Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[KevinM1]

Hence 'whatnot'.

You are using the term What-not wrong.
It means unmentioned items that could belong the list provided. Ex: we need bread, ham, cheese, tomato and what-not to make a good sam-bitch.

No, I'm using it correctly.  The context is a bunch of other meaningless things, of which the genealogies of the bible are but one.

"Original sin' is not a topic mentioned or taught by the bible.

Genesis 3 is all about it.  Humanity is cursed because Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

No it doesn't. Genesis 3 is the passage used to identify what certain denominations define as original sin, but the bible never points to the fall as the point of original sin. It is the point where Adam and Eve first sinned. we are not judged on their sin, but on our own. Each one of us according to the bible, when we become aware of sin and do it anyway is then guilty of sin. Not what someone else did at the dawn of humanity.

And yet, every Christian I've ever encountered talks about humanity's sinful nature.

You realize you're defending your god for committing genocide because the people were wicked before he decided it may be a good idea to lay down some ground rules (the commandments)?

How so?

God seems to play fast and loose with things at the beginning, speaking to people directly (like Cain and Abel), but not giving people a series of rules to go by without needing his direct intervention all the time.  So, he drowns the entire freaking planet, minus two of each 'kind' and one particular family, and reboots because he did a piss poor job getting his point across the first time.  I mean, if everyone is wicked, maybe the problem isn't them, but the person setting up the rules?  Maybe having the ground rules delivered before hand would have saved us an apocalypse?  Far better than "I like your sacrifice more than your brother's, now watch me be totally shocked and surprised (even though I'm god and know everything) when your brother kills you."

LMFAO.  Man, killing and burning livestock parts is completely different than having a person be tortured to death.  There's false equivocations, and then there's this.

Never seen a baby lamb die huh? Maybe you should google it before you speak. My grandfathers (both of them) had live stock.. Baby lambs scream like children when being killed. the way the OT had them slaughtered was to cut their throats and have them bleed out. This was not a quiet or quick way for them to go. The reason being was the picture of innocence they repersented. So every time one was sacrificed the jews were reminded of the cost of sin.
Which would have been a vivid picture up until 'meat' became something you bought in shrink wrapped trays at the store, rather than having been apart of a animal.

Cool, so your god demanded animal torture as a way to make a point.  Guess I shouldn't be surprised, since he offered his own son up.

Why am I supposed to see him/it as the epitome of goodness and kindness again?

So, you're pagan, then.  Cool.

You don't know what that word means either huh? I see a pattern here with you. look it up.

You're right, apologies.  I meant polytheist.  Sorry, I've been dealing with a kidney blockage and the fever that accompanies it for over a week now.

Their no magic about it. Jesus' Death and blood shed is the Physical manifestation of the Pain endured by god to forgive sins. We have been given this physical example of pain so we could have some idea of the Spiritual cost. In so far as we can learn to respect what has been given so that we may not be held to account for the sin we have committed.

...that entire description is magical.

Magic is to effect an event in an unknown way. What is unknown/unknowable about what I said? God used physical pain to communicate to us the pain He endured to forgive sin. So that we may have some way to relate to the cost, and subsequently understand the demand that we acknoweledge the loss as a means to accept the atonement provided by said loss.

It's still magical because it doesn't answer questions like:

Does god still hurt when we sin, even if we accept Jesus?
If it hurts so bad, why does he continue to create billions of people who will inevitably sin?
How does sin actually hurt god, which created everything (which must include sin)?

The surface process/lesson may make sense, but its underpinnings are complete mumbo jumbo.

 Seriously, I've read similar kinds of mumbojumbo in Dungeons and Dragons books.  It's also heinous, morally speaking.  God is powerful enough to do anything, so he can't just give everyone a vision or something, and instead must have his son go on display and be tortured as a lesson to everyone else?

If the cost could only be communicated by a horrid death on a cross, do you really want that experience beamed into your head? Jesus/God the Son died after 3 hours of this torment.. How long would you suggest we be made to endure?

Since I haven't endured any of it, a value greater than nothing would be a good place to start.

 How is that not evil?

How do you still not understand the word evil after all of this?
Evil has nothing to do with our actions. it is the love of sin over God. Jesus' death show a greater love for God the Father than for Himself.

It's evil because it's atonement by proxy.  If I have sinned, then I should be able to gain (or not) atonement myself.  It shouldn't require someone else getting punished in my stead.  Even if he volunteers.  Otherwise, how am I actually absolved of anything?  "Oh, jeez, I feel really bad about it.  Good thing the other guy spent a day or so getting tortured and killed on my behalf, or I'd be really worried!"

Of course, all of this assumes that the sins of the people on this little mud ball can actually hurt the most powerful being in the universe.

"The details" are the whole point.. Knowing the 'crux' without the details is the same as knowing how a movie ends with out the work up/without the details of the story. The whole point of a movie is the whole journey, not just how it ends. What if i gave you the ending of the next starwars movie before you got to see it, what would you call that?
Whether you like star wars or not the point is discovering the 'crux' of a story is not the reason we go to the movies and watch them. its the whole journey, its the details leading up to the 'crux' that gives a movie it's value. The same is true here. Yes you can boil Jesus whole life down to your 'crux', but what gives His work any real meaning are in the details of his story. Which by the way maybe why so many Christians have the 'proof' of God that illudes you and everyone else who just seek the 'crux.'

Except Star Wars is interesting, and Jesus isn't.

No, I'm serious.

I'm one of those people who cannot force themselves to go through media - stories, movies, music, etc. - they don't like.  I've tried reading the bible to see what the fuss is all about.  I can't make it past the first few chapters of Genesis.  It's just wholly uninteresting and boring to me, and I really don't care.

That's because you are reading it as a story. What if the bible was a set of instructions for one to obtain the 'force?'

The thing about the Force is that it's not attainable by everyone.  Han Solo, for instance.  So, false equivocation.

I understand the 'set of instructions' point you're trying to make.  Sorry, not interested.  Outside of the actual laws of the land (which exist, are enforced with consequences clearly described and visible for all to see), I don't really like external constraints on how I live my life.  It's that chaperone factor of being permanently physically disabled from birth.  I have people hovering over me all the time.  I don't need to add god to the mix.

Now, if someone can provide me with 3rd party, legit, verified evidence that this god character you keep talking about is real, then maybe I'll take it more seriously.  But right now?  It's a collection of boring stories that beg the question, and I treat them as such.

That's the thing though I am many like me are third parties who proclaim all sorts of things god ha done in our lives and point to the fact that we are nothing special. That we simply follow the instructions in the bible and get 'proof of God' by receiving God the Spirit in our lives. Which takes us all off in directions/places we could never otherwise go.

How do you know?  Seems to be you're engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc to me.

Verfication is not what your looking for. You want a mandate. Something your forced to not ignore. Well, Good news everyone! that day is comming but by then it will be too late for you to benfit from it.

Are you referring to the rapture or merely my death?

What is more unlikely is you being honest enough with yourself to point these supposed problems out rather than just giving a random list of random "problems" and not tying them to the narritive in any way shape or form.
Or can you honestly not see the basic fallacy in reasoning here?

Drich, you're trying to say that if everyone understood the narrative of the story, it would all make sense.  What I'm saying is that the narrative cannot make the ideas of:

define "sense." Do you mean To compress down to fit into the box you currently think in/can not think past?

God= creator of all things.
Hell=eternal seperation from God/Death

Described as a furnace of fire in the gospels.  Let's not make it sound more pleasant than it's been described.

Sin= Anything though/deed not in the Expressed will of God.
Virgin pregnancy/birth= Birth with hymen intact. Google it. In the US 45 'virgin births' since 1995

You know what I meant.  Come on, now, Drich.  For someone playing the professor, you know that I was referring to the incarnation of Jesus.

Resurrection=consciousness up loaded into a different body.

What?  No.  Maybe in the bible, but not with the common definition of the word.

Less goofy.  It may fit the narrative of the story, but when contrasted with reality, they make no sense.

because yu approach with a closed mind. At some point you wrongly assumed what all those things meant and will not/can not change the definations of those terms in your mind. so when the static religious terms are challenged, by ever changing 'science' they fail. so to you they become obsolete. However if you are honest and smart enough to compare apples to apples (when science changes the perception of reality) you to also look at those religious definations and see where an honest change in the perception of the religious can also be made to reflect what we know to be 'real' while not changing the core truth of what God has given us to know.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say, but I'll give it a go.

You say I approach things with a closed mind.  Perhaps.  I think it's more accurate to say that I approach things with a skeptical mind.  And just like when someone broaches any other subject, my first question is "Where's the proof/evidence/data?"

The bible cannot be used as its own proof.  It's the thing making the claim.  Individual testimony is worthless, because for each miracle or good turn of fortune they receive, there are many more true believers in the same positions that don't receive the same.  And while there's archaeological evidence for some things (which isn't surprising, as it is an ancient attempt to chronicle Middle Eastern history), none of that lends credence to the fantastic elements of the story that don't fit into reality as we know it.

To go back to Star Wars, The Force, Jedi, Sith, ghosts... all of it (mostly) makes sense within the movies.  The narrative, of varying quality (those prequels... yuck), makes sense.  It's credible and self-referencing.  But, the story obviously don't apply to real life.  You're asking everyone here to take the ancient Middle Eastern version of it seriously, as though it's not fictitious.  And there's no secondary sources of information that tell us we should give it any more respect than any other collection of myths.

Again, why?

The Why you did not care about before, will answer this question, in that where star wars fails to cross the wall between fiction and reality God does cross. Which again is offered to each and every one of us who will A/S/K.

But, see, I'm not interested in A/S/King because there's no verifiable evidence to show that it would be beneficial to me.  Witnessing/testifying is useless on me.  I need data, which no theist has been able to consistently provide.  All we get are promises, threats, and 'mysterious ways', and successes and failures which seem to be reducible to blind chance.

And, keep in mind, even if a theist would be able to actually provide data that would satisfy me (I'm not going to hold my breath), I'd still have issues with the ethical issues underlying your god, the nature of sin and hell, the sacrifice, etc.

So, when you talk to me about having a closed mind, I don't mind.  I'd rather be critical and skeptical of BS than base my entire worldview on it.  And if that offends god, he can go fuck himself.  He knew who he was building when he made me.