Recentally, I came across another AFN post implying that the poster had never sinned in 63 years.

The same sort of people who think it is absurd to believe in a God, think it obsurd for others to not believe they have been perfect for over 6 decades.

Rubbish.

If one says he is without sin, he has already commited one. A lie. Rather or not you are a Christian. No matter your definition of sin. No one is perfect.

Everyone sins. God said it like this, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

It's nothing to be ashamed of. There is only one place where perfection exists. Heaven.

If you don't believe in sins, you could honestly believe that you haven't sinned.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
There is only one place where perfection exists. Heaven.

Heaven sounds way boring. Who wants perfection? Not me.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Recentally, I came across another AFN post implying that the poster had never sinned in 63 years.

The same sort of people who think it is absurd to believe in a God, think it obsurd for others to not believe they have been perfect for over 6 decades.

Rubbish.

If one says he is without sin, he has already commited one. A lie. Rather or not you are a Christian. No matter your definition of sin. No one is perfect. QUOTE
-----------------------------

Remove Christianity(which apparantly is the world authority on what is sin) and there would be no sin. Most religions do not have sin. Only those that originated in the far east.



Everyone sins. God said it like this, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." QUOTE
---------------------------------------

Only Christians can sin because their religion is the measuring stick for sin.

It's nothing to be ashamed of. There is only one place where perfection exists. Heaven.


"Where is Heaven located?"

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
"Where is Heaven located?"

"Up there"

and oh - hell is

"down below"

:)

Heaven is located in the presense of God, Hell is outside the presense of God.

So um....where's God? And is Earth hell or is God among us?

Originally posted by minister
Heaven is located in the presense of God, Hell is outside the presense of God.
So it would seem, to those who don't really like God all that much, that Hell would be preferable...

Originally posted by minister
Heaven is located in the presense of God, Hell is outside the presense of God.
-----------------------------------------

Then I must be in heaven now. For in the world I live in the Supreme Force is all around me.

Originally posted by DrewM
Heaven sounds way boring. Who wants perfection? Not me.

Obviously, you associate with members of allforums who claim to be perfect.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
If you don't believe in sins, you could honestly believe that you haven't sinned.

If you dont believe...you ARE committing a sin.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
So it would seem, to those who don't really like God all that much, that Hell would be preferable...

No one said you ever had to accept the gift of eternal salvation...if eternal damnation is your choice...well its sad, but its your choice.

Okay let's say this guy who hadn't sinned in 63 years obeyed all of the 10 commandments for all that time.

What could he have done that still counts as a sin?

The 10 commandments are not the only things that are commandend of us in the bible, Ed.

As lionel said you have to first buy into the whole sin thing before you can debate the point.

My 10 month old son is completely without sin.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Obviously, you associate with members of allforums who claim to be perfect.
No, you said that Heaven is perfect. And everything being perfect could get tedious very quickly.

i agree.

and we all know that humans are faulty and imperfect, so why the obsession with purity and perfection? trying to achieve an unobtainable ideal is just destructive.

These guys really think heaven is this place actually paved with Gold streets where they live in perfect harmony with absolutely no ills, no wants or troubles. In short - a place which lacks any form of creativity, free will or interest. It sounds like hell - an eternity of absolute boredom and mindlessness.

On top of that - they think getting to this "magical" fairy tale land is the most important thing in life.

If there is life after death - wow are these people going to be confused and dissapointed when it happens.

If you dont believe...you ARE committing a sin.

Pretty strict, and stupid guidelines. How is that a sin? What harm is being done? If we are supposed to believe in IT, then maybe IT should be something that is actaully believable.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
If you dont believe...you ARE committing a sin.

You said they were committing a sin because they were lying. But if you don't believe in sin, then you're not lying when you say you haven't committed any. And where does it say not believing is a sin, as long as you don't believe in any other god?

And I have to agree with Drew, I don't think my 11 month old daughter has sinned either. She lacks the capacity.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
If you dont believe...you ARE committing a sin.

So this is like God holding a gun to your head and saying Believe.

I can't make myself believe the earth is flat any more easily than believing in some of the things you so readily accept. I am mentally incapable of ever believing in various elements of what you believe. It would take a frontal labotomy to even come close.

So my very existance is a sin....nice club you joined Jere :)

No such thing as sin? Well let’s see…
If God doesn’t exist, if there is no Supreme Righteous Judge, then I would have to say that, yes, there is no such thing as sin. If the reality is there is no God, then attacking a weak old lady, who has just cashed a welfare check, would be no more wrong or right then a lion attacking a zebra that has wandered from the herd. It just would be a matter of survival.
On the other hand, if there is a God, who is the Supreme Righteous Judge, then sin is something to think about.
Of course I believe there is a God, I believe He has revealed Himself in the Bible, and has also revealed what He thinks of sin, and what He thinks of people. He is so against sin that even one sin taints the whole person, and makes that person unfit to be in His presents. Yet He so loves the people of earth that He sent His one and only Son, Jesus, (God in the flesh) to pay the penalty for that and all other sins, and purchase a place for us in heaven. It appears that God also respects our personhood, in the sense that He allows us to reject Jesus’ payment, and therefore reject God, and has even made a place for those who don’t want God in their lives. This place is completely empty of the presence of God, there is no love, no comfort, no sharing, no forgiveness, no hope no peace, and no joy, it is called hell.
As far a children being sinless…what is sin? Wait, now before anyone loses it, I have 2 little ones myself (3 and almost 5) I’m not suggesting that if a child dies he goes to hell, I believe there is an age of accountability, and the Bible supports that belief, (read when King David’s new born son died) What I’m saying is that a baby is not sinless, that in fact we all are born with a sin nature. Of course a baby is innocent of that sin, because they know no other way, when they are hungry, or needing a change, they don’t realize Mom and Dad may not have had a good nights sleep in days, they want it taken care of immediately. That’s selfishness, which is a sin. Now, I understand they can’t help it, it’s in their nature, their sin nature to be exact.

Originally posted by stark
when they are hungry, or needing a change, they don’t realize Mom and Dad may not have had a good nights sleep in days, they want it taken care of immediately. That’s selfishness, which is a sin.

Wow.

A baby that cries because it is hungry is guilty of a "sin"...........?!?!?

Interesting.

Day by day, I gain more insight into the thought processes of Christian folk..........it's a decidedly unpleasant experience.

Originally posted by stark
No such thing as sin? Well let’s see…
If God doesn’t exist, if there is no Supreme Righteous Judge, then I would have to say that, yes, there is no such thing as sin. If the reality is there is no God, then attacking a weak old lady, who has just cashed a welfare check, would be no more wrong or right then a lion attacking a zebra that has wandered from the herd. It just would be a matter of survival.
On the other hand, if there is a God, who is the Supreme Righteous Judge, then sin is something to think about.
Of course I believe there is a God, I believe He has revealed Himself in the Bible, and has also revealed what He thinks of sin, and what He thinks of people. He is so against sin that even one sin taints the whole person, and makes that person unfit to be in His presents. Yet He so loves the people of earth that He sent His one and only Son, Jesus, (God in the flesh) to pay the penalty for that and all other sins, and purchase a place for us in heaven. It appears that God also respects our personhood, in the sense that He allows us to reject Jesus’ payment, and therefore reject God, and has even made a place for those who don’t want God in their lives. This place is completely empty of the presence of God, there is no love, no comfort, no sharing, no forgiveness, no hope no peace, and no joy, it is called hell.
As far a children being sinless…what is sin? Wait, now before anyone loses it, I have 2 little ones myself (3 and almost 5) I’m not suggesting that if a child dies he goes to hell, I believe there is an age of accountability, and the Bible supports that belief, (read when King David’s new born son died) What I’m saying is that a baby is not sinless, that in fact we all are born with a sin nature. Of course a baby is innocent of that sin, because they know no other way, when they are hungry, or needing a change, they don’t realize Mom and Dad may not have had a good nights sleep in days, they want it taken care of immediately. That’s selfishness, which is a sin. Now, I understand they can’t help it, it’s in their nature, their sin nature to be exact.

Your determination that without sin there would be no sense of what is right or wrong is seriously flawed logic. The christian contention is that we are all sinners no matter how good we are. This therefore is a definition of sin in the christian sense. It is far wider than a definition of right & wrong.

One can still see that hurting others is wrong and not buy into the we are all sinners no matter what line of thought.

As for the baby sinners - well, there is a quite reasonable description of your example. It's called coming up with stuff no matter how patently off the wall it is - just to maintain a certain mindset that was fed to you by somebody else.

Why do the fervent christians give up all sense of reasonable thought and then to top it off - infer that everybody else is a fool not to have given up all reason too? Religion is in many ways like a disease. You catch Christianity & the anti-dote is not easily served.

Originally posted by stark
What I’m saying is that a baby is not sinless, that in fact we all are born with a sin nature. Of course a baby is innocent of that sin, because they know no other way, when they are hungry, or needing a change, they don’t realize Mom and Dad may not have had a good nights sleep in days, they want it taken care of immediately. That’s selfishness, which is a sin. Now, I understand they can’t help it, it’s in their nature, their sin nature to be exact.

1. that's not sin, stark...that's instinct. babies who cry because they are hungry or because they need a change cannot help themselves. just you calling a baby "selfish" is incredibly harsh. to be selfish, one must realize that others have needs of their own and still they put themselves first. babies have no way of realizing or thinking about the needs of others. for goodness sakes, they can't even talk yet! how did i ever get into a position where i'm arguing with someone about whether or not babies are selfish *cries from fustration*

2. and i don't understand this attitude that we are all evil and bad and sinners. if i am remembering genesis correctly, when god created the world he pronounced it "GOOD." what is the point of embracing a philosophy where even the best person on earth would never be able to recognize their own goodness? it's an unhealthy obsession with a purity and perfection that mere humans will never be able to achieve. we are flawed, it's a fact, but to constantly make ourselves feel guilty about that is dumb. it can't be helped, and all you can really do is try your best.

Originally posted by stark
No such thing as sin? Well let’s see…
If God doesn’t exist, if there is no Supreme Righteous Judge, then I would have to say that, yes, there is no such thing as sin. If the reality is there is no God, then attacking a weak old lady, who has just cashed a welfare check, would be no more wrong or right then a lion attacking a zebra that has wandered from the herd. It just would be a matter of survival.
On the other hand, if there is a God, who is the Supreme Righteous Judge, then sin is something to think about.
Of course I believe there is a God, I believe He has revealed Himself in the Bible, and has also revealed what He thinks of sin, and what He thinks of people. He is so against sin that even one sin taints the whole person, and makes that person unfit to be in His presents. Yet He so loves the people of earth that He sent His one and only Son, Jesus, (God in the flesh) to pay the penalty for that and all other sins, and purchase a place for us in heaven. It appears that God also respects our personhood, in the sense that He allows us to reject Jesus’ payment, and therefore reject God, and has even made a place for those who don’t want God in their lives. This place is completely empty of the presence of God, there is no love, no comfort, no sharing, no forgiveness, no hope no peace, and no joy, it is called hell.
As far a children being sinless…what is sin? Wait, now before anyone loses it, I have 2 little ones myself (3 and almost 5) I’m not suggesting that if a child dies he goes to hell, I believe there is an age of accountability, and the Bible supports that belief, (read when King David’s new born son died) What I’m saying is that a baby is not sinless, that in fact we all are born with a sin nature. Of course a baby is innocent of that sin, because they know no other way, when they are hungry, or needing a change, they don’t realize Mom and Dad may not have had a good nights sleep in days, they want it taken care of immediately. That’s selfishness, which is a sin. Now, I understand they can’t help it, it’s in their nature, their sin nature to be exact.

Good post, Stark, this is right on. :thumbs:

Originally posted by sputnik


and we all know that humans are faulty and imperfect

This is exactly the point this thread is talking about.

Humans arent perfect. God is. Heaven is where we live in perfection with God.

All absolutes are imaginary.

We have a thing called common laws to protect people.

Sin is determined by a particular religious order.
Sin could vary from religion to religion and zelous fanatics.

Common laws seem to pretty well be universal.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
All absolutes are imaginary.

Really?

We will all absolutely die. Is that imaginary? We will be the same person all our lives. Is that imaginary?

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
We have a thing called common laws to protect people.

Sin is determined by a particular religious order.
Sin could vary from religion to religion and zelous fanatics.

Common laws seem to pretty well be universal.

Interestingly, the reason they are so universal is that we all have faith that they are enforced and upheld.

The same could be done with sin, if there wasnt so much a lack of faith in our people.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
This is exactly the point this thread is talking about.

Humans arent perfect. God is. Heaven is where we live in perfection with God.

but why would you WANT to be perfect? why would you strive for something that is unattainable and really not that attractive anyway?

ooh that was my 500th post. yay!

Originally posted by sputnik
but why would you WANT to be perfect? why would you strive for something that is unattainable and really not that attractive anyway?

he can't answer this question because he doesn't even understand it

If the reality is there is no God, then attacking a weak old lady, who has just cashed a welfare check, would be no more wrong or right then a lion attacking a zebra that has wandered from the herd. It just would be a matter of survival.

Are you saying that the only reason attacking a weak old lady would be a sin is if there was no God? That's some scary insight into your reasoning. I think it is a sin because it is wrong to harm someone, unless in self-defense. It is wrong wether God exists or not.

Yet He so loves the people of earth that He sent His one and only Son, Jesus, (God in the flesh) to pay the penalty for that and all other sins, and purchase a place for us in heaven…..and has even made a place for those who don’t want God in their lives…..it is called hell.

Isn't intentionally letting your Son die a bit of a sin? And whats all this complaining about sins...God made sinning OK by letting his Son die to excuse all of our sins, right? If Jesus's death was for our sins and "purchased a place for us in heaven", then what is this talk about us non-believers being sinners and going to hell...Jesus died for my "sins" so I'm getting into heaven regardless.

Freethinker, you said:
“Wow.
A baby that cries because it is hungry is guilty of a "sin"...........?!?!?
Interesting.”

Let me clear up what I said for you…
Crying because of hunger is not a sin, self-centeredness, and selfishness is a sin, and babies, by the way, are not at the age of accountability they won’t be held accountable for that sin.
Interesting that you felt a need to change what I had said.

Next you said:
“Day by day, I gain more insight into the thought processes of Christian folk..........it's a decidedly unpleasant experience.”
You say that day by day you gain more insight into the thought process of Christian folk. Just for fun let’s test your insight…QUESTION: What is the thought process of Christian thinking concerning salvation, how do we get to heaven?

Drew you said:
“Your determination that without sin there would be no sense of what is right or wrong is seriously flawed logic.”

I said that? Wow, if I said that, you are right I was using flawed logic.
Maybe, however, I actually said:
“If God doesn’t exist, if there is no Supreme Righteous Judge, then I would have to say that, yes, there is no such thing as sin.”
See without God there is no right or wrong.
Next you said:
“The christian contention is that we are all sinners no matter how good we are. This therefore is a definition of sin in the christian sense. It is far wider than a definition of right & wrong.”

Okay, I’ll bite, what is the definition of right and wrong, what makes something right, what makes it wrong?
Next you said:
“As for the baby sinners - well, there is a quite reasonable description of your example. It's called coming up with stuff no matter how patently off the wall it is - just to maintain a certain mindset that was fed to you by somebody else.”

So tell me is a baby self-centered?

Finally you said:
“Why do the fervent christians give up all sense of reasonable thought and then to top it off - infer that everybody else is a fool not to have given up all reason too? Religion is in many ways like a disease. You catch Christianity & the anti-dote is not easily served.”

If the Bible is not the Word of God, if Jesus did not rise physically from the dead then you are right Christians have given up all sense of reasonable thought. Let me back that up with a bit of scripture from
1 Corinthians 15:14-19 “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.”
Of course Christians know that Jesus did rise from the dead.
By the what I agree with you when you said “Religion is in many ways like a disease.” Of course life in Christ is not a religion it’s a relationship.

Sputnik
1. Read what I wrote and then read JereJere’s response about the sin nature thing, he puts it rather well.

2. God did create a Good world, but you have to remember the rest of Genesis, man sinned, turned from God, and died. Our nature now was not our original nature, we now have a sin nature. The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
I do agree with you that we shouldn’t “constantly make ourselves feel guilty” about being flawed. I think everyone would be better off just handing their guilt over to Christ and making him Lord of their lives.

UnCool my wife decided to have our bedroom redone, and then she decided that I was going to do it.
I’m back now…thanks for the nod.

JereJere you said
"This is exactly the point this thread is talking about.
Humans arent perfect. God is. Heaven is where we live in perfection with God."

Good call JereJere.

Ed Blank you said:
“All absolutes are imaginary.”

If your statement is true then the idea that "all absolutes are imaginary" is in fact...imaginary.
Maybe you should have said:
“Some absolutes might be imaginary.”

See without God there is no right or wrong.

Sure there is, doing good things is right and doing bad things is wrong. Did you actually need that explained to you?

Of course Christians know that Jesus did rise from the dead.

You mean Christians BELIEVE Jesus rose from the dead. You KNOW that he rose from the dead as much as I KNOW that he did not.

Originally posted by stark
UnCool my wife decided to have our bedroom redone, and then she decided that I was going to do it.

You mean you actually had to enter the Real World?:eek:

Originally posted by sputnik
but why would you WANT to be perfect? why would you strive for something that is unattainable and really not that attractive anyway?


Sputnik,

Regardless of what your notion is, nothing is unattainable through God.

Ask and ye shall recieve.

dnamertz,

God didn't make it ok to sin, since we are sinners by nature he knew the only chance for us to get to heaven was through Jesus.

You don't automatically make it in, you have to ask to be saved of Jesus, and believe, god knows your heart and your sincerity.

God didn't make it ok to sin, since we are sinners by nature he knew the only chance for us to get to heaven was through Jesus.

This statement does not make sense. What does Jesus's death have to do with us getting into heaven. His death does not change the notion that, according to you, "we are sinners by nature". So what does it mean when people say "Jesus died for our sins"? What good did that do?

"Regardless of what your notion is, nothing is unattainable through God"
--stark

but you see stark, i am an atheist, thus i don't believe in god. so it is my humble opinion that you are only...do i want to say fooling yourself? i don't know. that seems mean. and my notion is every bit as good as your notion, thank you very much. and you STILL haven't told me why you'd WANT to be perfect, since it seems pretty crapful to me.

and stark, you also said that it is in a baby's sinful nature to be selfish:

"Of course a baby is innocent of that sin, because they know no other way, when they are hungry, or needing a change, they don’t realize Mom and Dad may not have had a good nights sleep in days, they want it taken care of immediately. That’s selfishness, which is a sin. Now, I understand they can’t help it, it’s in their nature, their sin nature to be exact."

but then you also say that there is an age of accountability. so you say that babies can't sin, and then you say they can. can babies sin, or not?

and also, the whole concept of original sin is confusing to me. i didn't eat the fruit from the forbidden tree, neither did you or anyone else on allforums, so why are we considered sinners for something we did not do? also, since adam and eve were innocent of the concepts of sin or death or evil, how could they have known that eating the fruit would be bad if they didn't even know what bad was? since they didn't even know about sin, how could they possibly have committed one, much less one that would mar human nature forever?

Those are good questions.

And Stark......another fine example of attaching sin, to basic human instinct, by calling babies evil sinners. Babies are made noisy for a very good reason, so we will pay attention to them and provide them with the basic elements of life for their very survival. Regardless if mum or dad is tired....TOO BAD mum and dad are not first anymore, so just because they may inconvenience you, calling it a sin is way off track. Hungry, wet, scared, they cry. You could go on for fourteen pages and I will bet a pretty penny you will not convince me ever that this is an inborn evil, they should feel guilty for and repent.

Basic human survival functions ARE NOT EVIL.

God you guys did the same thing to sex. How freakin archaic and medieval

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet He so loves the people of earth that He sent His one and only Son, Jesus, (God in the flesh) to pay the penalty for that and all other sins, and purchase a place for us in heaven…..and has even made a place for those who don’t want God in their lives…..it is called hell.

Why would God put you before his son. Why are you so special?

Why would God have to create living flesh from his self, in order for it to suffer an horrific bloody sacrifice, in order to set you straight?

And why create a hell? It sounds like a big bad boogeyman story, instilled with horrible imagery, to manipulate with fear.

So creating heavan and all it's glory and perfection alone wasn't enough to bring people to God, as you say. THere had to be a threatening alternative thrown in, with cozy hints of lakes of fire, and pain and eternal suffering.

Well HELL!!!! If you buy all that stuff, and I were in your shoes, I'd jump on the bandwagon too, to be safe you know........

Dan, you said:
“Sin is determined by a particular religious order.”

No. True sin is determined by God, men make up there own religions and deem certain activities a sin. Such as the atheist religion where not believing in evolution is a sin.

Sputnik you wrote:
“but why would you WANT to be perfect? why would you strive for something that is unattainable and really not that attractive anyway?”

I do agree that perfection is unattainable in this life, but to strive for it is to strive to make oneself a better person. Is that a bad thing? Can you name a belief system that thinks it’s bad to be a better person? Of course the best reason to strive to be perfect is that Jesus told us to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

dnamertz you said:
“Are you saying that the only reason attacking a weak old lady would be a sin is if there was no God? That's some scary insight into your reasoning. I think it is a sin because it is wrong to harm someone, unless in self-defense. It is wrong wether God exists or not.”

And later, in another post, you said:
“Sure there is, doing good things is right and doing bad things is wrong. Did you actually need that explained to you?”

Why is it wrong to harm someone, such as the old lady I mentioned? You said that “doing good things is right and doing bad things is wrong.” My question for you is what makes something “good” or “bad”?
When a lion brings down a Zebra is that good or bad?

Next you said:
“You mean Christians BELIEVE Jesus rose from the dead. You KNOW that he rose from the dead as much as I KNOW that he did not.”

Let’s compare evidence. You show me the evidence that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and I’ll show you evidence that He did.

UnCool you said:
“You mean you actually had to enter the Real World?”

Yeah, and it was horrible. I stood in the middle of the room and tried to point and click my way through the job. I finally had to do the job manually.

STARK WROTE:
Such as the atheist religion where not believing in evolution is a sin.

That's news to me.

STARK WROTE:
Why is it wrong to harm someone, such as the old lady I mentioned?

Like I said, I can't believe this needs to be explained to you, but it is wrong because it is HARMING the old lady and harming someone hurts...its pain...its bad. Just ask the old lady, I'm sure when she is harmed it is not good and she did not want it to be done to her.

Again, are you actually saying that if God did not happen to exist, then harming an old lady would not be bad??? Please explain how "good" things would stop being good, and "bad" things would stop being bad if God does not exist.

When a lion brings down a Zebra is that good or bad?

It is bad for the zebra, obvioulsy. And if the lion is doing it just for fun that I would say its bad on the lion's part, but it is probably doing it to eat and survive. However, it is an animal and probably doesn't know right from wrong...but since we as humans are capable of compassion and respect for one another and capable of knowing right and wrong, it would be bad for us to eat each other for "survival" where it is not bad (or not as bad) for the lion to do the same.

dnamertz you said:
“What does Jesus's death have to do with us getting into heaven.”

Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, (that penalty is death), thereby purchasing a place for us in heaven.

sputnik you said:
“"Regardless of what your notion is, nothing is unattainable through God"
--stark’

Actually it was Jere that said it not me…I wish that I had, but I didn’t.

Next you said:
“but you see stark, i am an atheist, thus i don't believe in god. so it is my humble opinion that you are only...do i want to say fooling yourself?”

You not believing in God doesn’t make Him go away. I would like to add that if there is no God, I am fooling myself, and if there is a God you are fooling yourself.
I do have a question for you; are you a true atheist, or reallly an agnostic throwing the atheist title around?

Next you said:
“but then you also say that there is an age of accountability. so you say that babies can't sin, and then you say they can. can babies sin, or not?”

Now when was it that I said “babies can’t sin”? I’ve searched through my posts on this thread and couldn’t find it…Hmmmm. Oh, I did, however, say:
“by the way, [babies] are not at the age of accountability they won’t be held accountable for that sin.”
Not being held accountable for sin is just a tad bit different than not sinning.

Next you said:
“and also, the whole concept of original sin is confusing to me. i didn't eat the fruit from the forbidden tree, neither did you or anyone else on allforums, so why are we considered sinners for something we did not do?”

I promise you that not you or anyone in allforums will be accused of eating the forbidden fruit. Now there are all those other sins that need to be dealt with, which is my point; Jesus has already dealt with them, you can accept him and his payment or take care of it yourself. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. In this case death is eternal separation from God.

Finally you said:
“also, since adam and eve were innocent of the concepts of sin or death or evil, how could they have known that eating the fruit would be bad if they didn't even know what bad was? since they didn't even know about sin, how could they possibly have committed one, much less one that would mar human nature forever?”

Read the first few chapters of Genesis, that may answer some of your questions. God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now they had a choice, obey God (which is the only way we can show love for Him) and enjoy life in the Garden of Eden, or disobey God (which is a sin) and eat from the tree.

also.......the lion preying on the zebra is no different than humans preying on all that we do. Now a lion preying on a lion, is a diffent issue, but I doubt they commit as many crimes against each other as human beings do.........

another thing.....lions are capable of compassion and nurturing toward each other as much as we are.

What religion do you think the lion might be practicing?

Originally posted by stark
Drew you said:
“Your determination that without sin there would be no sense of what is right or wrong is seriously flawed logic.”

I said that? Wow, if I said that, you are right I was using flawed logic.
Maybe, however, I actually said:
“If God doesn’t exist, if there is no Supreme Righteous Judge, then I would have to say that, yes, there is no such thing as sin.”
See without God there is no right or wrong.
Next you said:
“The christian contention is that we are all sinners no matter how good we are. This therefore is a definition of sin in the christian sense. It is far wider than a definition of right & wrong.”

Okay, I’ll bite, what is the definition of right and wrong, what makes something right, what makes it wrong?
Next you said:
“As for the baby sinners - well, there is a quite reasonable description of your example. It's called coming up with stuff no matter how patently off the wall it is - just to maintain a certain mindset that was fed to you by somebody else.”

So tell me is a baby self-centered?

Finally you said:
“Why do the fervent christians give up all sense of reasonable thought and then to top it off - infer that everybody else is a fool not to have given up all reason too? Religion is in many ways like a disease. You catch Christianity & the anti-dote is not easily served.”

If the Bible is not the Word of God, if Jesus did not rise physically from the dead then you are right Christians have given up all sense of reasonable thought. Let me back that up with a bit of scripture from
1 Corinthians 15:14-19 “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.”
Of course Christians know that Jesus did rise from the dead.
By the what I agree with you when you said “Religion is in many ways like a disease.” Of course life in Christ is not a religion it’s a relationship.

Question A - Yes I miss-read your post. My bad.

Question B - What makes something right or wrong?

In wider sense, something is wrong if it hurts another. That's basically it.

Of course - we also have laws that define right & wrong

Question C - Maybe he did rise from the dead, maybe he didn't. It doesn't really matter to me either way. There are many religions in the world and they all think they are right exclusively. Somebody isn't right - that's for sure.

dnamertz: God so loved the world that he sent his only son to die for a sinful world, so that we may be in heaven with God. If you don't believe in Jesus how can he cover your sins.

Jesus was the perfect sacrifice from God for all our sins, all you have to do is believe in Christ.

Let’s compare evidence. You show me the evidence that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and I’ll show you evidence that He did.

First of all, I know neither one of us has EVIDENCE that this event happened, or didn't happen, 2000 years ago, but since you claim you do then lets see it. However, here is one fact that tells me it is unlikely....PEOPLE DO NOT COME BACK FROM THE DEAD!!!! I know you will think that because I don't have proof that he did not rise from the dead, then you win. But, what proof do you have that I did not flap my arms and fly around the world this morning?

STARK WROTE:
Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, (that penalty is death), thereby purchasing a place for us in heaven.

and MINISTER WROTE:
God so loved the world that he sent his only son to die for a sinful world, so that we may be in heaven with God.

So it sounds like my earlier statement is true which was "Jesus died for my "sins" so I'm getting into heaven regardless."

Originally posted by minister
all you have to do is believe in Christ.

Which roughly translated means - all you have to do is suspend all rational thought, ignore every part of you that cannot agree with christian exclusivity and basically hand over your brain to what somebody tells you to think.

Minister - I cannot understand why you cannot accept that your proposal is completely weak and makes practically no sense unless you are already sucked in. It may make sense to you, but your life already revolves around this.

Creetwins you wrote:
“And Stark......another fine example of attaching sin, to basic human instinct, by calling babies evil sinners.”

Hey look at that, you did just what Freethinker did, you mischaracterized what I said to make your position look better…good show. Come now, did I really call babies evil sinners?
Now let me ask you, are babies self-centered?
Well look at this you did it again here:
“You could go on for fourteen pages and I will bet a pretty penny you will not convince me ever that this is an inborn evil, they should feel guilty for and repent.”
I wonder why you feel you that you need to add to what I say.

Next you said:
“Basic human survival functions ARE NOT EVIL.”
I so agree with you there, of course I wasn’t talking about human survival functions, but about the human sin nature.

In your next post you said:
“Why would God put you before his son. Why are you so special?”

Great question number 1... Really
First it’s not me that’s so special, God wants all people to love Him and turn to Him, He doesn’t want anyone to perish. So what makes us so special, God is a God of Love, and He loves us, and hold each of us as valuable, so valuable that He’s willing to let His Son die so that we have a way of being with Him.

Now comes great question number 2:
“Why would God have to create living flesh from his self, in order for it to suffer an horrific bloody sacrifice, in order to set you straight?”

God wrote the Bible to set us straight, He came in the flesh to die for us because we can’t become “straight” on our own, so Jesus took our punishment for our sins. Why? Again, because of His deep Love for us, and our value to Him.

Great question 3. I‘m not kidding they are great questions…here it is:
“And why create a hell? It sounds like a big bad boogeyman story, instilled with horrible imagery, to manipulate with fear.”

God created hell for those who don’t want to be in His presence. God will honor all our decisions. Just a reminder hell is a place completely devoid of the presence of God.

God wrote the Bible to set us straight, He came in the flesh to die for us because we can’t become “straight” on our own, so Jesus took our punishment for our sins. Why? Again, because of His deep Love for us, and our value to Him.

Pure Science Fiction.

You haven't explained WHY this crazy chain of events had to happen. Remember - God created all this.

did I really call babies evil sinners?

No, you didn't call them evil...just sinners.

Now let me ask you, are babies self-centered?

No, do you think so? They don't even know what self-centered is.

"Actually it was Jere that said it not me…I wish that I had, but I didn’t."

sorry aboot that. my bad.

"You not believing in God doesn’t make Him go away. I would like to add that if there is no God, I am fooling myself, and if there is a God you are fooling yourself.
I do have a question for you; are you a true atheist, or reallly an agnostic throwing the atheist title around?"

1. conversely, you believing in god does not mean there is one.
2. what do you mean by "true atheist?" i do not believe in god. what else does the title require?

"Not being held accountable for sin is just a tad bit different than not sinning."

stark, listen to creetwins here. "Babies are made noisy for a very good reason, so we will pay attention to them and provide them with the basic elements of life for their very survival."

mom and dad had a child knowing full-well that that child would be needy and unable to care for itself. because a baby does not come out of the womb with a full set of christian morals and values does not mean that it is a sinner, whether it is "accountable" or not. if babies were not noisy, they would not be able to survive. they can't provide for themselves, and their parents are the ones who had the child knowing that they would have to provide for it. i still don't even know why i'm arguing about this with you. it makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

"I do agree that perfection is unattainable in this life, but to strive for it is to strive to make oneself a better person. Is that a bad thing? Can you name a belief system that thinks it’s bad to be a better person?"

stark, there is a huge difference between trying to be perfect and trying to be a better person. the first is impossible; the latter is extremely possible. the difference between these is realizing that as a human you will always have faults, but these don't have to be a source of eternal shame or guilt. we can love each other despite these faults or even because of them. they are what make us real.

"Such as the atheist religion where not believing in evolution is a sin."

huh?

and stark, i have read the first few chapters of genesis, and neither they nor you have been able to answer my question. ok, the scenario is that god tells adam and eve not to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree, for if they do they they will die. now, before adam and eve ate the fruit, they were completely innocent. they had no knowledge of anything "bad," so how could they have known that disobeying would be "bad?" and if they were completely innocent, how could they have possibly commited a sin in that state?

Stark"Hey look at that, you did just what Freethinker did, you mischaracterized what I said to make your position look better…good show. Come now, did I really call babies evil sinners?
Now let me ask you, are babies self-centered?"

No they are not. They don't really get to learn that until 2 or 3, when they want to do everything themselves. Babies are dependant. THey interact, and learn communication by watching us. To say a baby is self centered by communicating it's needs insistantly, is like calling it self centered for breathing. It does these things practically unconsciously. ANyway. If you think me response to you is twisted to "make my position look better", well that wasn't intended on my part.

My initial true gut feeling when I read " What I’m saying is that a baby is not sinless, that in fact we all are born with a sin nature."

When you said "Of course a baby is innocent of that sin, because they know no other way, when they are hungry, or needing a change, they don’t realize Mom and Dad may not have had a good nights sleep in days, they want it taken care of immediately. That’s selfishness, which is a sin."

and "Now, I understand they can’t help it, it’s in their nature, their sin nature to be exact."
Was, honestly? What is a person to glean from statements like those?

THe idea that you believe in a sin nature, the very phrase gives me the creeps. What can I say?

This statement..."So what makes us so special, God is a God of Love, and He loves us, and hold each of us as valuable, so valuable that He’s willing to let His Son die so that we have a way of being with Him." is like an oxymoron to me.

It's nice how he "let " his son die in your eyes, when in reality, or rather, probablility, since he is the all powerful, creator, God actually Murdered his son! This to you people is Love? Well it works out pretty good for you guys then, since Jesus took all the lumps for you I suppose it wasn't so good from his perspective........if I was Jesus I'd be pretty pissed for "He came in the flesh to die for us because we can’t become “straight” on our own, so Jesus took our punishment for our sins. Why? Again, because of His deep Love for us, and our value to Him."

I'd be like "geez Dad, O heavanly Father, don't you think you could have come up with something a little more Jesus-Friendly"

"God created hell for those who don’t want to be in His presence. God will honor all our decisions. Just a reminder hell is a place completely devoid of the presence of God." and, don't forget, striking an atonishing resemblance to the inside of a volcano, or rather the "centre" of the earth...."down below". NOw that Jesus already died for eveyone's sins, we don't have to throw virgins in there anymore to appease God.

dnamertz about good and bad you wrote:
“Like I said, I can't believe this needs to be explained to you, but it is wrong because it is HARMING the old lady and harming someone hurts...its pain...its bad. Just ask the old lady, I'm sure when she is harmed it is not good and she did not want it to be done to her.”

You explained that there is good and bad, but you didn’t explain why something is bad? Because “harming someone hurts” doesn’t explain why it’s wrong. What’s your foundation for right and wrong? Because you decide something is wrong makes it wrong for everyone? Or are you suggesting that there is some moral truth center, or some moral truth giver, that tells us harming someone is bad?
Next you asked:
“Again, are you actually saying that if God did not happen to exist, then harming an old lady would not be bad???”

Yup. If there is no God, we as individuals are our own gods, our survival is our salvation, and the satisfaction of our desires are our heaven.
Next you said:
“Please explain how "good" things would stop being good, and "bad" things would stop being bad if God does not exist.”

Let me explain that I’m not suggesting that if God didn’t exist good would be bad and bad would be good, I saying that there would be no good or bad there would only be survival. It’s an evolutionary principle, right? Those that survive, move upward and onward. The weakest end up being food, or in the case of the weak old lady, the weak would supply the stronger.
I’m not, by the way, suggesting that atheist think this way, or live this way. Some atheists are very honorable, and honest, my question is why?

Drew you said:
“Question A - Yes I miss-read your post. My bad.”

I do it all the time. No problem.
Next you said:
“Question B - What makes something right or wrong?
In wider sense, something is wrong if it hurts another. That's basically it.”

I’ll buy it if you change the word “hurts” to “harms.” Some surgery hurts, but wouldn’t be classified as bad.
Now, I’ll pretend you mean harm, my question is the same as I asked dnamertz; why is harming someone bad, why is anything bad, what’s your foundation?
Next you said:
“Of course - we also have laws that define right & wrong”

1940s Germany had laws that defined harming and killing Jews in concentration camps right. Wasn’t it American courts in the 1800s that defined the Indians only ¾ human, therefore it was okay to mistreat them? Where those laws right or wrong?

Finally you said:
“There are many religions in the world and they all think they are right exclusively. Somebody isn't right - that's for sure.”

I’ve always said that all religions can’t be right, but when I say it I’m being intolerant.

Dnamertz, about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, you said:
“First of all, I know neither one of us has EVIDENCE that this event happened, or didn't happen, 2000 years ago, but since you claim you do then lets see it.”

Okay, evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
1. The Disciples of Jesus who claimed that they saw, talked to, and touched, the risen Lord all lived in poverty, going town to town, most often being beaten, and whipped because of their claim. As I mentioned they didn’t do this to get rich or gain power, but they did it to spread the news. Each Disciple died horribly because of their claim (except for John, he died on an island)

2. The Jewish leaders and Roman authorities never produced the body of Jesus. Both groups wanted to end the Christian movement, and the simplest thing they could have done to end it would be to show the dead body of Jesus Christ.

3. The extremely rapid growth of the early Church, even with the threat of torture and death for those who joined.

4. Communion. This tradition dates back to the Disciples, if Christ did not rise from the dead, communion would be a reminder of failure, sadness, a beaten lord, a hope that end up a nightmare.

5. The lack of a shrine at the tomb of Jesus. If Jesus had not risen, the movement that we know of as “Christianity” would at least have built a shrine at the tomb of Jesus Christ.

6. The Cross. A place of torture, and embarrassment, yet the early church celebrated it as a place of victory, and we still do.

Give me more time and I’ll think of other evidence.

Next for evidence against Jesus you said:
“However, here is one fact that tells me it is unlikely....PEOPLE DO NOT COME BACK FROM THE DEAD!!!!”

Without God, people do not come back from the dead. In your world there is no God, therefore there are no miracles from God. What you claim as reality (there is no God) is not reality.
Next you wrote:
“I know you will think that because I don't have proof that he did not rise from the dead, then you win.”

I win? No, no if you are never convinced that Jesus rose from the dead you lose, if you are convinced and accept him as Lord you win.

Next you wrote:
“what proof do you have that I did not flap my arms and fly around the world this morning?”

dnamertz. Let me ask you; did you flap your arms and fly around the room?
Finally you said:
“So it sounds like my earlier statement is true which was "Jesus died for my "sins" so I'm getting into heaven regardless."

Why would God force you into heaven, when you don’t want any part of Him or His salvation?

Originally posted by stark
Without God, people do not come back from the dead. In your world there is no God, therefore there are no miracles from God. What you claim as reality (there is no God) is not reality.
Scientifically and logically inaccurate statement. The existence of a god is absolutely impossible to prove. In the realm of science, anything that has no evidence for it does not exist. In the realm of logic, you have a similar prerequisite. Making a statement that you are absolutely right is absurdly arrogant and also fallacious.

Stark - the problem with your line of thought is you are arguing the existance of God in the same breath as believing in a Christian faith. It's two different things.

Acceptance of God is a personal thing - it can't come from a book.

If you grew up in India you'd be spouting the same thing - just a different religion. That's what happens when robotic thinking is in control. Everything you "know" is what somebody told you - period.

There is no possible way that you can assess that you are right - in fact the weight of human experience is absolutely against you and if is anything to go by indicates you are wrong. Oh - ok, you are right - several Billion people are wrong. Sure....

Drew you said:
“Pure Science Fiction.”

Pure “Science” Fiction? There’s not one insane robot in the whole Bible, how can it be “Science” Fiction? But you do seem very sure that the Bible is fiction, for you to know it’s fiction, without evidence, wouldn’t you have to have “god” like powers of knowledge about all that there is? Drew, do your administrator powers go beyond this site?

Next you wrote:
“You haven't explained WHY this crazy chain of events had to happen. Remember - God created all this.”

The chain of events didn’t have to happen, God gave Adam and Eve the ability to obey Him or not to obey Him, He allowed this to happen, and worked His redemption of people into it from there. It didn’t have to happen, but God knew it would. He must have incredible Love for us.

Pure science fiction - as in little green men from mars.

If there was a book out there that your buddies agreed with and it said pray to the men from mars - you'd sign up. Strength in numbers and all that.

Stark, most of the proof listed above stems from the Bible or belief of what is written in the Bible.

Originally posted by stark

You not believing in God doesn’t make Him go away.

In the same way, your belief in an omnipotent, invisible, supernatural entity does not make him real.

Originally posted by stark
Freethinker, you said: “Day by day, I gain more insight into the thought processes of Christian folk..........it's a decidedly unpleasant experience.”------

You say that day by day you gain more insight into the thought process of Christian folk. Just for fun let’s test your insight…QUESTION: What is the thought process of Christian thinking concerning salvation, how do we get to heaven?



Ask 10 Christians and you'll get ten different answers. It all depends on which page of their "perfect" book they're reading from.

One page tells them they'll get to heaven thru "faith", the next page will proclaim ---similar to the 10 thousand other places in the Bible where there are direct contradictions--- that it is thru "works".

Just another demonstration of how the Christian superstition is so irrational and so insupportable.

Because “harming someone hurts” doesn’t explain why it’s wrong.

Sure it does, at least for those who don't want to be harmed. HARMING SOMEONE AGAINST THEIR WILL IS WRONG!!! Its not that difficult.

What’s your foundation for right and wrong?

My parents, and life experience.

Because you decide something is wrong makes it wrong for everyone?

I didn't decide anything.

I’m saying that there would be no good or bad there would only be survival. It’s an evolutionary principle, right? Those that survive, move upward and onward. The weakest end up being food, or in the case of the weak old lady, the weak would supply the stronger.

That could happen with a God or without...and its wrong in either case. I still don't understand why you think this behavior would not be wrong without God. Here is a test that shows how right and wrong exists without a belief in God (although I don't want you to actually do it because it would be wrong)...go up to an atheist and punch him, his reaction will tell you that he knows it was wrong. He didn't need God to tell him.

Some atheists are very honorable, and honest, my question is why?

For the same reason some religious people are not...because right and wrong exists with or without God.

Okay, evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ…..The Jewish leaders and Roman authorities never produced the body of Jesus.

Maybe they burned it. Heck, bodies go missing NOW.

The extremely rapid growth of the early Church, even with the threat of torture and death for those who joined.

True, but what does that have to do with resurrection?

if Christ did not rise from the dead, communion would be a reminder of failure, sadness, a beaten lord, a hope that end up a nightmare.

Not if they believed he died for an honorable cause.

The lack of a shrine at the tomb of Jesus. If Jesus had not risen, the movement that we know of as “Christianity” would at least have built a shrine at the tomb of Jesus Christ.

They didn't build one because they BELIEVE he rose from the dead...that doesn't mean he DID rise.

The Cross. A place of torture, and embarrassment, yet the early church celebrated it as a place of victory, and we still do.

Again, they believe he died for an honorable cause.

Without God, people do not come back from the dead. In your world there is no God, therefore there are no miracles from God. What you claim as reality (there is no God) is not reality.

We both live in the same world. Who else do you know of has come back from the dead?

I win? No, no if you are never convinced that Jesus rose from the dead you lose, if you are convinced and accept him as Lord you win.

I was referring to winning the debate.

dnamertz. Let me ask you; did you flap your arms and fly around the room?

Not so fast, you have to prove I did not. Better yet, prove I did not do it 2,000 years ago. Maybe it was a miracle....you believe in miracles don't you?

Why would God force you into heaven, when you don’t want any part of Him or His salvation?

I didn't say it, you guys said even the sinners get in because Jesus died.

stark, you seem to be all talk and little substance. if you're going to say things about god, then back it up. if god exists, then you should be able to PROVE that god exists.

dnamertz I had asked you if babies are self-centered, and you answered:
“No, do you think so? They don't even know what self-centered is.”

It doesn’t matter that the babies don’t know what self-centered is, they don’t know what boy, girl, or human is, but they still are. And yes I think that a babies only concern is about their comfort, without a care about anyone elses comfort. Do they have a choice? No. That’s part of the sin nature, no one can do anything about their nature, no one is or can be perfect until they are made perfect by God.

sputnik I had said:
"You not believing in God doesn’t make Him go away."
And you said:
“1. conversely, you believing in god does not mean there is one.”

I absolutely agree with you. Reality is what is true, whether we believe it or not.
Next you said:
“2. what do you mean by "true atheist?" i do not believe in god. what else does the title require?”
An Atheist knows there is no God, an agnostic says they don’t know if God exists or not, and that there is no evidence that He does.
Which one are you?
Next you said:
“stark, listen to creetwins here. "Babies are made noisy for a very good reason, so we will pay attention to them and provide them with the basic elements of life for their very survival."

“Babies are made noisy”? That sounds as if you believe an Intelligent being created babies in such a way as to tug at the heart of the parent. Yes, God made babies noisy, but I wasn’t speaking of their noise level.
Next you said:
“stark, there is a huge difference between trying to be perfect and trying to be a better person. the first is impossible; the latter is extremely possible. the difference between these is realizing that as a human you will always have faults, but these don't have to be a source of eternal shame or guilt. we can love each other despite these faults or even because of them. they are what make us real.”

No, not much of a difference, one just has higher goals, and yes, perfection is unattainable. But I thought that all along.
Next you said:
“and stark, i have read the first few chapters of genesis, and neither they nor you have been able to answer my question. ok, the scenario is that god tells adam and eve not to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree, for if they do they they will die. now, before adam and eve ate the fruit, they were completely innocent. they had no knowledge of anything "bad," so how could they have known that disobeying would be "bad?" and if they were completely innocent, how could they have possibly commited a sin in that state?”

You answer your own question within your statement, I’ll quote you; “the scenario is that god tells adam and eve not to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree, for if they do they they will die.” There you go, God told them right from the start.

Originally posted by stark
An Atheist knows there is no God, an agnostic says they don’t know if God exists or not, and that there is no evidence that He does.
This is a common misperception. See this previous post (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=104142#post104142), please.

Creetwins, in answering my question about babies being self-centered you said:
“No they are not. They don't really get to learn that until 2 or 3, when they want to do everything themselves. Babies are dependant. THey interact, and learn communication by watching us. To say a baby is self centered by communicating it's needs insistantly, is like calling it self centered for breathing.”

I never said that a baby was self-centered for communicating.
Next you said:
“THe idea that you believe in a sin nature, the very phrase gives me the creeps. What can I say?”

Yeah, I understand, some people feel that way about cats.
Next you said:
“It's nice how he "let " his son die in your eyes, when in reality, or rather, probablility, since he is the all powerful, creator, God actually Murdered his son! This to you people is Love? Well it works out pretty good for you guys then, since Jesus took all the lumps for you I suppose it wasn't so good from his perspective........if I was Jesus I'd be pretty pissed for "He came in the flesh to die for us because we can’t become “straight” on our own, so Jesus took our punishment for our sins. Why? Again, because of His deep Love for us, and our value to Him."

Murder? No, murder is the illegal taking of human life, plus Jesus came back to life.
Next you said:
“Well it works out pretty good for you guys then, since Jesus took all the lumps for you…”

Well put, that’s exactly right.
Next, about hell, you said:
“and, don't forget, striking an atonishing resemblance to the inside of a volcano, or rather the "centre" of the earth...."down below".”

Really? Where does it say that in the Bible…I must have missed that verse.

Next, you said something a few posts ago (page 4) that I forgot to ask you about, you said:
“God you guys did the same thing to sex. How freakin archaic and medieval”

Would you explain what you mean?

It doesn’t matter that the babies don’t know what self-centered is, they don’t know what boy, girl, or human is, but they still are.

Let me further explain what I meant when I said "They (babies) don't even know what self-centered is.” I meant that they don't understand and aren't aware that the adults around them might be busy sleeping or doing something else that gets interrupted when the baby cries. They naturally cry out of instinct, the same way you or I would let out a scream if we hit our finger with a hammer...we are not doing it in a self-centered effort to get others to pay attention to our finger.

a babies only concern is about their comfort, without a care about anyone elses comfort. Do they have a choice? No.

The whole point is that they don't know about the other person's comfort. In fact, you are admitting that this behavior is not self-centered, or sinful, when you said they do not have a choice. If it is out of their control, then there is no intent in what they are doing...its like saying a person in a coma is self-centered because they rely on someone else to feed and care for them. Its insane.

That’s part of the sin nature, no one can do anything about their nature

If you still believe this statement, then answer this...why did God create a world and populate it with people who are ALL sinners?

Because God is narcissitic? (apologies on spelling)

dnamertz concerning the missing body of Christ you said:
“Maybe they burned it. Heck, bodies go missing NOW.”

The problem with that, or any theory suggesting the disciples did something to hide the body of Christ, is the way they conducted themselves after the death of Christ. They lived in poverty, going town to town, suffering beatings, hatred, and eventually horrible deaths, claiming that they, and others, saw, touched, and even ate with Jesus the resurrected Christ. They didn’t gain power or wealth in the process, they just told people about salvation through Jesus Christ. If it wasn’t the truth why would they live like that?
Next about the conduct of the early church you said:
“True, but what does that have to do with resurrection?”

The early church didn’t die for a dead man, they were tortured and put to death, because of the promise of a new life with God, bought and paid for by Jesus.
Next, about church remembering the cross, with joy and hope by the taking of communion, you said:
“Not if they believed he died for an honorable cause.”

No. The death of Christ without the resurrection would have been emptiness. Look at what Paul said in
1 Corinthians 15:14-19 “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.”
See what Paul thought about the resurrection of Christ?
Next about a shrine at the tome of Christ, you said:
“They didn't build one because they BELIEVE he rose from the dead...that doesn't mean he DID rise.”

Right, their belief does not create reality, but the claim is that they (the Disciples) and many others saw, touched, and ate with Jesus. Compare that to Islam, a religion built on the claims of one man and his claims about what he saw, and who then went out and conquered many cities.
Next, I had asked if you flapped your arms and flew around the room and you said:
“Not so fast, you have to prove I did not. Better yet, prove I did not do it 2,000 years ago. Maybe it was a miracle....you believe in miracles don't you?”

Why should I even ponder the idea that you did fly, you won’t even confirm or deny the incident. Now, let’s say you do claim that you flapped your arms and flew around the room. Do I believe it? Hmmm, I guess before I would believe it you would have had to perform other miracles which would suggest you are someone special, and you would have to predict years before the incident that indeed you would one day flap your arms and fly around the room. Next, after the great flapping incident, there should be twelve of your closest friends, going town to town, living in poverty, willing to take a good beating everywhere they go, and eventually dying, all because they personally saw you flap your arms and fly around the room. If you had that then I’d at least check it out.

Finally you said:
“I didn't say it, you guys said even the sinners get in because Jesus died.”

Yes, the sinners get into heaven, the Bible says that everyone is a sinner. The clincher is that only sinners who accept Jesus and his payment for our sins, will make it into heaven.

I guess before I would believe it you would have had to perform other miracles which would suggest you are someone special

So what were Jesus's prior "miracles" before coming back from the dead?

Why should I even ponder the idea that you did fly, you won’t even confirm or deny the incident. Now, let’s say you do claim that you flapped your arms and flew around the room. Do I believe it? Hmmm, I guess before I would believe it you would have had to perform other miracles which would suggest you are someone special, and you would have to predict years before the incident that indeed you would one day flap your arms and fly around the room. Next, after the great flapping incident, there should be twelve of your closest friends, going town to town, living in poverty, willing to take a good beating everywhere they go, and eventually dying, all because they personally saw you flap your arms and fly around the room. If you had that then I’d at least check it out.

I'll save you the trouble. I didn't fly. Wanna know the obvious way you could have know that? Its because PEOPLE CAN'T FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY.

Most of your "proof" is just accounts of other people's accounts, some of which may be true. But I hear other accounts of things and those accounts alone are not proof...like the many people who have claimed to be abducted by some type of aliens or UFO. Most of their accounts a similar so do you believe them because there are so many? I don't believe or disbelieve...I think its possible, but seems unlikely.

Yes, the sinners get into heaven, the Bible says that everyone is a sinner. The clincher is that only sinners who accept Jesus and his payment for our sins, will make it into heaven.

That is a pathecic statement right there. If I ever do become convinced that God exists, your statement makes it unlikely that I would ever want to be a part of a God that has a disgracful rule like that. People who are horrible sinners can get into heaven simply by believing and accepting Jesus, but good people do not simply because they don't accept Jesus? Disgusting. You and God, if that is his actual requirement for getting into heaven, should be ashamed. What's the incentive to be a good person and try not to sin with this rule in effect?

They lived in poverty, going town to town, suffering beatings, hatred, and eventually horrible deaths, claiming that they, and others, saw, touched, and even ate with Jesus the resurrected Christ. They didn’t gain power or wealth in the process, they just told people about salvation through Jesus Christ. If it wasn’t the truth why would they live like that?

People do strange things in the face of fanatacism. 100's of people killed themselves at Jonestown because they believed in something, does that mean what they believed in must have been true? Why did many Germans give thier lives for the beliefs of Hitler? Does that mean his beliefs were the right beliefs?

There is one other question I would like to know the answer to...At any time before his death, was Jesus proclaimed to be the Son of God?

Originally posted by minister

You don't automatically make it in, you have to ask to be saved of Jesus, and believe, god knows your heart and your sincerity. [/B]

But isn't it also true that one could basically choose to sin one's whole life. If at the end you accept Christ then presto... aren't all your sins forgiven?

to the best of my knowledge, god does not exist. i dont' claim to know the truth, i can only make educated guesses, which is really as good as anyone can do.



[B]“Babies are made noisy”? That sounds as if you believe an Intelligent being created babies in such a way as to tug at the heart of the parent. Yes, God made babies noisy, but I wasn’t speaking of their noise level.

allow me to make myself clear. it's a mighty good thing that babies are noisy, because if they weren't the parents would have had no way to know that thier babies needed help, and the species could have died out. quiet babies would die while noisy babies would live. natural selection.

“and stark, i have read the first few chapters of genesis, and neither they nor you have been able to answer my question. ok, the scenario is that god tells adam and eve not to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree, for if they do they they will die. now, before adam and eve ate the fruit, they were completely innocent. they had no knowledge of anything "bad," so how could they have known that disobeying would be "bad?" and if they were completely innocent, how could they have possibly commited a sin in that state?”

You answer your own question within your statement, I’ll quote you; “the scenario is that god tells adam and eve not to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree, for if they do they they will die.” There you go, God told them right from the start.

yes, stark, god warned them that they would die if they ate the fruit. but they did not know what death was, since it didn't exist at the time. since they had no knowledge and were completely innocent, there was no way they could have known that what the serpent was telling them to do was bad, since they had no knowledge of what "bad" was. they were like little children who could not be held accountable for sin. so i do believe that this was some pretty bad judgement on the part of god, who allowed his creations to come into contact with the serpent, who he knew could set adam and eve on the wrong path. god knew that adam and eve were innocent and had no way of knowing that what god said was good and what the serpent said was bad.

Borg, okay, I had said that in reality there is a God and you said:
“Scientifically and logically inaccurate statement.”

My statement that there is a God is only “scientifically and logically inaccurate” if indeed, it is a fact that there is no God.
Now, unscientific and illogical would be claiming that the universe just popped into existence out of nothing. Or saying that from lifeless, unintelligent, unreasoning, unemotional, matter came intelligent, reasonable, emotional beings…now that’s illogical.
Next you said:
“In the realm of logic, you have a similar prerequisite. Making a statement that you are absolutely right is absurdly arrogant and also fallacious.”

Tell me, is that statement absolutely right?

Drew you said:
“Stark - the problem with your line of thought is you are arguing the existance of God in the same breath as believing in a Christian faith. It's two different things.”
Sure, arguing that there is a God, and arguing the Jesus Christ is the only way to God does have a different focus. The existence of God is obvious by looking at nature, which is God’s creation. The reality of Jesus Christ is found in the Bible and history. Of course, the Bibles inerrancy, historical accuracy, archaeological accuracy, and predictive accuracy, demonstrates its divine origins. Also Jesus’ resurrection demonstrates that there is a God.
Next you said:
“Acceptance of God is a personal thing - it can't come from a book.”

Acceptance of God is personal, but the Bible can lead you to that acceptance.
Next you said:
“If you grew up in India you'd be spouting the same thing - just a different religion. That's what happens when robotic thinking is in control.”

So let me see, I grew up in America, I believe in God so I chose Christianity. Conversely a person who grows up in India who also believes in God will not chose Christianity. So then it’s a safe bet that there are no Indian Christians, right. Have you ever heard of Ravi Zacharias? He was born and raised in India, but he has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Jesus Christ actually is believed, and worshipped outside the shores of America.
Next you said:
“Everything you "know" is what somebody told you - period.”

Now you get into the a priori and the a posteriori arguments, but instead of going there I’ll agree with you that yes, “Everything” I know is what somebody told me, as long as within the “somebody” definition you throw in God.
Next you said:
“There is no possible way that you can assess that you are right - in fact the weight of human experience is absolutely against you…

Well now that’s what the debate is about, can we know God, is there any evidence that God exists? Was Jesus really born from a virgin, did he really rise bodily from the grave? Is the Bible really the Word of God?
Next you said:
“Oh - ok, you are right - several Billion people are wrong. Sure.…

No, God is right - several billion people are wrong. I just happen to believe Him.

Oh, yes Drew there is this bit, you said:
“Pure science fiction - as in little green men from mars.
If there was a book out there that your buddies agreed with and it said pray to the men from mars - you'd sign up. Strength in numbers and all that.”

What if there was a book out there, that me and my buddies agreed with, that said there was no God, that the universe just popped into existence, that life and all it’s complexity just plain happened, and the six hundred thousand pages of information that is found on a single strand of DNA was an accident. What if me and my buddies “signed up” to its claims…would that make it fact? It wouldn’t make it fact, but we would be praised in the world of the atheist, agnostic, and anti-theist, as being freethinkers, unfettered by the blind unreasonable faith of the Christian world. Of course in world of the atheist, agnostic, and anti-theist there is no evidence to support their belief, but that doesn’t matter because their belief is the smart belief.

Freethinker you said:
“Ask 10 Christians and you'll get ten different answers. It all depends on which page of their "perfect" book they're reading from.
One page tells them they'll get to heaven thru "faith", the next page will proclaim ---similar to the 10 thousand other places in the Bible where there are direct contradictions--- that it is thru "works".
Just another demonstration of how the Christian superstition is so irrational and so insupportable.”

Wow! You have cataloged ten thousand Biblical contradictions…amazing. What one is your favorite contradiction? By the way you demonstrated really well that you don’t know the thought process of Christian thinking concerning salvation, how do we get to heaven.
But I am interested in your catalog of Biblical contradictions.

Originally posted by stark
Borg, okay, I had said that in reality there is a God and you said:
“Scientifically and logically inaccurate statement.”

My statement that there is a God is only “scientifically and logically inaccurate” if indeed, it is a fact that there is no God.
Now, unscientific and illogical would be claiming that the universe just popped into existence out of nothing. Or saying that from lifeless, unintelligent, unreasoning, unemotional, matter came intelligent, reasonable, emotional beings…now that’s illogical.
Even if it turns out that there is a god, your statement still remains scientifically inaccurate. You need evidence of something for it to exist in the realm of science. If there is no evidence of a god, then scientifically, it does not exist until the evidence is shown.
Tell me, is that statement absolutely right?
Honestly, you knew what I meant. When arguing theology, or unproven scientific hypotheses. I am absolutely right when I say that the sky is blue, because this is a fact, and it can be proven. The existence of a higher being can be neither proven nor disproven at this point. Scientific theories have to assume that such a thing does not exist; that's how science works.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
If there is no evidence of a god, then scientifically, it does not exist until the evidence is shown.



There is a big difference between being unproven and nonexistent.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
There is a big difference between being unproven and nonexistent.
In the realm of science, anything unproven is nonexistent.

Well, that mean means that the theory that there is no god is nonexistant.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Well, that mean means that the theory that there is no god is nonexistant.
Yes, it is, your point?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BorgHunter
If there is no evidence of a god, then scientifically, it does not exist until the evidence is shown.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So does that mean that gravity didn't exist before it was "scientifically proven"? That is one very slippery slope!