Ta dah!

[Christa]

there is no god and I am his prophet

[darkstar3]

1. For God so loved the world,

that he lowered himself to human form, so that he could sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease his own anger at his own creation.

Now that's one fucked up circle of life.

Oh yeah, K&R.

[badgerpup]

2. The cognitive dissonance...it HURTS... n/t

:wtf:

:kick:

[Sal316]

3. What's wrong with this...let me count the ways.

1) In the creation story, man is not created with original sin.
2) God did not impregnate Mary himself the way we understand it, through sex.
3) That's a complete misrepresentation of any of the atonement theories.

In fact, it's so theologically wrong on so many levels, instead of being snarky and funny, it only serves to display the graphic creator's ignorance.

[rd_kent]

4. Whats wrong with THIS...let me count the ways....

1) NONE OF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, god did not create anything, MAN created god in his mind.
2) You are right, god did not impregnate Mary because god is not real
3) What part of "none of this actually happened" is so hard to understand? IOW, its the same story told from a different viewpoint. You are just saying that THIS particular viewpoint is wrong. Why is YOURS right and another is wrong? Can you PROVE yours is right? Nope. So until you can, let other have their opinion too. Okay, thanks.

[Christa]

5. You nailed it:

" 1) In the creation story, ... "


... It is just a story.

:evilgrin:



there is no god and I am his prophet

[trotsky]

6. Well, let's not forget...

that a majority of US Christians believe it's not just a story. Super-smart sophisticated and superior Christians like Sal don't like to acknowledge that fact.

[Christa]

7. *Sigh*

And they think since they believe it, it must be true.


I believe I will win the lottery as well and I have a bigger chance of my belief to come true.

[piratefish08]

9. Religion = They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

[iris27]

27. So...thanks to Adam, all the rest of us are fucked.

It was taking time to fully think through the interaction of original sin and "free will" that made me realize how circular and immoral the whole of my belief system was, and led to my rejection of Christianity.

Adam and Eve's failings cause everyone to be born turned away from God. Yet it's "free will" that we have done so? No, free will would be if each individual person had the ability to live a life in accordance with God on their own and not need Jesus' intervention in order to go to heaven. But that's not what Christianity teaches...instead we are to be grateful for his sacrifice because without it we would all be damned, not one of us could save ourselves. THAT IS NOT FREE WILL.

[DeSwiss]

8. But you forgot the part about getting sexy chicks to wash your feet....

...and then http://bible.cc/john/11-2.htm">dry them with their hair.





- And he especially loves it when she uses the aloe & myrrh lotion between his toes......

[Christa]

10. Uhm ...

You think there could have been sucking involved, DeSwiss?



:evilgrin:

[DeSwiss]

11. Ooooo. I didn't think that this was "that" kinda thread.....

... but I'm sure someone who is diligent, could find a biblical citation for it.


- If not, I'm sure it's covered under the "Mysterious Ways" clause....

[Pendrench]

12. As a Catholic, I find "original sin" to be an interesting topic.

In my mind, the term "original sin" is used (or should be used) to indicate that humans have free will, and therefore can choose to commit "sins". This doesn't make us bad or "sinful" - it just means that we are not perfect.

Therefore, I can see that it was the mission of Jesus (as stated in the above graphic) to "save you from the sin I originally condemned you to" in the sense that many people (including many who say they are Christians) have chosen to misuse their free will in order to hurt others, to ignore others, to kill others.

Why then did Jesus die for our sins? I think it was to show us the proper use of free will - to be willing to sacrifice oneself for others.

We are free to ignore problems or to help solve problems - to hate or to end hate - or to blame God for allowing pain and suffering (saying that it's "God's will")or to ask God for the strength and guidance to use our own free will to ease the pain and suffering.

Anyway, these were just some thoughts that I had.


Tim

[Christa]

13. Your question

"Why then did Jesus die for our sins? I think it was to show us the proper use of free will - to be willing to sacrifice oneself for others."

I have asked it many times when I was still a believer.

I came to a few conclusions (and keep in mind this was when I was a Christian)

1) God is a sadist.

2) God is a show off who wanted to show us he loved us more than his only child; which I always thought was the cruelest example of parenthood, and in no way proof of his love at all.

[Pendrench]

16. Hi Christa - thank you for your response.

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I took my daughter rollerskating this evening :)

From my perspective (as a Catholic) Jesus was/is God, so his death was an act of self-sacrifice (rather than the killing of his only child) - which is why I said that it was perhaps the most extreme example of free will - sacrificing oneself for others.

But, again, those are just my thoughts.

Thanks again for responding!

Tim

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Good thoughts, Tim

I like that.

[Meshuga]

15. They seem like good thoughts to me as well

While I am ignorant about Christianity I can't see the harm in a message of sacrificing oneself to others in order to achieve good. I don't mean literal sacrifice with death involved, of course, but the willingness to sacrifice oneself in order to ease pain and suffering.

I don't see anything wrong with that message. I mean, if members of a congregation are getting this message from the teachings then all power to the congregation. Especially when words turn into action.

[golddigger]

20. "Free Will", You Say?

So we were given free will with which to choose if we will go to hell or not?

How can you possibly deem something free when you fear consequences? The completely conflicts with the definition of free will.

If I were to hold a gun to your head and say,"you have free will to not to give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you." Does it really feel you have a choice in the matter? Of course not. Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self defeating. Call it "Circumstantial Will", for that is what it truly is.

[JerseygirlCT]

21. Well, first

not everyone believes in hell.

But beyond that, free will always comes with consequences. You can choose to run across the highway, but getting hit by a car is a likely consequence of that act. Free will never means "do whatever you want, no worries".

[trotsky]

22. That is simply not true.

free will always comes with consequences

The fact that there are unsolved murders, rapes, and other crimes PROVES it to be untrue. Sometimes there aren't any consequences for exercising free will. The criminal gets away with it. (And if there's no hell, as you claim, then they'll get away with it after death, too!) And speaking of free will - if it's inviolable, why do humans violate each other's free will all the time? The rape victim didn't want to be raped, so somehow the rapist's free will trumps theirs? Are we more powerful than god, because we can violate someone else's free will but god can't?

These pat little answers Christianity has tried to provide just simply don't hold up to any kind of reasonable analysis.

[JerseygirlCT]

23. I didn't claim one is absolutely free, under any circumstances

to do anything. There's a difference between the constraints placed on us by society or by other people. But in a moral sense, we have the choice.

Are there always human consequences for our choices - no, not always, or at least not always observable ones. And sometimes those consequences are indeed borne by innocents. That's a human flaw, however.

I don't think that we can assume God's idea of justice is the same as our human idea. I don't believe it's as simplistic as "getting away with it", or not getting away with it.

And certainly I think God could violate any free will - but without that same free will, operating without divine restraints, we also cannot choose freely to love God by loving one another. It's both a gift and a burden, and I think we're here to learn. You don't learn much without making mistakes, or if you only do exactly as you're told to do.

[trotsky]

24. No, but you claimed there were consequences.

And I pointed out there many cases where there aren't. You can't demonstrate otherwise, the best you can do is "assume" there is some other kind of justice, despite no evidence whatsoever. Well, other than your assumption, which in the land of religion is as good as it gets. Until you run into an infidel who has a different set of assumptions.

without that same free will, operating without divine restraints, we also cannot choose freely to love God by loving one another

Do we have free will in heaven?

[Pendrench]

25. Hi Golddigger - thanks for your response.

I agree with what you're saying...I think that worshiping a god out of fear of punishment is meaningless.

A couple of years ago I came across the below prayer (attributed to an eighth-century Muslim woman named Rabia)which kind of sums up my thoughts:

O God, if I worship thee in fear of Hell,
Burn me in Hell.
If I worship thee in hope of Paradise,
Exclude me from Paradise.
But if I worship thee for thine own sake,
Withhold not from me thine eternal beauty.


And I hope that I worship God by my deeds (doing unto others, etc.) rather than my adherence to church dogma.

That being said, I can see how others would interpret the idea of free will differently, but that was just my particular point of view.

Tim

[Odin2005]

17. Original Sin is one of the most moronic notions ever.

[DeSwiss]

18. Here, here.

If one were to be charged with murder on the day of their birth because their father's, father's, father had committed one, we would find such an act appalling, if carried-out by human beings. And yet religionists don't even question this same concept as it applies to so-called "original sin." Which means should I more or less live the same type of life as a believer does, as a non-believer I'd go to hell for eternity (whatever that means) while the believer goes to Jesus. Which clearly is the result of an extorted acceptance of belief and a relationship based purely upon blackmail. Not one based upon love "for his children" as they like to claim, but rather the believer's FEAR of fire, brimstone and demons. Ideas of which were inculcated into them as babies. Talks about some sick shit.

And the notion that this all-powerful god can actually die is meaningless when one terms the act "a sacrifice." What has been sacrificed? If the god who created life AND death and is immortal can't die, the how then can "death" defeat him? It's ludicrous. As is all religion.

If one is not certain what follows death and yet they still "choose" to sacrifice themselves for others, then that's a real sacrifice. But if one knows not only the story's plot, but can choose any alternate ending one wants, then its all a BIG LIE. Which is what religion is. It's just that it's such a huge lie that no one wants to believe they're that stupid to be duped by it, or that someone else wouldn't have figured it out by now and exposed it. Well, some have. And yet still no one wants to believe what is as plain as day. Why? FEAR (see brimstone, above).

If you look off your neighbor's paper in school, you may get as good a grade as they do, but you will not have learned anything at the end of the day. So you take nothing away from the experience. Nothing. And that's not how life works. You have to do life yourself. Or you could end up following others like lemmings over the cliff. Generation after generation.

- Which is what's been going on for the past 2,000 years or so.....



on edit: spelling and modifications

[Christa]

19. Another cartoon

[onager]

26. If you don't like "original sin," go bitch to "Saint" Augustine.

He came up with the idea.

It earned him a hot letter from a Bishop, who said the concept of original sin was not only un-Xian, but flat insane. The Bishop (correctly) thought the idea of infant damnation and such was absolutely inhuman.

Of course, most of the Church hierarchy immediately recognized Original Sin as a great marketing tool. So the Xians have been stuck with trying to explain it ever since.

This whole story, including the Bishop's letter, is covered in Charles Freeman's great book The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason.

[iris27]

28. My first ever doubt as a Christian kiddo,

sitting in church, looking up at the big-ass cross in front, was "If God wanted to forgive us all, why couldn't he just DO it, instead of sending Jesus to die and only letting people who believe in Him get into heaven?"