Adam and Eve sinned by eating from the tree. This is considered original sin. I thought Lucifer rising up against god would be considered the original sin but that's irrelevant.

We know the story. You, me and everyone that lives or has ever lived is guilty of sin. Even an infant because even they are born into sin. Well by that logic Jesus is a dirty sinner just like me and you.

His biological mother is Mary who is a human being. Humans pass sin onto each other. I'm not gonna buy any crap that sin is only passed through the male. How the hell is that determined? Therefore Jesus was not sinless and therefore not a worthy sacrifice.

Ultimately that means god can never be appeased since he himself failed. Jesus is not the lamb without blemish. Jesus is not a worthy sacrifice.

The Catholics neatly sidestepped this one with the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Contrary to what some believe, this dogma doesn't refer to Jesus, but to Mary. Mary WAS sinless, therefore Jesus was without blemish.

That's the lovely thing about theology: When you're allowed to just make stuff up, you can have any doctrine you like.

Boru

Depends on your interpretation of the story.

Most Christians at school, and even the teaching faculty accepted evolution and thus, rejected the idea of there ever being a literal 'Adam and Eve' beyond symbolism.

They believe god (as Christ) died to prove to man how much god (the father) loved them. i.e, if it were possible for immortality to truly die, then he would.

Even as a Christian I never accepted the convoluted idea of 'original sin' or Christ as the "redeemer" beyond symbolism. It was all an answer, a response to a threatening tide of deism and growing apathy towards man's creator.

Boy, did I ever used to accept some bullcrap before doing a little critical thinking.

(July 27, 2014 at 6:38 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The Catholics neatly sidestepped this one with the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Contrary to what some believe, this dogma doesn't refer to Jesus, but to Mary. Mary WAS sinless, therefore Jesus was without blemish.

That's the lovely thing about theology: When you're allowed to just make stuff up, you can have any doctrine you like.

Boru

Yeah. It's a little known loophole, but if Jesus is God then by conceiving Mary and then using her to give birth to himself that makes Jesus his own grandpa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7x1ETPkZsk

PLEASE try to grasp the sincerity of my response.

I'm rather curious why atheists even care about these trivial biblical matters. I think it's fairly safe (at least at this point) in this thread to say that while I agree with discussing/debating real-world issues relating to fairy tales (like the imposition of religious BS onto world politics and Human needs issues etc.), I am just failing to grasp why so many people who don't necessarily believe in god are so interested in a casual discussion of the rhetorical literature of a bronze-age notion. Again, I understand and I agree with the real NEED to confront religious idiocy as it attempts to impose its BS upon the real world (at least the one most of us agree is 'real'). I do feel that these casual conversations about the bible may help to sharpen one's reasoning and counter-apologetic skills, but I suspect that in the long run, such saturation is unhealthy toward that end or any other beside frustration.

I mean no disrespect. I'm genuinely intrigued by what looks to me like an apparent infatuation.

Some religiousites trot out that stuff as Literally True and 100% Inerrant. Interest accrues from that, for by asserting it is 100% entirely true, demonstrating even a particle of error knocks it all down.

OTOH, if we're drawing a line somewhere in the Bible between fact and fiction, my interest is immediately piqued by what you refer to as trivia since the Bible does state that every bit is suitable for inspiration and correction. Folks that set themselves up as knowing more than God/Jesus does in these matters are going to experience INTENSE scrutiny.


As they should.

(July 27, 2014 at 1:04 pm)ShaMan Wrote: PLEASE try to grasp the sincerity of my response.

I'm rather curious why atheists even care about these trivial biblical matters. I think it's fairly safe (at least at this point) in this thread to say that while I agree with discussing/debating real-world issues relating to fairy tales (like the imposition of religious BS onto world politics and Human needs issues etc.), I am just failing to grasp why so many people who don't necessarily believe in god are so interested in a casual discussion of the rhetorical literature of a bronze-age notion. Again, I understand and I agree with the real NEED to confront religious idiocy as it attempts to impose its BS upon the real world (at least the one most of us agree is 'real'). I do feel that these casual conversations about the bible may help to sharpen one's reasoning and counter-apologetic skills, but I suspect that in the long run, such saturation is unhealthy toward that end or any other beside frustration.

I mean no disrespect. I'm genuinely intrigued by what looks to me like an apparent infatuation.

I know exactly what you mean. I can't speak for everyone. For me talking about these things is theraputic and cathartic. It also offers some self reflection. It shows how one has grown. "Look at this and look at that. How could I have missed that?"

There are other reasons why people who have found their freedom go back to look at their prison cell. These are just a few of mine.

Quote:Mary WAS sinless

I'll bet she gave great head to the whole village.

Not as good as Salome.

(July 27, 2014 at 1:04 pm)ShaMan Wrote: I'm rather curious why atheists even care about these trivial biblical matters.

Well first off, not all atheists are apatheists, heck, I'm an apatheist and I cared enough to make a response about the concept that was, from my point of view, speaking wholly-retrospectively.

Second, just believe you don't believe in something at the factual level doesn't mean its suddenly forbidden to discuss it within the public domain. Debating concepts, rites, rituals or dogmas, when you don't subscribe to them isn't breaching some arbitrary rule of internet etiquette.

Its just as fallacious and nonsensical to argue we're not allowed to review a movie or a book if we didn't like it all that much.

I can sit down and discuss with you all day long whether we should think Godzilla in the 2014 movie is supposed to be personified as a benevolent force of nature, or a mindless savage animal following its own instincts. None of this means for a second I think Godzilla is actually real and is rampaging across town to fight the nearest monster.

Its critique. Its scrutiny. Its critical thinking. It can be applied to everything that exists in fact or fiction.

Whether we like it or not, or think its real or not, is irrelevant to the context of the subject matter.