Anti-religious question

[Winnie The Foo]

I would say lying and tricking the entire human race out of their paradise is a big one. But that's very obvious. Not sure how you missed that..

What exactly did he lie about?

And God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden. Satan had no hand in that.


If you have a child a put them in a room and say, "hey don't eat off the floor, you will surely die" then walk away. Come back to find out another child "tricked" them into eating off of the floor. And then you throw your kid out on the street, who would be to blame? The children or the parent?

 

[kpt018]

My personal philosophy is to seek a happy and fulfilling life (without harming others) and to make decisions based on facts and reasoning. There is nothing faith based about my philosophy.

 

[MMun]

As a someone with a strong background in science, I used to believe this. As I've researched things further in my medical career, I have come to learn that your DNA is not the architect of your destiny. Collective lifestyle choices\adaptations also lead to epigenetic changes. For example, only humans and great apes can get gout. We still have the gene to metabolize uric acid, but it's been "turned off".

Anyway, determinism is bullshit. Action potential starts with your thoughts and we are the architect of our destiny, not our DNA.

I don't believe it either, but it fit TS' question. The part about being an evolutionary dead end if you don't reproduce is true under all circumstances though.

 

[TheComebackKid]

What exactly did he lie about?

He said they wouldn't die...and they did

And God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden. Satan had no hand in that.


If you have a child a put them in a room and say, "hey don't eat off the floor, you will surely die" then walk away. Come back to find out another child "tricked" them into eating off of the floor. And then you throw your kid out on the street, who would be to blame? The children or the parent?

That's not an accurate analogy. Adam and Eve were not children. And God is not s father you can compare to a human father. A prerequisite to being in His presence is being void of sin. He can't let sin into his presence. Therefore He warned them not sin. They sinned anyway. But being the loving God He is He came to earth personally, took on the burdans of all sins, suffered unimaginably for it...all to provide a way for us to get back in His presence which is paradise.

Not sure what you're missing here.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

I don't believe it either, but it fit TS' question. The part about being an evolutionary dead end if you don't reproduce is true under all circumstances though.

Agreed. But not always. There are situations where individuals of a species will forego mating to ensure kinship survival. But yes, someone closely related has to be mating and passing on the genes.

 

[SakuMemories]

Spreading love, compassion, empathy, is not "shitty. Especially in world full of such hate ...

Forgoing greed, and giving (literally the shirt off your back) to someone more in need is a good thing.

Do you think the Jesus philosophy can be summed up into those two things? Not trying to argue, just honestly asking. Its not like I have all the answers.

Personally, I don't see any good reason to love others if they don't deserve it. It can actually be VERY detrimental to your well being if you love the wrong people, cruel people, people who don't love back and are conditioned only to take and not give. As you said, the world is full of hate, therefore such people are plenty.

The same goes for giving. I don't see why I should give anything to anyone. I mean I would give, but only to people who want to integrate into society and eventually give back themselves. Giving to people who don't want to be part of the system is VERY bad for your own survival.

So in both things, love and charity, are great things, but only if they are tempered and moderated by reason. Something with Jesus never touched upon. So basically you have a philosophy that lacks the most important thing in our existence.

I hope you see where I am coming from and don't take this as an personal attack.

 

[Winnie The Foo]

He said they wouldn't die...and they did

True, after about 1000 years. Were they to be immortal before that?

That's not an accurate analogy. Adam and Eve were not children. And God is not s father you can compare to a human father. A prerequisite to being in His presence is being void of sin. He can't let sin into his presence. Therefore He warned them not sin. They sinned anyway. But being the loving God He is He came to earth personally, took on the burdans of all sins, suffered unimaginably for it...all to provide a way for us to get back in His presence which is paradise.

Not sure what you're missing here.

I believe it is an accurate analogy. Adam and Eve were essentially children. They were young and didn't posses the knowledge of good and evil. But you still never answered the question, who would you blame in that situation?

 

[SakuMemories]

But being the loving God He is He came to earth personally, took on the burdans of all sins, suffered unimaginably for it...

Bullshit man.

He was a man but also part god. Don't forget the second part. Your human suffering amounts to nothing if you are part god and also get to be resurrected.

There are sick children in africa who suffer infinitely worse than some days a cross, they suffer for years from painful diseases without access to medicine and die alone without any divine powers to resurrect themselves.

The so called "suffering" of Jesus is a scam. Its total bullshit, even if you accept the premise.

 

[Uchi Mata]

No argument from me on that.
I wouldn't employ a definition that broad, though, unless I were arguing with guys getting abusively snide about Christians.

You could certainly add some elements regarding set doctrine to it to exclude people who live by an individual philosophical system, but ultimately it's always going to be subjective what does and doesn't qualify as a religion.

 

[TheComebackKid]

True, after about 1000 years. Were they to be immortal before that?

Lol, yes

I believe it is an accurate analogy. Adam and Eve were essentially children. They were young and didn't posses the knowledge of good and evil. But you still never answered the question, who would you blame in that situation?

They were not children but grown adults capable of exercising their free will. They were given choices and consequences. They chose and suffered the consequences that were clearly laid out for them.

So if you want to make the analogy work then compare to a father who tells his child that if he touches a hot stove he will get his hand burnt. The child touches the stove anyway....child gets burnt...child gets mad at the parent instead of the friend who inticed him.

And I blame Adam, Eve, and the serpent.

 

[andnowweknow]

Science and Faith aren't mutually exclusive. Certain religious traditions are silly, the idea of other realms of "reality" outside the scope of the physical sciences is just that...outside the scope of the physical sciences.

you don't have to pick a side, you just have to not approach the conversation as an idiot ideologue on the matter.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Bullshit man.

He was a man but also part god. Don't forget the second part. Your human suffering amounts to nothing if you are part god and also get to be resurrected.

Right, but he only knew he was God by through faith. The same thing we are supposed to use.

There are sick children in africa who suffer infinitely worse than some days a cross, they suffer for years from painful diseases without access to medicine and die alone without any divine powers to resurrect themselves.

The so called "suffering" of Jesus is a scam. Its total bullshit, even if you accept the premise.

But Jesus took on all sickness and suffering. So he experienced the suffering of those African children.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Do you think the Jesus philosophy can be summed up into those two things? Not trying to argue, just honestly asking. Its not like I have all the answers.

Personally, I don't see any good reason to love others if they don't deserve it. It can actually be VERY detrimental to your well being if you love the wrong people, cruel people, people who don't love back and are conditioned only to take and not give. As you said, the world is full of hate, therefore such people are plenty.

The same goes for giving. I don't see why I should give anything to anyone. I mean I would give, but only to people who want to integrate into society and eventually give back themselves. Giving to people who don't want to be part of the system is VERY bad for your own survival.

So in both things, love and charity, are great things, but only if they are tempered and moderated by reason. Something with Jesus never touched upon. So basically you have a philosophy that lacks the most important thing in our existence.

I hope you see where I am coming from and don't take this as an personal attack.

Thank you for responding and no offense taken, I welcome such inquiries and spirited (no pun intended) conversation.

Regarding your first question, no. Jesus of the New Testament and his philosophy cannot be summed up with those two points. If I were to sum up Jesus’s philosophy (in my opinion) it would be demonstrate compassion and love to others, regardless of who they are. It would also be to challenge and confront injustices, and not be afraid to combat the status quo, especially if an injustice is being perpetrated.
I do understand what you are saying about love, and not providing it to those who seemingly don’t deserve it. In my profession, I encounter the worst of humanity…the absolute worst. However, I can still see the benefits of expressing compassion to hardened criminals, to hardened souls who have never experienced human kindness before. I try and let people know (personally) that not everyone is evil in the world…that there are good people out there who will express unconditional kindness to you. I (try to) give people the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their criminal background…I (try to) be empathetic.

I do see what you’re saying about giving and charity…I work down town, and I see the same junkies, drug addicts and drunks on a frequent basis. I never offer them cash. If they ask for food (which is rare), I’ll give them a cliff bar or my leftovers from lunch.

I think another reason why I found Jesus of the New Testament so appealing, is that I read it immediately after the old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a vindictive, compassionless entity. Jesus seemed like a breath of fresh air.

And again, no worries…I welcome your questions and inquiries.

 

[Winnie The Foo]

Lol, yes



They were not children but grown adults capable of exercising their free will. They were given choices and consequences. They chose and suffered the consequences that were clearly laid out for them.

He said they would die, nothing about getting kicked out of "paradise". Consequences were not clear.

So if you want to make the analogy work then compare to a father who tells his child that if he touches a hot stove he will get his hand burnt. The child touches the stove anyway....child gets burnt...child gets mad at the parent instead of the friend who inticed him.

Ok we can work with that analogy. You forgetting to add in the part about kicking the child out of the house.

And I blame Adam, Eve, and the serpent.

I know you do.

 

[The Diplomat]

If Eve never sinned, and humans were indeed to be immortal, then how would this planet sustain the over population that would have occurred over the last thousands of years? If they were really asexual before sin, then there would have never been any lineage. No Cain, Abel, Seth, Noah, or Abraham, and essentially no story to tell in the Bible. There are different interpretations of pre-Fall and post-Fall sexuality according to Genesis, but it boils down to the need of sin and the Fall for the story of the Bible to come to fruition.

Some say that there was no real sexuality before the Fall, and that the very concept of marriage, husband/wife, family, having kids, etc. comes from the first sin. If that were the case, then there would indeed be no Bible at all. Others say that there was sexuality pre-Fall, and that the "shamefulness" that Adam and Eve felt regarding their bodies was actually shame before God, not each other. However, if this were the case, then the planet would ultimately overpopulate to the point of catastrophe, and the resources and wildlife would have suffered much earlier in the timeline. Either way, it seems like an interesting catch 22. Maybe God would have made more space and resources for us as saw fit, seeing as how it was Paradise and we didn't sin. But then comes the idea that eventually, SOMEONE would have sinned. Some kid, probably Adam/Eve's first, would have done something that all kids do, and it'd be considered sinful.

After the Fall, God essentially has the first legal trial, via Adam and Eve vs. God, and He sets forth some rules/conditions -

(a) I will greatly multiply your pain [labor] in childbearing;
(b) in pain [labor] you shall bring forth children,
(c) yet your desire shall be for your husband,
(d) and he shall rule over you.

The B is what makes it seem like there would be no childbearing before hand, and that this whole husband/wife concept is a result of the sin.

Anyways, it's all very interesting stuff. But to think it all happened because someone ate a piece of fruit, like *that's* the first original sin - not murder, theft, or anything like that, but eating fruit when told not to. That's the very essence of free will in itself, but it damned all mankind to death and painful births of kids.

 

[LilMountain]

Lol, yes

Was the immortality gone because of the apple or from being kicked out of eden

They were not children but grown adults capable of exercising their free will. They were given choices and consequences. They chose and suffered the consequences that were clearly laid out for them.

So if you want to make the analogy work then compare to a father who tells his child that if he touches a hot stove he will get his hand burnt. The child touches the stove anyway....child gets burnt...child gets mad at the parent instead of the friend who inticed him.

And I blame Adam, Eve, and the serpent.

Free will but no knowledge? what kind of choices can you be expected to make in ignorance?

 

[TheComebackKid]

He said they would die, nothing about getting kicked out of "paradise". Consequences were not clear.

Lol ok

Ok we can work with that analogy. You forgetting to add in the part about kicking the child out of the house.

Touching stove = eating from the tree.

Getting burnt = getting kicked out.

I know you do.

Then why ask?

 

[TheComebackKid]

Was the immortality gone because of the apple or from being kicked out of eden

Becausebof rebellion

Free will but no knowledge? what kind of choices can you be expected to make in ignorance?

They had all of the knowledge necessary to make the choice they made. Obey God and live...disobey and die. No gray area there.

 

[The Diplomat]

They had all of the knowledge

If they had all of the knowledge, wouldn't they have been able to instill it into their children, and so forth? It seems like advancements in technology, literature, etc. could have been streamlined at a much quicker pace if that were the case. Even after being kicked out of paradise, I'm sure they retained some of the knowledge, considering they knew literally everything there is to know. But they were the equivalent of cavemen when it came to writing down information and passing it down.

 

[LilMountain]

Becausebof rebellion

So God did it?