgment, like for example being 'put to death' by some laws, meaning death instantly:
I'd say the verse would be written thus instead: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die be put to death.

I've seen other suggestions that the original Gen 2:17 could also mean a spiritual death. But what we see in relation to all the other verses in the bible, would say in a manner of speaking: The day that Adam ate the fruit, his life started counting down, i.e. he will surely die, although taking Adam 930 years to come to a final end! God spoke the truth!

Horseshit.

God lied. The serpent told the truth. The book portrays God as a lying tyrannical cunt, and the only reason anyone would consider Him to be worthy of worship is if they were themselves a lying tyrannical cunt, and wanted to con the peasants into thinking that worshipping them was a better option than deposing them.

The Bible is monarchist propaganda.

 

[Wiploc]

You seem to be agreeing with my definition of sin.

I've never heard anyone but my Western Civ teacher say anything like this.

Do you maintain that almost everybody agrees with this definition of sin?

Previously in post#99 you stated below:

"Okay, here's the definition I learned in a Western Civ class: To sin is to doubt or disobey god. Doubt is worse than
disobedience."

The underlined is pretty much what others have said on the thread. This is what would still maintain.

<Sigh>

Do you maintain that almost everybody agrees that sin consists of doubting or disobeying gods, and that doublt is worse than disobedience?

 

[Politesse]

"Almost everybody" would be an interesting way to describe a hamartiological position that nearly every Jew would disagree with. It is, or once was, originally a concept of their invention, and Judaism has never considered thoughts to be sins, only actions.

 

[southernhybrid]

I assume that Learner is a very conservative Christian since he seems to take the stories in the Bible literally. I know he's trying to explain things the best way possible, but naturally to atheists, liberal Christians, agnostics etc. these beliefs make no sense.

If you can Learner, explain how you are able to wrap your head around the idea that one must believe that Jesus is god and he came to save mankind, assuming that's what you do believe, without suffering from cognitive dissonance. It was cognitive dissonance that started during my childhood and eventually helped me see that the Bible is a book of myths written during a time when people had no other way to explain the things that we don't understand.

I'd be very relieved for you to know that you don't consider that belief is the only way to please god and be rewarded in some sort of after life. To me, the idea of an afterlife is rather silly, but if I did believe in a god and an afterlife, there is no way, I could accept that an all loving god would punish and torture anyone for all eternity, especially not for simply being unable to believe in a supernatural being who is capable of watching everyone, and knowing what everyone is doing and thinking. That's pretty creepy, not to mention impossible. If you don't believe these things, I apologize, just correct me if I'm wrong. If you do believe that we're all headed for hell, how are you able to believe that? It distressed me greatly when I was a child to think that good people from other religions were headed for hell.

The conservative Christian interpretation of the Bible means that one can be an extremely good person who spends their life helping others, who isn't greedy, who tries very hard to be morally upright, but either believes in a different god or is unable to believe in any gods, is going to be tortured in some place known as hell. Do you believe that? If so, how in the world do you do it? It's a horrible, narrow minded, backwards belief that one's religious belief can save you from an angry, vengeful god. Even the Catholic beliefs make a bit more sense. At least the bad ass people get to go to purgatory for awhile and they have the chance to eventually make it to heaven. Anyone who was once Catholic can correct my misperceptions. This is just what I learned from my husband, who was raised by Catholics and some of my childhood friends. Of course, if a good Catholic isn't blessed by the priest before death, there will be hell to pay, at least for awhile. I forgot about that one. Oh well. Again, it makes no sense. Take your time. I know you have a lot of people asking you questions and/or criticizing your beliefs. I just always wonder how good people can believe such horrible things.

 

[Learner]

The first lie is the first sin.

According to your religion, that makes God the first sinner.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Spoiler: Adam goes on to eat of it, and doesn't die that day.

God says this, before He even created Eve. It's unequivocally a lie, as it is a knowingly false statement. Adam hasn't even said a word yet, and doesn't have anyone other than God to speak to anyway.

Obviously to leave this issue in the scriptures would contradict the purpose of Adam and Eve to have offspring. Why leave such a verse IF that was what the verse meant?

I feel seeing from a simpler perspective view to some answers, (the aim to be read by all people on all levels). The verse doesn't seem to have the same warning effect as a result of a judgment, like for example being 'put to death' by some laws, meaning death instantly:
I'd say the verse would be written thus instead: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die be put to death.

I've seen other suggestions that the original Gen 2:17 could also mean a spiritual death. But what we see in relation to all the other verses in the bible, would say in a manner of speaking: The day that Adam ate the fruit, his life started counting down, i.e. he will surely die, although taking Adam 930 years to come to a final end! God spoke the truth!

Horseshit.

God lied. The serpent told the truth. The book portrays God as a lying tyrannical cunt, and the only reason anyone would consider Him to be worthy of worship is if they were themselves a lying tyrannical cunt, and wanted to con the peasants into thinking that worshipping them was a better option than deposing them.

The Bible is monarchist propaganda.

Your gnostic theology, is a different belief, that I don't hold to, therefore the believer of your version, the "lying tyrannical c***", would be a misrepresentation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Wouldn't it be more simple to say that sins are things that harm others. You know sort of like the human universal that is similar to the Golden Rule? Treat other people in the same way that you like to be treated, or something along those lines.

Not attending Church on a Sunday or on a holy day of obligation is a mortal sin if you are Roman Catholic. If you die before confessing your sin you go to hell. Not sure how that fits in with the golden rule. Pretty dumb shit. Cults operate thus.

But I like your idea of sin except I'd include a lot of other things besides people being mistreated,

 

[Learner]

You seem to be agreeing with my definition of sin [....]÷

Previously in post#99 you stated below:
"Okay, here's the definition I learned in a Western Civ class: To sin is to doubt or disobey god. Doubt is worse than
disobedience."
The underlined is pretty much what others have said on the thread. This is what would still maintain.

<Sigh>

Do you maintain that almost everybody agrees that sin consists of doubting or disobeying gods, and that doublt is worse than disobedience?

Disobeying God is what I maintain, almost everybody agrees with.
Doubt is worse than disobedience? Not a line I've really thought about. Maybe that 'additional' bit may vary between people.

I suppose, If there's doubt in God, in the sense, that you'll think you'll be getting away with it; causing harm to another - then disobedience is synonymous, both being part of the package in this case.
<sigh> let it go.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Doubt leads to disobedience. That is why so many theologians do apologetics. Doubt must be stamped out. Not to mention heresy.

 

[atrib]

I assume that Learner is a very conservative Christian since he seems to take the stories in the Bible literally. I know he's trying to explain things the best way possible, but naturally to atheists, liberal Christians, agnostics etc. these beliefs make no sense.

I think Learner is confused as fuck, and is unable to tell which side is up and which side is down. His faith is a mish-mash of random, discordant ideas in his head, some of it stemming from his very selective reading of the Bible, and some of it no-doubt stemming from him listening to what other Christians have to say about the Bible.

If you can Learner, explain how you are able to wrap your head around the idea that one must believe that Jesus is god and he came to save mankind, assuming that's what you do believe, without suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Good luck with that. I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for Learner to explain anything if I were you.

 

[atrib]

The first lie is the first sin.

According to your religion, that makes God the first sinner.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Spoiler: Adam goes on to eat of it, and doesn't die that day.

God says this, before He even created Eve. It's unequivocally a lie, as it is a knowingly false statement. Adam hasn't even said a word yet, and doesn't have anyone other than God to speak to anyway.

Obviously to leave this issue in the scriptures would contradict the purpose of Adam and Eve to have offspring. Why leave such a verse IF that was what the verse meant?

I feel seeing from a simpler perspective view to some answers, (the aim to be read by all people on all levels). The verse doesn't seem to have the same warning effect as a result of a judgment, like for example being 'put to death' by some laws, meaning death instantly:
I'd say the verse would be written thus instead: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die be put to death.

I've seen other suggestions that the original Gen 2:17 could also mean a spiritual death. But what we see in relation to all the other verses in the bible, would say in a manner of speaking: The day that Adam ate the fruit, his life started counting down, i.e. he will surely die, although taking Adam 930 years to come to a final end! God spoke the truth!

Horseshit.

God lied. The serpent told the truth. The book portrays God as a lying tyrannical cunt, and the only reason anyone would consider Him to be worthy of worship is if they were themselves a lying tyrannical cunt, and wanted to con the peasants into thinking that worshipping them was a better option than deposing them.

The Bible is monarchist propaganda.

Your gnostic theology, is a different belief, that I don't hold to, therefore the believer of your version, the "lying tyrannical c***", would be a misrepresentation.

Feel free to point out what he is wrong about. Who lied, God or the serpent?

 

[atrib]

Doubt is worse than disobedience? Not a line I've really thought about. Maybe that 'additional' bit may vary between people.

You've never stopped to think about the idea that the Bible may not be true in everything it says? Never? You just read the book and swallowed it whole without an ounce of skepticism?

I suppose, If there's doubt in God, in the sense, that you'll think you'll be getting away with it; causing harm to another - then disobedience is synonymous, both being part of the package in this case.

Or, you could be a normal human being, with enough sense to be skeptical of the tall claims made in an old book. As many of us here on these forums are. Oh, and I don't believe in Biblegod, and I don't knowingly cause harm to others. Because I have a fucking conscience, and I was taught right from wrong by my parents.

 

[Wiploc]

<sigh> let it go.

Done.