Does God Exist?

[Lockjaw 11]

So you don't believe me. What's new. Do you believe anything. Anyway, am I bovvered? Goodbye Jimmy.

 

In order to prevent yourself looking so foolish in the future you may wish to look up the meaning of "falsifiable hypothesis".

 

Now then ... Nice quote from the Almighty himself the other day:

 

Looking back, I guess making those other 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars was a bit unnecessary

[PaliRichard 10]

Forgive me if I am wrong , but I thought you said in the first instant that you was conversant with the bible . That being the case you , I am sure , would be aware that Christ died on the cross in order to fulfill the prophesy of the forgiveness of the original sin .Thereby , in baptismal rights , we are all forgiven for the wrongs of Adam and Eve . That being the case God didn't abandon his son .

 

I'm interested in this, I've tried to have this debate before with borderline but he has a habit of not actually answering questions.

 

I have been told by every Christian I have ever talked to at any length about original sin, I was taught it in school, and it has been taught at every Church I have ever been to that the story of original sin is that man disobeyed God by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and as punishment for this was getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This, I am told, is original sin.

 

The difficulty I have with it is it seems to be a teaching solely of the New Testament authors based on a biased (or mis) interpretation of the original text.

 

This however is not the story told in Genesis, in fact they are kicked out not for disobeying God, but because they have the knowledge of the tree of eternal life, and God himself says that if they eat from that they will become like him (Immortal). They are already punished for eating from the tree of knowledge (regarding this btw, God at least partially lied and the serpent told the truth - where we are most commonly told the opposite) by having to toil from the earth and endure pain in childbirth.

 

So why do Christians have this skewed idea of original sin? Its even more baffling when the actual story is there in black and white in Genesis, I find it completely baffling.

 

Your take would be most welcome.

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2013 at 15:09 ----------

 

Clown Shoes

 

Why haven't you responded to my post #227?

[RootsBooster 24]

I'm interested in this, I've tried to have this debate before with borderline but he has a habit of not actually answering questions.

 

I have been told by every Christian I have ever talked to at any length about original sin, I was taught it in school, and it has been taught at every Church I have ever been to that the story of original sin is that man disobeyed God by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and as punishment for this was getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This, I am told, is original sin.

 

The difficulty I have with it is it seems to be a teaching solely of the New Testament authors based on a biased (or mis) interpretation of the original text.

 

This however is not the story told in Genesis, in fact they are kicked out not for disobeying God, but because they have the knowledge of the tree of eternal life, and God himself says that if they eat from that they will become like him (Immortal). They are already punished for eating from the tree of knowledge (regarding this btw, God at least partially lied and the serpent told the truth - where we are most commonly told the opposite) by having to toil from the earth and endure pain in childbirth.

 

So why do Christians have this skewed idea of original sin? Its even more baffling when the actual story is there in black and white in Genesis, I find it completely baffling.

 

Your take would be most welcome.

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2013 at 15:09 ----------

 

Clown Shoes

 

Why haven't you responded to my post #227?

I think the reason for this (or, rather, the reason it's ongoing) is things like Bible study groups and some forms of Sunday school. In my experience Bible study usually consists of "okay this bit here, I know it SAYS (XYZ) but it actually MEANS (nothing like XYZ) okay?"

[PaliRichard 10]

I think the reason for this (or, rather, the reason it's ongoing) is things like Bible study groups and some forms of Sunday school. In my experience Bible study usually consists of "okay this bit here, I know it SAYS (XYZ) but it actually MEANS (nothing like XYZ) okay?"

 

On the one hand I agree with you, it's certainly always been glossed over when I've tried to address it at formal study groups and on the Alpha course I attended.

 

However to be fair to our Christian friends the view they have is firmly entrenched in their doctrine since the earliest Christians. What surprises me (or perhaps doesn't surprise me) is that despite it being in the Genesis account, in black and white, that they take the tradition over their own scripture, this I find intriguing.

[jfish1936 10]

So why do Christians have this skewed idea of original sin? Its even more baffling when the actual story is there in black and white in Genesis, I find it completely baffling.

 

 

I haven't my copy of St. Augustine here at present, but I think it was in his argument against Pelagius that he held that "Original Sin" was necessary; otherwise humanity could find "salvation" by themselves, and the Catholic Church would not be necessary!

[PaliRichard 10]

I haven't my copy of St. Augustine here at present, but I think it was in his argument against Pelagius that he held that "Original Sin" was necessary; otherwise humanity could find "salvation" by themselves, and the Catholic Church would not be necessary!

 

Indeed. I remember very clearly bringing this point to a young man who had aspirations of becoming a priest.

 

He said that to be 'saved' we had to give ourselves to Jesus, and because of his sacrifice from that point we would be guaranteed a 'ticket' into heaven. The point being that we had to commit our lives to Jesus, because only through his sacrifice could our salvation be achieved.

 

I asked him what would happen if we gave ourselves 100% and then lapsed in the future. The scenario I used was somewhat black and white but necessary to illustrate the point I was making.

 

I gave the example of two people, one who had been brought up outside Christianity and not given himself to Jesus but lived in line with the teachings of Jesus simply by the way he lived his life.

 

The second who had wholeheartedly given himself to Jesus but at some future point had turned committed some atrocity - the murder of many hundreds of people.

 

By the explanation given by the young man it seemed that the murderer would be guaranteed a place in heaven where the innocent man would not - the only answer I was given (and he got quite angry when I pushed him) was that once you'd given yourself to Jesus you wouldn't commit any such act.

 

The problem, and danger of such 'Christian' attitudes is that many such Christians insist that we are saved by the grace of Jesus' sacrifice, not by our personal effort - and thus because it is not our effort that is the driving force it absolves us from responsibility of action.

 

Now thankfully not all Christians have this attitude - but the problem remains that Christian doctrine itself does permit it - and therein the danger lies. Christianity is the only religion who's doctrine absolves its followers of personal responsibility in such a way, all other religions - without exception, put the emphasis on the effort of the believer, not on the grace of the 'saviour'.

 

Sorry if that got a bit heavy I got a bit carried away!

[MrSmith 10]

Indeed. I remember very clearly bringing this point to a young man who had aspirations of becoming a priest.

 

He said that to be 'saved' we had to give ourselves to Jesus, and because of his sacrifice from that point we would be guaranteed a 'ticket' into heaven. The point being that we had to commit our lives to Jesus, because only through his sacrifice could our salvation be achieved.

 

I asked him what would happen if we gave ourselves 100% and then lapsed in the future. The scenario I used was somewhat black and white but necessary to illustrate the point I was making.

 

I gave the example of two people, one who had been brought up outside Christianity and not given himself to Jesus but lived in line with the teachings of Jesus simply by the way he lived his life.

 

The second who had wholeheartedly given himself to Jesus but at some future point had turned committed some atrocity - the murder of many hundreds of people.

 

By the explanation given by the young man it seemed that the murderer would be guaranteed a place in heaven where the innocent man would not - the only answer I was given (and he got quite angry when I pushed him) was that once you'd given yourself to Jesus you wouldn't commit any such act.

 

The problem, and danger of such 'Christian' attitudes is that many such Christians insist that we are saved by the grace of Jesus' sacrifice, not by our personal effort - and thus because it is not our effort that is the driving force it absolves us from responsibility of action.

 

Now thankfully not all Christians have this attitude - but the problem remains that Christian doctrine itself does permit it - and therein the danger lies. Christianity is the only religion who's doctrine absolves its followers of personal responsibility in such a way, all other religions - without exception, put the emphasis on the effort of the believer, not on the grace of the 'saviour'.

 

Sorry if that got a bit heavy I got a bit carried away!

 

I’ve used a similar argument in the past.

 

In which person A doesn’t believe in God but throughout his life works for charity, does nothing wrong, helps anyone he can when he can.

 

Person B as committed many crimes only ever helped themselves but turns to God in the last years of their life.

 

If heaven does exist which one goes to heaven?

I’ve never been given a straight answer.

[SnailyBoy 10]

I’ve used a similar argument in the past.

 

In which person A doesn’t believe in God but throughout his life works for charity, does nothing wrong, helps anyone he can when he can.

 

Person B as committed many crimes only ever helped themselves but turns to God in the last years of their life.

 

If heaven does exist which one goes to heaven?

I’ve never been given a straight answer.

 

Classic example of Person A is Bill Gates (Giving billions to charity)

 

Person B could be Adolf Hitler (Confirmed Christian who may have well said 'sorry' before he pulled the trigger)

[PaliRichard 10]

I’ve used a similar argument in the past.

 

In which person A doesn’t believe in God but throughout his life works for charity, does nothing wrong, helps anyone he can when he can.

 

Person B as committed many crimes only ever helped themselves but turns to God in the last years of their life.

 

If heaven does exist which one goes to heaven?

I’ve never been given a straight answer.

 

There isn't a straight answer, the Christian doctrine collapses if it allows the innocent man to go to heaven, any such allowance would render the sacrifice of Jesus redundant.

 

All other Theistic religions allow for the person to live in accordance with the teachings without actually having heard them and still receive the reward of heaven.

 

The word Kafir in Islam which relates to unbeliever is specific to those who have heard, and rejected the message - those who have not heard the message would still get into heaven by living in line with the teachings.

 

Christianity doesn't have such a specific word for unbeliever - because those who are to be saved have to accept Jesus, not having heard the message is no excuse - it's a massive philosophical difficulty for Christians because to try to argue against this is to argue against the sacrifice Jesus made.

 

The misreading of Genesis is the base for this difficulty, but it's so entrenched in Christianity that to acknowledge this problem is to unravel the very cornerstone of the religion itself.

[jfish1936 10]

I asked him what would happen if we gave ourselves 100% and then lapsed in the future. The scenario I used was somewhat black and white but necessary to illustrate the point I was making.

 

This is a major point in Calvinist and Lutheran debate -- whether once "saved" you can "fall" again

 

""Perseverance of the saints" (or preservation) of the saints (the word "saints" is used to refer to all who are set apart by God, and not of those who are exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven) asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return to the faith."

(Wikipaedia, Calvinism)

 

As an evolutionist atheist, I believe that humanity ROSE, and did not "FALL", so "salvation is unneccessary.

Edited May 9, 2013 by jfish1936
correcting a missed letter

[borderline 10]

There isn't a straight answer, the Christian doctrine collapses if it allows the innocent man to go to heaven, any such allowance would render the sacrifice of Jesus redundant.

 

All other Theistic religions allow for the person to live in accordance with the teachings without actually having heard them and still receive the reward of heaven.

 

The word Kafir in Islam which relates to unbeliever is specific to those who have heard, and rejected the message - those who have not heard the message would still get into heaven by living in line with the teachings.

 

Christianity doesn't have such a specific word for unbeliever - because those who are to be saved have to accept Jesus, not having heard the message is no excuse - it's a massive philosophical difficulty for Christians because to try to argue against this is to argue against the sacrifice Jesus made.

 

The misreading of Genesis is the base for this difficulty, but it's so entrenched in Christianity that to acknowledge this problem is to unravel the very cornerstone of the religion itself.

I am interested in your vague reference to a misreading of Genesis can you point me to any reference books on this subject

I'll let previous insults go over my head except my faith in 100 % and I am not living a lie, very rude of you.

I did lend you 2 books which you never read, if you can point me too any books which argues your point on Genesis(i will buy and read ), or if it's just your own interpretation give evidence everyone can understand

I am sure on a subject so important there are many books,I am sure this will help me and readers of this post.

Try and keep on topic

Your questions on science ,maybe your right, after all if it's on the Internet it must be right.

I prefer theology, so looking forward to your reply in that vain

[Islam4me2 10]

the anti God agenda is being pushed by the world elite and their minions who are full time agents on the internet.

 

yet at the same time the elite are very much into their own satanic / occult practices.

 

This fact has been exposed many many times.