A question about original sin.

[The Grand Nudger]

Apparently his, because without it he's a cosmic douche. Without context of his actions I remain exactly who I am. Hell, even IN CONTEXT he's a cosmic douche CRod. As far as a child who would always disobey, I believe we have a thread for that.

Honestly, I'll take the warning for this, fuck you, you're a terrible human being.

[C Rod]

Yeah that was a good response, of course, Rogers response led to a re-organization of the dilemna which was even more difficult to escape.

Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?
(Michael Martin I believe, some poster will probably know better than me if I'm incorrect in the attribution.)

Don't worry about being considerate based on my position CRod. If you're holding onto something that you believe is a persuasive argument or piece of evidence, take it to the evidence thread. It's not like the state of the cosmos gives a shit whether or not I'm offended.

Point of all of this, is that you're assuming A that god exists, and B that somehow he sets the moral order by which men can be judged, even unto death. I'm only pointing out to you that these are your assumptions, but not based in anything even closely resembling fact. When you say things like "those people got what they deserved" it just comes off as cruel and pointless.

Why did they deserve it, who did they go against?

If God's character or nature is good for whatever reason, i would say that the second horn, on the wiki page, of objection would not stand because his very nature would not will arbitrary rules and commands because it would go against his very nature.

---

Apparently his, because without it he's a cosmic douche. Without context of his actions I remain exactly who I am. Hell, even IN CONTEXT he's a cosmic douche CRod. As far as a child who would always disobey, I beleiev we have a thread for that.

Honestly, I'll take the warning for this, fuck you, you're a terrible human being.

Sorry you feel that way dude. That is the world we live in. How would you rationally deal with that kind of justice?

"Without context of his actions I remain exactly who I am." What do you mean by that?

[Faith No More]

I really cant put the question any clearer...

Apparently you can because now I understand. It's hard to understand your points because your posts border on being completely incoherent.

So are you comparing everyone god killed to being as evil as Hitler? And if god knows every person's actions ahead of time, why even, let them be born in the first place if he was just going to kill them?

[C Rod]

I really cant put the question any clearer...

Apparently you can because now I understand. It's hard to understand your points because your posts border on being completely incoherent.

So are you comparing everyone god killed to being as evil as Hitler? And if god knows every person's actions ahead of time, why even, let them be born in the first place if he was just going to kill them?

Hitler is an extreme but there are many like him.
So would you take there right to what life they will have because they will chose what they want?

"I would like to know of any way to conform or act on a persons that would have an affect enough for change?" Here, is this less coherent, How would you influence someone? Greater, how would you help someone do what they would not do?

[Epimethean]

This boat ain't floating. If you want to have a god who kills off the unjust, he's a nasty fucker, because he kills off even more of the just, and does it in some spectacularly fucked up ways. Epicurus stands and will continue to stand as the baseline for indicting christian belief as self-serving and flawed.

[The Grand Nudger]

What kills me, is that Epicuras had been dead for at least 300 years before this christian shit was dreamt up. You'd think some educated scribe, while taking it all down, would stand up and say to the guys around him "Any of you guys ever heard of a guy named Epicuras?"

[Epimethean]

The koolaid was spiked at the rostrum.

[salty]

Hey guys, a Christian friend of mine and I were discussing about the original sin recently. He said that we are not actually accountable for that apple eating sin of Adam and Eve. But somehow their act affected us and made us all sinners, so now everybody sins. Therefore no one can get into heaven in their current situation, even if they've done good deeds. Only by sacrificing his son for our sins, god can allow us get to heaven.(I'm not even bother trying to explain why this whole idea is idiotic ) My question is, if that's true, doesn't that make all the events before Jesus, --like the great flood kinda wiping out people events-- extremely unnecessary? I mean okay, we are sinners because we are affected by some Adam&Eve apple eating virus or something, and there is no cure for it, except for sacrificing Jesus. Then why the hell did you tried to prevent us to sin, or punished us when we sinned, anyway? So Christian forum mates, if you believe in this idea as my friend does, can you explain this to me? And, if you believe there is another explanation to original sin I'd like to hear it too.

Your Christian friend is pretty cool, really informed, let me add somethings to this. The original sin that was committed in the garden was disobedience. The Lord gave Adam & Eve all these great places to eat fruit and in the middle of the garden he planted two trees, the tree of Life and the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If the Lord didn't give us the choice to listen to his command, "Do not eat of the tree of the Knowlege of Good and Evil or you will surely die." then we would basically be like robots, unable to choose whether we accept or reject God. You see the two trees represent God and Satan, just as in the end people will either side with God or with Satan. Adam & Eve could have chosen the tree of life and been eternal (choosing Jesus) or they could eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and become "like God", knowing both good and evil (choosing Satan). That was the original problem in the beginning when Lucifer turned to God and said, give me your knowledge, give me your power. Since Adam & Eve chose to drink from the cup of Satan (taking the fruit) they were stained with sin like he was, and they were the parents of all humanity, therefore humans were now capable of both good and evil. The only way for the Lord to give us a choice to come back to him, was to come down to Earth and live a perfect life, which Adam was unable to do. Jesus then became the sacrifice for us taking our burdens upon himself, basically he became our high priest, that's why people don't have to confess to an Earthly priest, they can confess their sins to Jesus, he atoned for all the evil we could ever committ and he was resurrected and stands in heaven even now, as our high priest! If we depended on a human priest we would be doomed because if he sinned he wouldn't be able to absolve us of sin because he wouldn't be righteous, but Jesus Christ lived and died righteous and innocent, so he can absolve us of all sin and make us holy like him. Amen!

Now, about the flood. The flood was important because God promised to redeem us in Genesis through the woman, which would be Mary (Gen 3:15). So the angels were coming down and having children with the women on earth, making them unclean. As you know the woman to have Jesus would have to be clean; a virgin. After a while when the Lord saw us humans we were infected by this new breed called Nephilites (or Nephilim) (Genesis 6:1-4) and they were seen as heroes because they were probably receiving forbidden information or knowledge from the very angels that created them. God could see that everyone's desires were evil, everyone was caught up in their ways, except for Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. They could hear the Lord, they were listening. They were not caught up in the evil around them, none of them had mated with angels. The Lord instructed Noah to build an ark and he did it. During the time when Noah was building the ark people had the ability to assist him, to believe what he said about God, they had to ability to become right with God, but they thought he was ridiculous. And when the ark closed, with the animals inside and the rain began, they believed, but it was too late.

Concerning the Law, the Prophets and the Old Testament. Nothing in the old testament is unnecessary, it was all very important, the Lord is revealing his story to the world, allowing them to choose if they believe or don't believe. The Lord is telling you how it happened in the beginning and you can come to your own conclusions about the validity. In order to establish the Word as valid the Lord made prophecies so that we could recognize the Savior when he came, and it would confirm we were listening to the Lord, he also gave the Law to his chosen people, the Jews, to establish them as righteous by following his standards, then those around them (Gentiles) could come to know God by their righteous ways. As we know some of the Jews were not that great at being righteous, but neither are any of us, right? Also, the Law was given so that we could clearly see that we are flawed, we all fall short of the glory of God and we NEED a savior! The Law was in place so that people could be righteous before Jesus Christ was born, then the life of Jesus became the example of true righteousness. Now we don't have to live by the Law instead we live by our faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ, all of us Jew or Gentile alike. Amen and amen.

Any other questions? Let me know, I love talking about God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Floods, angel babies, and arks oh my!

"Hey fellas I gave you this awesome thing called free will. A word of caution, never, ever use it. I'm going to give you everything you need to know, answer every question that need be asked, all you have to do is listen and obey...but whatever you do...don't make a choice. If you do, I'm afraid I'm going to have to punish you for eternity. That's how much I love free will, and choices."

"Sounds reasonable."

We gamblers call the ark/angel baby scenario a "double-down". Sometimes when you're caught in a bluff, you make an even more daring bluff, it's distracting.

[twocompulsive]

There were only eight people on the Ark and they were
related to each other either by blood or by marriage. After
the first generation it would be impossible to procreate with
out recourse to incest. And would have known this was wrong
because of original sin. Nevertheless. By that scenario the entire
human race since then has been conceived through interbreeding
Admittedly this is reduced with successive generations but even so
According to a literal interpretation of Genesis the Earth was formed
in 4004 B C whilst the flood occurred in 2348 B C some 156 years later
Current population is 6.5 billion and so therefore has had 4359 years to
propagate. May in theory be possible but the average number of children
that each woman would have to bear is not realistic. Also the entire global
poulation other than Noah, his wife and their sons and wives was supposed
to have been wiped out. Yet the Egyptian Dynasty survived this. Records show
that it was in existence from 2980 B C to 663 B C. So therefore either the flood
was only regional and not global as referenced or else just never happened at all