Bertrand Russell

Originally posted by @great-king-rat
When I said "you may do as you please" I meant responding to the actual *content* of the 7 minute video 🙄

I assumed that went without saying. I assumed wrongly.

i did not miss that possible meaning. I thought that you may mean "Do as you wish" in that sense.

It was a little ambiguous.
But I am not complaining.

Originally posted by @great-king-rat
When I said "you may do as you please" I meant responding to the actual *content* of the 7 minute video 🙄

I assumed that went without saying. I assumed wrongly.

That meaning as a possibility did not escape me.

I still comment that I am more impressed with the words, life, and mind of Jesus Christ all in all.

A response to the content would be more interesting than two posts saying the same thing, one of which contains a repetition of a previous post.

Originally posted by @whodey
I reckon those that don't feel the need for Christ are the truly free ones.

They do as they please, when they please, and have no need of anyone or anything else.

So if you don't follow JC and the boys, you are a Hell's Angels biker. Got it.

Originally posted by @great-king-rat
A response to the content would be more interesting than two posts saying the same thing, one of which contains a repetition of a previous post.

A technical glitch that made it appear that an active screen had not having recorded the submit. Sorry for the repetition.

Some miscellaneous responses to the four segments from B, Russell, R. Feynman, M. Dillihunty, C. Sagan.

... A very gentlemanly explanation of his personal atheism.

Yes, Bertrand Russell's British diplomatic civility is noted.

He starts be saying he sees no evidence whatever of any Christian dogma.
Well, this could be a case of not wanting to admit his sinful conduct.

A Christian dogma is that all have sinned. He sees no evidence in his life that he had committed transgressions, if not against God, against his fellow man?

I might count this not as, ie. " having not seen any evidence for Christian dogma " but stubborn dismissal of the conviction of his own conscience that he did dirt to anyone ever.

Around .17 seconds

He goes on to say that if something is true you should believe it. And if it is not true you shouldn't. One Christian teaching is that all people have sinned. There is no evidence that that would not apply to Bertrand Russell as well as all other people living.

Very smart people can often be very self righteous and unwilling to admit that they have sinned. Or they wish to play word games so as not to call moral wrong doing by that biblical designation - "sin". That's usually just a semantic dodge.

Sin carries the implication of having "missed the mark" as in shooting an arrow at a target. There is a moral bull's eye. All have at one time or another, and many times throughout life - "miss the mark" go astray of the moral "bull's eye target" of right behavior.

"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" is a Christian teaching.
Betrand Russell had " no evidence whatever" that he has missed the mark, misaimed morally and been less than well calibrated in his dealings with moral behavior ?

Originally posted by @sonship
Some miscellaneous responses to the four segments from B, Russell, R. Feynman, M. Dillihunty, C. Sagan.

... A very gentlemanly explanation of his personal atheism.

Yes, Bertrand Russell's British diplomatic civility is noted.

He starts be saying he sees no evidence whatever of any Christian dogma.
Well, this could be a case of ...[text shortened]... mark, misaimed morally and been less than well calibrated in his dealings with moral behavior ?

Original sin is the most repugnant concept religion ever came up with. The entire human race is shyte, born into sin. What a ghastly idea, a baby, in fact by extension, an embryo, already is a sinner.

And you buy into it hook line and sinker.

So are Bonobo's born into sin? Are Dolphins born into sin? Both of those creatures are even more intelligent in some aspects than humans.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Original sin is the most repugnant concept religion ever came up with. The entire human race is shyte, born into sin. What a ghastly idea, a baby, in fact by extension, an embryo, already is a sinner.

And you buy into it hook line and sinker.

So are Bonobo's born into sin? Are Dolphins born into sin? Both of those creatures are even more intelligent in some aspects than humans.

Methinks the most repugnant concept religion ever came is the concept of Dualism [ "Us" vs "Them Al" ] and, in fact by extension, the concept of "Absolute Truth" (according with the Scripture/ according with the Quran/ according with the [so called "Holy Book" of your choice)
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Methinks the most repugnant concept religion ever came is the concept of Dualism [ "Us" vs "Them Al" ] and, in fact by extension, the concept of "Absolute Truth" (according with the Scripture/ according with the Quran/ according with the [so called "Holy Book" of your choice)
😵

Another one the apologists work over: Man worth 50 shekels woman worth 30. The religious set has no idea how bad that verse is, now in stone women are on a lower plane than men. You get all kinds of stories like women are not as strong as men and during those times work was hard and such. Funny how 3000 odd years later women are still struggling to get equality. That part seems to have escaped the notice of the religious set.
Oh no, it is no religion, it is in fact the CULTURE. That is their mantra, NEVER is anything wrong with religion it is ALWAYS something wrong with humanity, harking back to the original sin.

Originally posted by @sonhouse

Original sin is the most repugnant concept religion ever came up with.

I rarely use the term "Original Sin".
And it is not repugnant to me at all. That is because if you want to argue that all have become condemned because of the disobedience of Adam, God causes the same principle to work FOR our favor.

All who believe in Christ are justifed by, let us say "Original Righteousness"

That is what the New Testament teaches. If you say "Original sin" is terrible, I would counter that "Original Rigjhteosness" though, is wonderful . It reverses the condemnation in Adam to any man into the justification in Christ to all who enter by faith into Christ.

So why don't you give at least equal time to contemplating how in Christ a sinner is justified eternally before God in "the second man" Jesus Christ. He is "the last Adam".

"So then as it was through the one offense unto condemnation to all men, so also it was through one righteous act unto justification of life to all men." (Rom. 5:18)

The entire human race is ..., born into sin.

I have been convinced that the unspeakable peace I sense within towards my Father which previously was dread of God, is evidence that I have been justified for eternity before God through faith in Christ.

In fact, I might not have believed in Adam and a significant first man except that meeting Jesus Christ was SO powerful. When I met Jesus Christ in the form of the Holy Spirit, I eventually thought that this about Adam must have merit to it because Jesus is such a significant new beginning for my whole life.

Christ. the obedient Son of God is available as the Spirit He is now aside from Him being at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven.

" the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 cor. 15:45)

The "last Adam" became so powerful an experience to me that I deemed that the Bible must be true about a first man Adam.

At any rate, you should give at least equal time to contemplate, what we might call 'Original Righteousness" through Jesus Christ as you do foaming at the mouth about your hatred for "Original Sin" through Adam's fall.

"Original Sin" blamed on Adam is remedied, reversed, healed, and rectified through what we could call "Original Righteousness" in Jesus Christ.

" And it is not that as through one who sinned, so also the free gift is; for the judgment was out of one offense unto condemnation, but the gracious gift is out of many offenses unto justification.

For if by the offense of the one death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:16,17)

Praise God for "Original Righteousness" through Jesus Christ "the second man" and the Head of a new race of people in union with His Father, God.

Originally posted by @sonship
"Original Sin" blamed on Adam is remedied, reversed, healed, and rectified through what we could call [b]"Original Righteousness" in Jesus Christ.

[quote] " And it is not that as through one who sinned, so also the free gift is; for the judgment was out of one offense unto condemnation, but the gracious gift is out of many offenses unto ...[text shortened]... ist [b]"the second man" and the Head of a new race of people in union with His Father, God.[/b]

You can couch it in any terms you wish, it is still totally repugnant as a concept. It ensures those converted will never be able to think their way out of the scam of religion of the Abrahamics at least. Hindu's are not as pacific as they would like to be seen and obviously Islam came out of the gate 1400 years ago with an army conquering all who stood in their way, yessir, the religion of piece.

I don't think (I may of course be wrong) that Christianity is the only one who practices that repugnant concept of 'original' (whatever you want to call it) sin. Not sure about Islam.

The misogynistic content of the three Abrahamics are pretty clear, a man worth 50 shekels, a woman 30. That is not a statement to be made in a free and equal society that we supposedly have today. To this day women are undervalued in professional life and home. It can in my mind be tied to statements like that, cast in stone to the literalists of today. Oh yeah, there are apologists trying to slant the whole thing, 'well, women are not as strong as men and back then blah blah blah' but men use verses like that to PROVE women are lower on the totem pole of humanity then males.

There is no way around it. Verses like that set up opinion for thousands of years and it is still going on today.

BTW, did you ever get to my music site or am I just not worth the look since I am an avowed atheist? I listened and enjoyed your music which I totally separate from the religious POV.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
You can couch it in any terms you wish, it is still totally repugnant as a concept. It ensures those converted will never be able to think their way out of the scam of religion of the Abrahamics at least. Hindu's are not as pacific as they would like to be seen and obviously Islam came out of the gate 1400 years ago with an army conquering all who stood ...[text shortened]... owed atheist? I listened and enjoyed your music which I totally separate from the religious POV.

BTW, did you ever get to my music site or am I just not worth the look since I am an avowed atheist? I listened and enjoyed your music which I totally separate from the religious POV.

I have yet to return a second time to re-hear some of your creativity in folk song singing. But I intend to.

I would not have taken the initiative to ASK you about your site if I didn't want to hear the music. This also would be the second time because years ago I listened to your music.

I think you should have known that this is a repeated request. So why the question now?
Your suspicion seems laced with the same kind of paranoia that sees conspiracy in this concept -

it is still totally repugnant as a concept. It ensures those converted will never be able to think their way out of the scam of religion of the Abrahamics at least.

What is repugnant is the suspicion that the fall of the first man and its effect on humanity is a concept to "ensure" some rigged advantage.

"Scam" is the assumption as your starting point in thinking of these things.
If you start out with an initial suspicion that you are being "scamed" by the Bible, all circular reasoning with "ensure" that you cannot get out of the maze of distrust of God.

It was Adam who was injected with the thought of being short changed, scammed, cheated by God. The suspicion that God did not have Adam and Eve's best interest at heart entrapped him in a deception that led to the fall.

"And he [the serpent] said to the woman, Did God really say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden? " (see Gen. 3:1)

The motive and the heart of God were subtly questioned by the devil.
You mean that you can look at the life and death of Jesus for us sinners and still be so suspicious that you detect only a "scamming" Person is out to cheat you?

No one else like Jesus so suffered for you because He thought it was necessary that you not try to stand upon your own merit but on His, to be saved. No one else was so selfless. No one else drank the cup of judgment on your behalf that you might have eternal life.

Who in Hinduism poured out his or her soul unto death in such a manner that you might be saved ?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Original sin is the most repugnant concept religion ever came up with.

No it isn’t; eternal suffering is.