Everybody's wrong.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-11-2016, 11:06 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(21-11-2016 11:01 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(21-11-2016 10:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But of course, man hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong yet, so man did not know that it was "wrong" (according to the god) to eat the fruit, man had no idea that it is "wrong" to disobey the god. Man did not make any choice between right or wrong, man had no idea what right and wrong even means. How can man have free will if man does not understand the difference between right and wrong?

If man didn't know right from wrong they would not have known disobedience and therefore they would not have needed the snake to drive them to eat the fruit, they would have likely succumbed to their own curiosity.
Yes, well if the god took them to the tree, pointed to the fruit and said "don't eat that" then anyone with any amount of foresight would understand that would have created a curiosity. Then after pointing out the fruit the god conveniently leaves the garden and waits then comes back a bit later and gets "angry". Under law it would be called entrapment. I mean as a parent do you put a lolly on the table, point it out to your kids, leave the room and come back expecting the lolly to still be there?

Honestly you'd be a pretty shitty parent if you came back and punished your kids for eating the damn lolly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2016, 11:11 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(21-11-2016 11:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-11-2016 11:01 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If man didn't know right from wrong they would not have known disobedience and therefore they would not have needed the snake to drive them to eat the fruit, they would have likely succumbed to their own curiosity.
Yes, well if the god took them to the tree, pointed to the fruit and said "don't eat that" then anyone with any amount of foresight would understand that would have created a curiosity. Then after pointing out the fruit the god conveniently leaves the garden and waits then comes back a bit later and gets "angry". Under law it would be called entrapment. I mean as a parent do you put a lolly on the table, point it out to your kids, leave the room and come back expecting the lolly to still be there?

Honestly you'd be a pretty shitty parent if you came back and punished your kids for eating the damn lolly.

If we're going to comment on the Christian god's parental abilities, we should include the fact that he did torture and crucify his own son, just to undo his own mistake of 'original sin'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Celestial_Wonder's post
21-11-2016, 11:18 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(21-11-2016 06:26 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I think the story is describing

It's a myth-story right (anthropomorphic), as an entertaining way of coming up with an explanation as to why something is the way it is.

I'd say the people of the time were probably wondering about the difference between humans and other animals, why humans wear clothes, why we have a "moral" code, or expectation of other humans but no "moral" expectation of the other humans.

A tree bearing fruit that once you eat you become aware of "right" vs "wrong" seems like a very simple story a primitive peoples could come up with. You eat the fruit then "Oh my god, I'm naked!" as if being naked is instantly a "bad" thing LOL.

It could also perhaps be an analogy to growing up. Going away from obeying your parents to becoming a person making their own decisions in life. Once you start making your own decisions, you move out of the home and start your own family.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2016, 11:25 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(21-11-2016 11:11 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If we're going to comment on the Christian god's parental abilities, we should include the fact that he did torture and crucify his own son, just to undo his own mistake of 'original sin'.
It's a bit confusing because he is also his own son, so he was torturing himself (in the guise of roman soldiers) as a blood sacrifice to himself, even though the Roman's weren't performing any sacrificial ritual. I mean, if Jesus was a human then he was going to die at some point, whether it be old age, accident, disease or whatever, doesn't really matter. No human is immortal, so the fucker was going to die, the story writers just made the death dramatic because old age would have been a bit boring.

I think it's especially weird how the god vows that Eve will be punished by having painful child bearing, and all her female descendants will bear this pain also as Eve's punishment. Obviously this story is just a myth-story to explain the pain of child birth. But those that take it literally must believe it makes sense to punish the son for the "sins" of the father.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
21-11-2016, 11:36 PM
RE: Everybodies wrong.
(21-11-2016 11:25 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-11-2016 11:11 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  If we're going to comment on the Christian god's parental abilities, we should include the fact that he did torture and crucify his own son, just to undo his own mistake of 'original sin'.
It's a bit confusing because he is also his own son, so he was torturing himself (in the guise of roman soldiers) as a blood sacrifice to himself, even though the Roman's weren't performing any sacrificial ritual. I mean, if Jesus was a human then he was going to die at some point, whether it be old age, accident, disease or whatever, doesn't really matter. No human is immortal, so the fucker was going to die, the story writers just made the death dramatic because old age would have been a bit boring.

I'm sure it made more sense before they put it to paper 300 years later.

In regards to the mortality of Jesus, there is the possibility that the date when Jesus is said to have existed is wrong. Being put normally at 33 A.D. (time of death) I've always thought it more likely that if Jesus did exist it was during the Jewish Revolt in 66 A.D. during the reign of Nero. Primarily because crucifixion was mostly reserved for enemies of the state if I remember right.

Quote:I think it's especially weird how the god vows that Eve will be punished by having painful child bearing, and all her female descendants will bear this pain also as Eve's punishment. Obviously this story is just a myth-story to explain the pain of child birth. But those that take it literally must believe it makes sense to punish the son for the "sins" of the father.

Just going to leave this here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2016, 04:23 AM
RE: Everybody's wrong.
(21-11-2016 11:11 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(21-11-2016 11:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yes, well if the god took them to the tree, pointed to the fruit and said "don't eat that" then anyone with any amount of foresight would understand that would have created a curiosity. Then after pointing out the fruit the god conveniently leaves the garden and waits then comes back a bit later and gets "angry". Under law it would be called entrapment. I mean as a parent do you put a lolly on the table, point it out to your kids, leave the room and come back expecting the lolly to still be there?

Honestly you'd be a pretty shitty parent if you came back and punished your kids for eating the damn lolly.

If we're going to comment on the Christian god's parental abilities, we should include the fact that he did torture and crucify his own son, just to undo his own mistake of 'original sin'.
Good point celestial wonder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2016, 07:54 AM
RE: Everybody's wrong.
Plus, when it comes to virgin birth (parthenogenesis), the child born is exclusively female, except for those rare species in which the males give birth (seahorses).

The accounts in the bible are so easily picked apart.
It's not that the bible contains so many incorrect statements, it's that people are so eager to believe them.

They are surrounded by a hundred bubbles of lies.
You pop one and more take its place.
I think I will call them bubble people.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
22-11-2016, 08:20 AM
RE: Everybody's wrong.
(22-11-2016 07:54 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Plus, when it comes to virgin birth (parthenogenesis), the child born is exclusively female, except for those rare species in which the males give birth (seahorses).

The accounts in the bible are so easily picked apart.
It's not that the bible contains so many incorrect statements, it's that people are so eager to believe them.

They are surrounded by a hundred bubbles of lies.
You pop one and more take its place.
I think I will call them bubble people.

I can not speak for others, but I for one am very glad that we Humans did not evolve from seahorses. It does make sense however that parthenogenesis would require the offspring to be female, as the y chromosome is a male trait, and as you stated most the gender of most species that do give birth are female.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2016, 09:00 AM
RE: Everybody's wrong.
(21-11-2016 10:45 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Oh, and, I'm going to have to correct the thread title... too unbearable!

But that was the ironic icing on the ignorance cake that is this thread!
Consider

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
02-12-2016, 12:20 AM
RE: Everybody's wrong.
No it says in romans jesus died so we can have a connection back to him not original sin there's no such thing from mainstream thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: