Originally posted by Zahlanzi the point of this thread was to present ideas. you simply say you don't wanna. therefore it is counter-productive. others will say it is spamming.
it is like me posting in every thread in all the rhp forums "i don't like this thread" it is counter-productive.
Hey Z pal you misunderstood me🙂
Jaywill and epiphenehas sorted their view, and we are still waiting for Badwater's opinion. OK, it seems that we agree that the tale enforces the principle of the necessity of a Savior of the Human race -and I still think that the whole approach is pathetic. I deny that the original sin exists and I deny that I need to be "saved", as you may see if you read my posts at this thread.
Well, show me that I was born in sin and that I need to be "saved", and I will accept that the tale is neither pathetic nor a tool for manipulation🙂
Originally posted by Zahlanzi i am not sure our incapability to obey god is necessarily a design flaw. maybe it was intended. if we challenge authority, if we challenge the state of things and yearn for more, we better ourselves. which is why the apple had to be eaten. if god intended us to not obey him in every way, he at least put the apple in within reach so that man at least know th ...[text shortened]... ence. i will still give you rules but you are free not to obey them but suffer the consequences.
So in your view, are we better off here on earth or in heaven where challenging the authority is possibly not an option? What I still don't get from your argument is the difference between right and wrong. You are almost saying that wrong can be right. Adam was not actually sinning, he was doing as God intended.
Originally posted by black beetle Therefore I had right when I said that the tale of Adam and Eve is the perfect tool required for the manipulation of the humanity. No "original sin" means no "savior";
Would you deny that humanity is, as a rule, slave to selfishness, fear, and corruption?
Originally posted by epiphinehas Would you deny that humanity is, as a rule, slave to selfishness, fear, and corruption?
I understand your point, epi;
But I see "Humanity" as the total of the human beings. As an individual I avoid greed, rage and delusions due to my common sense and my free will. I also avoid my egoism and I decide to live with Love. With my free will I respect Life, and I consider that infamy is by far worst than death. As a result I am not slave to selfishness, fear and corruption. And I achieve it through my own mind and my abiliy to evaluate my life constantly, and not through any "religion". Therefore I do not need a "savior", although I understand that you in person can get the same result as I via your religion.
Originally posted by black beetle I understand your point, epi;
But I see "Humanity" as the total of the human beings. As an individual I avoid greed, rage and delusions due to my common sense and my free will. I also avoid my egoism and I decide to live with Love. With my free will I respect Life, and I consider that infamy is by far worst than death. As a result I am not slave to h I understand that you in person can get the same result as I via your religion.
Well?
Are you perfect?
You never experience anger towards other human beings? You never experience contempt? You never experience lust in your heart for a member of the opposite sex, for someone who is not your spouse? You never leave undone good works that you ought to have done? And so on... Neither selfishness nor fear effect your life in any way?
If you're perfect, then, yes, you wouldn't need a Savior.
You never experience anger towards other human beings? You never experience contempt? You never experience lust in your heart for a member of the opposite sex, for someone who is not your spouse? You never leave undone good works that you ought to have done? And so on... Neither selfishness nor fear effect your life in any way?
If you're perfect, then, yes, you wouldn't need a Savior.
I am who I am. Whatever I experience has to do with my ability to notice and to understand, and whatever I understand has to do with the power and the nature of my mind and of my heart.
Originally posted by twhitehead So in your view, are we better off here on earth or in heaven where challenging the authority is possibly not an option? What I still don't get from your argument is the difference between right and wrong. You are almost saying that wrong can be right. Adam was not actually sinning, he was doing as God intended.
adam sinning was a byproduct of free will. you cannot have free will and only do what is right.
The whole thing with Adam that I have trouble with is that he got to determine the fate of everyone else for time eternal (at least, on earth). I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to have had the same chance. If God had placed me in a perfect garden with a perfect mate, and told me the only rule to follow was to stay away from one tree---are you kidding me??!! I'd have invented some barbed wire, a mine field, etc. and made sure that tree didn't even get approached.🙂
Originally posted by PinkFloyd The whole thing with Adam that I have trouble with is that he got to determine the fate of everyone else for time eternal (at least, on earth). I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to have had the same chance. If God had placed me in a perfect garden with a perfect mate, and told me the only rule to follow was to stay away from one tree---are you ...[text shortened]... d some barbed wire, a mine field, etc. and made sure that tree didn't even get approached.🙂
because you think you would have got to know the future as well. the problem is that adam didn't know the consequences of his actions, didn't know he is doing wrong. only after he gained knowledge from the tree he could see what he did.
adam was like a child. if you tell a child not to eat something and then someone else comes and tells him to go ahead and eat it, that child will mostly only remember what suits his desires.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi because you think you would have got to know the future as well. the problem is that adam didn't know the consequences of his actions, didn't know he is doing wrong. only after he gained knowledge from the tree he could see what he did.
adam was like a child. if you tell a child not to eat something and then someone else comes and tells him to go ahead and eat it, that child will mostly only remember what suits his desires.
I believe Adam was far more than a child. He was created perfect--thus he knew God was His creator, and that He was good. That would have been enough for me to do what He said, and not something a serpent told my wife to do.
Originally posted by black beetle I am who I am. Whatever I experience has to do with my ability to notice and to understand, and whatever I understand has to do with the power and the nature of my mind and of my heart.
I need not a "savior"..
I am who I am.
I am who I am? That was God's name in the Old Testament, strangely enough. Are you self-existent, too? By that I mean, do you rely upon nothing else except your self for your own existence, just like God?
Originally posted by Zahlanzi adam sinning was a byproduct of free will. you cannot have free will and only do what is right.
If sin is 'doing what God doesn't want you to do' and God gave us free will and wants us to use it, and free will necessarily results in 'wrong' choices then exercising that free will is not sin.
Originally posted by twhitehead If sin is 'doing what God doesn't want you to do' and God gave us free will and wants us to use it, and free will necessarily results in 'wrong' choices then exercising that free will is not sin.
Exactly. Sin is not the list of do's and don'ts and if you follow the magic rules then you have not sinned. Sin is deeper than that; sin is on a spiritual level and while actions reflect the sin, they, in and of themselves, are not the sin.
And sin is a moving target; what it is depends entirely on the interpreter.
Sadly, this is a concept that most Christians do not understand so they reject it out of hand. I'll just wait for the responses that confirm that hunch. 😛
Originally posted by epiphinehas [b]I am who I am.
I am who I am? That was God's name in the Old Testament, strangely enough. Are you self-existent, too? By that I mean, do you rely upon nothing else except your self for your own existence, just like God?
Of course, I'm being facetious.
I need not a "savior"..
If you are perfect, then I agree.[/b]
Oh, when I said "I am who I am" I knew not that the inventors of your religion had the copyright🙂
"Perfect"!
I 'm perfect in my nature and I already told you how I live my life; I had not the slightest problem before my birth; when I 'm hungry I eat and when I walk, I walk; soon I 'll die; that's fine with me🙂
Originally posted by twhitehead If sin is 'doing what God doesn't want you to do' and God gave us free will and wants us to use it, and free will necessarily results in 'wrong' choices then exercising that free will is not sin.
don't agree. free will only gives the possibility of sinning. one can still choose what is right. god didn't want us to HAVE to always choose what is right. he gave us choices and consequences.
in the adam story, he didn't know right from wrong. so he made a choice based on other stimuli like the serpent's promise that he will be like god. seeing no wrong in disobeying God, he did what seemed to be the most rewarding choice.
The philosophy of Adam
24 Oct '08 11:12
Back to Top