Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

This is irrational. God doesn't exist. He can't have flaws--or virtues. You can't eat (your) God and have Him too.

--Brant

you've abandoned your atheist context for the God context--get back!

Should have said "If God exists..."   If It exists, it loves collateral damage. If it does not exist then all remarks are irrelevant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Should have said "If God exists..."   If It exists, it loves collateral damage. If it does not exist then all remarks are irrelevant.  

Yeah, but you're still conceding too much to the Godsters. I'd have said, "The worst thing about the idea of God ...." That's kind of clunky, but I can't go literary without more coffee. (I might have merely put "God" in quotation marks and maybe that would have been enough for your original formulation.)

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an article with a theory I have seen in several places. Where I am at right now in my studies and thinking, I lean toward this theory.

Belief in all-knowing, punitive gods aided the growth of human societies, study says
by Amina Khan
LA Times
Feb. 10, 2016

I'll let you deal with the nuances of this theory of you are interested in the article. I'm just mischievously interested in the following quote right now:

Khan said:

Fear of supernatural reprisal, it seems, keeps people from cheating.

:) 

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

This is irrational. God doesn't exist. He can't have flaws--or virtues. You can't eat (your) God and have Him too.

--Brant

you've abandoned your atheist context for the God context--get back!

Brant you just highlighted a characteristic of many atheists.

They resent God...

... and because they can't deal with the ugliness of their own resentment, they intellectually try to negate the Object of their resentment as if it was to blame for their own negative reaction to it. Only one problem... negating something in your mind always leaves a smudge no matter how hard you wipe! :laugh:

 

I saw a great bumper sticker which offers advice directly to the government educated intellectuals who ironically will never take it:

 

"DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK"

 

Believing in your thoughts and the emotional reactions they spawn is MORE STUPID than believing in God! :laugh:

 

Greg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, moralist said:

Brant you just highlighted a characteristic of many atheists.

They resent God...

... and because they can't deal with their own resentment, they intellectually try to negate the Object of their resentment as if it was to blame for their own negative reaction to it. Only one problem... negating something in your mind always leaves a smudge no matter how hard you wipe! :laugh:

I saw a great bumper sticker which offers advice directly to the stupid government educated intellectuals who ironically will never take it:

"DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK" :laugh:

Greg

Apey not believe that Brant not believe!

Apey negate what Brant say. Negating leave smudge. Now Apey have smudge on brain! Apey wipe hard, but brain still smudge!

Apey not like smudge, so Apey try negate smudge, but negating leave more smudge, now Apey have two smudge!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speak of ugly resentment... and up pops Jonathan. :wink:

You don't even notice the compulsiveness in your own eagerness to react.  This is how you express your own blind faith in your thoughts and emotions. It's the imprint of liberal government education.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apey now have three smudge! Apey scrub brain hard, but three smudge stay! Scrub and wipe not work!

Apey say smudge not God's fault. Apey not blame God. God still grate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highlight reel and chatter back ...

On 2/21/2015 at 11:16 AM, Brant Gaede said:

You can't argue with an asseverationist. Greg's impervious to logic and has no use for it. All you can do is point out what he's doing. All his "arguments" are merely circular. They are valid enough for him insofar as he successfully can use them in his own life. I cherry pick him for my own use.

Brant's point stands: there is no point countering or attempting to refute claims and statements made without foundation in reason. It is like a left-hand driver meeting a right-hand driver. There will be a cognitive head-on collision, or the more rational driver will give way. Or the two argumentors will simply blow horns and paralyze traffic.

On 2/22/2015 at 6:30 PM, Francisco Ferrer said:

You have exactly zero knowledge about how much I produce or how useful it is.

This observation is key. Greg pretends to have an all-seeing eye, with which eye he assesses the total character of those who dispute this or that claim. Francisco is just a placeholder for the asseveration, the boilerplate: "you are a parasite and failure."  If you dispute anything Greg says, you are revealed. The list of epithets may change, but the message is always the same.

On 2/22/2015 at 9:20 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

No matter how well one takes care of his body (exercises, eats moderately and avoids bad habits) we all end up the same way: deader than dirt in the dirt.

A point that you might think need not be made, but then ...

On 2/22/2015 at 9:48 AM, jts said:

You hear that? No use taking care of your body.

No, I didn't hear that at all. What hearing aid/filter could be in use here? Beats me. "I hear things" perhaps ...

On 2/22/2015 at 10:26 AM, Brant Gaede said:

Gee, Greg, maybe he's concerned with broader issues, not just his personal productivity. This is something you're purblind to.

The broader issue for Greg is how shitty and evul and stupid his non-Godly interlocutors are. The only ones having escaped his boilerplate while disagreeing on a point or two are MSK and Adam and Tony. I think they are pussies for not challenging him on epistemology, but hey. Asking "how do you know (that/this)?" tends to answer the can of worms called "I believe in God and you stupid fuckers don't so that means you are a feminized state-school drone and how about a smiley."

On 2/22/2015 at 11:58 AM, william.scherk said:

Greg is indulging himself in raw insult. It is important to him to denigrate discussion partners who disagree with him. [...]

It is striking how bitchy and personal Greg gets with people he hagh

Greg, you are a pussy. You are afraid to answer epistemological questions. Pussy female feminized bitch that you are.

On 2/3/2016 at 8:57 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

A person who loves God will try to do God's will above his or her own will.

Oh yes, except for the exceptions.   Someone can say they love god/s and I have no way of checking the statement for truth.  

On 2/3/2016 at 10:09 AM, anthony said:

You must have had experience with people who treated you as they "would be treated", and not appreciated the experience! I have, many times. In response, I don't and can't treat them back the same way they -perhaps - wish for.

Barbara Branden pointed out to me how my own version of the golden rule was fully compatible with 'rational selfishness.'  I am like the monkey who waits and watches and cogitates before he begins to trust another enough to offer him or her a full load of goodwill.

For me the GF is a guideline, not a regulation. It conjures up in my vivid imagining a scale, a balance a comparison. Is this person deserving of minimum social grease?  Yes, 99% of the time.  Does this demand 'kindness' or extrapolated pro-social behaviour? Nope, not for me. I have a cold, calculating heart (except in Spring, when it thumps all gay and bright). I give a basic minimum, and it is ready to be retracted and replaced with hostility or neutrality or further social grease or grit. It depends.

On 2/3/2016 at 10:27 AM, KorbenDallas said:

Peikoff speaks against the Golden Rule in his Introduction to Logic course, as a logical fallacy of the Misuse of the Mean. 

I got three chapters into Ominous Parallels before it hit the wall in a bloody splat.  This sounds like an argument from authority, plain.

On 2/3/2016 at 2:16 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I happen to think it's a great idea for a person to use the same moral standards for others that he adopts for himself.

Wise. wise, and wise again. Trifecta perfecta!  This is such a strong and simple statement -- it conforms down the line with my attitude. 

On 2/4/2016 at 6:33 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Humans are NOT socially atomic.

A  smart observation that makes a few Objectivish numpties get all ready to pounce, in the name of Selfishnosity.

On 2/4/2016 at 6:56 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

 I am saying that we are NOT atomic. 

Or we would not be here; good basic point again, but one lost in the onrushing moralism.

On 2/4/2016 at 7:44 AM, Marcus said:

Small children cannot nor have the capacity yet, to make certain choices. Their needs must be provided for and they must be guided by adults. That's not the issue here.

And Hobbes by the way, was describing existence *in a society* before the advent of the rennaissance, not a desert island. I would argue it's worse to live in an ignorant theocracy than on a desert island where at least you don't have to content with violent threats, punitive taxes by decree or deadly diseases (aside from the animals). I'll take the desert island over that "society" anyday.

Is there a third option?

On 2/6/2016 at 10:19 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Very thick neural pathways are set from the beginning when infants are helpless. Every adult that provides nourishment and comfort looks like God to a helpless and yet-to-develop mind. [,,,]

We can argue if that pattern reflects a bigger reality (meaning a human to God relationship) or if extrapolating is hogwash, but thick neural pathways from infancy that favor believing in God are part of human nature.

-- a good case can be made for what you summarize here, Michael. I would add in something that notes the number or type of kids who do not develop a god-thing belief.  My siblings and I were like that. Not one of us can remember a belief in god-things, except perhaps for the Tooth Fairy, who was like a Trump, appearing in the night to reward capitalist traders. A tooth for tooth? Nope, a tooth for enough money to buy a Coke and a Richie Rich comic.

On 2/7/2016 at 7:01 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

My take is that if the god-thing exists it is not anything like that abomination that is preached by the major Abrahamic Religions. 

My atheism, oddly or not so oddly, left me with a fascination for belief-systems. In every case -- except for ''revelation' delivered to a 'prophet' ... the systems have to be taught. I find the 'transmission belts' and suchlike machinery of inculcation to be of utmost fascination. I think I share with MSK and a lot of folks here that fascination: why people believe (sometimes weird) things.  Why believe?  How believe? What believe?

I have never felt ripped-off by religion, nor do I have any tales to tell of being in the grip of this or that fantastic belief structure. What fascinates me every day is how humans believe a lot of things that probably are not true.

Ayn Rand enunciated clearly on religion. She would never whitewash or paper over negative aspects of belief structures, be they Kantian or Christian or Arab (okay, not Arab; they were/are savages, like the North American first cultures). I think she would get a kick out of Objectivish droning on the Golden Rule and I think she and Dawkins could have a rip-roaring fun time ruminating over religious perfidy, atrocity and contempt for reason.

There is a reason we are all here, touching the Randstone, and it ain't just because we are smart and beautiful, or so I  believe. I treasure what fully rational souls I know in my life, even those here, whom I know not by Gregorian Clairvoyance, but my ten years of observation and interaction.

Insert pretty picture of the Baha'i holiest place, in Haifa Pasadena, I believe.

bmb_1175945_preview.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Golden Rule - in the hands of a goodish person - is a quick TEST of his integrity. Would I take in return what I am considering doing to another person? If yes, I can go ahead.

Well, no big deal.
 It's implied that anyone with integrity has consistent standards, give and take.

But I've never heard anyone reversing the equation, the application is mistakenly only considered one way (to others). The GR applies to everybody, not just oneself. And who knows what their standards are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:
On 2/3/2016 at 1:27 PM, KorbenDallas said:

Peikoff speaks against the Golden Rule in his Introduction to Logic course, as a logical fallacy of the Misuse of the Mean. 

I got three chapters into Ominous Parallels before it hit the wall in a bloody splat.  This sounds like an argument from authority, plain.

Not so fast!  It's not verecundiam to pass along information that someone said, it's verecundiam if you accept it without judgement, however.  Not implying you did the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 

On 2/3/2016 at 10:57 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

A person who loves God will try to do God's will above his or her own will.

Oh yes, except for the exceptions.   Someone can say they love god/s and I have no way of checking the statement for truth.  

William,

What exceptions?

In all the religious books I have read so far, if you go against God's will, that is a sin.

Religions people disagree on the details of what that will is, but not the standard. Doing God's will is the standard of sin. Go against God's will and you are sinning. There are no exceptions.

(Satan's allure is not to get you to do Satan's will. He's portrayed as trying to get you to reject God's will. Even when Satan has a will, like when he tempted Jesus, it's always in relation to rejecting God's will. Satan's very fall was because he rejected God's will.)

This has nothing to do with checking statements of loving God according to your standards.

It's like Objectivism. When you should use reason and don't, that's a sin.

Even in O-Land, people disagree over when it's OK not to use reason and even what reason is, but not about the standard Rand laid down. Using reason when you should is the standard of sin. When the situation demands reason and you choose whim, evasion, intrinsicism, subjectivism, mysticism, etc., instead of reason, you are sinning. There are no exceptions. 

Granted, in Objectivism, man's life is the ultimate standard of value, but the way to operate according to that standard that is unique to man is through his mind, his reason. If you betray reason, you are betraying human life. This has the same fundamentality that God's will does for religious people. And a fundament can have no exceptions. Everything existential flows from it. Nothing flows to it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In all the religious books I have read so far, if you go against God's will, that is a sin.

Sin is an archery term. It simply means missing the target. And "going against God's will" just means taking irrational actions which are not harmonious with the unfolding flow of objective reality and which will naturally produce inharmonious consequences. Learning how to hit the moral mark is solely for our own benefit... certainly not God's.

And how can anyone know the difference for themselves completely independent of anyone else's subjective opinions? Simply observe the results your own actions spin into motion, as well as observe the kind of person you become as a result of your own actions. This is not a complicated process. All it requires is to observe yourself as if you were another person observing you. 

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, anthony said:

 Would I take in return what I am considering doing to another person?

Hey Tony... that principle even applies to killing an evil enemy in war.

In a sense you are considering... because you are willing to accept the risk of being killed as you are killing your enemy. And if you understood you were evil, you would understand that you deserved to be killed by a good man.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,

I don't have time to look it up right now, but sin is explicitly defined in the Old Testament as not obeying God's will. (And once again, Adam and Eve's sin was disobedience. Original Sin came from disobedience.)

Tn the New Testament, this is implied in the two great commandments that Jesus said came from ancient times (ancient to him, that is :) ), to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. The reason this implication is clear is that loving God with all your heart, soul and might is actually a commandment in the Old Testament.

It's not popular to cite the Old Testament verses dealing with this, but I sure know what I read. And it is repeated over and over.

Incidentally, I only recall the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself being mentioned once in the Old Testament. Maybe twice (I'm thinking about Isaiah for the second time). If it was mentioned more, I might have been in a coma when I read the relevant part. :) 

In the Koran, it is impossible to not get the message about the source of sin being disobedience to God. That drones on and on and on and on and on throughout all the Surahs. 

These books had a lot of laws in them that were presented as God's will, so it's not just archery by each individual. Entire cultures settled on the same traditions for determining sin.

On another point, when looking at sin in religion, the use of the term "rational" and "irrational" are out of place. The standard is obedience. It doesn't matter if it's rational or blind. Obedience to God is the fundament irrespective of anything else, including manner of thinking. 

And grace is defined as given by God. You are not awarded grace through justice. You don't earn it. You don't bargain for it. Grace comes from His love at His discretion and only that. But it is only for those who obey Him. And to make obedience easy for Christians, He established only one task, to accept Jesus. Obey that and you get His grace. For Jews and Muslims, it's a bit more complicated since there are a lot of written laws to obey.

Now I'm reading the Book of Mormon and it's a Jesus religion. So grace for Mormons comes like with normal Christians.

Regardless of anything else, though, sin and grace in these religions stem from a relationship--obedience to God. Not from a manner of thinking (epistemology)--rationality or irrationality.

In a certain manner, if you replace God with reality, sin in Objectivism comes from a relationship, a relationship with reality, not obeying reality...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

I don't have time to look it up right now, but sin is explicitly defined in the Old Testament as not obeying God's will. (And once again, Adam and Eve's sin was disobedience. Original Sin came from disobedience.)

Tn the New Testament, this is implied in the two great commandments that Jesus said came from ancient times (ancient to him, that is :) ), to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. The reason this implication is clear is that loving God with all your heart, soul and might is actually a commandment in the Old Testament.

...

Regardless of anything else, though, sin and grace in these religions stem from a relationship--obedience to God. Not from a manner of thinking (epistemology)--rationality or irrationality.

In a certain manner, if you replace God with reality, sin in Objectivism comes from a relationship, a relationship with reality, not obeying reality...

Michael

Okay, you're the expert!

I'm recalling that I failed Divinity/Bible Study at school and now can see why. ;) The obedience part is irksome.

It's like: "God to be pleased, must be obeyed" - ripping off Francis Bacon on nature. You point at the same reciprocity that comes with the GR.

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Jesus' sacrifice meant to rescind Original Sin?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anthony said:

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Jesus' sacrifice meant to rescind Original Sin?)

Tony,

The crucifixion of Jesus was not to rescind Original Sin.

It was to offer a simplified and personal form of atoning for Original Sin (and all the sins you do in life, which you can't help but do since you have a sin contamination inherited from Adam and Eve). And it was a way to include all humans, not just Jews and/or those who worked hard at attaining grace. Don't forget, grace was bestowed by divine will. It was not an achievement to be won by human will.

The context was a Hebrew society where there was an enormous number of rules and traditions to atone for sin, including animal sacrifices. This structure had evolved into a game of elites, vanity, and in-out groups based on birth and peer pressure. True spirituality was almost an afterthought for those few still interested.

When, according to the way I read it, God allowed the sacrifice of His most precious human, His Son, to replace the previous rules and traditions (mostly Mosaic, including all those animal sacrifices), He thus made a statement that humans could not negotiate in His name. Not even his chosen people could do that anymore.

It's real simple the way it started with Jesus. You, as an individual, either choose to obey God or go to hell. And to make matters even more simple, there is only one thing to obey. Accept Jesus. After you do that, there are some rules, but they are not deal-killers. The only deal-killer is to reject Jesus and/or God.

All the other punitive stuff, shunning, stoning, burning witches, etc., even and especially crucifixion, became human-to-human affairs, not divine-to-human affairs. Catholic priests, notwithstanding.

Essentially, the sacrifice of Jesus did away with animal sacrifices and opened access to God to all humanity on an individual volition basis. Everything else in Christendom fell into the category of human-designed institutions and habits.

That's the way I understand it from reading it. I'm sure there are Christian gatekeepers who would disagree with me to keep their little empires going.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, anthony said:

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Jesus' sacrifice meant to rescind Original Sin?)

Just adding to what MSK said.  The story of god sacrificing his "only begotten son" is also meant to apply a huge amount of guilt to the religionist, or would-be religionist.  It goes like this: the religionist hears the story (or is explicitly told this by a member of the "Church"), thinks to himself "so god sent jesus to die for everything that I do wrong in my life?", guilt is felt, and once you add in the altruist code--the religionist is now indebted to god, and the only way to salvation is to "accept jesus into your heart".  Barf.  There are other ways into the religion, this is one of them.  I could type more here.

 

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's real simple the way it started with Jesus. You, as an individual, either choose to obey God or go to hell. And to make matters even more simple, there is only one thing to obey. Accept Jesus. After you do that, there are some rules, but they are not deal-killers. The only deal-killer is to reject Jesus and/or God.

Need to provide a correction.  "..there is only one thing to obey. Accept Jesus. After you do that, there are some rules, but they are not deal-killers. The only deal-killer is to reject Jesus and/or God," holds true for catholicism and perhaps judaism, where god is an impersonal god, but for most of the denominations of christianity, god is a personal god and once you accept jesus, it's required you accept, as a standard, the delusional schizophrenic psychological condition of placing god into your mind as a totally omniscient consciousness in every way, and all the time.  They call this psychological condition "accepting christ into your heart", and it is a matter of degree of the acceptor of how much they carry this out, ie. infect their mind.  Much of the time the degree of the infection is concomitant with their fear of going to hell.
Barf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Korben,

LOL...

Nowadays, there are all kinds of spin on it.

I was merely reporting what I understood from recently reading the Bible and some other religious books.

I got tired of opining on what people say about those books. So I decided to see what was in them myself. That's where I discovered Rand's identification error about Original Sin. Let's say she used poetic license. :) 

At least I'm no longer going around objecting to the concept because gaining rational thought is what the Abrahamic religions meant by Original Sin. I honestly used to think that was what it meant. 

Now I know the foundation of Original Sin was based on obedience to God, that is, disobedience. It was a relationship thing, not an existential condition. Existentially, I would say, the most important part was a strong dose of prudery. Don't forget that when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, the first great insight they gained was that they were naked and were ashamed of it. I would have considered that a quirk if that was the only prudish thing in the early books, but the word "awhoring" is used a lot for bad behavior, including the worship of idols. And sex is spoken of harshly more often than otherwise. There are also long lists of who one must not lust after (mother, sister, etc.--and the lists go much longer than these two).

There are some cute oddities, though. One of my favorites is how males in cities are often referred to as opposed to females. This phrase occurs many times in the older books of the Old Testament. (Really. Many times.) The males are called those that "pisseth against the wall." Gotta love those King James translators.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Just adding to what MSK said.  The story of god sacrificing his "only begotten son" is also meant to apply a huge amount of guilt to the religionist, or would-be religionist...

Where in the hell did you get that screwy idea??? :laugh:

No Christians I know feel that way.  What God did for man only inspires happiness and gratitude. That's an experience secularists have freely chosen to cheat themselves out of. 

If there's any guilt at all, it's only from how you have wronged others...and nothing else.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, moralist said:

Where in the hell did you get that screwy idea??? :laugh:

No Christians I know feel that way.

First hand experience from several churches growing up.  First (from several in the "fellowship") it was, "god is watching over you at all times."  Okay, young me thought, that sounds kind of nice.  Then later (again, from several in the "fellowship"), "god is in you."  Wait, young me thought, "in me?"  I asked for clarification.  They said, "yes, inside you."  Young me thought, "I didn't sign up for this."

Different church, same thing.  Different people at public school, from different churches.  Same thing.  Spoke to a local psychologist one time, same experience (he brought it up).  God, in the brain, a consciousness watching your thoughts.  Helping you.  Making you "happy".

I can type more, but you get the picture.  Not all christians are like this, but many are.  People can hide many things in a social setting.  I'm not trying to convince you, I have made my own independent inductions from the data around me.

 

2 hours ago, moralist said:

What God did for man only inspires happiness and gratitude. That's an experience secularists have freely chosen to cheat themselves out of. 

You speak as if god exists.  :D

 

2 hours ago, moralist said:

If there's any guilt at all, it's only from how you have wronged others...and nothing else.

Your hypothetical has an arbitrary apodeictic modality to it, which is (not) logic, as the antecedent doesn't exist.  I'll reject it,  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Now I know the foundation of Original Sin was based on obedience to God, that is, disobedience. It was a relationship thing, not an existential condition.

The origin of Original Sin is often a discussion at "church", it's really not written in stone, as it were.  One interpretation is it occurred when adam and eve chose to bite into the apple, as god made the garden of eden perfect and man perfect, but satan's temptation was too great, so adam and eve chose to bite into the apple.  God's punishment then was men were to be mortal, and the only way to heaven is through him.  In this version, each man is a moral sinner by his nature, for the rest of his mortal life, even if he repents and is led to god, he has to deal with the temptation of sin for the rest of his life.  (And what if he doesn't sin for the rest of his life?  Doesn't matter, you're a sinner anyway.)

Another version was Original Sin occurred when the angel lucifer betrayed god, and lucifer had his fall from grace.  In this version sin is more existentially omniscient, satan is an unseen force out there in the world that creates situations and temptations to look out for while us mere mortals are trying to live our lives.  Only god can help you navigate this evil universe that satan is part of.  An "example" of satan in the world would be at the aforementioned garden of evil.

I just barfed a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Korben,

I don't know where you got your versions from, but the one I read came from Genesis, King James Version. 

Also, the Koran has a version. God (Allah) had made man from clay and the angels from fire. Then he ordered the angels to bow down before man. Satan refused saying he was of fire, not clay, and that fire was superior to clay. Then God banished Satan for disobedience, but said he was free until the judgment day where he would be cast into a pit of fire for the rest of eternity. Satan said he would spend his existence until then corrupting God's creation, man. This is why he tempted Eve with disobedience to God through the fruit of the Tree of Life in Eden. (Oddly enough, in the Koran, a few times Satan talks of himself bowing before God, acknowledging God's power over him.)

After Satan spoiled mankind's Eden gig, he's been raising hell ever since.

:) 

Those are the versions I read. And both texts later refer to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden as the start of mankind's tribulations on earth. (Quirky note: I don't remember reading the name "Eve" in the Koran, but I do remember reading about her. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I recall thinking it weird as I went along.) 

I am not familiar with the versions of Original Sin you mentioned.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't know where you got your versions from

I started out my post with it.. from church:

Quote

The origin of Original Sin is often a discussion at "church"

...

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

but the one I read came from Genesis, King James Version

I know christianity as I was around church and christians growing up, did a lot of reading of the bible directly when younger, and my previous post was all from memory.  I fact-checked it afterward and it's consistent with some the major theologians' version (interpretations/views) of Original Sin.  You identified a more determinist view.  The next version I supplied is more of a volitional interpetation.  The third is neither, it's more of a malevolent universe view with satan being omnipresent, the tide of evil being greater than that of good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

You identified a more determinist view.  The next version I supplied is more of a volitional interpetation.

Korben,

I don't understand this.

I didn't identify anything philosophical. Nor did I promote any particular view. I merely related what I read.

I can give quotes if that will help. The relevant passages are pretty clear...

btw - You don't have to answer this if you don't want. I'm merely asking out of curiosity. Which denomination did the church you attended belong to?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

 Then later (again, from several in the "fellowship"), "god is in you."  Wait, young me thought, "in me?"  I asked for clarification.  They said, "yes, inside you."  Young me thought, "I didn't sign up for this."

This is a non sequitur. What you're saying now has absolutely nothing to do with your previous comment about God's sacrifice inducing guilt. That's the screwy idea I commented on.

 

 

Quote

Corbin writes:

 

You speak as if god exists.

 

 

Yes.

I know God exists by my own direct personal experience in real time.

 

 

Quote

Your hypothetical has an arbitrary apodictic modality to it, which is {not logic, as the antecedent doesn't exist. I'll reject it. :smile:

 

 

And well you should. :smile:

Personal experience is non-transferrable.

 

Greg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...