Virgin Mary

Harika

hinault wrote: »

The free will is exercised by the adults in the case of a baby's baptism.

The teaching that one must love God with heart, soul and mind is presumably directed to those who have been baptised and confirmed
Confirmation being the affirmation of faith by the baptised person.

Whose assumption is this? Or for which denominations does this count?

Edit: I am just curious, like Reza Aslan, as muslim also wrote a book about Jesus, what ended in this hilarious Fox interview.

hinault

Harika wrote: »

Whose assumption is this? Or for which denominations does this count?

Edit: I am just curious, like Reza Aslan, as muslim also wrote a book about Jesus, what ended in this hilarious Fox interview.

I can't speak for denominations.

For catholics, confirmation is the affirmation of what took place at baptism.

See 1298
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a2.htm

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

The Gospel teaches that man has to love God.

The teaching reads "'You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind"
Those who claim to believe therefore must love God with their heart, their soul and their mind

It follows that for the believer the standard is very high to reach in order to love God, because to believe fully with your heart, soul and mind, all at the same time throughout life's vicissitudes, isn't easy.

The mind bit suggests to me that a believer must think about God, question if necessary, in order to be convinced intellectually that belief in God is rational.

I'd be very worried about a God, who claims to love me, who demands that I love him. That kinda distorts the concept of love.
Frankly, I don't believe it.

silverharp

Safehands wrote: »

I'd be very worried about a God, who claims to love me, who demands that I love him. That kinda distorts the concept of love.
Frankly, I don't believe it.

When you add in all the hissy fits he allegedly did in the old testament when his people disobeyed him you have a god that not only wants to be loved but has form for killing you if you don't. The God of the Jews and Christians is not in the slightest bit plausible.
At a minimum Jesus should have come up with a back story that the whole OT was a fiction.

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

I'd be very worried about a God, who claims to love me, who demands that I love him. That kinda distorts the concept of love.
Frankly, I don't believe it.

For something that you don't believe in, you do an awful of posting about an entity which you don't believe in

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

Baptism is the initiation of a person in to the Church, and Baptism is a rejection of the spiritual state that is Original Sin.

One fundamental teaching throughout Christianity is that no one can be saved without the help - grace - of God.

Baptism is the initial point at which a person can be in receipt of God's grace. Without Baptism, according to Christian teaching, one can't receive God's grace and therefore that person cannot be saved.

I dont want to derail the thread, but thats rubbish. Baptism is an outward display of an inward acceptance of Christ. Look at the examples in scripture. The Philippian jailer for one. The thief on the cross was not baptised and he is in the presence of God today. To say one cannot be saved without baptism is wrong and completely against the salvation that Jesus spoke of and died for.

hinault

keano_afc wrote: »

I dont want to derail the thread, but thats rubbish. Baptism is an outward display of an inward acceptance of Christ. Look at the examples in scripture. The Philippian jailer for one. The thief on the cross was not baptised and he is in the presence of God today. To say one cannot be saved without baptism is wrong and completely against the salvation that Jesus spoke of and died for.

St.Matthew's gospel teaches that Jesus final command is for the apostles to go to all nations and to baptise people in those nations, circa 2,000 years.

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

So for the past 2,000 years baptism has been the command to the church.

If baptism is not necessary for salvation, why did Jesus command the apostles to baptise all nations circa 2,000 years ago? What is the point of issuing that command?

Finally baptism can be gained in ways other than the outward application of oil, water and prayer.
For example, baptism can be obtained through martyrdom.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

St.Matthew's gospel teaches that Jesus final command is for the apostles to go to all nations and to baptise people in those nations, circa 2,000 years.



So for the past 2,000 years baptism has been the command to the church.

If baptism is not necessary for salvation, why did Jesus command the apostles to baptise all nations circa 2,000 years ago? What is the point of issuing that command?

Finally baptism can be gained in ways other than the outward application of oil, water and prayer.
For example, baptism can be obtained through martyrdom.

I must have missed the part in that verse where Jesus continued "...because no man can see the kingdom of heaven unless he is baptised".

RC people tend to have a habit of basing entire doctrine around a very loose interpretation of a verse (or even part of a verse). There is nothing in what you quoted that said baptism is essential for salvation.

A question then, is the thief on the cross in heaven?

@Mods. I dont want to derail this thread, happy to have my post moved if it is deemed off topic.

hinault

keano_afc wrote: »

I must have missed the part in that verse where Jesus continued "...because no man can see the kingdom of heaven unless he is baptised".

RC people tend to have a habit of basing entire doctrine around a very loose interpretation of a verse (or even part of a verse). There is nothing in what you quoted that said baptism is essential for salvation.

A question then, is the thief on the cross in heaven?

@Mods. I dont want to derail this thread, happy to have my post moved if it is deemed off topic.

Confession is the only way for sins to be forgiven.
Forgiveness can only be obtained by baptised people from 2,000 years ago to the present. That is church teaching.

You're entirely free to choose whether or not baptism is a pre-requisite for receiving forgiveness for sins.

The thief on the cross sought forgiveness for what he did. He recognised his own guilt and he humbled himself in making that admission of guilt to Jesus.
I accept that Jesus reply to the thief indicates that the thief was absolved of his guilt.

After Jesus died and rose from the dead, Jesus commanded that people be baptised.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

For something that you don't believe in, you do an awful of posting about an entity which you don't believe in

There is an awful lot of clearly untrue material being put out there by people who believe in the old testament, which directly impacts people's lives. If people held these beliefs and kept them to themselves then there would be no need to challenge them. But when you, for example make throw away comments like those you have made, such as saying people know the consequences of not being baptised, you are affecting people's lives. There are many innocent, good people who believe and who are influenced by these type of intimidatory comments. Those people need to be protected from people who suggest that some harm will come to them, in this life or the next, if they don't conform to the churches way of doing things.
I have pointed out that the Genesis account is just wrong. The whole issue of original sin should be stamped out. That would involve the correcting of certain other facts, one of which is the teaching that Mary was a virgin, which suggests that natural procreation is somehow, tainted, which it is not!

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

There is an awful lot of clearly untrue material being put out there by people who believe in the old testament, which directly impacts people's lives. If people held these beliefs and kept them to themselves then there would be no need to challenge them. But when you, for example make throw away comments like those you have made, such as saying people know the consequences of not being baptised, you are affecting people's lives. There are many innocent, good people who believe and who are influenced by these type of intimidatory comments. Those people need to be protected from people who suggest that some harm will come to them, in this life or the next, if they don't conform to the churches way of doing things.

I'm not disputing that there are many good living people.

But to insinuate that people can access God's grace without having received the sacraments is not being charitable.
Further these insinuations could lead to the eternal imperilment of souls, if those souls abide by the insinuations made here.

Safehands wrote: »

I have pointed out that the Genesis account is just wrong. The whole issue of original sin should be stamped out. That would involve the correcting of certain other facts, one of which is the teaching that Mary was a virgin, which suggests that natural procreation is somehow, tainted, which it is not!

And your authority to decide what is and what isn't factual derives from where, exactly?

You've no authority. Much less sufficient understanding to know what is and what isn't factual.

keano_afc

Confession is the only way for sins to be forgiven.

Agreed. 1 John 1:9 tells us God forgives sins of we confess to him.

Forgiveness can only be obtained by baptised people from 2,000 years ago to the present. That is church teaching.

This is wrong. Can you point me to scripture that backs this up? Saying forgiveness is only open to those that are baptised is wrong.

You're entirely free to choose whether or not baptism is a pre-requisite for receiving forgiveness for sins.

Again, where is the scripture to support this?

The thief on the cross sought forgiveness for what he did. He recognised his own guilt and he humbled himself in making that admission of guilt to Jesus.
I accept that Jesus reply to the thief indicates that the thief was absolved of his guilt.

Well it more than indicates it, it's pretty definitive. "Today you will be with me in paradise". Seems pretty clear to me.

After Jesus died and rose from the dead, Jesus commanded that people be baptised.

Not expressly. He commanded the disciples to go into the world and make disciples of men. To see them brought to salvation through Christ.

Look, at the end of the day lets look to Jesus and see what He said on the subject. don't you think that if baptism was required for salvation, Christ would have at least mentioned it once in His ministry? The way to salvation is clear. Look at the Philipian jailer. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household." Then they were baptised. It's an outward display of an inward acceptance of Christ.

Again, I don't want to derail the thread. But I don't want some new convert who's just trusted the Lord for salvation thinking he won't get into heaven because he hasn't been baptised. It's simply not true.

hinault

keano_afc wrote: »

This is wrong. Can you point me to scripture that backs this up? Saying forgiveness is only open to those that are baptised is wrong.

Not expressly. He commanded the disciples to go into the world and make disciples of men. To see them brought to salvation through Christ.

St Mark 16 : 14-16.

Jesus said to them (apostles), “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

St.John 3:5

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

St Matthew 28:18

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Epistle of St.Peter 3:21

"It is the baptism corresponding to this water which saves you now — not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience given to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

keano_afc wrote: »

Look, at the end of the day lets look to Jesus and see what He said on the subject. don't you think that if baptism was required for salvation, Christ would have at least mentioned it once in His ministry? The way to salvation is clear.

John, Mark and Matthew.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

I'm not disputing that there are many good living people.
But to insinuate that people can access God's grace without having received the sacraments is not being charitable.
Further these insinuations could lead to the eternal imperilment of souls, if those souls abide by the insinuations made here.

Boy you are unrelenting. You simply have no idea the damage those warped views can cause! I don't think you really care either.

hinault wrote: »

your authority to decide what is and what isn't factual derives from where, exactly?
You've no authority. Much less sufficient understanding to know what is and what isn't factual.

I'm prepared to be proven wrong. So Hinault, is the Genesis account factual?

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

Boy you are unrelenting. You simply have no idea the damage those warped views can cause! I don't think you really care either.

False charity, which is what you peddle here, causes far more damage.

Safehands wrote: »

I'm prepared to be proven wrong. So Hinault, is the Genesis account factual?

I accept the lessons taught in Genesis.

RikuoAmero

Hinault, keano_afc, just popping into say this. Look at what the two of you have been doing. You've both got different views on your religion, both of you believe him/herself to be right and the other person wrong, and whenever you want to prove your point, you both quote the bible.

Can you guys, Hinault especially since I've actually chatted with him/her, understand why I don't believe christianity? Even if one day I was to say "Yeah, the bible is a trustworthy source", I'd still have the problem of a million different interpretations of it. I'm still waiting for keano to reveal s/he's actually been quoting from a non-catholic version of the bible (it's what I expect). Given that, why should I place any trust in the bible?

I accept the lessons taught in Genesis.

I like the dodge there. The "I know what you want me to say, but I won't say it. I'll just say I accept the lessons, but I won't admit to saying that I believe the story (the very story that's supposed to be the entire reason for my saviour) is false".

hinault

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I like the dodge there. The "I know what you want me to say, but I won't say it. I'll just say I accept the lessons, but I won't admit to saying that I believe the story (the very story that's supposed to be the entire reason for my saviour) is false".

There is no attempt on my part to dodge concerning Genesis.

It is my view that when reading the Bible, the reader takes away the message being taught by the accounts told in the Bible.

If the man and the woman named in the Genesis were not actually called Adam and Eve, but were actually called John and Ann instead, would that alter the lesson of what that man and woman did to defy God? I'd argue that it wouldn't take away one iota from the lesson of defying God.

The important part for me, and I can only speak for myself, is that the lessons taught by the texts in the Bible are what is important.

Folk will use any excuse to try to find one incorrect fact in Scripture, or to try to find one inconsistency in Scripture, to try to justify their non belief.

That is their choice.
I make a different choice to their choice.

RikuoAmero

hinault wrote: »

I'd argue that it wouldn't take away one iota from the lesson of defying God.

The lesson of course being that if you don't obey God in absolutely everything, he will f things up for you and not just for you but for all of your descendants.

Before you try to retort back and take me to task for my cheek, I'm being completely accurate. That's what happened after A & E ate the apple. God cursed them and their descendants for what is quite clearly a setup (given the narrative in Genesis)

hinault

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The lesson of course being that if you don't obey God in absolutely everything, he will f things up for you and not just for you but for all of your descendants.

Before you try to retort back and take me to task for my cheek, I'm being completely accurate. That's what happened after A & E ate the apple. God cursed them and their descendants for what is quite clearly a setup (given the narrative in Genesis)

A&E were told the rules from the outset. (Genesis Chapter 2).

A&E took the decision to break the rules and they went ahead and broke the rules. (Genesis Chapter 3)

By breaking the rules, A&E fooked things up, not God.
If they had instead followed the rules, we'd all be better off.

RikuoAmero

hinault wrote: »

A&E were told the rules from the outset. (Genesis Chapter 2).

A&E took the decision to break the rules and they went ahead and broke the rules. (Genesis Chapter 3)

By breaking the rules, A&E fooked things up, not God.
If they had instead followed the rules, we'd all be better off.

Nice. You fell into my trap.
First...
1) The thing they were told not to do, is eat the apple of the knowledge of good and evil. Going by that, it's logical to conclude that, prior to eating the fruit, they would have had no knowledge of good and evil. In that regards, they would be like toddlers who don't know why you tell them not to touch the fancy plates you keep on the shelf. They wouldn't have understood why they would have to follow God's command. They couldn't conceive of the consequences.
2) If God had really meant for them to not eat it, why would he leave the tree in the middle of the garden and leave A & E 'alone' (that's in quotes because last I heard from a christian, God is everywhere or something along those lines
3) Nice retort. You didn't acknowledge the point I raised about it being a setup, instead just ignoring it entirely. Is that because you don't have a rebuttal to it?
4) How is it just to punish all of humanity for the actions of two of its members? If you say something along the lines of "God can do what he wants" you're defending tyranny there, not justice.

As for "if they had followed the rules, we'd be better off"...watch this video please

Lastly, if you reply with something along the lines of "Genesis is not meant to be read literally", I refer you back to your own words, what I quoted from you at the top of this comment. You said A & E f'd things up, as if it's a historical fact, much like if you were to say "Washington founded the USA".

hinault

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Nice. You fell into my trap.
First...
1) The thing they were told not to do, is eat the apple of the knowledge of good and evil. Going by that, it's logical to conclude that, prior to eating the fruit, they would have had no knowledge of good and evil. In that regards, they would be like toddlers who don't know why you tell them not to touch the fancy plates you keep on the shelf. They wouldn't have understood why they would have to follow God's command. They couldn't conceive of the consequences.

Rubbish.

As I stated earlier, A&E were told the rules by God from the outset in chapter 2.

A&E were told the rule to not eat from the tree.
They were told that if they did break the rule, that they would die.

So A&E were informed of the rules and were informed of the penalty, if they broke the rules that they were informed about.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

2) If God had really meant for them to not eat it, why would he leave the tree in the middle of the garden and leave A & E 'alone' (that's in quotes because last I heard from a christian, God is everywhere or something along those lines

It's God's territory and He can locate whatever he wishes wherever he wishes.

Genesis says that Eve was tempted with the promise that what God had said about their dying if they ate, was not true. (chapter 3)
And Genesis says that Eve was tempted to eat because she was told that if she ate "you shall be as god's". (chapter 3)

Eve chose to defy God because she refused to obey the rules, she refused to accept God's word, and she wanted to be God because she was told if she ate "you shall be as god's". (chapter 3).

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Nice retort. You didn't acknowledge the point I raised about it being a setup, instead just ignoring it entirely. Is that because you don't have a rebuttal to it?

It clearly wasn't a setup, because they only had one rule to obey, which they failed to adhere to.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

How is it just to punish all of humanity for the actions of two of its members? If you say something along the lines of "God can do what he wants" you're defending tyranny there, not justice.

Jesus through his ministry has provided the remedy to original sin (baptism/confirmation/confession). That is justice.

You should actually read Genesis chapter 1-3.

RikuoAmero

Rubbish.

As I stated earlier, A&E were told the rules by God from the outset in chapter 2.

A&E were told the rule to not eat from the tree.
They were told that if they did break the rule, that they would die.

So A&E were informed of the rules and were informed of the penalty, if they broke the rules that they were informed about.

So you're just going to repeat yourself, and completely ignore the point I raised about how it's unjust to blame toddlers or those similar to them mentally for doing something you tell them not to do? How is it just to punish someone like that? A & E would not have understood in that scenario that it would be wrong to disobey God.

It's God's territory and He can locate whatever he wishes wherever he wishes.

...didn't I warn you not to use the "God can do what he wants" line?

Genesis says that Eve was tempted with the promise that what God had said about their dying if they ate, was not true.

Both God and the snake mentioned the word death/dying to A & E before the eating of the fruit. What happens after the eating? Oh yeah, death is introduced into the world, it's only then that living things actually start dying. So telling them about death before it occurs would have meant absolutely nothing to A & E. To go back to my toddler analogy, it's like saying to a 2 year old "If you're good, I'll take you to the Large Hadron Collider". The toddler has no idea what the LHC is, and as such, cannot place any meaning or value to either going there or losing the opportunity to see it.

Eve chose to defy God because she refused to obey the rules, she refused to accept God's word, and she wanted to be God because she was told if she ate "you shall be as god's".

This is you wanting to eat your cake and have it too. This is you wanting Eve to have the mental capacity necessary to want things like wanting to be god...but not wanting to have the understanding of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.
You can't have it both ways.

It clearly wasn't a setup, because they only had one rule to obey, which they failed to adhere to.

Let's review the narrative shall we? Garden of perfection is made. Nothing dies in it (answer me this please: why did A & E have digestive systems if nothing dies?). Magic tree is placed in the middle of the garden. It is completely unprotected. Apples are left in easy reach. A & E are told not to eat from it, and the explanation given to them is something they could not, at that time, have possibly understood. They are warned about death, which they could not possibly have understood. God then apparently walks away and leaves them alone.
We're told in the New Testament that Jesus is apparently the 'fix' for the fault of Adam, so that is Jesus's purpose. However, there are passages that say something along the lines of Jesus having already existed at the moment of creation: he's God apparently, so if the whole Eden debacle hadn't happened, this would have meant that Jesus's purpose would go unfulfilled.

There's a lot more to think and mull over about than just "They didn't obey this one command". What I'm sensing from you is desperation. You don't have rebuttals for what I'm saying here, so all you've got is to repeat yourself and repeat "They only had to obey God". I'm giving you logically thought out explanations to what happens if they actually had (that video I linked), and reasons for why it's a setup given that if it wasn't, then what's Jesus for?

Jesus through his ministry has provided the remedy to original sin (baptism/confirmation/confession). That is justice.

No, those are rituals. Not justice. Justice is about redressing wrongs. Not getting people to take part in religious ceremonies. Telling everyone else to take part in religious rituals (in other words, give up their valuable time like they've been sentenced community service by a court) to try and make up for what other people did is not justice. Even if what A & E did was wrong, punish them and them alone! It makes no sense whatsoever to punish everyone else, then thousands of years later provide a way out of it and call that justice.

As for me reading Genesis...why is it you assume I haven't? Do you know what I keep on my desk? Not one but TWO copies of the bible. Good News and King James. I read through the NIV when I was younger.


Here's the responses you could give back to me.
1) You can repeat the "They were warned not to disobey God" line and leave it at that, but this has problems. I have already debunked the reasoning behind this line, so merely repeating it does you no good.
2) You could say it was all for a greater purpose, at which point all of this was not for justice (since justice is about redressing wrongs) and this was indeed a setup, something that had to happen for God's plan (whatever it is).
3) You could attempt to portray me as someone who lacks understanding of the bible or of christianity, (you wouldn't be the first person to say this to me), but this is an empty statement, since apparently the only people who truly understand the bible/christianity in this line of logic are those people who agree with it and are members of the religion. If I swap the word christianity for any other group or religion, it means pretty much the same. If over twenty years immersed in and studying the religion somehow hasn't given me a good understanding...
4) You can move on to something else, not giving a response to anything I've just said, perhaps start by mentioning another book in the bible or another of Jesus's teachings, at which I'll point out that this is a silent admission on your part that you don't have a response.
5) You could say the Genesis story is wholly/partly a metaphor and not literal, at which point I'll ask you "What's your methodology to distinguish between fact and fiction here?" and also remind you that if Genesis is a metaphor, then what is mentioned in the bible about Jesus's purpose re: Adam becomes false. (usually when I ask this question of christians who go the metaphor route, they'll come up with scientific reasons for why Genesis is a metaphor, but then not apply the same criteria when it comes to the claims about Jesus e.g. his miracles. In short, they're not consistent.)
6) You can acknowledge that everything I said is logically air-tight and that I have put a great deal of thought into this.

I'm not going to brag here. I understand how little I truly know. However, from what I can see (having re-read this comment over a few times) I've boxxed you in. I've left you no room to maneuver using nothing more than pure logic. I didn't quote any other parts of the bible. All I did was take what you've said, dissect them and analyze them, and then hypothesize them. I honestly cannot imagine you actually coming up with an answer that will successfully rebut me.
If you do do it somehow, I will be the first to congratulate you. I honestly want to be proven wrong. It's how I learn. So go on. Do it.

hinault

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So you're just going to repeat yourself, and completely ignore the point I raised about how it's unjust to blame toddlers or those similar to them mentally for doing something you tell them not to do? How is it just to punish someone like that? A & E would not have understood in that scenario that it would be wrong to disobey God.

The points made bear repeating.

A&E understood that in paradise death cannot take place. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that when they were warned that death would follow if they ate, the consequences of their actions were understood too.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Both God and the snake mentioned the word death/dying to A & E before the eating of the fruit. What happens after the eating? Oh yeah, death is introduced into the world, it's only then that living things actually start dying. So telling them about death before it occurs would have meant absolutely nothing to A & E. To go back to my toddler analogy, it's like saying to a 2 year old "If you're good, I'll take you to the Large Hadron Collider". The toddler has no idea what the LHC is, and as such, cannot place any meaning or value to either going there or losing the opportunity to see it.

God mentioned death first to A&E, when he set down the ground rules and the consequences for breaking same.

In Genesis chapter 1 v27, God commanded A&E to go forth and multiply, so it is reasonable to assume that A&E were not the innocents that you claim that they were.
God also gave A&E dominion over the entire world, again that suggests that neither are as innocent as you give them credit for.
Chapter 1 Genesis, read it.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This is you wanting to eat your cake and have it too. This is you wanting Eve to have the mental capacity necessary to want things like wanting to be god...but not wanting to have the understanding of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.
You can't have it both ways.

Well why did the serpent mention that "you will be as god's" to Eve, if she could not understand what being a god meant?
It would be illogical to mention a concept to someone, if they could not understand the concept.

One other point. The first thing that the serpent contradicts Eve about is whether or not she will die if she ate. That's important. The second thing is the serpents contradicts Eve about is that eating will make A&E gods, and only then (when they are god's) will they know good and evil.

So the serpents thinking is transparent : no death, acquire god-like status, and only then knowledge of good and evil.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

There's a lot more to think and mull over about than just "They didn't obey this one command". What I'm sensing from you is desperation. You don't have rebuttals for what I'm saying here, so all you've got is to repeat yourself and repeat "They only had to obey God". I'm giving you logically thought out explanations to what happens if they actually had (that video I linked), and reasons for why it's a setup given that if it wasn't, then what's Jesus for?

It's clear to me that, despite your assertions, that you either did not read Genesis or if you did read Genesis, you do not comprehend what Genesis is teaching.

Instead you apportion a childlike innocence to A&E, despite the fact that A&E were not childlike before their Fall because God instructed them to "go forth and multiply" in Chapter 2.
If they're as innocent as you appear to contend, they wouldn't know how to multiply.

If you read chapter 3, you can discern that Eve is well aware of what the consequences are for eating. She is aware of what the serpent said about her not dying, she's well aware of the concept of being god-like.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

No, those are rituals. Not justice. Justice is about redressing wrongs. Not getting people to take part in religious ceremonies. Telling everyone else to take part in religious rituals (in other words, give up their valuable time like they've been sentenced community service by a court) to try and make up for what other people did is not justice. Even if what A & E did was wrong, punish them and them alone! It makes no sense whatsoever to punish everyone else, then thousands of years later provide a way out of it and call that justice.

They're not rituals. Those rites incur a metaphysical property which inform the spiritual life of the recipient. And the rites provide a remedy to the state of sin that exists. Jesus gave humanity these remedies. If an individual is aware that these remedies exist, but refuses to use these remedies so be it.
However that individual will be asked to account for their decision at some point after their physical death.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm not going to brag here. I understand how little I truly know. However, from what I can see (having re-read this comment over a few times) I've boxxed you in. I've left you no room to maneuver using nothing more than pure logic. I didn't quote any other parts of the bible. All I did was take what you've said, dissect them and analyze them, and then hypothesize them. I honestly cannot imagine you actually coming up with an answer that will successfully rebut me.
If you do do it somehow, I will be the first to congratulate you. I honestly want to be proven wrong. It's how I learn. So go on. Do it.

You don't mean to brag, but it doesn't stop you from doing so.

All I can do is refer you to the text in Genesis and urge you to try to read the text and to carefully examine the words used in Genesis, and the sequence of words used to describe God's command to A&E, the consequences of ignoring that command, examine what the serpent said to Eve, the sequence of assurances given to Eve by the serpent, Eve's basis for deciding to eat.

Careful reading of Genesis chapters 1-3 rebut the "logic" that you claim to bring to this exchange between us.

I won't be replying further because you are correct in one facet though, repeating the same points made earlier is a waste of my time.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

I accept the lessons taught in Genesis.

You said: "And your authority to decide what is and what isn't factual derives from where, exactly? You've no authority. Much less sufficient understanding to know what is and what isn't factual."

I ask you am I wrong, is Genesis factual and you prove me to be correct, it is not. Sure, we can all take lessons from metaphors. Stories about Santa can teach us lessons, but they are not factual. So all the nonsense about eating apples is like the story of Little Red Riding Hood. Don't over analyse it, it is just a story, not true!
The trouble is, all the badness that emanates from it happens because deluded believers make up facts, affecting people's lives, 'facts' based on a fairy story.

RikuoAmero

God mentioned death first to A&E, when he set down the ground rules and the consequences for breaking same.

Did he explain what death is? All I see in the text is him going "If you eat of it, on that day you will surely die". But if nothing actually dies yet, how does this warning carry any weight to A & E?

If you read chapter 3, you can discern that Eve is well aware of what the consequences are for eating. She is aware of what the serpent said about her not dying, she's well aware of the concept of being god-like.

Explain to me please just how it is that these two people can understand what death is, if they lived in a time before death, before anything died? How could they even conceive of it? What if the warning had been "If you eat of the apple, you won't get to use Apple iPhones"? They wouldn't have a clue what an iPhone is, it's something completely out of their experience.

Also, how is knowledge of how to procreate somehow antithetical to my points? If the apple eating hadn't happened, and they had continued to follow the "go forth and multiply" command, all that would have happened is that people would have been born and lived, but not died. You don't need to understand what death is as a concept in order to procreate. I don't understand where you're getting this idea of "knowledge of and understanding of how to procreate requires an understanding of death".

Safehands

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Did he explain what death is? All I see in the text is him going "If you eat of it, on that day you will surely die". But if nothing actually dies yet, how does this warning carry any weight to A & E?
Explain to me please just how it is that these two people can understand what death is, if they lived in a time before death, before anything died? How could they even conceive of it? What if the warning had been "If you eat of the apple, you won't get to use Apple iPhones"? They wouldn't have a clue what an iPhone is, it's something completely out of their experience.

Also, how is knowledge of how to procreate somehow antithetical to my points? If the apple eating hadn't happened, and they had continued to follow the "go forth and multiply" command, all that would have happened is that people would have been born and lived, but not died. You don't need to understand what death is as a concept in order to procreate. I don't understand where you're getting this idea of "knowledge of and understanding of how to procreate requires an understanding of death".

Rikuo, he can't explain anything from the account in the Bible. That is like asking someone to explain how exactly a fairy Godmother actually turned Cinderella'a raggy dress into a beautiful ball gown, or how, when she returned after midnight, her glass slipper was still there, when all her other clothes were rags again. I'm sure there are people who could try to speculate. In fact, somewhere in the world there is probably someone who wrote a thesis on the subject, with fantastic explanations.
It doesn't make it true though!

RikuoAmero

Safehands wrote: »

Rikuo, he can't explain anything from the account in the Bible. That is like asking someone to explain how exactly a fairy Godmother actually turned Cinderella'a raggy dress into a beautiful ball gown, or how, when she returned after midnight, her glass slipper was still there, when all her other clothes were rags again. I'm sure there are people who could try to speculate. In fact, somewhere in the world there is probably someone who wrote a thesis on the subject, with fantastic explanations.
It doesn't make it true though!

In the Cinderella story, I can do a very important thing in order to continue reading it and enjoy the story: I can suspend my disbelief, suspend my skepticism. I don't need a fully scientific explanation for how the godmother waves her wand and the clothes transform. I can just say "It's magic" and move on.

I can't do the same with something that is being claimed by someone to actually be true, on at least some levels. I'm being told original sin is actually a thing in the real world...therefore I cannot suspend my disbelief or skepticism. I need fully rational explanations for it.

I would love to read such a thesis.

Safehands

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I can't do the same with something that is being claimed by someone to actually be true, on at least some levels. I'm being told original sin is actually a thing in the real world...therefore I cannot suspend my disbelief or skepticism. I need fully rational explanations for it.

Actually the concept of sin is not such a bad thing. It's what constitutes sin that I have a problem with. If someone causes harm, physical, psychological or material then I would say that this could be sinful behaviour. To that end, telling a grieving mother or grandparent that there is a possibility that their beautiful, recently deceased, unbaptised child was in any way, sinful or had sin on their soul, is a very sinful thing to do. It is unforgivable in my eyes. Even suggesting that it is up to God whether they go to Hell or Limbo or Heaven means that there is a chance that they are suffering in hell. That is evil, sinful behaviour! I don't care what any of these so-called Christians say about it. It is as bad as any sin they can concoct.

RikuoAmero

Safehands wrote: »

Actually the concept of sin is not such a bad thing. It's what constitutes sin that I have a problem with. If someone causes harm, physical, psychological or material then I would say that this could be sinful behaviour. To that end, telling a grieving mother or grandparent that there is a possibility that their beautiful, recently deceased, unbaptised child was in any way, sinful or had sin on their soul, is a very sinful thing to do. It is unforgivable in my eyes. Even suggesting that it is up to God whether they go to Hell or Limbo or Heaven means that there is a chance that they are suffering in hell. That is evil, sinful behaviour! I don't care what any of these so-called Christians say about it. It is as bad as any sin they can concoct.

I mostly agree with you. I too find it completely unforgiveable to say to a grieving parent that their miscarried child or young baby who dies before baptism is now likely suffering somewhere, all because they didn't go through a ceremony that involves sprinkling water on the baby's head to try to remove something that the baby is born with.
At least with vaccinations, we have extant proof that doing them causes positive changes. With baptisms? We don't.

Delirium

If people wish to discuss atheism/existence of God/accuracy of the bible, please use the appropriate thread.

Thanks for your attention.

RikuoAmero

SW wrote: »

If people wish to discuss atheism/existence of God/accuracy of the bible, please use the appropriate thread.

Thanks for your attention.

...I was honestly wondering when we'd be reminded.

Gunney

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Did he explain what death is? All I see in the text is him going "If you eat of it, on that day you will surely die". But if nothing actually dies yet, how does this warning carry any weight to A & E?
.

How are you on theology? Are you as good as you are on the Bible?

You miss a lot of points on theology and what we know and learn from the Bible.

The first is that sin is death, death of the soul. Minor sins kill the soul slowly. Major sins kill the soul immediately, which is why Catholics call them Mortal Sins.
Now, the soul cannot actually be killed - it is immortal - but it can die spiritually by sinning and if it remains in this state it can never see God or Heaven. Consider it a metaphyisical death.
When Adam and Eve disobeyed God - a wrong act and an act they knew to be wrong - they committed the Original Sin.

Now Genesis 2:9 teaches that God made two special trees - the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life.
In Genesis 2:22 we see the consequences - God expelled them from Paradise to prevent them eating of the tree of life and so become immortal.
So by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they suffered spiritual death by sinning and guaranteed their eventual physical death that comes at the end of a mortal life.

BTW you argued earlier that Adam and Eve could not have know that breaking Gods orders was wrong because they did not know about evil yet. Tell, are all wrongs evil? Do you have to expose a child to evil so they can understand right from wrong?
If you can train a dog to undertand that it is wrong to micturate indoors does that imply that dogs can understand evil?

hinault

Gunney wrote: »

How are you on theology? Are you as good as you are on the Bible?

You miss a lot of points on theology and what we know and learn from the Bible.

The first is that sin is death, death of the soul. Minor sins kill the soul slowly. Major sins kill the soul immediately, which is why Catholics call them Mortal Sins.
Now, the soul cannot actually be killed - it is immortal - but it can die spiritually by sinning and if it remains in this state it can never see God or Heaven. Consider it a metaphyisical death.
When Adam and Eve disobeyed God - a wrong act and an act they knew to be wrong - they committed the Original Sin.

Now Genesis 2:9 teaches that God made two special trees - the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life.
In Genesis 2:22 we see the consequences - God expelled them from Paradise to prevent them eating of the tree of life and so become immortal.
So by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they suffered spiritual death by sinning and guaranteed their eventual physical death that comes at the end of a mortal life.

BTW you argued earlier that Adam and Eve could not have know that breaking Gods orders was wrong because they did not know about evil yet. Tell, are all wrongs evil? Do you have to expose a child to evil so they can understand right from wrong?
If you can train a dog to undertand that it is wrong to micturate indoors does that imply that dogs can understand evil?

Chapters 1-3 of Genesis make it clear that Eve and Adam, even before the serpent made his appearance, were not as innocent as some here wish to portray them as.

Instead of debating what Genesis actually says, some here want to try to second guess what Genesis doesn't say to try to justify their non belief.

RikuoAmero

hinault wrote: »

Chapters 1-3 of Genesis make it clear that Eve and Adam, even before the serpent made his appearance, were not as innocent as some here wish to portray them as.

Instead of debating what Genesis actually says, some here want to try to second guess what Genesis doesn't say to try to justify their non belief.

Odd. I could've sworn my arguments are based on what the text says...given that, ya know, it mentions the knowledge of good and evil being contained within a magic apple. Care to say when and where within Ch 1 - 3 it has Adam and/or Eve doing something that would be classified as not innocent/evil? The only thing it mentions them doing is Adam naming animals and then the two of them eating the fruit. That's all
Some people here I could name don't like that though, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want knowledge of evil to be both within the apple and somehow possessed by A & E prior to eating it. They'd have to be innocent, since they don't know not to be listening to that lying little pr*ck the snake. I mean, God tells them not to eat the apple, but he doesn't warn them about talking snakes?

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

St Mark 16 : 14-16.



St.John 3:5



St Matthew 28:18



Epistle of St.Peter 3:21






John, Mark and Matthew.

Rather than reply to each individual verse, for the sake of time, the attached link sums up the position of the Catholic. It says more than I could.

http://illbehonest.com/do-catholics-possess-life-eternal

homer911

keano_afc wrote: »

Rather than reply to each individual verse, for the sake of time, the attached link sums up the position of the Catholic. It says more than I could.

http://illbehonest.com/do-catholics-possess-life-eternal

Wow! Strong stuff!

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

Chapters 1-3 of Genesis make it clear that Eve and Adam, even before the serpent made his appearance, were not as innocent as some here wish to portray them as.
Instead of debating what Genesis actually says, some here want to try to second guess what Genesis doesn't say to try to justify their non belief.

I accept what the Mod has said about going off topic. However, I think Original Sin is very much on-topic. If original sin did not exist, then would it have been necessary to declare Mary a virgin? As earlier posters have said, she remained a virgin, she was immaculately conceived because she was going to bear a child who the church believed, was God. I don't accept this premise at all, because I don't think the Genesis is accurate, or even remotely true.

Gunney

Safehands wrote: »

I accept what the Mod has said about going off topic. However, I think Original Sin is very much on-topic. If original sin did not exist, then would it have been necessary to declare Mary a virgin? As earlier posters have said, she remained a virgin, she was immaculately conceived because she was going to bear a child who the church believed, was God. I don't accept this premise at all, because I don't think the Genesis is accurate, or even remotely true.

If there was no original sin there would have been no need for the Virgin Mary.

Gunney

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Odd. I could've sworn my arguments are based on what the text says...given that, ya know, it mentions the knowledge of good and evil being contained within a magic apple. Care to say when and where within Ch 1 - 3 it has Adam and/or Eve doing something that would be classified as not innocent/evil? The only thing it mentions them doing is Adam naming animals and then the two of them eating the fruit. That's all
Some people here I could name don't like that though, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want knowledge of evil to be both within the apple and somehow possessed by A & E prior to eating it. They'd have to be innocent, since they don't know not to be listening to that lying little pr*ck the snake. I mean, God tells them not to eat the apple, but he doesn't warn them about talking snakes?

The Bible mentions a serpent but doesn't say anything about apples. It could have been a tomato for all we know. What we do know is that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is death. Adam and Eve were warned about the tree. As to why He didn't warn them about the serpent, well perhaps part of the plan was to see how well man could hold up to temptation. Free will is a funny thing and if you provide too much information how does that effect free will?

Getting back on topic it is obvious that Eve didn't die a virgin. We also know that Eve came from Adam when he was a virgin, being made from his rib. For Mary to be the new Eve, as Christ is the new Adam, and Christ came from Mary so to complete the circle Mary had to be a virgin and remain a virgin until death.

Gunney

hinault wrote: »

Chapters 1-3 of Genesis make it clear that Eve and Adam, even before the serpent made his appearance, were not as innocent as some here wish to portray them as.

It could be argued that following God's instruction to "go forth and multiply" that Adam and Eve did consumate their marriage and hence were no longer "innocent". However there are some making the case that to know right from wrong requires knowledge of good and evil. To me that is nonesensical.

hinault wrote: »

Instead of debating what Genesis actually says, some here want to try to second guess what Genesis doesn't say to try to justify their non belief.

Is that eisegesis? If I read you right what you are saying is that atheists use the Bible, the word of God, to justify their non belief in God. That's interesting.

Getting back on topic - why the attack on the Vrgin Mary? It's decidedly sexist.

RikuoAmero

If there was no original sin there would have been no need for the Virgin Mary.

Rather, there would have been no need for Jesus. So in order for your religion's single most important claim to make sense, christianity NEEDS the Garden of Eden to be true on at least some level, otherwise Jesus becomes the fix for a problem that never happened.

doesn't say anything about apples. It could have been a tomato for all we know

Your point? Whenever Eden is being discussed, apple is simply the most frequently used type of fruit, if the term fruit itself isn't being used.

well perhaps part of the plan was to see how well man could hold up to temptation.

Notice what you're doing here. You're defending the story as an actual thing that happened by trying to find ANY justification at all for it. However, you didn't think at all about what you wrote because let me quickly point out that an all-knowing God would have no reason whatsoever to conduct experiments like you suggest.

Getting back on topic it is obvious that Eve didn't die a virgin. We also know that Eve came from Adam when he was a virgin, being made from his rib. For Mary to be the new Eve, as Christ is the new Adam, and Christ came from Mary so to complete the circle Mary had to be a virgin and remain a virgin until death.

I'm waiting for you to see the massive flaw in your logic here. You say to complete the circle...yet at the start of this paragraph you state that Eve didn't die a virgin, yet for some reason Mary had to be? How is that completing the circle?
Also has it never once bothered you just why christianity's creation myth gets the cycle of reproduction backwards when it comes to the origin of humans? Look at it...it mentions women being born from men, when we all know it's the opposite. Didn't this trigger any alarms in your head when you first read it?

It could be argued that following God's instruction to "go forth and multiply" that Adam and Eve did consumate their marriage and hence were no longer "innocent".

How does knowledge of how to procreate somehow translate to "We know we should NEVER disobey God"? The one is not connected to the other.

However there are some making the case that to know right from wrong requires knowledge of good and evil. To me that is nonesensical.

Look up the word synonym please.

Is that eisegesis? If I read you right what you are saying is that atheists use the Bible, the word of God, to justify their non belief in God. That's interesting.

Nope, what I and the other atheists are doing is looking at your claims as hypotheticals, imagining that they're real and seeing if they make sense. As for us using the bible, what else are we supposed to use? The bible is what you guys yourself use to justify your belief, since it (supposedly) contains the accounts of your god.

Getting back on topic - why the attack on the Vrgin Mary? It's decidedly sexist.

Is this question for myself and the other atheists? If so, explain how our responses are sexist in nature. Explain where we've somehow disparaged women. As far as I can see, I can see only comments that say that the story of the virgin Mary doesn't make sense.

Safehands

Gunney wrote: »

why the attack on the Vrgin Mary? It's decidedly sexist.

Nobody is attacking the Virgin Mary. I am just pointing out that the Genesis account is provably wrong in some very basic ways. Therefore there is no reason to believe that any of it is correct. For that reason the whole factual basis behind Original Sin (if Original Sin could ever be considered factual), is seriously flawed.

hinault

Gunney wrote: »

It could be argued that following God's instruction to "go forth and multiply" that Adam and Eve did consumate their marriage and hence were no longer "innocent". However there are some making the case that to know right from wrong requires knowledge of good and evil. To me that is nonesensical.

It appears that the argument being made here is that not only did Adam & Eve could not know that evil was, but that they also could not have known what evil was unless they experienced evil.

And that it was all God's fault too.

hinault

Gunney wrote: »

Is that eisegesis? If I read you right what you are saying is that atheists use the Bible, the word of God, to justify their non belief in God. That's interesting.

Exegesis is the critical interpretation of what is written in the Bible.

I don't know what the term is to describe what some here are attempting to do, namely trying to interpret what isn't written in the Bible to justify their non-belief.

sioux1977

My understanding of the issue is this: For Christians who believe, as I do, it's important to note that the mother of Jesus had BEEN a virgin when she conceived Him (via the Holy Spirit)...thus meaning that Jesus is definitely the Son of God, because Mary was never with a man before she had him, etc. I think that's where the importance of the whole 'virgin' bit ends...there was no need for Mary to remain a virgin after Jesus' birth, so long as she was one beforehand.

Just in case there's any confusion - the 'Immaculate Conception' does not refer to the conception of Jesus, it actually refers to the conception of Mary herself. Mary was conceived of human parents, but without original sin the way all other people are; i.e. her conception was 'immaculate', or sin-free as it were. Our Lady said "I am the Immaculate Conception" when she appeared to St. Bernadette at Lourdes in France, and this is where the moniker came from.

Personally, even though I'm Catholic, I believe it's likely Mary and Joseph did have other children together - why not, after all? I have often wondered the exact same thing as the original poster, Safehands, asks! There could be descendants of Mary and Joseph alive today, and obviously they don't even know it! Who's to say?

Safehands

sioux1977 wrote: »

Personally, even though I'm Catholic, I believe it's likely Mary and Joseph did have other children together - why not, after all? I have often wondered the exact same thing as the original poster, Safehands, asks! There could be descendants of Mary and Joseph alive today, and obviously they don't even know it! Who's to say?

That would be amazing to find out. I wonder will science ever get to the stage where they could determine that.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

I don't know what the term is to describe what some here are attempting to do, namely trying to interpret what isn't written in the Bible to justify their non-belief.

Hinault, it is amazing to me that in the 21st century there are still intelligent people around who believe that Adam and Eve were historical figures. They believe that because it is written in the old testament. They believe it despite the obvious flaws which make the story of that period untrue. I suppose that eliminating Adam and Eve from reality would change so much that we have been taught, including Mary's immaculate conception and her need to be a virgin. People who buy into the Catholic teachings could never really cross that hurdle. It's probably too big.

RikuoAmero

hinault wrote: »

Exegesis is the critical interpretation of what is written in the Bible.

I don't know what the term is to describe what some here are attempting to do, namely trying to interpret what isn't written in the Bible to justify their non-belief.

Just in case I am making a giant mistake somewhere, can you point out something that I've said that relies on something not written in the bible? Oh and for the record, which bible version do you mean? I've got Good News handy.

Gunney

hinault wrote: »

It appears that the argument being made here is that not only did Adam & Eve could not know that evil was, but that they also could not have known what evil was unless they experienced evil.

And that it was all God's fault too.

That argument is one frequently made by atheists. It is illogical as they are using a being they do not believe to exist to argue their case.

However, regardless of what they believe, they cannot answer the question as to how and why evil evolved as without Genesis there is no adequate explanaition for its existence or why evil only affects humans and not the animals.

Gunney

hinault wrote: »

Exegesis is the critical interpretation of what is written in the Bible.

I don't know what the term is to describe what some here are attempting to do, namely trying to interpret what isn't written in the Bible to justify their non-belief.

eisegesis - reading into the Bible what is not there. Exegesis is "drawing out". Because of when the Bible was written and that fact that it contains a finite number of words it does not have an obvious answer for all the questions that can be asked. Howewver the answer to almost any questions can be found by drawing from what the BiBle already says and infers.