Core Message Of Christianity Isn't One Of Love

[Drich]

The story of Adam and Eve is ridiculous, and so is the concept of original sin.  

The doctrine of 'original sin' is not a biblical one.

"Shit, Eve ate this apple.  I'm going to make childbirth for her really painful.  And because I'm an asshole, childbirth is going to be painful for all women for the rest of history.

 Get an epidural

All because she ate the apple (nevermind that the other women who come after her didn't have the same opportunity)

that's not true. We all have the same opportunity everytime we are faced with the temptation of sin.

after a talking snake (HOW THE FUCK DOES A SNAKE TALK, AND WHY DON'T THEY TALK ANYMORE?) told her to.

 
IDK... Maybe the same way Eddie Murphy made a 'Dunkey' talk.

Also this sin is going to be passed down from mother to son/daughter forever and ever.  Why?  Because Fuck humans.  That's why."

Ah, no. All adam and Eve passed down was the knowledge of good and evil, the tree represented nothing more. The tree itself was not evil it only offered the knowledge of it. with knowledge comes responsibility.

And how the fuck do you explain Cavemen?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html
read the op

If Adam and Eve were truly the first humans, then ALL civilizations would have the same or similar story of creation, because it'd have been passed down from generation to generation.  All civilizations don't have the same story of creation, ergo... the story can't be true.

ah, no.. if you still think this click on the link above and re-read the op.

[Divinity]

-The Epidural wasn't used on pregnant women for the first time until 1945. So for however the fuck many years, women had no option. Seems like a shitty thing to do to someone because their ancestor ate a piece of fruit she wasn't supposed to.

-And you missed the point completely. People today are being punished for things that someone (allegedly) did more than 6000 years ago.

-Eddie Murphy didn't make a Donkey talk. He talked for a Donkey. If you're trying to say "Satan talked for the Serpent!" then why don't we see him talking for serpents today? But even that wouldn't make sense because you have this passage from Genesis:

The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life

So did god punish the serpent for the devil talking through it? Seems kind of shitty to me.

-You're making the argument that man evolved separately from Adam and Eve, and that they happened to be completely compatible with Adam and Eve somehow. Despite the fact that:
A. You have zero evidence
and
B. You have nothing to base this on in your bible.

You can't admit that Adam and Eve is just a story, because then you have to start questioning if everything else is just a story. I mean there's plenty of problems with the creation myth. Plants are created before sunlight for example. The simple answer I'm sure you'll give is "God didn't make them need sunlight!" so why do they need sunlight now? Also the sun is older than the earth, despite the bible saying otherwise.

And how is it that god created man from dirt, and woman from rib, and then millions of years later something exactly like those creations evolved. Was this part of god's plan? Why? What evidence is there for this?

Besides... even if you ignore all the Adam and Eve'ing. There's one simple fact about genealogy. Noah was a descendant of Adam and Eve. And god floods the world, and kills fucking everybody except for Noah and his sons. That story of course has many problems of its own.

[Jenny A]

---

The story of Adam and Eve is ridiculous, and so is the concept of original sin.  

The doctrine of 'original sin' is not a biblical one.

"Shit, Eve ate this apple.  I'm going to make childbirth for her really painful.  And because I'm an asshole, childbirth is going to be painful for all women for the rest of history.

 Get an epidural

All because she ate the apple (nevermind that the other women who come after her didn't have the same opportunity)

that's not true. We all have the same opportunity everytime we are faced with the temptation of sin.

after a talking snake (HOW THE FUCK DOES A SNAKE TALK, AND WHY DON'T THEY TALK ANYMORE?) told her to.

 
IDK... Maybe the same way Eddie Murphy made a 'Dunkey' talk.

Also this sin is going to be passed down from mother to son/daughter forever and ever.  Why?  Because Fuck humans.  That's why."

Ah, no. All adam and Eve passed down was the knowledge of good and evil, the tree represented nothing more. The tree itself was not evil it only offered the knowledge of it. with knowledge comes responsibility.

---

And how the fuck do you explain Cavemen?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html
read the op

If Adam and Eve were truly the first humans, then ALL civilizations would have the same or similar story of creation, because it'd have been passed down from generation to generation.  All civilizations don't have the same story of creation, ergo... the story can't be true.

ah, no.. if you still think this click on the link above and re-read the op.

Oh the wonders I missed by not being a member in 2012.   Man evolved for a billion years while Adam and Eve live immortally in the garden and then God pitches them out among the  soulless "monkey men" that have been evolving meanwhile.

Every time I think I've seen the most batshit crazy apologetic yet, someone comes along and ups the ante.  Apparently Drich claims it as original:

I have only taken the face value account of Genesis and lined the holes up with the holes in the evolutionary account of origins and they fit together perfectly.

What do you think? I would like to refine and clean up this account of origins and start circulating it. Because there is literally nothing the atheist can say or do to disprove anything. Their standard goto the evidence only further supports the creation account at this point. This takes the account of "origins" out of the atheist arsenal for a legitmate reason they do not believe in God. While on the Atheist website because they saw the logic of this explanation many who originally greeted me with harsh words and complete disrespect started to ask legitimate questions.

 From Drich's original OP.

[loganonekenobi]

The core message of Christianity is self-loathing. All humans are fallen. Pride is a sin.

So it is not ok in your world view to loath the negative aspects of one's self? how does someone like you ever become more than what you currently are? How can one like you ever improve upon himself if he is not allowed to identify negative/loathsome aspects with in himself n an effort to grow past them? What world view teaches people to embrace their negative qualities and not dare change them?

Might look at other faiths/practices such as budhism, good pychology, and even martial arts. All of these are designed to have the individual take a good hard look at themselves and see what needs improved. However there is a very marked difference between understanding your negative aspects and hating yourself because you where born.
For one of these things there is hope that we can do something about it and still be who we are. We can still think for ourselves
For the other the only hope lies in putting faith in something that may or may not be true and giving up all choice to out-dated instructions of a tribal existence.
I have done both and found that the former works for making life and person better. The other does not.

[loganonekenobi]

Well, Sport, other than the observation that you clearly have a fucked up idea of what love entails, I suppose the only other thing I have is the assurance that your entire story is bullshit from start to finish and that you've been had.

Love does not make room for those who only love themselves. Unrepentant sin is a deadly virus that will eventually fester and turn one into an evil monster. Why should someone who refuses to get deal with this sin virus be loved like those who repented of their sin, when the exact same opportunity was given to both? It's not my idea of love that you should question, but your own corrupt idea of love that says God must expose Those who He truly loves and those who love Him back to those who will eventually turn on us both. Especially when those people had a more than fair opportunity to be rid of this sin virus, at no personal cost to them.

But it does cost something. Millions of deaths in the past in the name of Jesus http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
and the millions of lives hurt today in the name of Jesus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16...13593.html (angry vulcan )
The sad thing is that all of this is true and good in the set of instructions given in the Bible. Your god would approve of all this and call it love. No zombies just real death and pain.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

-The Epidural wasn't used on pregnant women for the first time until 1945.  So for however the fuck many years, women had no option.  Seems like a shitty thing to do to someone because their ancestor ate a piece of fruit she wasn't supposed to.

-And you missed the point completely.  People today are being punished for things that someone (allegedly) did more than 6000 years ago.

-Eddie Murphy didn't make a Donkey talk.  He talked for a Donkey.  If you're trying to say "Satan talked for the Serpent!"  then why don't we see him talking for serpents today?  But even that wouldn't make sense because you have this passage from Genesis:

The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life

So did god punish the serpent for the devil talking through it?  Seems kind of shitty to me.

-You're making the argument that man evolved separately from Adam and Eve, and that they happened to be completely compatible with Adam and Eve somehow.  Despite the fact that:
A. You have zero evidence
and
B. You have nothing to base this on in your bible.

You can't admit that Adam and Eve is just a story, because then you have to start questioning if everything else is just a story.  I mean there's plenty of problems with the creation myth.  Plants are created before sunlight for example.  The simple answer I'm sure you'll give is "God didn't make them need sunlight!"  so why do they need sunlight now?  Also the sun is older than the earth, despite the bible saying otherwise.  

And how is it that god created man from dirt, and woman from rib, and then millions of years later something exactly like those creations evolved.  Was this part of god's plan?  Why?  What evidence is there for this?

Besides... even if you ignore all the Adam and Eve'ing.  There's one simple fact about genealogy.  Noah was a descendant of Adam and Eve.  And god floods the world, and kills fucking everybody except for Noah and his sons.  That story of course has many problems of its own.

People always seem to veer off track with the Adam & Eve & Noah stories.  The stories aren't about mankind.  They are about the progenitors of the Jews and Jesus.  

BTW, there are two Garden of Eden stories in the Bible.  In the first one Adam & Eve are in the Garden of Eden just down the road from Assyria, Ethiopia, Arabia, and Persia. Sounds like it was in Iraq.  

In the second story the king of Tyre lived in the Garden of Eden.  So that means that it extended to the coast of Lebanon.  The king pissed off the emperor (probably for collaborating with the Egyptians) and was exiled.  

The Noah story is simply a war story.  Invaders swept through the land killing, raping, and pillaging.  Noah and his group survived the invasion and then Noah's grandson Nimrod became the big wig in Babylon and built cities in Assyria.  

The stories serve as mnemonic devices to remember historical events.  But when a person just focuses on the stories they don't make logical sense.  And what really confuses things is that some of the stories are out of order.  On top of that the Protestant Bible deleted some of the books that include relevant historical characters.

[Rhondazvous]

The message of Christianity is basically that God/Jesus wants you to believe, love and worship him, and if you don't do it he'll send you to hell to be tortured for eternity.

How is this be interpreted as a message of love?

Because we love God by loving our neighbor. "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me."

But then Christians use love as a license to treat one another any old kind of way then demand forgiveness. I know some people right here at AF who love me, not because if they don't I'll sic god on them, but because they start with respect and respect turns to love. Love is not something you can command people to do. What could be more phony than, "I can't stand you but god told me I have to love you, so I will because I don't want to spoil my blessings."

[LastPoet]

......AND HE NEEDS MONEY!!

All that " let there be light " shit isn't for free. God has to pay bills too. He also has to pay all the saints and angels. Divinity my ass, If Im work for someone, I expect to be payed.

[Rhondazvous]

Drippy got one thing right. Original sin isn't biblical. In the 4,000 years between Adam and Paul, not one biblical writer had anything to say about it. But this is what the church teaches today. When you go to church, you're not practicing Christianity. You're practicing paulianity.

[Catholic_Lady]

Because we love God by loving our neighbor. "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me."

But then Christians use love as a license to treat one another any old kind of way then demand forgiveness. I know some people right here at AF who love me, not because if they don't I'll sic god on them, but because they start with respect and respect turns to love. Love is not something you can command people to do. What could be more phony than, "I can't stand you but god told me I have to love you, so I will because I don't want to spoil my blessings."

...And the "Christians" who do this, are certainly not acting in a loving way and are merely using any excuse they can to be bullies. That is wrong, and that is NOT love. Love does not mean abusing people on purpose only because you feel you can "demand" forgiveness afterwards. Any sane person who tries to do this and calls it love, is being dishonest to themselves.

As for your second point, love doesn't necessarily mean liking someone and having good feelings about them. You are right, that would be phony, because we can't possibly feel that way about everyone. But love, in the sense us Christians (ought) to mean when we say things like "love your enemy", is not a feeling, it's a decision and an action. We love our enemy by acting kind to them, forgiving them even if they are not sorry, not seeking revenge against them, and treating them with respect. Those are all actions, not feelings. 

My favorite thing that Jesus said was this: 

"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. If you only love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even tax collectors love those who love them. And if you only do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even tax collectors do the same. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return."

^THIS should be a Christian's understanding of love, straight from the Man Himself, and is also one of the most fundamental and important Christian message. So when a Christian uses "love" to mean anything other than the above, or to act in a way that is not loving, he/she is not acting on the teachings of Christ.