NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like replies from Christians on an issue I have never been able to get Christians to discuss: the inherent implication of the Adam and Eve story and of original sin, that knowledge is a bad thing. In the story of Adam and Eve, the apple that they eat gives them the knowledge of good and evil. This is what sets us apart from animals, we can commit good acts, and evil acts, because we recognise that other beings are conscious as well as ourselves. And the bible says that knowing this was a bad thing? It would mean that every advancement humanity has made is a bad thing. This is in fact exactly what the bible says; we could have had paradise but what we have instead is not as good. This paradise, this Garden of Even, is simply the paradise created by not being conscious, and having no guilt. Anyone who has read His Dark Materials will understand this. In that story, the church actually believes it has found a way to bring us back to the unconscious paradise. I wonder how many Christians are willing to accept that their religion preaches this. The response I have often been given when I say that Christianity suppresses knowledge is 'yes, but we don't any more, we are better than that now.' If you say that the most important thing to you is to worship God as well as you can, and you admit that Christianity does have flaws underlying some of its principles, why ignore them, as many Christians do now? Why not say, well God wants me to worship Him but He never said I have to worship Him through Christianity (which He didn't). Why not take the aspects of Christianity that are good and form an official new religion. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If there is a God, He will not care about the details of how you worship him as long as you do it for a good reason and with conviction.

And The Lord spoketh: Let There Be Paragraphs!

Ever heard the term "Ignorance is bliss"? That which does not understand good and evil cannot commit an evil act - as the term implies understanding. As such, human beings could not commit evil until they got to the point where they understood good and evil. This places many more restrictions and responsibilities on humanity than they had before they obtained knowledge. This does not mean that knowledge in and of itself is a bad thing, but that, much like adults viewing the loss of innocence as a child as a departure from "paradise," human beings viewed the loss of innocence inherent in understanding their actions as such a departure.

A very interesting set of books to read is: Ishmael and Ishmael, My Ishmael. There are some very interesting viewpoints on the Adam and Eve story, as well as the Cain and Abel one.

Ever heard the term "Ignorance is bliss"? That which does not understand good and evil cannot commit an evil act - as the term implies understanding. As such, human beings could not commit evil until they got to the point where they understood good and evil. This places many more restrictions and responsibilities on humanity than they had before they obtained knowledge. This does not mean that knowledge in and of itself is a bad thing, but that, much like adults viewing the loss of innocence as a child as a departure from "paradise," human beings viewed the loss of innocence inherent in understanding their actions as such a departure.

i wonder if the majority of Christians understand that their concept of "paradise" (i.e. perfect ignorance) is a hellish vision for many of us.

Why would an all powerful god care if you worship it or not? Isn't that a bit vain?

Surely living a good life should be enough.

I would like replies from Christians on an issue I have never been able to get Christians to discuss: the inherent implication of the Adam and Eve story and of original sin, that knowledge is a bad thing. In the story of Adam and Eve, the apple that they eat gives them the knowledge of good and evil. This is what sets us apart from animals, we can commit good acts, and evil acts, because we recognise that other beings are conscious as well as ourselves. And the bible says that knowing this was a bad thing? It would mean that every advancement humanity has made is a bad thing. This is in fact exactly what the bible says; we could have had paradise but what we have instead is not as good. This paradise, this Garden of Even, is simply the paradise created by not being conscious, and having no guilt. Anyone who has read His Dark Materials will understand this. In that story, the church actually believes it has found a way to bring us back to the unconscious paradise. I wonder how many Christians are willing to accept that their religion preaches this. The response I have often been given when I say that Christianity suppresses knowledge is 'yes, but we don't any more, we are better than that now.' If you say that the most important thing to you is to worship God as well as you can, and you admit that Christianity does have flaws underlying some of its principles, why ignore them, as many Christians do now? Why not say, well God wants me to worship Him but He never said I have to worship Him through Christianity (which He didn't). Why not take the aspects of Christianity that are good and form an official new religion. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If there is a God, He will not care about the details of how you worship him as long as you do it for a good reason and with conviction.

1) God never said anything specific about worship, and how it should be carried out. That is a cultural idea

2) What is made clear in the Bible is what to be worshiped (IE God, Jesus, the Crucifixtion and what Jesus did for us through it)

Of course religeons have flaws. Thats why you have to actually beleive in them and why they are not accepted as definate fact.

Of course religeons have flaws. Thats why you have to actually beleive in them and why they are not accepted as definate fact.
wait, so because religions have flaws we have to believe in them?

and since when has the Christian Right stopped pushing their religion as fact? i wasn't aware that Pat Robertson died!

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Ever heard the term "Ignorance is bliss"? That which does not understand good and evil cannot commit an evil act - as the term implies understanding. As such, human beings could not commit evil until they got to the point where they understood good and evil. This places many more restrictions and responsibilities on humanity than they had before they obtained knowledge. This does not mean that knowledge in and of itself is a bad thing, but that, much like adults viewing the loss of innocence as a child as a departure from "paradise," human beings viewed the loss of innocence inherent in understanding their actions as such a departure.
/QUOTE]

That is exactly my point.

and since when has the Christian Right stopped pushing their religion as fact? i wasn't aware that Pat Robertson died!
That's good, it means I covered up the murder fairly well then.
:p

Of course religeons have flaws. Thats why you have to actually beleive in them and why they are not accepted as definate fact.

Of course religions have flaws but does that mean we should try to live with this or make an improvement to it? Science has flaws with it too, but it is reducing those flaws far faster than religion is.

i wonder if the majority of Christians understand that their concept of "paradise" (i.e. perfect ignorance) is a hellish vision for many of us.

You completely misunderstand me. Those who wrote the story saw ignorance as the concept of paradise. Most Christians do not - putting most of the focus on the disobedience aspect of the story than on the particular instruction that was disobeyed.

You completely misunderstand me. Those who wrote the story saw ignorance as the concept of paradise. Most Christians do not - putting most of the focus on the disobedience aspect of the story than on the particular instruction that was disobeyed.

This is another example of how Christians will try to only take the aspects of Christianity that they like. This is what is wrong with organised religion; it demands an all or nothing approach. Most Christians are not absolute Christians because they do not agree with absolutely everything Christianity teaches. It would be better if philosophy was like politics, with scales of opinions. Rather than belonging to one particular religion everyone should accept that they all have their own personal set of beliefs that probably do not fit in exactly with anyone else's.

I would like replies from Christians on an issue I have never been able to get Christians to discuss: the inherent implication of the Adam and Eve story and of original sin, that knowledge is a bad thing. In the story of Adam and Eve, the apple that they eat gives them the knowledge of good and evil. This is what sets us apart from animals, we can commit good acts, and evil acts, because we recognise that other beings are conscious as well as ourselves. And the bible says that knowing this was a bad thing? It would mean that every advancement humanity has made is a bad thing. This is in fact exactly what the bible says; we could have had paradise but what we have instead is not as good. This paradise, this Garden of Even, is simply the paradise created by not being conscious, and having no guilt. Anyone who has read His Dark Materials will understand this. In that story, the church actually believes it has found a way to bring us back to the unconscious paradise. I wonder how many Christians are willing to accept that their religion preaches this. The response I have often been given when I say that Christianity suppresses knowledge is 'yes, but we don't any more, we are better than that now.' If you say that the most important thing to you is to worship God as well as you can, and you admit that Christianity does have flaws underlying some of its principles, why ignore them, as many Christians do now? Why not say, well God wants me to worship Him but He never said I have to worship Him through Christianity (which He didn't). Why not take the aspects of Christianity that are good and form an official new religion. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If there is a God, He will not care about the details of how you worship him as long as you do it for a good reason and with conviction.

Christianity suppresses knowledge... Interesting conclusion to come to from that passage.

Before the fall, Adam and Eve knew only what was right. In other words, they knew love, joy, happiness, and all else that is good and pure, without knowing deceit, jealousy, hate, and all the things that that are "bad, or evil. So, they weren't completely ignorant, they just didn't know evil. Think about it, can you still figure out the laws of physics without knowing without anybody ever lying to you, and teaching you deceit? Yes, in fact, it works better that way. So, if they didn't know evil before, why should they gain knowledge of the difference? Because they learned evil as they ate. Evil is sin. Sin is breaking one of God's commands. When Adam and Eve first ate of the fruit, they broke the only command that God had set for them. So, they learned, of sin/evil right then and there.

So, to wrap up what we have learned today, the story of Adam and Eve does not encourage the practice of alienating ourselves from knowledge. I will still continue to gain knowledge, and glorify God in doing so. But, I do not need any more knowledge of the practices of evil. I don't need to learn more about how to lie and murder.

[QUOTE]This is another example of how Christians will try to only take the aspects of Christianity that they like. This is what is wrong with organised religion; it demands an all or nothing approach. Most Christians are not absolute Christians because they do not agree with absolutely everything Christianity teaches. It would be better if philosophy was like politics, with scales of opinions. Rather than belonging to one particular religion everyone should accept that they all have their own personal set of beliefs that probably do not fit in exactly with anyone else's.[QUOTE]

For one, I do not take only the aspects of Christianity that I like. If that were the case, I would be a hedonist instead of a Christian. I believe that the Bible is our main standard for belief. Unfortunately, because of inherent human bias, we cannot perfectly interpret the Bible. I know, somebody is going to come along with some verse from Leviticus that reads something like stoning people for crop rotating, or something. However, I will counter with the fact that you have to put it into perspective. A) Usually, there is a physical reason why you shouldn't do that. There is a chance of somebody getting sick or hurt because of it(I.E. jews being forbidden to eat pigs. Pork, if not cooked properly, which they didn't always have the means to do, can make you sick because of pigs rather nasty habit of eating their own crap to redigest it, and get the maximum amount of nutrients.). Secondly, that we have been freed from the law in the new testament. We aren't forced to submit to the law to get to heaven, only to accept Jesus' sacrifice, and trust that he will forgive us as he promised to do. So, instead of being bound into a strict code, we are led by Jesus in all we should do. In effect, accomplishing the idea, if not the letter of the law.

Lastly, I would like to point out that all religions are exclusive in some way. And, if you don't mind a little fire and brimstone :p , seeing as the decision for Christ involves your eternal happiness or torment, I figure I better get it right, which, along with the fact that I don't want anybody else in eternal torment, will keep me evangelizing for a long time yet to come.

You may want to ask a Hebrew linguist about this, but my understanding is that the work translated "knowledge" is referring to or could be translated as experiential knowledge. IMO, experiencing evil first hand is never a good thing. I don't see this as a real "flaw".

This is another example of how Christians will try to only take the aspects of Christianity that they like.

This describes all members of any religion/philosophy/political group/club/etc. It is a byproduct of having the ability to think.

This is what is wrong with organised religion; it demands an all or nothing approach.

It once was, very few are now.

Most Christians are not absolute Christians because they do not agree with absolutely everything Christianity teaches.

Who defines "absolute Christians"? I would say that God defines it - so who are you to say what does and does not constitute an "absolute Christian"?

It would be better if philosophy was like politics, with scales of opinions.

I've got news for you: It is.

Rather than belonging to one particular religion everyone should accept that they all have their own personal set of beliefs that probably do not fit in exactly with anyone else's.

Many, many people do.

You completely misunderstand me. Those who wrote the story saw ignorance as the concept of paradise. Most Christians do not - putting most of the focus on the disobedience aspect of the story than on the particular instruction that was disobeyed.
i dunno, the majority of Christians i hear speaking out are very much in favor of the "ignorance is bliss, so let's all stay stupid" philosophy. they want to prevent people from learning about as much as possible, and seem to think that keeping children from learning about the world is the best way to avoid rearing dangerous, immoral, nasty children. i see strong emphasis placed on "faith" while actual learning and factual education are seen with indifference or even contempt.

now, maybe that's not the majority of Christians, but it sure is the vast majority of LOUD Christians :).

Christianity suppresses knowledge... Interesting conclusion to come to from that passage.

Before the fall, Adam and Eve knew only what was right. In other words, they knew love, joy, happiness, and all else that is good and pure, without knowing deceit, jealousy, hate, and all the things that that are "bad, or evil. So, they weren't completely ignorant, they just didn't know evil. Think about it, can you still figure out the laws of physics without knowing without anybody ever lying to you, and teaching you deceit? Yes, in fact, it works better that way. So, if they didn't know evil before, why should they gain knowledge of the difference? Because they learned evil as they ate. Evil is sin. Sin is breaking one of God's commands. When Adam and Eve first ate of the fruit, they broke the only command that God had set for them. So, they learned, of sin/evil right then and there.

So, to wrap up what we have learned today, the story of Adam and Eve does not encourage the practice of alienating ourselves from knowledge. I will still continue to gain knowledge, and glorify God in doing so. But, I do not need any more knowledge of the practices of evil. I don't need to learn more about how to lie and murder.

You can't be capable of good without being capable of evil. To do either, you first need to accept that other people are affected by your actions. For example, a very serious autist (don't know if that's right spelling), one who has no empathy whatsoever (also btw I wouldn't apply this to any actual authist as all have some tiny amount of empathy. This is a hypothetical person) cannot be said to be evil if he/she does something that harms someone, as in their opinion it is no different to harming an inanimate object. By the same token, they cannot be said to be good if they do something that help another person.
Unfortunately there is no word for in between good and evil other than neutral. A neutral state of being is what life forms such as bacterium are. More evolved animals can develop empathy, and that is where good and evil can be found. There is no way to have the ability to do one without the ability to do the other. You can however, reduce evil by understanding both good and evil more, and therefore make a conscious decision not to do evil.
Also, show me where in the bible it says clearly that Adam and Eve knew love, joy and happiness. That is just your interpretation of what paradise would be like.

So, to wrap up what we have learned today, the story of Adam and Eve does not encourage the practice of alienating ourselves from knowledge. I will still continue to gain knowledge, and glorify God in doing so. But, I do not need any more knowledge of the practices of evil. I don't need to learn more about how to lie and murder.

But you do. Unless you know about how to lie and murder, how can you know about how not to lie and murder, other than learning it parrot fashion? How can you really understand what it means to suppress the evil that you are capable of? Also, how will you be able to claim yourself able to recognise and judge those who lie and murder?

Many, many people do.

I was careful to say that people should accept that they have their own personal set of beliefs, not that they should have their own set of personal beliefs. If everyone accepted that everyone's beliefs are all different, why would we still have organised religion?

now, maybe that's not the majority of Christians, but it sure is the vast majority of LOUD Christians :).

Exactly. Every group is judged by its extremists - because they are generally the loudest, although they are nearly always the minority.

I was careful to say that people should accept that they have their own personal set of beliefs, not that they should have their own set of personal beliefs. If everyone accepted that everyone's beliefs are all different, why would we still have organised religion?

Why do we have political parties? Why do we have clubs? Why do we have associations?

People congregate with those whose beliefs/viewpoints are similar - not necessarily the same, but similar.

Pyromanstahn, interesting question but why the inflammatory title? :rolleyes:
What i dont get is that we ever so often get to a point in religious discussion when "god gave men free will" comes up. Imho the Bible shows us that it actually was Satan. Only him deceiving Eve and subsequently Adam into eating the forbidden fruit mankind gained humans the knowledge to make any decisions at all.

You can't be capable of good without being capable of evil. To do either, you first need to accept that other people are affected by your actions. For example, a very serious autist (don't know if that's right spelling), one who has no empathy whatsoever (also btw I wouldn't apply this to any actual authist as all have some tiny amount of empathy. This is a hypothetical person) cannot be said to be evil if he/she does something that harms someone, as in their opinion it is no different to harming an inanimate object. By the same token, they cannot be said to be good if they do something that help another person.
Unfortunately there is no word for in between good and evil other than neutral. A neutral state of being is what life forms such as bacterium are. More evolved animals can develop empathy, and that is where good and evil can be found. There is no way to have the ability to do one without the ability to do the other. You can however, reduce evil by understanding both good and evil more, and therefore make a conscious decision not to do evil.
Also, show me where in the bible it says clearly that Adam and Eve knew love, joy and happiness. That is just your interpretation of what paradise would be like.

First mistake, you are defining everything by human standards. If you are going to criticize the storyof Adam and Eve, you cannot get God out of the picture. If you want to do that, then you have to disprove God, and that opens up a whole other can of worms. So, you are firstly defining evil by human standards, e.g. it's affect on others. Evil can affect God and your self as much as others. Evil is more then just what you can see. Secondly, you are introducing elements out of context. I.E., autistic people wouldn't exsist in a perfect setting.

With that out of the way, try these on for size:
Genisis 2:20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field.
So Adam has sentient thought, how about that?

Genisis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise
Eve knows pleasantness. She can see something and say, hey that is pretty. That is good enough proof for me that she knows something else she likes. Which, in turn, equals a happiness with something. Which equals the capacity and experiance of happiness. Am I clear enough?

Give me more then the half an hour that I had today, and we will see where this goes.

This is long but it is worth the read.

ADAM AND EVE

Question. -- What is the truth of the story of Adam, and His eating of the fruit of the tree?

Answer. -- In the Bible it is written that God put Adam in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and take care of it, and said to Him: "Eat of every tree of the garden except the tree of good and evil, for if You eat of that, You will die."[1] Then it is said that God caused Adam to sleep, and He took one of His ribs and created woman in order that she might be His companion. After that it is said the serpent induced the woman to eat of the tree, saying: "God has forbidden you to eat of the tree in order that your eyes may not be opened, and that you may not know good from evil."[2] Then Eve ate from the tree and gave unto Adam, Who also ate; their eyes were opened, they found themselves naked, and they hid their bodies with leaves. In consequence of this act they received the reproaches of God. God said to Adam: "Hast Thou eaten of the forbidden tree?" Adam answered: "Eve tempted Me, and I did eat." God then reproved Eve; Eve said: "The serpent tempted me, and I did eat." For this the serpent was cursed, and enmity was put between the serpent and Eve, and between their descendants. And God said: "The man is become like unto Us, knowing good and evil, and perhaps He will eat of the tree of life and live forever." So God guarded the tree of life.[3]
[1 Cf. Gen. 2:16-17.]
[2 Cf. Gen. 3:5.]
[3 Cf. Gen. 3:11-15,22.] *123*

If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how much less of the Divinity -- that Divinity Who has organized this infinite universe in the most perfect form, and its innumerable inhabitants with absolute system, strength and perfection.

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings.

We will explain one of them, and we will say: Adam signifies the heavenly spirit of Adam, and Eve His human soul. For in some passages in the Holy Books where women are mentioned, they represent the soul of man. The tree of good and evil signifies the human world; for the spiritual and divine world is purely good and absolutely luminous, but in the human world light and darkness, good and evil, exist as opposite conditions.

The meaning of the serpent is attachment to the human world. This attachment of the spirit to the human world led the soul and spirit of Adam from the world of freedom to the world of bondage and caused Him to turn from the Kingdom of Unity to the human world. When the soul and spirit of Adam entered the human world, He came out from the paradise of freedom and fell into the world of bondage. From the height of purity and absolute goodness, He entered into the world of good and evil.

The tree of life is the highest degree of the world of existence: the position of the Word of God, and the supreme Manifestation. Therefore, that position has been preserved; and, at the appearance of the most noble supreme Manifestation, it became apparent and clear. For the position of Adam, with regard to the appearance and manifestation of the divine perfections, was in the embryonic condition; the position of Christ was the condition of maturity and the age of reason; and the rising of the Greatest Luminary [1] was the condition of the perfection of the essence and of the qualities. This is why in the supreme Paradise the tree of life is the expression for the center of absolutely pure sanctity -- that is to say, of the divine supreme Manifestation. From the days of Adam until the days of Christ, They spoke little of eternal life and the heavenly universal perfections. This tree of life was the position of the Reality of Christ; through His manifestation it was planted and adorned with everlasting fruits.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 122)

But you do. Unless you know about how to lie and murder, how can you know about how not to lie and murder, other than learning it parrot fashion? How can you really understand what it means to suppress the evil that you are capable of? Also, how will you be able to claim yourself able to recognise and judge those who lie and murder?

My point is/was you do not need to know about evil to accomplish knowledge. There are many many fields that can study without having knowledge of evil. With Adam and Eve, there was no evil, so they didn't have to know about it. Because of that first sin, I have to know about it. I know about it at birth. Because of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge between good and evil, we still have a conscience that differentiates between good and evil, whether we choose to ignore it or not. Everybody knows it is bad to murder until someone tells them it is alright. You don't have to teach a child to steal cookies.

Pyromanstahn, interesting question but why the inflammatory title? :rolleyes:
What i dont get is that we ever so often get to a point in religious discussion when "god gave men free will" comes up. Imho the Bible shows us that it actually was Satan. Only him deceiving Eve and subsequently Adam into eating the forbidden fruit mankind gained humans the knowledge to make any decisions at all.

Actually, the Bible shows us that it was a serpent who tempted Eve. The interpretation that the serpent was Satan was not added until long after the idea of Satan had become part of the culture (after the Babylonian exile). It may be correct, but stating that the story makes that clear is a little devious.

Ever heard the term "Ignorance is bliss"? That which does not understand good and evil cannot commit an evil act - as the term implies understanding. As such, human beings could not commit evil until they got to the point where they understood good and evil. This places many more restrictions and responsibilities on humanity than they had before they obtained knowledge. This does not mean that knowledge in and of itself is a bad thing, but that, much like adults viewing the loss of innocence as a child as a departure from "paradise," human beings viewed the loss of innocence inherent in understanding their actions as such a departure.

A very interesting set of books to read is: Ishmael and Ishmael, My Ishmael. There are some very interesting viewpoints on the Adam and Eve story, as well as the Cain and Abel one.

I don't know the exact wording, but Jesus preached about being blessed: Blessed are those of weak mind, as theirs will be the Land of Heaven.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I don't know the exact wording, but Jesus preached about being blessed: Blessed are those of weak mind, as theirs will be the Land of Heaven.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I've never seen any such thing. There was "blessed are the meek", suggesting humility. However, humility does not suggest that you are "weak of mind."

I've never seen any such thing. There was "blessed are the meek", suggesting humility. However, humility does not suggest that you are "weak of mind."
As I said, I don't know the exact wording; I've read this passage in Hungarian, and that several years ago, but I clearly remember that it was about that as it startled me somewhat...

Pyromanstahn, interesting question but why the inflammatory title? :rolleyes:

It's not that inflammatory. Aaww, come on, you have to grab attention a bit and then use all the serious debating stuff.

Before the fall, Adam and Eve knew only what was right. In other words, they knew love, joy, happiness, and all else that is good and pure, without knowing deceit, jealousy, hate, and all the things that that are "bad, or evil. So, they weren't completely ignorant, they just didn't know evil.
But surely, in order to fully appreciate their knowledge of all that was just and right in the world, they would have needed something to compare it with? How can one actually know that something is positive, without at least being aware of what is negative? You may be right that you can still prove certain laws of physics without their opposites (though, being crap at maths and science, I have no idea), but you're talking about human emotions and perceptions here, and I think that's a whole different ballgame...

I would like replies from Christians on an issue I have never been able to get Christians to discuss: the inherent implication of the Adam and Eve story and of original sin, that knowledge is a bad thing. In the story of Adam and Eve, the apple that they eat gives them the knowledge of good and evil.

No, knowledge isn't a bad thing. Disobeying God is. He said don't eat that. Its like your children opening christmas presents in November when you aren't home. You have specially told them not to open them till Christmas. They should be punished.


This is what sets us apart from animals, we can commit good acts, and evil acts, because we recognise that other beings are conscious as well as ourselves. And the bible says that knowing this was a bad thing? It would mean that every advancement humanity has made is a bad thing. This is in fact exactly what the bible says; we could have had paradise but what we have instead is not as good.

Animals can see good and evil acts that we do too. Just animals aren't judged as much as us because they have less knowlege of these things. Bible says disobeying is a bad thing.


This paradise, this Garden of Even, is simply the paradise created by not being conscious, and having no guilt. Anyone who has read His Dark Materials will understand this. In that story, the church actually believes it has found a way to bring us back to the unconscious paradise. I wonder how many Christians are willing to accept that their religion preaches this. The response I have often been given when I say that Christianity suppresses knowledge is 'yes, but we don't any more, we are better than that now.'

No it is paradise. Paradise because no guilt, no sinning (till they brerak order), and no strife.


If you say that the most important thing to you is to worship God as well as you can, and you admit that Christianity does have flaws underlying some of its principles, why ignore them, as many Christians do now? Why not say, well God wants me to worship Him but He never said I have to worship Him through Christianity (which He didn't).

I never ignore them. I pity them when they follow false teachers like the Trinity. God did say you have to worship him through his son Jesus (supposedly Christians says that means through them and are somewhat right)
You vould instead become a LDS, we worship Christ but lack the flaws of Christianities bad past.


Why not take the aspects of Christianity that are good and form an official new religion. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If there is a God, He will not care about the details of how you worship him as long as you do it for a good reason and with conviction.

We did create a Reformation of the Church that Jesus created while on earth. Its called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.

And it does matter how you worship because it must be through Jesus.

Actually, the Bible shows us that it was a serpent who tempted Eve. The interpretation that the serpent was Satan was not added until long after the idea of Satan had become part of the culture (after the Babylonian exile). It may be correct, but stating that the story makes that clear is a little devious.
Bear with me, old man. I was born after the babylonian exile and my religious teachers, too. ;)
But the question stays. Did God give us free will to chose between good and evil or did he explicitly forbid that we ever gain the knowledge needed to make this decision?

Never.. never.. never...

never try and dismiss a religion using its own textbook. Thats just asking for a logic trap. Its like trying to prove Barney the Purple Dinosaur doesn't exist using clips of its own TV show.

Besides, the bible is an irrelevent political text that serves only as an instruction manual for a cosmic nightlight meant to keep primative minds from being afraid of what they didn't know or what lays beyond death. Finding flaws in that text is like nitpicking the flaws of a Mel Brooks film.

"How could they simply rip off their ears and throw them at robin hood without losing any blood?"

"How could Barf breathe when he climbed down the ladder onto Princess Vespa's car in the middle of outer space?"

Even if they don't have a logical answer for you, they'll just say it takes "faith."

Bear with me, old man. I was born after the babylonian exile and my religious teachers, too. ;)
But the question stays. Did God give us free will to chose between good and evil or did he explicitly forbid that we ever gain the knowledge needed to make this decision?

((Neither old (by most standards), nor a man, but ok =)

Personal belief? God gave us free will.

The story, I believe, refers to the progression of ignorance=innocence to knowledge=responsibility/strife. It is not that knowledge is a bad thing, but that it brings further issues with it.

First mistake, you are defining everything by human standards. If you are going to criticize the storyof Adam and Eve, you cannot get God out of the picture. If you want to do that, then you have to disprove God, and that opens up a whole other can of worms. So, you are firstly defining evil by human standards, e.g. it's affect on others. Evil can affect God and your self as much as others. Evil is more then just what you can see. Secondly, you are introducing elements out of context. I.E., autistic people wouldn't exsist in a perfect setting.


With that out of the way, try these on for size:
Genisis 2:20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field.
So Adam has sentient thought, how about that?

Genisis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise
Eve knows pleasantness. She can see something and say, hey that is pretty. That is good enough proof for me that she knows something else she likes. Which, in turn, equals a happiness with something. Which equals the capacity and experiance of happiness. Am I clear enough?

Give me more then the half an hour that I had today, and we will see where this goes.

Well firstly in response, if God is completly beyond our imagining then it is impossible to define things by His standards. How can you claim that God is affected by evil? How can you claim anyhting about God? You can't.
Secondly, autists are not out of context. We are discussing good and evil and my point is that the less empathic you are the less good and evil you can be, and I was showing how autists are less responsible for their actions and a hypothetical autist with no empathy at all would not be responsible for the actions at all.
How the hell does Adam giving names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field prove that he is sentient? A robot could do that.
Eve took the apple because, on a simple level, her brain told her that it was food and she should eat it, and on a more advanced level, because of the attraction of doing something she had been forbidden to do.

Never.. never.. never...

never try and dismiss a religion using its own textbook. Thats just asking for a logic trap. Its like trying to prove Barney the Purple Dinosaur doesn't exist using clips of its own TV show.

Besides, the bible is an irrelevent political text that serves only as an instruction manual for a cosmic nightlight meant to keep primative minds from being afraid of what they didn't know or what lays beyond death. Finding flaws in that text is like nitpicking the flaws of a Mel Brooks film.

"How could they simply rip off their ears and throw them at robin hood without losing any blood?"

"How could Barf breathe when he climbed down the ladder onto Princess Vespa's car in the middle of outer space?"

Even if they don't have a logical answer for you, they'll just say it takes "faith."

Ah, the xenophobe is back.

And The Lord spoketh: Let There Be Paragraphs!
Amen!

Ah, the xenophobe is back.

You diagnosis has returned as voluntary schizophrenia. You are a very sick man and you need to check yourself into a hospital before it becomes terminal.

You believe in an omnipotent boogeyman that created the world in 6 days and couldn't write his own autobiography and can't handle finances?

oops. too late.

You diagnosis has returned as voluntary schizophrenia. You are a very sick man and you need to check yourself into a hospital before it becomes terminal.

You believe in an omnipotent boogeyman that created the world in 6 days and couldn't write his own autobiography and can't handle finances?

oops. too late.

(a) Not a man.

(b) No reason to believe in the 6 day creation, as there are many creation stories - two of them in Genesis alone

Perhaps you need to stop stereotyping and actually attempt to talk to people. I hate to break it to you, but militant atheism is no better than militant Islam, militant Christianity, etc.

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 122)

It's a symbol all right. It's a symbol far the fact that rather than looking for answers ourselves and trying to become great ourselves, we should trust God and assume that He will bring us to that greatest part of Heaven that Christ led us to as it says later in this text.
Do you agree with everything from this text GoodThoughts? I just wondered because you didn't put your own opinion anywhere in that post.

Never.. never.. never...

never try and dismiss a religion using its own textbook. Thats just asking for a logic trap. Its like trying to prove Barney the Purple Dinosaur doesn't exist using clips of its own TV show.

Besides, the bible is an irrelevent political text that serves only as an instruction manual for a cosmic nightlight meant to keep primative minds from being afraid of what they didn't know or what lays beyond death. Finding flaws in that text is like nitpicking the flaws of a Mel Brooks film.

"How could they simply rip off their ears and throw them at robin hood without losing any blood?"

"How could Barf breathe when he climbed down the ladder onto Princess Vespa's car in the middle of outer space?"

Even if they don't have a logical answer for you, they'll just say it takes "faith."

The difference is, we KNOW Mel Brooks films are fiction.

The difference is, we KNOW Mel Brooks films are fiction.
how is that a difference? i believe Mel Brook's works are far more well-grounded in reality than the Bible.

how is that a difference? i believe Mel Brook's works are far more well-grounded in reality than the Bible.

lol, me too, I'm a storng atheist, I believe the Bible is among the most fictitious books of all, but I don't KNOW it.....although I have a very storng inclination, and many good reasons, I don't have physical proof as such....however, I like someone to show me physcial proof of God...

i dunno, the majority of Christians i hear speaking out are very much in favor of the "ignorance is bliss, so let's all stay stupid" philosophy. they want to prevent people from learning about as much as possible, and seem to think that keeping children from learning about the world is the best way to avoid rearing dangerous, immoral, nasty children. i see strong emphasis placed on "faith" while actual learning and factual education are seen with indifference or even contempt.

now, maybe that's not the majority of Christians, but it sure is the vast majority of LOUD Christians :).


I have no problem with the teaching of facts. Its the presenting of one theory as fact that bugs me. Though, I think it is healthy to learn theorys one disagrees with at an appropriate age. I certainly would like my children to learn the 3 R's in as un-biased a manner as possible.

Actually, the Bible shows us that it was a serpent who tempted Eve. The interpretation that the serpent was Satan was not added until long after the idea of Satan had become part of the culture (after the Babylonian exile). It may be correct, but stating that the story makes that clear is a little devious.


How come you ignore the book of Job?

You diagnosis has returned as voluntary schizophrenia. You are a very sick man and you need to check yourself into a hospital before it becomes terminal.

You believe in an omnipotent boogeyman that created the world in 6 days and couldn't write his own autobiography and can't handle finances?

oops. too late.

You obviously don't know Dem. very well. You really should be less bigotted against those with a religous believe structure. You sound like a Catholic Bishop from the Dark ages railing against the evils of the world being round or something.

I certainly would like my children to learn the 3 R's in as un-biased a manner as possible.
i'm curious: exactly how can one teach reading, writing, or arithmatic in a "biased" manner?

Perhaps you need to stop stereotyping and actually attempt to talk to people. I hate to break it to you, but militant atheism is no better than militant Islam, militant Christianity, etc.

Fine then, convince me through specific example that your mystical political system isn't some sociological virus that needs to be stamped out.

Please refrain from describing:

1. Metaphysical phenomena. Thou shall not be so arrogant as to believe that just because science can not currently explain it in your lifetime that it will not be able to explain it in hundred or athousand years from now.

2. Any act that could just have easily been done by an atheistic individual or non-religious organization with equal resources.

The example(s) given must be completely of your own specific religious beliefs and no one elses.

First mistake, you are defining everything by human standards. If you are going to criticize the storyof Adam and Eve, you cannot get God out of the picture. If you want to do that, then you have to disprove God, and that opens up a whole other can of worms.

What's wrong with opening up that other can? Surely, to even attempt to get to the bottom of it, we need to keep the debate as open as possible; withut, of course, going off-scale (by which I mean not tlaking about Christianity at all).

How come you ignore the book of Job?

I don't.

I have no problem with the teaching of facts. Its the presenting of one theory as fact that bugs me. Though, I think it is healthy to learn theorys one disagrees with at an appropriate age. I certainly would like my children to learn the 3 R's in as un-biased a manner as possible.

As has been pointed out to you *numerous* times, only lazy kids could possibly feel that any scientific theory was being taught as fact. Only those who conveniently forget to read the first chapter of the book could possibly get away with such an idea.

Fine then, convince me through specific example that your mystical political system isn't some sociological virus that needs to be stamped out.

Please refrain from describing:

1. Metaphysical phenomena. Thou shall not be so arrogant as to believe that just because science can not currently explain it in your lifetime that it will not be able to explain it in hundred or athousand years from now.

2. Any act that could just have easily been done by an atheistic individual or non-religious organization with equal resources.

The example(s) given must be completely of your own specific religious beliefs and no one elses.

I don't have to convince you of my beliefs, nor could I - considering your militant stance and the fact that they are based on personal experiences.

My point is that you are taking the "I have come to a conclusion and anyone with a different conclusion is inferior to me," stance - the definition of bigotry.

My point is/was you do not need to know about evil to accomplish knowledge. There are many many fields that can study without having knowledge of evil. With Adam and Eve, there was no evil, so they didn't have to know about it. Because of that first sin, I have to know about it. I know about it at birth. Because of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge between good and evil, we still have a conscience that differentiates between good and evil, whether we choose to ignore it or not. Everybody knows it is bad to murder until someone tells them it is alright. You don't have to teach a child to steal cookies.

Morality isn't an instinctive matter, it's a social development one. "You don't have to teach a child to steal cookies".....sure, but you can. Think of all the psychopaths out there doing all their terrible acts - which I won't go into - nature [or God, if you like] didn't build that into his system from birth, that person learned it because of certain aspects of their early life. I put it to you that any psychopath you wish to choose would have either had a twisted childhood, or a mental problem. Ethics isn't an instinctive thing.

Also: "Because of that first sin, I have to know about it"...well, how can you argue the validity of cause and effect as such? There is nothing in the cause of anything that says anything about the effect; as there is nothing ibn the efect that says anything about the cause.......it is only perceiving the two sub-elements as one whole larger event that we can see that cause and effect work together; after all, there is nothing about water that would tell a man it would drown him....it is only from previous perception of both cause and effect that we know such, and in your case of the fruit-eating, we cannot do that as we are not infinite biengs, and thus can't view the whole time-scale

What's wrong with opening up that other can? Surely, to even attempt to get to the bottom of it, we need to keep the debate as open as possible; withut, of course, going off-scale (by which I mean not tlaking about Christianity at all).

NO!! Do not turn this into a thread debating the existance of God, as that way no-one will get anywhere. The best thing to do is to assume that God exists and then debate whether Christianity is a good way to worship Him or a form of supressing knowledge in His name. Trust me, just give up on trying to convince Christians there is no God. I've tried, it will get you nowhere.

Hey Cress, there were loads of people who had posted here who it said 'online' for a minute ago. Now you're here they all say 'offline'. Is this a coincidence? Lol.

NO!! Do not turn this into a thread debating the existance of God, as that way no-one will get anywhere. The best thing to do is to assume that God exists and then debate whether Christianity is a good way to worship Him or a form of supressing knowledge in His name. Trust me, just give up on trying to convince Christians there is no God. I've tried, it will get you nowhere.

Much like trying to convince atheists that there is....

The problem is that it is an axiomatic statement. No proof one way or another, and everyone will come at it from one side of the axiom or the other. One can only hope that both sides have at least been examined.

Much like trying to convince atheists that there is....

The problem is that it is an axiomatic statement. No proof one way or another, and everyone will come at it from one side of the axiom or the other. One can only hope that both sides have at least been examined.

Yeah, I agree with you even though I have no idea what the word axiomatic means.

Yeah, I agree with you even though I have no idea what the word axiomatic means.

An axiom is a logical statement which can be neither proven nor disproven, but must be accepted as fact for the rest of a proof/discussion/etc. It's usually referred to in the context of mathematics, but works well in some other logical systems as well.

An axiom is a logical statement which can be neither proven nor disproven, but must be accepted as fact for the rest of a proof/discussion/etc. It's usually referred to in the context of mathematics, but works well in some other logical systems as well.

Thank you. I am enlightened!

((Neither old (by most standards), nor a man, but ok =)
I gathered as much from other threads. Translating colloquialisms sometimes backfires, my bad. No harm meant.

You grossly misunderstand the purpose of the Adam and Eve story. When Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, the sin they are committing is not gaining knowledge. Knowledge in and of itself is a bad thing. What we must understand is that Adam and Eve were in a state of perfect understanding with God, much like angels are. By going agaist His will and eating of the tree of knowledge, they are telling God that they should be free to dictate their own morality, that they alone should decide what is right and wrong. They are putting themselves at an equal level to God, the sin of pride. Therefore, Adam and Eve's sin is that of pride, the worst sin possible. Knowledge is just one of the after effects of original sin.

And a bad one at that.
It should read "Knowledge in and of itself is NOT a bad thing" in my last post.
Sorry

You grossly misunderstand the purpose of the Adam and Eve story. When Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, the sin they are committing is not gaining knowledge. Knowledge in and of itself is a bad thing. What we must understand is that Adam and Eve were in a state of perfect understanding with God, much like angels are. By going agaist His will and eating of the tree of knowledge, they are telling God that they should be free to dictate their own morality, that they alone should decide what is right and wrong. They are putting themselves at an equal level to God, the sin of pride. Therefore, Adam and Eve's sin is that of pride, the worst sin possible. Knowledge is just one of the after effects of original sin.

Why shouldn't we dictate our own morality? As a species I mean? What you are saying is that it would be better if we did exactly what God tells us to do. Can we not make accomplishments ourselves? Referring back again to His Dark Materials, why should we not have a Republic of Heaven rather than a Kingdom of Heaven? George Bush is currently trying to remove dictators and yet he worships God, who, if He exists, is surely the greatest dictator of all. Why not invade Heaven? In my opinion, pride is nothing like as bad as failing to be all that we could be. Evolve or die!

I gathered as much from other threads. Translating colloquialisms sometimes backfires, my bad. No harm meant.

No offense taken, it's not like you can tell over the internet that I have breasts. =)

I never considered the story at this angle. I realized that it had its problems, but I never noticed what you pointed out. Now that they mention it, the poster has a point.

I would like replies from Christians on an issue I have never been able to get Christians to discuss: the inherent implication of the Adam and Eve story and of original sin, that knowledge is a bad thing. In the story of Adam and Eve, the apple that they eat gives them the knowledge of good and evil. This is what sets us apart from animals, we can commit good acts, and evil acts, because we recognise that other beings are conscious as well as ourselves. And the bible says that knowing this was a bad thing? It would mean that every advancement humanity has made is a bad thing. This is in fact exactly what the bible says; we could have had paradise but what we have instead is not as good. This paradise, this Garden of Even, is simply the paradise created by not being conscious, and having no guilt. Anyone who has read His Dark Materials will understand this. In that story, the church actually believes it has found a way to bring us back to the unconscious paradise. I wonder how many Christians are willing to accept that their religion preaches this. The response I have often been given when I say that Christianity suppresses knowledge is 'yes, but we don't any more, we are better than that now.' If you say that the most important thing to you is to worship God as well as you can, and you admit that Christianity does have flaws underlying some of its principles, why ignore them, as many Christians do now? Why not say, well God wants me to worship Him but He never said I have to worship Him through Christianity (which He didn't). Why not take the aspects of Christianity that are good and form an official new religion. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If there is a God, He will not care about the details of how you worship him as long as you do it for a good reason and with conviction.


Thi is exactly why i read the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. It doesn't address the adam and eve thing, or at least not yet...i'm only about half way through...but it most definately has straightened out alot of the crooked ideas i had about God and Christianity...

Thi is exactly why i read the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. It doesn't address the adam and eve thing, or at least not yet...i'm only about half way through...but it most definately has straightened out alot of the crooked ideas i had about God and Christianity...

I *still* haven't picked up Mere Christianity - but I want to. Have you read any more of Lewis' religious stuff? I've read quite a few of the essays he wrote.

Why shouldn't we dictate our own morality? As a species I mean? What you are saying is that it would be better if we did exactly what God tells us to do. Can we not make accomplishments ourselves? Referring back again to His Dark Materials, why should we not have a Republic of Heaven rather than a Kingdom of Heaven? George Bush is currently trying to remove dictators and yet he worships God, who, if He exists, is surely the greatest dictator of all. Why not invade Heaven? In my opinion, pride is nothing like as bad as failing to be all that we could be. Evolve or die!

God is not telling us what we HAVE to do. God is not a dictator. What He is telling us is the best way to find happiness in this life and the next. Also, God freely gave humanity free-will, something no dictator would ever consider. We've always had the free choice to follow His commands or not. The Eden story shows how we didn't at first. And what we've hit upon is the basic difference between believers and non-believers. Christians believe that God IS the ultimate source of morality, and that humans have no real say in his laws. But that doesn't mean we are His slaves, it means that we are His chosen children, and parents would only want to set "rules" to protect a child. And pride is the sin from whence all other sins come. Without a belief in a supreme being, of course, none of this would make sense. Then again, we're taking that for granted when arguing about theology, now, aren't we?

God is not telling us what we HAVE to do. God is not a dictator. What He is telling us is the best way to find happiness in this life and the next. Also, God freely gave humanity free-will, something no dictator would ever consider. We've always had the free choice to follow His commands or not. The Eden story shows how we didn't at first. And what we've hit upon is the basic difference between believers and non-believers. Christians believe that God IS the ultimate source of morality, and that humans have no real say in his laws. But that doesn't mean we are His slaves, it means that we are His chosen children, and parents would only want to set "rules" to protect a child. And pride is the sin from whence all other sins come. Without a belief in a supreme being, of course, none of this would make sense. Then again, we're taking that for granted when arguing about theology, now, aren't we?
(bold mine)

without a belief in a supreme being we wouldn't need to understand any of that, either, any more than we "need" to understand the myth of Santa Claus.

I don't have to convince you of my beliefs, nor could I - considering your militant stance and the fact that they are based on personal experiences.

Oh yes you do. You said I shouldn't stereotype so there must be something specifically unique about your particular belief structure which seperates you from the extremists. Something that can't be found among the extremists' religious politics, is not dependent on metaphysics and couldn't be done by some secular organization.

You said I should try talking to people instead of grouping them all together. I asked you a perfectly civilized question. If you can't answer my question without acting like a two year old then don't you dare tell me that I can't generalize the lot of you.

Your actions only give credit to my theories.

There are so many flaws in Christianity that it isn't funny. The fact that Adam and Eve lived in bliss only because they were idiots is actually in perfect coherence with Christianity, which demands perfect following, one cannot disobey if one can't think and one will disobey if they can. It may be in conflict with many Christians, but it isn't in conflict with Christianity (there is a big difference there).

Religion is a funny topic. Your right it does have flaws. Not to criticize anybody though, for having faith in a religion isn't a bad thing.

Most of the problem comes from the fact that the very early religions were made up to explain things so that humans could make sense of the world they lived in. An example of this is that the ancient Greeks beleived that the sun rose and moved around by Apollo and his chariot. Science has proven that and many other things from all religions to be false. Also archeologists and scholars have been discovering evidence that Christian and Jewish religions may actually be a spin off of a failed religion that started in Egypt.

I myself think that some things in Christian and Islam are a little bit extreme for todays society. Like I my neighbours are racists and smokers, so I don't really get how disliking them is sinning.

Its pretty easy to tell right from wrong, so its probably better if people just figuire out there own beleifs and respect others.

There are so many flaws in Christianity that it isn't funny. The fact that Adam and Eve lived in bliss only because they were idiots is actually in perfect coherence with Christianity, which demands perfect following, one cannot disobey if one can't think and one will disobey if they can. It may be in conflict with many Christians, but it isn't in conflict with Christianity (there is a big difference there).

Name any flaw you think you can find, and I'll do my best to refute it. I find that most people see flaws in religion only if they don't know much about it.

As for the Santa Claus comment, no there'd be no need to understand... unless, you know, you wanted to understand why the vast majority of the people in Western society make many of the decisions they do.

I would like replies from Christians on an issue I have never been able to get Christians to discuss: the inherent implication of the Adam and Eve story and of original sin, that knowledge is a bad thing. In the story of Adam and Eve, the apple that they eat gives them the knowledge of good and evil. This is what sets us apart from animals, we can commit good acts, and evil acts, because we recognise that other beings are conscious as well as ourselves. And the bible says that knowing this was a bad thing? It would mean that every advancement humanity has made is a bad thing. This is in fact exactly what the bible says; we could have had paradise but what we have instead is not as good. This paradise, this Garden of Even, is simply the paradise created by not being conscious, and having no guilt. Anyone who has read His Dark Materials will understand this. In that story, the church actually believes it has found a way to bring us back to the unconscious paradise. I wonder how many Christians are willing to accept that their religion preaches this. The response I have often been given when I say that Christianity suppresses knowledge is 'yes, but we don't any more, we are better than that now.' If you say that the most important thing to you is to worship God as well as you can, and you admit that Christianity does have flaws underlying some of its principles, why ignore them, as many Christians do now? Why not say, well God wants me to worship Him but He never said I have to worship Him through Christianity (which He didn't). Why not take the aspects of Christianity that are good and form an official new religion. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If there is a God, He will not care about the details of how you worship him as long as you do it for a good reason and with conviction.

Knowledge is not evil. God did not command that we are not to know anything. Rather, our knowledge of ethics should be based on God. The good Lord in His wisdom gave us a mind to be able to understand the world. God told Adam to tend the garden, which he could not do without thinking. What is being said is that the basis for our knowledge must be on God. At that time it was. It was when man decided that what God told him wasn't good enough that he had problems. The issue is not knowledge, but trust.

I would like replies from Christians on an issue I have never been able to get Christians to discuss: the inherent implication of the Adam and Eve story and of original sin, that knowledge is a bad thing. In the story of Adam and Eve, the apple that they eat gives them the knowledge of good and evil. This is what sets us apart from animals, we can commit good acts, and evil acts, because we recognise that other beings are conscious as well as ourselves. And the bible says that knowing this was a bad thing? It would mean that every advancement humanity has made is a bad thing. This is in fact exactly what the bible says; we could have had paradise but what we have instead is not as good. This paradise, this Garden of Even, is simply the paradise created by not being conscious, and having no guilt. Anyone who has read His Dark Materials will understand this. In that story, the church actually believes it has found a way to bring us back to the unconscious paradise. I wonder how many Christians are willing to accept that their religion preaches this. The response I have often been given when I say that Christianity suppresses knowledge is 'yes, but we don't any more, we are better than that now.' If you say that the most important thing to you is to worship God as well as you can, and you admit that Christianity does have flaws underlying some of its principles, why ignore them, as many Christians do now? Why not say, well God wants me to worship Him but He never said I have to worship Him through Christianity (which He didn't). Why not take the aspects of Christianity that are good and form an official new religion. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If there is a God, He will not care about the details of how you worship him as long as you do it for a good reason and with conviction.

Actually, I beleive that god cast out adam and eve because he was worried that after eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge they would eat from the tree of life and become like god or something.

He then did stuff to punish eve for "disobdience," like childbirth.

Then God did tell people how to worship. Twice in fact. (Three if you count islam).

Actually, I beleive that god cast out adam and eve because he was worried that after eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge they would eat from the tree of life and become like god or something.

He then did stuff to punish eve for "disobdience," like childbirth.

Then God did tell people how to worship. Twice in fact. (Three if you count islam).
Then he created the vacuum cleaner, and saw that it was good.

Then he created the student, and saw that the two were not compatible.

Oh yes you do. You said I shouldn't stereotype so there must be something specifically unique about your particular belief structure which seperates you from the extremists.

It has nothing to do with "my particular belief structure". The vast majority of those with religious beliefs are not extremists. Meanwhile, the list of differences between my belief structure and those of extremists would be too long to post here.

Just a select few:

- I believe that all religions - and even a lack of religion - contain truth, and should be studied.
- I believe that forcing one's religious beliefs upon another is wrong. Period. One should only discuss religion with a willing listener - and should always be open to changing your own mind - as well as affecting their beliefs.
- I never claim to be absolutely "right" in my interpretations. I am a human being. I don't know everything, nor will I ever claim to.

Something that can't be found among the extremists' religious politics, is not dependent on metaphysics and couldn't be done by some secular organization.

This doesn't even make sense. Anything that is not among extremists' politics can be found in a secular organization. However, that fact is completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

You said I should try talking to people instead of grouping them all together.

And you should. If you actually sat down and talked to any religious person that doesn't throw Chick tracts at you or scream about how gays are going to hell on a political forum, you wouldn't generalize in the manner that you do.

Using your logic, I could listen to a few loud people and claim that all atheists are immoral anarchist murderers with no respect for humanity. Of course, I wouldn't do that, as I have actually had many civil conversations with atheists - including my own boyfriend.

I asked you a perfectly civilized question.

No, you didn't. You asked me to "prove" the unprovable in attempt at deliberate baiting. I chose not to take the bait.

Your actions only give credit to my theories.

You mean actually being polite to you despite your bigotted views? That somehow gives credit to your theories? *shrug* I guess there is something to be said for the completely illogical...

There are so many flaws in Christianity that it isn't funny. The fact that Adam and Eve lived in bliss only because they were idiots is actually in perfect coherence with Christianity, which demands perfect following, one cannot disobey if one can't think and one will disobey if they can. It may be in conflict with many Christians, but it isn't in conflict with Christianity (there is a big difference there).

Yes, and since you are Jesus Christ himself, you can determine what Christianity is better than the Christians.....

I myself think that some things in Christian and Islam are a little bit extreme for todays society. Like I my neighbours are racists and smokers, so I don't really get how disliking them is sinning.

Neither Christianity nor Islam says you cannot dislike your neighboors. They simply both say that you must *treat* them with love.

The foundation of religions is that faith fills the knowledge gaps. You know, like, "there is a divine reason for everything which we do not understand."
This works well for them because as they become established, dogma follows faith and then questions are definately not encouraged.

The foundation of religions is that faith fills the knowledge gaps. You know, like, "there is a divine reason for everything which we do not understand."
This works well for them because as they become established, dogma follows faith and then questions are definately not encouraged.

Again with the stereotyping.

Some religions, especially organized religion in most cases, does this. It does not, however, apply to all religion - nor is it the "foundation of religion."

It has nothing to do with "my particular belief structure". The vast majority of those with religious beliefs are not extremists.

Irrelevent. (see, I can dismiss your logic as irrelevent too)

Meanwhile, the list of differences between my belief structure and those of extremists would be too long to post here.

Just a select few:

- I believe that all religions - and even a lack of religion - contain truth, and should be studied.
- I believe that forcing one's religious beliefs upon another is wrong. Period. One should only discuss religion with a willing listener - and should always be open to changing your own mind - as well as affecting their beliefs.
- I never claim to be absolutely "right" in my interpretations. I am a human being. I don't know everything, nor will I ever claim to.

Quite admirable. however your foundations are still shaky at best.

Using your logic, I could listen to a few loud people and claim that all atheists are immoral anarchist murderers with no respect for humanity. Of course, I wouldn't do that, as I have actually had many civil conversations with atheists - including my own boyfriend.

Please. Who has more respect for life? Would it be someone who believes they are going to consciously exist after death or someone who doesn't believe they are going to consciously exist after death?

You seem to be confusing your mystical political system with a birth defect. Politics is not something you are born with. It is not a race. It is not a skin pigmentation. You are not genetically fated to join a specific religion. I am not attacking the extremists. I am attacking the very foundation of your political structure, the ones your beliefs are based upon. I never said I had all the answers and I am not so arrogant that I need them or that they must all be given to me by science, with complete absolution, in my lifetime.

There are only three things that I know of that surpass politics. Love, hate and energy. I can not say that your religion is wrong, because each poltical system has its own boundaries of good and evil. What I am saying is that there too little empirical evidence to show that your organization is anything but another hate-based organization, regardless of your buffet-style approach to it.

No, you didn't. You asked me to "prove" the unprovable in attempt at deliberate baiting. I chose not to take the bait.

I asked you to show me how your beliefs stem from different politics than extremists without relying on supernatural phenomena and the finances of your organization. Anything else could be argued by some nutjob who said a Walt Disney character told him to give his entire fortune to the homeless.

You mean actually being polite to you despite your bigotted views? That somehow gives credit to your theories? *shrug* I guess there is something to be said for the completely illogical...

I'm illogical? You base your belief structure on an invisble boogeyman and you are calling me illogical?

My views are no more bigotted than a Democrat who doesn't vote Republican. While Republicans do seem to get off on calling Democrats traitors, I rarely see anyone calling anyone a bigot out there.

If I am going to be called a bigot for hating bigots, then so be it. The foundation of your political structure is based in hate. Hate for yourselves and hate for everyone else around you. Whether you choose to hate less or more than your founding fathers is truly irrelevent. By promoting and following the political system you are continuing the cycle of hate.

Its like a person wearing white KKK robe and saying he doesn't believe in burning crosses or hating people. The politics may not be as strong, but the symbolism based in hate is still there!! It may not be verbally communicated, but the hate can still be visually or emotionally communicated to those who might not realize its not ok to be hateful.

Think I'm just invoking the KKK because its a fail safe? Fine. Use the stars and bars flag of the south. There's a nice symbol that rednecks like to claim is no longer related to the slave trade in the first hundred years of America's history. The politics may be watered down, but the symbol is still there.

Neither Christianity nor Islam says you cannot dislike your neighboors. They simply both say that you must *treat* them with love.

Treat them with love, but define them as evil, by default, because they don't perform political mystic rituals A, B and C as often as the good people do.

You may not show it, but any form of communication (visual, verbal or other) in public or in private can be construed as an act of proselytization based in the hate of another political structure.

The only true act of love in this scenario is to say and believe "I may be completely wrong and this person may be completely right."

Nice thing about being Atheist is that religious faith in invisble boogeymen wont slow us down from expressing this should empirical data show previous theories flawed.

I *still* haven't picked up Mere Christianity - but I want to. Have you read any more of Lewis' religious stuff? I've read quite a few of the essays he wrote.

not yet...next on my list is the screwtape letters...not quite a religious essay, but good stuff none the less...

Actually, I beleive that god cast out adam and eve because he was worried that after eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge they would eat from the tree of life and become like god or something

why is everybody forgeting that it's the tree of knowledge of good and evil? if you include the second part of the name, that statement makes a TON more sense...


has anybody considered the fact that as the creator of everything God also created the alegory? Now, i'm not saying this is how it was, but it's worth considering that maybe neither of those trees existed, but were merely tools to make you understand the ideas put forth in the story. The tree of knowledge of good and evil could have represented some separation from their trust in God to define right and wrong for them, and a new idea they've created for themselves of what these words mean which is in some way twisted and warped by the snake(satan) to fit his will. Maybe the tree of life is God, or Heaven, or even something else. If i were a little more ambitious i'd look into this a little more and find a few more solid examples, but keep in mind these are just "for instance."

Also, it should be considered that evil is quite literally corrupted good. Before adam and eve ate the fruit, all there was in the world(other than satan himself who was trying to remedy this permanently) was good. Clean, pure, unadolterated(sp?) good. Maybe this "knowledge" of good and evil was what actually brought evil into the world, because before this evil didn't exist!

Again with the stereotyping.

Some religions, especially organized religion in most cases, does this. It does not, however, apply to all religion - nor is it the "foundation of religion."

Stereotyping averages and generalizing theories are how things get done in the real world. Utlizing scientific theories that generalize data is how we have advances in science, technology and medicine. There is no scientific absolute that says if you jump up you wont just drift off into outer space, but the theory of gravity, based on generalizations, gives us the basic idea that we wont. If we waited for absolutes on everything we'd never leave the house because there would always be a possibility that a meteor could strike us dead the minute we left the door.

Only political systems based in supernatural phenomena deal in absolutes.

A person has every right to dislike averages based on the guidelines of an invisible boogeyman who may or may not exist, but atheists don't have that fail safe to fall back on. You may not like it when someone poses an average upon the basis of your political system based on the empirical data available, but if you have empirical data that may outweigh the overwhelming destruction and chaos that your political system has caused in the past 2000 years, then by all means, share it.

The fundamental requirement of any political party (especially religion) is to gain power. If an organization claims to know how everything works (where you came from, what is your specific purpose, what happens when you die, how the heavens are aligned - before science proved it wrong, etc.) they have the potential to control everything.

Atheism has always held a disadvantage to religion in this department. While atheism has to wait for enough empirical data to come in to support a theory, a religion can just make up whatever and sell it as the guideline of an omnipotent invisible boogeyman. Impatient people who need answers now, rush to religion and science has to play catch up once again.

"His Dark Materials?" That doesn't sound like the bible to me.

Have you ever read the New Testament? There are some very specific steps to follow in the terms of religion. I could go on about salvation, resurrection, bodily sin (refferred mainly to in Leviticus), but you're aren't going to listen anyway. The purpose of mankind is not to live in a state of ignorance. There's no purpose behind that, the world is a test of our individual worthiness to enter the highest degree of heaven.

None of this matters to anyone who doesn't have faith. Their minds will simply refute whatever someone like me says anyway. I can only argue with an atheist about the existence of God the same I can argue with a dog about the existence of the color red. It just doesn't work.

In all politeness, read the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon/Whatever before you begin exposing the "flaws" of any religion, let alone Christianity. In all practicality Atheism is a religion without doctrine anyway. Think about it.

A way to look at it is by saying that it was the first defiance of God's Law, therfore, "Original Sin." It wasn't that God wanted us to be idiots or something. He had made us perfect and in His image. By refusing his law, we corrupted Creation, and set in motion all the evil that we know, because we are now aware of wha evil is. I hope this wasn't too confusing.

(I use 'Him' and 'He' becasue in correct English, you cannot say He/She/It. You must make a distinction, and language usually follows the male paradime)

Note: Good question!

Yes, I realize I have misspellings.

Irrelevent. (see, I can dismiss your logic as irrelevent too)

Of course, in this case, it isn't actually true. You claim that I must set myself apart from the extremists in order to be validated when, in fact, there are precious few extremists. I am the norm, while they are not. Thus, by default, I am not an extremist unless I set myself apart as one.

Quite admirable. however your foundations are still shaky at best.

No more or less "shaky" than the alternate axiom which you choose to embrace.

Please. Who has more respect for life? Would it be someone who believes they are going to consciously exist after death or someone who doesn't believe they are going to consciously exist after death?

Wow, you have more of a martyr complex than most fundamentalist Christians. Go back and reread my post. You will note that I didn't say that all atheists lack a respect for life, just that anyone who only listened to the extremists would get that impression. As such, since you obviously only listen to the extremists of any religion, it is just a valid statement as any that you have made. Perhaps you should study a little logic?

You seem to be confusing your mystical political system with a birth defect. Politics is not something you are born with. It is not a race. It is not a skin pigmentation. You are not genetically fated to join a specific religion. I am not attacking the extremists. I am attacking the very foundation of your political structure, the ones your beliefs are based upon. I never said I had all the answers and I am not so arrogant that I need them or that they must all be given to me by science, with complete absolution, in my lifetime.

You are confusing politics with religion. Which are you talking about here? It was my impression that we were discussing religion, not politics.

Meanwhile, my political structure is not based on my religion - in fact it is, by definition, separate from religion.

There are only three things that I know of that surpass politics. Love, hate and energy. I can not say that your religion is wrong, because each poltical system has its own boundaries of good and evil. What I am saying is that there too little empirical evidence to show that your organization is anything but another hate-based organization, regardless of your buffet-style approach to it.

There is, in fact, not a single shred of evidence that my religion is hate-based. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite. I can only think of two religion-based beliefs that are hate-based at all. One is a form of Satanism which I have never met a practioner of (and thus am not sure truly exists) which states that all other people are lower and worthy of contempt and cruelty. The other is militant atheist - which basically states the same thing.

I asked you to show me how your beliefs stem from different politics than extremists without relying on supernatural phenomena and the finances of your organization. Anything else could be argued by some nutjob who said a Walt Disney character told him to give his entire fortune to the homeless.

Again, politics has nothing whatsoever to do with my religious beliefs.

I'm illogical? You base your belief structure on an invisble boogeyman and you are calling me illogical?

(a) There is no "boogeyman" in my belief system.
(b) An axiom, by definition, has no solid proof one way or another. I have personal experiences that lead me to one side of the axiom. You have a total lack of such experience that leads you to the other side of the axiom. Neither of us can prove our position and thus, according to logic, are both equally logical *on this stance*. The fact that you are, personally, illogical is evident in the fact that you insist on lumping huge groups of people into stereotypes only met by the smallest percentage of the population.

My views are no more bigotted than a Democrat who doesn't vote Republican.

Wrong. A Democrat who doesn't vote Republican can demonstrate respect for the fact that someone else holds a different view. A Democrat who said "All Republicans are inherently bigotted and inferior and hate-filled, spiteful assholes!" would be a bigot - just as you are currently being about those who believe in a God. A Democrat who said "I disagree with Republicans, so I won't vote Republican - but they have the right to their beliefs and I admit that there is a possibility that they are correct" would not be a bigot. See the difference?

While Republicans do seem to get off on calling Democrats traitors, I rarely see anyone calling anyone a bigot out there.

Any Republican who states that all Democrats are traitors on the basis that Democrats happen to disagree with them would be a bigot.

If I am going to be called a bigot for hating bigots, then so be it.

If you had even a single tiny shred of evidence that I was a bigot, you might have a point here. As it is, you do not.

The foundation of your political structure is based in hate.

Neither my political structure nor my religious beliefs are based in hate. No major religion is based in hate. Most, in fact, actively discourage it.

Think I'm just invoking the KKK because its a fail safe? Fine. Use the stars and bars flag of the south. There's a nice symbol that rednecks like to claim is no longer related to the slave trade in the first hundred years of America's history. The politics may be watered down, but the symbol is still there.

Neither is an accurate analogy, as no major religion has ever been based on hatred. Organized structures have certainly used hatred, but the religion itself was never based as such.

Your logic equates to the following:

Henry Ford hated blacks and homosexuals. He also was a leader in getting the automobile industry started. As such, anyone who drives a car is basing their entire livelihood in hate.

Treat them with love, but define them as evil, by default, because they don't perform political mystic rituals A, B and C as often as the good people do.

Wrong.

You may not show it, but any form of communication (visual, verbal or other) in public or in private can be construed as an act of proselytization based in the hate of another political structure.

Wrong again.

The only true act of love in this scenario is to say and believe "I may be completely wrong and this person may be completely right."

Good, you have just described most heists.

Nice thing about being Atheist is that religious faith in invisble boogeymen wont slow us down from expressing this should empirical data show previous theories flawed.

Nor would it slow down most theists.

Stereotyping averages and generalizing theories are how things get done in the real world. Utlizing scientific theories that generalize data is how we have advances in science, technology and medicine. There is no scientific absolute that says if you jump up you wont just drift off into outer space, but the theory of gravity, based on generalizations, gives us the basic idea that we wont. If we waited for absolutes on everything we'd never leave the house because there would always be a possibility that a meteor could strike us dead the minute we left the door.

Only political systems based in supernatural phenomena deal in absolutes.

A person has every right to dislike averages based on the guidelines of an invisible boogeyman who may or may not exist, but atheists don't have that fail safe to fall back on. You may not like it when someone poses an average upon the basis of your political system based on the empirical data available, but if you have empirical data that may outweigh the overwhelming destruction and chaos that your political system has caused in the past 2000 years, then by all means, share it.

The fundamental requirement of any political party (especially religion) is to gain power. If an organization claims to know how everything works (where you came from, what is your specific purpose, what happens when you die, how the heavens are aligned - before science proved it wrong, etc.) they have the potential to control everything.

Atheism has always held a disadvantage to religion in this department. While atheism has to wait for enough empirical data to come in to support a theory, a religion can just make up whatever and sell it as the guideline of an omnipotent invisible boogeyman. Impatient people who need answers now, rush to religion and science has to play catch up once again.

You forget something very important here, darling. The "average" in this case - ie. the norm - is not what you are describing.

You are performing the equivalent in science of taking an outlier and setting it as the "norm" and then coming up with a theory from there.

"His Dark Materials?" That doesn't sound like the bible to me.

Have you ever read the New Testament? There are some very specific steps to follow in the terms of religion. I could go on about salvation, resurrection, bodily sin (refferred mainly to in Leviticus), but you're aren't going to listen anyway. The purpose of mankind is not to live in a state of ignorance. There's no purpose behind that, the world is a test of our individual worthiness to enter the highest degree of heaven.

None of this matters to anyone who doesn't have faith. Their minds will simply refute whatever someone like me says anyway. I can only argue with an atheist about the existence of God the same I can argue with a dog about the existence of the color red. It just doesn't work.

In all politeness, read the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon/Whatever before you begin exposing the "flaws" of any religion, let alone Christianity. In all practicality Atheism is a religion without doctrine anyway. Think about it.

I never implied that His Dark Materials was the bible, and I never attempted to say that everything it says is true and that proves my point. I simply pointed out that it is a very good book (trilogy of books) that expresses very well my own views on the subject.
I have read the Bible, but I have not read the Koran or the Book of Mormon which is why I am not commenting on those. I think that makes me as qualified as the next person to suugest flaws in it. Also, why do you say 'let alone Christianity'? Are you saying Christianity is better than all the other religions?
I do not deny that in practicality atheism is like a religion, although it has definite differences at the same time. What should I 'think about'? You made no conclusions for me to think about at the end of your post.
My mind does not refute whatever you say. If it does, why would I start a thread asking for responses from Christians. I enjoy discussing religion with anyone and I think it is very productive as long as it is not offensive.
I would say that whether the story of Adam and Eve is flawed matters a lot whether you have faith or not. You say that 'the world is a test of our individual worthiness to enter the highest degree of heaven.' If that is the case, surely it is good that we ate the apple and left Paradise to prove oursleves in the rest of the world.
Most of all in your post I am very interested by the fact that you compared arguing with an atheist about God to arguing 'argue with a dog about the existence of the color red.' Firstly because, correct me if I am wrong, it seems to suggest that you view yourself as better placed to have this argument than atheists. You view as blind to God in the way a dog is blind to colour. Please forgive me if I am wrong in also interpretting it as meaning you think you are actually more intelligent than atheists.
Secondly though, and I don't know if you intended this or not, the colour red does not actually exist and is an illusion created by our brains in an attempt to determine the truth. Perhaps you would like to change your comparison before anyone draws any unwanted conclusions from it?

I enjoy discussing religion with anyone and I think it is very productive as long as it is not offensive.

I have to agree with you here. For an atheist, discussion of religion may help them to somewhat understand the viewpoint of theists - thus, while they may not "convert", they are less likely to be intentionally offensive (like some people on this thread). For a theist, discussion of religion may help them to understand different viewpoints - and to examine and refine their own.

I would say that whether the story of Adam and Eve is flawed matters a lot whether you have faith or not.

I would say that it has less to do with faith and more what you want to find out of it. Take any story meant to teach a lesson. If we tell the story of the Fox and the Grapes and are looking to get a lesson about science, it is obviously flawed. However, if were are looking to find a lesson related to attitude, it is definitely present.

You say that 'the world is a test of our individual worthiness to enter the highest degree of heaven.' If that is the case, surely it is good that we ate the apple and left Paradise to prove oursleves in the rest of the world.

This is interesting. Many would say that we were placed in this world to grow - to become better, both as individuals and as a species. It would fit in well at that point - as we cannot consciously strive to become better people without knowledge of the results of our actions.

You view as blind to God in the way a dog is blind to colour. Please forgive me if I am wrong in also interpretting it as meaning you think you are actually more intelligent than atheists.

Much like it is difficult for an atheist to understand a theist's position, it is difficult for a theist to understand an atheist. Theists who have actually come to their own conclusions on the matter feel that they have had personal experience of God. It is hard to imagine that everyone has not had such experiences. In truth, it may be true that everyone interprets such experiences differently or that, as many atheists believe, they don't really occur in the first place.

The inherent flaw in modern Christianity is in reading what is intended to be trope as literal truth.

i'm curious: exactly how can one teach reading, writing, or arithmatic in a "biased" manner?

For the most part it is a difficult thing, unless the content of reading and writing material teach a specific world view.

I don't.

Satan shows up there long before the Babylonian exile as the acuser (hasatan, if memory serves me correctly).

Satan shows up there long before the Babylonian exile as the acuser (hasatan, if memory serves me correctly).

There is no time period given in the book of Job. Scholars who have examined the texts believe that it was first written after the exile.

As has been pointed out to you *numerous* times, only lazy kids could possibly feel that any scientific theory was being taught as fact. Only those who conveniently forget to read the first chapter of the book could possibly get away with such an idea.

Again, you ignore the fact that I have personally witnessed teachers teaching evolution as a known fact rather than a theory that may or may not be true.

Again, you ignore the fact that I have personally witnessed teachers teaching evolution as a known fact rather than a theory that may or may not be true.

Did your teachers skip the first chapter of the book that is always included in the curriculum? Did you fail to read it?

Besides, I have reason to doubt your claims. Most likely the teacher didn't say "by the way, this is a theory, like the first chapter of your book says" every few words.

There is no time period given in the book of Job. Scholars who have examined the texts believe that it was first written after the exile.

Actually, one of my professors, who did his doctoral dissertation on the subject of whether or not the book of Job could be taken literally at the University of Wisc. in the Hebrew/Semetic dept., provided significant scholarly research to support the plausibility of the book having been written by Moses during his time exile from Egypt prior to the Exodus.

Did your teachers skip the first chapter of the book that is always included in the curriculum? Did you fail to read it?

Besides, I have reason to doubt your claims. Most likely the teacher didn't say "by the way, this is a theory, like the first chapter of your book says" every few words.


We've been through this before, Dem. do we really need to rehash it. There are numerous teachers in the public school system that are atheist zealots, much like our new friend Roust, who teach evolution as a means of destroying belief in God, rather than as a theory that may or may not be true.

I understand that it is not good science, but it is still a reality I have witnessed on more than one occasion and at more than one level of the educational system, with my own eyes and ears.

BTW, my brother and sister are both elementary school teachers and both have witnessed this first hand as well.

From the initial post:

"Why not say, well God wants me to worship Him but He never said I have to worship Him through Christianity (which He didn't). Why not take the aspects of Christianity that are good and form an official new religion. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If there is a God, He will not care about the details of how you worship him as long as you do it for a good reason and with conviction."
----

a)Jesus loved the idea of church, told Peter to begin a (or the) church. He wanted his worshipers to fellowship with one another.

b)Assuming what God wants is stupid, and an exercise in futility. He will judge us all according to His rules, not ours.

You are right in one respect: what is most important is belief/faith. Faith is more important than going to church or calling yourself a christian. But by definition, a Christian is one who believes in Christ. So if you believe in Jesus, you may as well just call yourself a Christian. hehe

As to the Tree of Life question, it gave rise to sin (I think) because it allowed us to think about and do things that God did not intend for us to do in the first place. It gave rise to decision-making apart from simply following God's commands, and God didn't like that.

Evolution is a known fact. You can do it in a bloody petri dish.

It's the details of how and why it happens that the theory is about.

And the hunt for the wild poodle continues...

As to the Tree of Life question, it gave rise to sin (I think) because it allowed us to think about and do things that God did not intend for us to do in the first place. It gave rise to decision-making apart from simply following God's commands, and God didn't like that.

Actually, that doesn't follow. Eating the apple could not have allowed us to be able to make decisions other than following God's command because the decision to eat the apple was not one of God's commands so we obviously were able to make that decision before anyway, if you follow me. You cannot get free will from not having it unless someone gives it to you. You are saying we chose to get free will. Either God gave us free will when He made us or Satan gave us free will by tempting us. (If I had to believe one I'd believe the Satan option. He sounds more honest than God to me).

Evolution is a known fact. You can do it in a bloody petri dish.

It's the details of how and why it happens that the theory is about.

And the hunt for the wild poodle continues...

I'm not denying that evolution is a fact but I was curious when I saw this... who has done evolution in a petri dish? Maybe a very patient scientist.

Evolution is a known fact. You can do it in a bloody petri dish.

It's the details of how and why it happens that the theory is about.

And the hunt for the wild poodle continues...


Next time you can do it in a vaccum let me know.

In a vacuum?

You think that poodles were selectively bred and underwent artificial selection evolution in a -vacuum-?

I'm not denying that evolution is a fact but I was curious when I saw this... who has done evolution in a petri dish? Maybe a very patient scientist.

Bacteria don't take all that long to reproduce.

Bacteria don't take all that long to reproduce.

But to evolve?

Bacteria don't take all that long to reproduce.


evolution requires 3 things
time
mutation
enviromental changes

Hey Redy, did you leave SPAM in a mad rage or do you seriously think that by trying to discuss something with you we were stabbing you in the back? You probably won't respond to this will you? Oh well.

Ever heard the term "Ignorance is bliss"? That which does not understand good and evil cannot commit an evil act - as the term implies understanding. As such, human beings could not commit evil until they got to the point where they understood good and evil. This places many more restrictions and responsibilities on humanity than they had before they obtained knowledge. This does not mean that knowledge in and of itself is a bad thing, but that, much like adults viewing the loss of innocence as a child as a departure from "paradise," human beings viewed the loss of innocence inherent in understanding their actions as such a departure.

A very interesting set of books to read is: Ishmael and Ishmael, My Ishmael. There are some very interesting viewpoints on the Adam and Eve story, as well as the Cain and Abel one.

Dem, did you READ that before you posted it?

First off, its just wishful thinking to say that not being able to know an act is evil prohibits one from doing something evil. Do you think psychopathic killers know murdering innocents is evil? Do you think Hitler believed massacring the Jews was evil? I hope you don't, because I really doubt they do, but that sure as hell doesn't stop them from doing something that everyone else in the world agrees is evil.

If not understanding good and evil prohibited adam and eve, pre-eating the fruit, from committing an evil act, then not understanding the inner workings of your computer should be prohibiting you from using it to post messages on here.

Furthermore, how can you claim that not knowing the difference between good and evil, and therefore being unable to do evil, gave adam and eve added responsibility?! If they were UNABLE to sin, they just did whatever the hell they wanted because they were UNABLE TO SIN. Where is the responsibility in that?

All evolution requires is for a mutation to alter a population.

If there's one bacteria who has a freak mutation and is green instead of blue-green, and for some reason, all the blue-green versions die off, leaving that bacteria to produce a new population, bingo, evolution.

evolution requires 3 things
time
mutation
enviromental changes

Not the last.

Something can be better in the current environs.

It doesn't even have to be better, in fact. Just different and to manage to survive somehow.

If some event kills off all of the healthy, strong males in a population, but leaves Mr. Gimpy, you'll have a group evolving in to Gimpsters, even though they're worse off than the older population.

the inherent implication of the Adam and Eve story and of original sin, that knowledge is a bad thing.
Ignorance Is Strength. :)

Hey Redy, did you leave SPAM in a mad rage or do you seriously think that by trying to discuss something with you we were stabbing you in the back? You probably won't respond to this will you? Oh well.


you know very well what you did and the fact that you did it shows something about you, now, if you really want to be an arrogent snob carry on (hell why not do what i expect you to do and bump up the thread). I'm here to talk about things that have no connection between what I say here and the real world, if you can't get that in to your thick skull mabey you should try looking at yourself in the mirror.

In a vacuum?

You think that poodles were selectively bred and underwent artificial selection evolution in a -vacuum-?


No, but I want to see evolution start with the absense of everything. I'd even be impressed if you could get evolution out of all the basic elements necessary. Heck, I'd even spot you the proteins as long as they aren't already combined in a life form.

Not the last.

Something can be better in the current environs.


evolution is the change of ones self to suit the enviroment so how can you say that you dont need enviromental changes for eveolution to happen (don't use the humans arguement, as we change the enviroment to suit us. Which is why until humens move to an enviroment we can't change we won't evolve)

Actually, that doesn't follow. Eating the apple could not have allowed us to be able to make decisions other than following God's command because the decision to eat the apple was not one of God's commands so we obviously were able to make that decision before anyway, if you follow me. You cannot get free will from not having it unless someone gives it to you. You are saying we chose to get free will. Either God gave us free will when He made us or Satan gave us free will by tempting us. (If I had to believe one I'd believe the Satan option. He sounds more honest than God to me).

No,
We had free will before we ever ate the apple. The importance of the story is to explain, albeit in an allegory, why human beings are not already in a perfect communion with God. We fell from perfection by disobeying God and eating the apple. Satan was the temptor, but he used the free will that God gave us to tempt us.

free will

must be a bloody stupid thing to give humans

and god must have been kicking himself about satan as well

free will

must be a bloody stupid thing to give humans

and god must have been kicking himself about satan as well

haha yeah, reminds me of what Gervais said aobut the snake "why did He put it there? Especially one that talks, AND gossips?!?!"

No, but I want to see evolution start with the absense of everything. I'd even be impressed if you could get evolution out of all the basic elements necessary. Heck, I'd even spot you the proteins as long as they aren't already combined in a life form.

1) Evolution and abiogenesis aren't the same. Evolution even works under creationism.

2) Actually, I have a Scientific American or Popular Science or whatever magazine around here somewhere saying they're finding the stuff in meteorites of all things.

you know very well what you did and the fact that you did it shows something about you, now, if you really want to be an arrogent snob carry on (hell why not do what i expect you to do and bump up the thread). I'm here to talk about things that have no connection between what I say here and the real world, if you can't get that in to your thick skull mabey you should try looking at yourself in the mirror.

No, I don't know very well what I did. I know what you thought I did. You thought I only made the thread to take the piss out of you. That is wrong! If you will re-read the original thread in which the thing that you said came up, you will notice that I mentioned that it was off-topic. Then you and Cress started arguing about it there. I thought it would be better to create a thread, as it is not very polite to argue about things in other people's threads about things that are nothing to do with the thread. I genuinely wanted to discuss it with you, and I wasn't aware that you had issues that you only wanted to discuss in the 'real world' and not here. If you'd said 'please drop this now, I'd rather not discuss it here' I would've, but I didn't. I assumued that anything you say you will be prepared to defend if you meant it and apologise if you didn't mean it. The easytest site was made to take the piss out of you, but when we made that we didn't tell you. I told you I was making a thread, and I invited you to come onto it as you were the person who made the comment that I was suggesting was rubbish. It wasn't 'stabbing you in the back' as I made no promise not to talk about it, and wasn't even aware that you didn't want me to.

No,
We had free will before we ever ate the apple. The importance of the story is to explain, albeit in an allegory, why human beings are not already in a perfect communion with God. We fell from perfection by disobeying God and eating the apple. Satan was the temptor, but he used the free will that God gave us to tempt us.


I know this has nothing to do with this quote (exept midely) but it's a nice quote


Where did satan come from? By this i mean before the 'Fall' when he was an angle. As far as i know it isn't mentioned in the bible where angel come from

1) Evolution and abiogenesis aren't the same. Evolution even works under creationism.

2) Actually, I have a Scientific American or Popular Science or whatever magazine around here somewhere saying they're finding the stuff in meteorites of all things.


Get something to evolve beyond genus and species then...

No,
We had free will before we ever ate the apple. The importance of the story is to explain, albeit in an allegory, why human beings are not already in a perfect communion with God. We fell from perfection by disobeying God and eating the apple. Satan was the temptor, but he used the free will that God gave us to tempt us.

OK, I'm happy with that, but the post I quoted was saying that eating the apple allowed us to take decisions other than than the will of God, in other words free will. You are disagreeing with the same post that the the post of mine that you are quoting is disagreeing with.

I would like replies from Christians on an issue I have never been able to get Christians to discuss: the inherent implication of the Adam and Eve story and of original sin, that knowledge is a bad thing. In the story of Adam and Eve, the apple that they eat gives them the knowledge of good and evil. This is what sets us apart from animals, we can commit good acts, and evil acts, because we recognise that other beings are conscious as well as ourselves. And the bible says that knowing this was a bad thing? It would mean that every advancement humanity has made is a bad thing. This is in fact exactly what the bible says; we could have had paradise but what we have instead is not as good. This paradise, this Garden of Even, is simply the paradise created by not being conscious, and having no guilt. Anyone who has read His Dark Materials will understand this. In that story, the church actually believes it has found a way to bring us back to the unconscious paradise. I wonder how many Christians are willing to accept that their religion preaches this. The response I have often been given when I say that Christianity suppresses knowledge is 'yes, but we don't any more, we are better than that now.' If you say that the most important thing to you is to worship God as well as you can, and you admit that Christianity does have flaws underlying some of its principles, why ignore them, as many Christians do now? Why not say, well God wants me to worship Him but He never said I have to worship Him through Christianity (which He didn't). Why not take the aspects of Christianity that are good and form an official new religion. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If there is a God, He will not care about the details of how you worship him as long as you do it for a good reason and with conviction.

It's the Garden of Eden and it was the fruit of knowledge.

Basically it said that God could bascially care less what we did and not to eat the fruit because it was evil. Eating the fruit caused all sins and disease and things like that.

Humans had coinscience before eating the fruit how else would they be able to name animals.

Get your facts straight. Thats like me saying where did all the space go before the big bang because space is something not nothing and the antimatter that is not explained. I do believe in the big bang.

You thought I only made the thread to take the piss out of you.
You didn't ? Oh and there i was thinking you were not a nice guy.

Mabey i did act to hastely...





NOT!
i read the thread and thats exactly what you did do. As far as i'm concerned i don't even what to know you.

Why shouldn't we dictate our own morality? As a species I mean?

Yes, exactly, and we do to a point.

You didn't ? Oh and there i was thinking you were not a nice guy.

Mabey i did act to hastely...





NOT!
i read the thread and thats exactly what you did do. As far as i'm concerned i don't even what to know you.

by the way, I'm curious, where do I fit into this flying, malevolent rage of yours? You always knew I disagreed with you, Lloyd started a thread, I put maybe...ohh.....four posts? Yes, I certainly deserve the silent treatment...

Humans had coinscience before eating the fruit how else would they be able to name animals.

are you sure you aren't confusing "consciousness" with "conscience"? Jimminy Cricket is "conscience," remember. most people don't use their personal moral compass when naming animals...i know i sure as hell wasn't thinking about morality when i named my hedgehog, Dr. Gonzo.


Get your facts straight. Thats like me saying where did all the space go before the big bang because space is something not nothing and the antimatter that is not explained. I do believe in the big bang.
get your language straight, please...i haven't the faintest idea what you are trying to communicate with this paragraph.

are you sure you aren't confusing "consciousness" with "conscience"? Jimminy Cricket is "conscience," remember. most people don't use their personal moral compass when naming animals...i know i sure as hell wasn't thinking about morality when i named my hedgehog, Dr. Gonzo.


get your language straight, please...i haven't the faintest idea what you are trying to communicate with this paragraph.

Not jimmeny cricket but the ability to reason before we ate the fruit. That is the only part that i should correct. The rest is simple to figure out.

It's the Garden of Eden and it was the fruit of knowledge.

Basically it said that God could bascially care less what we did and not to eat the fruit because it was evil. Eating the fruit caused all sins and disease and things like that.

Humans had conscience before eating the fruit how else would they be able to name animals.

Get your facts straight. Thats like me saying where did all the space go before the big bang because space is something not nothing and the antimatter that is not explained. I do believe in the big bang.

You feel it neccessary to point out my typo of Eden? You knew what I meant.
Show me where it says eating the fruit caused all sins and disease? It says it gave us the knowledge of good and evil. What I am attacking is those who say that the knowledge of good and evil caused all sins and disease. Get your own facts straight.
You do not need conscience or consciousness to name animals. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, a robot could be programmed to randommly generate words and asign them as names to animals. Consciousness is the act of thinking 'I think therefore I am.' Conscience is simply being aware of the universe around you using your senses, rather than being fed data.
How the hell is it similar to that stuff about the Big Bang? I am debating pilosophy not science. I know perfectly well that space is something, and I also know, unlike you, that anti-matter is explained. Antimatter is something as well as matter. All the space was contained inside a tiny subatomic particle before the Big Bang, the anti-matter and the matter. Any other points of philosophy and physics you'd like cleared up?
(Sorry to other people if I sound big-headed but this guy is too)

Get something to evolve beyond genus and species then...

Would you like to provide the funds for the project for a few million years?

Would you like to provide the funds for the project for a few million years?


Oh, you mean I'd have to have faith that it might work out according to current theory to see any real macro-evolution. Sorry, someone claimed that it was a fact. I can't observe it so I'll have a hard time believing its a fact if its all the same to you.

by the way, I'm curious, where do I fit into this flying, malevolent rage of yours? You always knew I disagreed with you, Lloyd started a thread, I put maybe...ohh.....four posts? Yes, I certainly deserve the silent treatment...



mabey, mabey not but this thread isn't about this even if the person in question is the person that started this thread


i believe the term 'go to hell' holds perticular significance. Before you say i'm not being reasonable mabey you should wounder why? Yes i am aware you disagreed with me. Fair enough but if in all your arguements with me (both you and lloyd) your chief defence is to refer to that then you are more shallow then i though, which has just been proven by you doing it. So look at your self and ask again 'I certainly deserve the silent treatment?'

by the way, I'm curious, where do I fit into this flying, malevolent rage of yours? You always knew I disagreed with you, Lloyd started a thread, I put maybe...ohh.....four posts? Yes, I certainly deserve the silent treatment...

Will both of you PLEASE refer to me as Pyromanstahn on the forums!

Oh, you mean I'd have to have faith that it might work out according to current theory to see any real macro-evolution. Sorry, someone claimed that it was a fact. I can't observe it so I'll have a hard time believing its a fact if its all the same to you.

Well hell, do you want me to blow up the sun in the next five minutes so you can see it go red star?

Higher-nomenclature (Is that a real term?) evolution takes an ass-load of time. You can put a rush on it, yes, but only by so much.

The story make perfect sense when you understand that God is an Alien. The Tree of Knowledge isn't a literal tree but a computer system with a heirachal ( branching tree) directory structure.
This computer contained all of Alien God's plans, usermanuals for his spacecraft and Alien God technology, ect. Adam and Eve had to be exiled from the "Garden" (Aka Mothership) because they knew too much but were too primitive to understand what they knew. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Early humans explained the technology that they didn't understand using alagory and mysticism.

Well hell, do you want me to blow up the sun in the next five minutes so you can see it go red star?

Evolution takes an ass-load of time. You can put a rush on it, yes, but only by so much.


sorry but i have to mention this as all of these remind me of the film Evolution

mabey, mabey not but this thread isn't about this even if the person in question is the person that started this thread


i believe the term 'go to hell' holds perticular significance. Before you say i'm not being reasonable mabey you should wounder why? Yes i am aware you disagreed with me. Fair enough but if in all your arguements with me (both you and lloyd) your chief defence is to refer to that then you are more shallow then i though, which has just been proven by you doing it. So look at your self and ask again 'I certainly deserve the silent treatment?'

don't take a natural assumption that I HAVEN'T looked at myself; I have. I looked at myself, and the conclusion I came to was: "Wally's got some ISSUES, man" and guess who seems to agree with me?

Everyone. Now I'm not saying that to put you down or anything like that, I may be 'shallow' but I ain't THAT fricking bad, but all I'm saying is that most people would be pissed off, and then leave it. Why do you care if we disagree? And if you don't, then good! Don't worry about it! Everything's fine!
So...do I deserve the silence treatment? No. I deserve my friend.

Redy, if you've read the thread then can you tell me which part of it was taking the piss out of you? I asked people to agree with me that what you were saying was b/s. That doesn't mean laugh at you! You can disagree with what someone says without disliking them! I don't think there was a single post on that thread that took the piss out of you. There was certainly none that intended to. If you took offense at any post, I apologise, and will you please tell me which post it was?

apologies to everyone else on these forums...I'll shutup about this private issue soon.

Well hell, do you want me to blow up the sun in the next five minutes so you can see it go red star?

Evolution takes an ass-load of time. You can put a rush on it, yes, but only by so much.

Don't think we quite have the capacity to blow up the Sun at this stage of earth's history, though my knowledge of astronomy is by no means complete. I could be wrong about that.

I recognize that I asked you to do the impossible, but when claiming evolution is a fact, unless you specifically state "micro-evolution" or small scale, within genus and species evolution or something similar, you are asking me to believe, that which I already believe to be impossible equally as impossible as you showing me macro evolution.

The story make perfect sense when you understand that God is an Alien. The Tree of Knowledge isn't a literal tree but a computer system with a heirachal ( branching tree) directory structure.
This computer contained all of Alien God's plans, usermanuals for his spacecraft and Alien God technology, ect. Adam and Eve had to be exiled from the "Garden" (Aka Mothership) because they knew too much but were too primitive to understand what they knew. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Early humans explained the technology that they didn't understand using alagory and mysticism.


good theory but what we are assuming is that either
a) we are all aliens from a planet where we evolved (and there is no after life)
b)we are organic machiens that where made on this ship (and there is no after life)
c) were all some things pet that all in all hates us when it caused the flood (Noah) (and there is no after life)


all in all it looks very bleak

good theory but what we are assuming is that either
a) we are all aliens from a planet where we evolved (and there is no after life)
b)we are organic machiens that where made on this ship (and there is no after life)
c) were all some things pet that all in all hates us when it caused the flood (Noah) (and there is nop after life)


all in all it looks very bleak
Hmm?
I don't see how you narrowed it down to three possibilities from that, there are countless numbers of things that could be the case.

Hmm?
I don't see how you narrowed it down to three possibilities from that, there are countless numbers of things that could be the case.

Yes true i just picked the three most likely

apologies to everyone else on these forums...I'll shutup about this private issue soon.

Yeah, sorry from me too, although seeing as I started this thread I suppose I can do what the hell I like.
Redy, if you want to quote anything from the conformist thread, then the last post was 11 pm on 31st January.
For the last time, I was not taking the piss out of you and I would like you to tell me what part of it you took offense at. For God's sake, Nastalasta went on and just said that you're a twat. I did not insult you once.

Of course religeons have flaws. Thats why you have to actually beleive in them and why they are not accepted as definate fact.
wait, so because religions have flaws we have to believe in them?
i think what he means is that you have to just have blind faith and overlook the flaws. did i interpret that right?

...Secondly, that we have been freed from the law in the new testament.
so you're saying christians are above the law?

i think what he means is that you have to just have blind faith and overlook the flaws. did i interpret that right?

that makes more sense, you are probably right. but it still seems like a stupid thing to bring up: "well, religions are full of conspicuous flaws, so let's all put our faith in them so that we can believe they are correct despite all the evidence to the contrary!"

why would anybody WANT to have faith in something that is, to the best of our understanding, patently false? wouldn't it be best to put your "fatih" in whatever seems most likely and best supported by the knowledge and evidence we have to work with? shouldn't we be trying to minimize our speculation and random guessing as much as possible?

don't take a natural assumption that I HAVEN'T looked at myself; I have. I looked at myself, and the conclusion I came to was: "Wally's got some ISSUES, man"

Yer your right i have and most of them start with 'Chris' or 'Lloyd'

and guess who seems to agree with me?

Everyone.

No. I deserve my friend.

i quote these toghether as it shows you obviously don't want me as a friend which is why i'm not

Now I'm not saying that to put you down or anything like that, I may be 'shallow' but I ain't THAT fricking bad,

well you did it so it obviously shows you are

but all I'm saying is that most people would be pissed off, and then leave it.

Yer? well thats people for you some trust there 'freinds' more then they should

So do you deserve the silent treatment?
I never have given you the silent treatment, I just don't concider you a freind and as there are people arround who i do, who do you thik i choose to talk to?



sorry for the bother people you just have to ignore these posts

What about me Redy? Do you still think I made the thread to take the piss out of you? And if I did why would I be debating it? Why wouldn't I just be laughing at you?

What about me Redy? Do you still think I made the thread to take the piss out of you? And if I did why would I be debating it? Why wouldn't I just be laughing at you?

Who says your not? You even admited it to me once.

Who says your not? You even admited it to me once.

When?

I'll admit I may have laughed at you slightly for the way you took this.

'you know me and chris laugh at you behind your back wally'

sound familure?

any way this has gone compleatly of topic so i'm going to wait till anouther on-topic thread comes up the posts

'you know me and chris laugh at you behind your back wally'

sound familure?

any way this has gone compleatly of topic so i'm going to wait till anouther on-topic thread comes up the posts

YES, now you understand me! You want to stop talking about this for the same reason I wanted to stop talking about it on the other thread, which was WHY I STARTED A NEW THREAD ABOUT IT!
If I remember rightly, when I said 'you know me and chris laugh at you behind your back wally', I was saying that all of us laugh at each other behind one another's backs as well as to each others faces. You didn't take offense at it when I first said it. Why now?

You're right though, we should stop talking about it. Maybe we can continue this at school tommorrow? If you've calmed down.

Actually, one of my professors, who did his doctoral dissertation on the subject of whether or not the book of Job could be taken literally at the University of Wisc. in the Hebrew/Semetic dept., provided significant scholarly research to support the plausibility of the book having been written by Moses during his time exile from Egypt prior to the Exodus.

I would have to see the research, but everything I have seen has said the opposite.

We've been through this before, Dem. do we really need to rehash it. There are numerous teachers in the public school system that are atheist zealots, much like our new friend Roust, who teach evolution as a means of destroying belief in God, rather than as a theory that may or may not be true.

I understand that it is not good science, but it is still a reality I have witnessed on more than one occasion and at more than one level of the educational system, with my own eyes and ears.

BTW, my brother and sister are both elementary school teachers and both have witnessed this first hand as well.

Regardless of how they teach one particular theory, do all of these teachers skip the first chapter of the book - which is on every curriculum? If they do, they could most likely be fired just for that.

good theory but what we are assuming is that either
a) we are all aliens from a planet where we evolved (and there is no after life)
b)we are organic machiens that where made on this ship (and there is no after life)
c) were all some things pet that all in all hates us when it caused the flood (Noah) (and there is no after life)


all in all it looks very bleak

I was thinking more along the lines of a science project. A bunch of aliens with nothing better find (or make) a planet and decide to attempt to create intelligent life in their own image. They succeed and spend millions of years monitoring their experiment by proding yokels in the anus.

However, the after life does not depend on God. Buddhism is famous for its lack of any deity. Buddhist doctrine allows the human soul to exist independantly of any God.

What if these aliens isolated and studied their own immortal souls and wanted to create a new type of being that also possessed a soul. Their experiments lead to humanity. Thus, there is an after life.

As for where the Aliens's souls came from.... well no one says that there can't be a greater God or more advanced Aliens.

Why is it that a thread like this one will start off with serious philosophy but as it goes on, it gradually degenerates until it gets to people discussing whether we were put on the Earth by aliens?

What we had was paradise, a world where we had everything provided for us...no evil to be committed and God who loved (and still loves) his Children. The fact is, yes I'd gladly have accepted the chance to go to Eden if offered, but it's offered in another form, Heaven. Eden was heaven on earth. Those who say that "we're above that" and try and rationalize their sinful behaviors, that came about from eating the fruit, are doing nothing but blinding themselves to the inevitable truth that we are all fallen people, who lust for sin.

Dem, did you READ that before you posted it?

Yes, but it is rather obvious that you didn't.

First off, its just wishful thinking to say that not being able to know an act is evil prohibits one from doing something evil.

This is true. For humans, murder of a child is an evil act, correct? Is it evil when a wolf kills a cub?

Do you think psychopathic killers know murdering innocents is evil?

Psychopaths lack empathy and the ability to determine good from evil. As such, they cannot commit an evil act.

Do you think Hitler believed massacring the Jews was evil?

Most likely, he was well aware of this.

I hope you don't, because I really doubt they do, but that sure as hell doesn't stop them from doing something that everyone else in the world agrees is evil.

Since when does knowledge of good and evil stop anyone from doing what would be considered evil?

If not understanding good and evil prohibited adam and eve, pre-eating the fruit, from committing an evil act, then not understanding the inner workings of your computer should be prohibiting you from using it to post messages on here.

Wrong. I understand how to use the computer, thus I can use it.

However, I cannot program anything on the computer unless I know how to program. See the difference?

One cannot sin without knowing something is a sin. Before human beings had the capability to recognize the consequences of their actions, they were simply following instinct, and as such could not do something "wrong." There was no concept of "wrong."

Furthermore, how can you claim that not knowing the difference between good and evil, and therefore being unable to do evil, gave adam and eve added responsibility?!

Ah, proof that you either cannot read or did not. I never claimed any such thing. In fact, I claimed exactly the opposite. Knowledge is what leads to responsibility.

No, but I want to see evolution start with the absense of everything. I'd even be impressed if you could get evolution out of all the basic elements necessary. Heck, I'd even spot you the proteins as long as they aren't already combined in a life form.

Evolution =! Abiogenesis.

Catholic scholars have, for 2000 years, thought about things like this. If what you said had any value whatsoever, don't you think one would've pointed it out and the religion collapsed upon itself? Really. Read St Augustine.

First, there seems to be misunderstanding in what the apple did. Second, there seems to be misunderstanding of what Adam and Eve were. Third, there seems to be misunderstanding of what "evil" is. And last, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the human minds ability to interpret Scripture. I'm gonna' try and clear all this up in one post, it'll be relatively short since all these questions are relatively easy to answer.

The first, second, and third points are almost all one. In fact, I'll start with the third and work my way backwards.

God did not create evil. Evil is not an act in itself. Evil is a privation - a lack of something. Like blindness is a lack of something in an eye (a perfect eye will see, an eye with a defect will not), evil is a lack of goodness in an act (a perfect act is wholly good, an act with a defect is not). Humans cause evil through a lack of total goodness - this all started with Adam and Eve, who _had_ gifts (before being removed from the Garden of Eden) which we do not - a perfect intellect (a perfect intellect does not mean that they were always right or were supergeniuses. It means that they realized the causes and consequences of a decision, they had no lack of forethought), immortality, etc. When Adam and Eve ate the apple, they sinned against God through disobedience, lost the aforementioned gifts, and ushered evil into the world through lack of goodness on their part - all stains which remain with man to this day. Thus the word original sin (_origin_al sin).

Eating the apple did not give us "knowledge of good and evil" - before our disobedience, there was no evil. We wouldn't really "need" any of the advancements we have heretofore made.

Second, Christianity never suppressed knowledge. You believe this if you're:
A) A Gnostic, a heresy denounced since AD 100 by all Christians
B) Ignorant of Christianitys past, including (but not limited to) the causes of the Crusades and the Inquisition, probably the two most misunderstood portions of that history

Last but not least, yes, man can understand Scripture. And yes, God calls you to worship in a specific religion. For those who don't understand this, let me explain:

Truth is a non-objective constant which is not contingent upon your belief

That means that, Truth remains the same, whether or not you decide to believe it, and does not change over time. So, what do you know is Truth? Well, you can take Christs Word for it, and come into the Ministry which he began 2000 years ago with the Apostles that has continued today through an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession, or you can deny Christ by denying His appointed successors ("He who hears you, hears Me" Luke 10:16).

And, no, the Bible is not the sole rule of Faith. Without Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible. If you think you reject Tradition, you reject the Bible which it created. And that's the honest Truth.

Any questions/comments, feel free to PM me. AIM, email, or through nationstates.

Catholic scholars have, for 2000 years, thought about things like this. If what you said had any value whatsoever, don't you think one would've pointed it out and the religion collapsed upon itself? Really. Read St Augustine.

Anyone who points to Augustine as a competent theologian is scary. Seriously, "Babies sin when they cry for food..."?

First, there seems to be misunderstanding in what the apple did. Second, there seems to be misunderstanding of what Adam and Eve were. Third, there seems to be misunderstanding of what "evil" is. And last, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the human minds ability to interpret Scripture. I'm gonna' try and clear all this up in one post, it'll be relatively short since all these questions are relatively easy to answer.

Unless you are Jesus Christ himself, you don't have all the answers, kid.

[QUOTE=Your NationState HereSecond, Christianity never suppressed knowledge. You believe this if you're:[/quote]

Anyone who has studied the history of the church from someone other than a Catholic propogandist.

Second, Christianity never suppressed knowledge. You believe this if you're:
A) A Gnostic, a heresy denounced since AD 100 by all Christians
B) Ignorant of Christianitys past, including (but not limited to) the causes of the Crusades and the Inquisition, probably the two most misunderstood portions of that history

or, c) Able to read a newspaper.

the Catholic Church (which, last i checked, qualified as Christian) is suppressing knowledge at this very second. the Church is currently preventing the disemination of information about condoms throughout the world, and is deliberately covering up and lying about the evidence showing that condoms prevent transmition of the HIV virus. the Church publicly states that HIV passes through latex condoms (which it does not), that condoms are deliberately infected with AIDS by Planned Parenthood workers who want to kill minorities (which they aren't), and that a married man cannot pass HIV to his lawfully married wife (even though he most certainly can).

and that's just the current genocidal lie being perpetuated by Christianity...if you want a history of the suppression of knowledge by Christianity i would be more than willing to start flooding your in-box :).

Second, Christianity never suppressed knowledge. You believe this if you're:
A) A Gnostic, a heresy denounced since AD 100 by all Christians
B) Ignorant of Christianitys past, including (but not limited to) the causes of the Crusades and the Inquisition, probably the two most misunderstood portions of that history


Exactly how is labeling Gnostics as "heratics" not suppressing knowledge? For that matter, how is excluding several gospels from canon not suppressing knowledge?

And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:and now, lest he put forth his hand and also take from the tree of life, and eat, and then live forever

That quote is pretty much self explainatory. By eating the fruit Adam became like too much like God. If he remained in Eden and ate from the tree of life, he would not only possess God's knowledge but he would also be immortal. An ignorant immortal can be subservant to a God. An immortal with knowledge cannot see God as anything but an equal. Thus, he was sent away.

Eating the fruit was necessary because without doing so Adam and Eve were incapibele of making moral decisions. The fact that they disobeyed God so easily but were ashmaned of themselves afterward shows that. They did not know that their disobediance was wrong before eating the fruit. Only after doing so could they understand. Thus they tried to hide from God.

Really, if they had perfect forethought they wouldn't have eaten the fruit in the firt place.

Well there is a difference between wisdom and knowledge. Knowledge is as new as the world, and wisdom is as old as eternity. One gives life, the other brings death. Wisdom unites the will with God. Knowledge separates. Inspiration of invention of a new thing never comes from learning the way everyone else has thought. Knowledge will make you become one with the crowd if that's what you want and you will know only what everyone else knows and that's as far as you are going to go. Wisdom will bring you truly original thoughts and God's plan for your life and it expands out into eternity. The flaw is not a flaw, it's a misunderstanding. What is out there cannot fit into your mind with knowledge.

Oh goodie, some replies.

Augustine is one of the foremost Catholic/Christian theologists around. Who else do you want me to quote - Thomas Aquinas? And, did I claim to be Christ? No. Do I claim to speak with His authority? No. Is there an organization that He left with His authority? Yes. The Catholic Church. It's in the Bible. Matthew, Luke, Mark, all over the place.

Bottle, before you go shooting your mouth off re: the Church and artificial contraceptives, read up on the teaching. I don't suppose you've checked "Theology of the Body" out from your local library, have you? Or Humanae Vitae? I think you've been reading one too many pamphlets from Jack T Chick.

Karas, the Gnostic "gospels" are forgeries. The early Church Fathers were very clear that these were indeed fakes - and every major religion since (the Orthodox, Coptic, etc) has disavowed them. Admitting heresy into Scripture is impossible; the canon is closed. (I'm not labelling Gnostics as heretics. They accept the title through their own actions)

Adam was immortal before he ate the apple. He was deceived (As are you, apparently) by the master of lies, and acted contrary to Gods Divine Will. Who are you going to trust - the Perfect God, or a pathetic rebellious angel? Perfect forethought means they were not ignorant of the scope of their actions before they acted, nothing more.

Well there is a difference between wisdom and knowledge. Knowledge is as new as the world, and wisdom is as old as eternity. One gives life, the other brings death. Wisdom unites the will with God. Knowledge separates. Inspiration of invention of a new thing never comes from learning the way everyone else has thought. Knowledge will make you become one with the crowd if that's what you want and you will know only what everyone else knows and that's as far as you are going to go. Wisdom will bring you truly original thoughts and God's plan for your life and it expands out into eternity.
wait, knowledge kills? so me learning how to treat neurological disorders is going to "bring death," while i would avoid "bringing death" if i stopped accumulating knowledge about those disorders?

knowledge makes you one of the crowd, and limits you to only knowing what everybody else knows? does that mean that everybody has the same knowledge? does that mean it is impossible for me to learn a piece of knowledge that has never been learnt by another human? if any of these are true, how do you resolve the progress of scientific discoveries? a single person (or very small group of people) discover knowledge that no other living humans have ever possessed...how does that make them "one of the crowd"?

and how does remaining ignorant and knowledge-free protect you from being "one of the crowd"?

you need to share the definitions of "wisdom" and "knowledge" that you are using, because they clearly do not correspond to the definitions that are used in the English language. i know you really think that your post was deep, meaningful, profound, and bordering on poetic, but it honestly is so hopelessly flawed that i would laugh...except i think you might actually believe it.

finally, if you think that knowledge won't lead you to original thoughts, then you clearly have never had either.

Who are you going to trust - the Perfect God?

no, becuase IMPERFECT huamns have misinterpreted and perverted the message he and his son are trieing to get across...

Oh goodie, some replies.

Augustine is one of the foremost Catholic/Christian theologists around. Who else do you want me to quote - Thomas Aquinas? And, did I claim to be Christ? No. Do I claim to speak with His authority? No. Is there an organization that He left with His authority? Yes. The Catholic Church. It's in the Bible. Matthew, Luke, Mark, all over the place.

Just to make the point, there are many Protestants who have a large respect for Augustine and Thomas Quinas.

Is crying a sin? Perhaps not, in fact it is definately not as even Jesus wept. But what Augustine(in my humble opinion) is trying to point out is the inherent fallen condition of humanity. (I am reading Confessions and he definately has a strong grasp(understanding) on humanity's depravity)

And the Catholic Church's divine authority is very questionable on the basis of scripture.(give me references and I'll give rebuttals :) )
If you wish to argue that the Catholic Church is the divine authority than you will have to explain it's positions on geocentric model of the solar system.(it's switch on position and the contradiction that it entails)
Hopefully this will be something to discuss.

Ru-Xan, Christ established His ministry, choosing the Apostles with Peter at it's head and gave Him the power to bind and loosen as well as left the promise that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. Either you accept the Apostolic Ministry, or you denying it, and in denying it you deny Christ ("He who hears you, hears me"). Read Matthew 18 and cross-reference it with Isiah 22.

Jauan, the Churchs position on the solar system is seperate from faith and morals. The Church is only infallible on matters of faith and morals, not matters of science or discipline. The Church, however contrary to public opinion, was not anti-science - Copernicus was, after all, a Catholic bishop. Matthew 16, 18, 28, Luke 10, tons of Scriptural references to the Churchs authority.

After all, the Church created the Bible. Not vice-versa. If you accept the Bible, you must accept the Church.

Augustine is one of the foremost Catholic/Christian theologists around. Who else do you want me to quote -

Someone whose views weren't so extreme that even the Catholic Church refused to adopt a good number of them, perhaps?

Personally, I'm a big fan of Abelard - at least his views weren't based on a completely unscriptural church structure. Of course, since his views weren't based on years of tradition with no scriptural basis, he was labeled as a heretic, go figure.

And then, much more recently in time, there was C. S. Lewis. Some of his views are little unhealthy, but for the most part he really had things down.

No. Is there an organization that He left with His authority? Yes. The Catholic Church. It's in the Bible. Matthew, Luke, Mark, all over the place.

If you believe the Catholic Church is infallible, you haven't studied its history. Half of what you consider to be dogma was decided on by vote - usually pressured by the particular political construct at the time and often based in mythological views of humanity.

Ru-Xan, Christ established His ministry, choosing the Apostles with Peter at it's head and gave Him the power to bind and loosen as well as left the promise that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. Either you accept the Apostolic Ministry, or you denying it, and in denying it you deny Christ ("He who hears you, hears me"). Read Matthew 18 and cross-reference it with Isiah 22.

Interestingly enough I have much more evidence for faith in Christ as sufficient for salvation.(Galatians 3:8, Romans 3:22 etc, John 5:24)

We are all saved who have faith in Christ. As is shown in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, where Paul chastises the Corinthians for being divided as to who they follow(ie now the Catholic Church or the Anglican or whatever(i'm not anglican)).




Read Galatians 2:11-13. In which Paul talks about Peter's hypocrisy(I'm not saying that Peter is not an equal Apostle with the rest) which was clearly a matter of faith and morals correct? Since Peter was the first Pope clearly this shows that the Church is not infallible.

[QUOTE=
After all, the Church created the Bible. Not vice-versa. If you accept the Bible, you must accept the Church.

Interestingly enough I believe God created the Bible. Using the Church to accomplish his will but that does not mean that I have to accept what the Catholic Church is to become saved. I am not assuming that the Church had final authority on the Scripture as I believe that God did.

God Bless


And I agree that the Church was not anti-science, most of the greatest scientists in history were God believing.(See Isaac Newton, Pasteur, etc.)

We can't assume that everything Augustine or Lewis said was inspired of course. That is only Canon.