Original Sin

[Stevicus]

Well, I guess there's only one Original Sin. Don't be fooled by cheap, imitation sins - or any of those who advertise "New and Improved Sins," as they can't beat the Original Sin.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Bible makes it perfectly clear. Therefore whgt the Christ believed regarding the matter is perfectly clear.

Bible is not written or dictated by Jesus, so it does not comprise of correct teachings of Jesus and what Jesus believed.
The founder of modern Christianity is not Jesus but it was founded by Paul mostly on the tenets of Pagan-Christ.

Regards

 

[sooda]

and your proof is..... ??

They use to say that about King David and so many other locals and events yet archaeology again and again proved them wrong.

So when does reality become real?

Archaeology has never provided any proof of David or Solomon.

Exodus: History and myth, then and now

 

[Kenny]

Archaeology has never provided any proof of David or Solomon.

Exodus: History and myth, then and now

I realize that evidence runs contrary to your position... but let's look at it:

Israel archaeology dig provides evidence of King David's reign
City Gate From the Time of King David Unearthed In Miracle Village
New Finds Suggest Biblical Kings David and Solomon Actually Existed | Archaeology | Sci-News.com
King David's name found in Biblical archaeology

Archaeology is painstakingly slow, but you still might want to update your position that King David is a myth.

 

[sooda]

I realize that evidence runs contrary to your position... but let's look at it:

Israel archaeology dig provides evidence of King David's reign
City Gate From the Time of King David Unearthed In Miracle Village
New Finds Suggest Biblical Kings David and Solomon Actually Existed | Archaeology | Sci-News.com
King David's name found in Biblical archaeology

Archaeology is painstakingly slow, but you still might want to update your position that King David is a myth.

Your links aren't very convincing.

 

[Kenny]

Your links aren't very convincing.

It is now obvious that no evidence will convince you.

do you believe in the evidence of the archaeological Peking man?

 

[metis]

Archaeology is painstakingly slow, but you still might want to update your position that King David is a myth.

Recent evidence does assert your words here.

BTW, are you aware that I tried to stop him from chasing other women? Just another one of my failures.

 

[sooda]

It is now obvious that no evidence will convince you.

do you believe in the evidence of the archaeological Peking man?

I have no interest in Peking man.

 

[shmogie]

Bible is not written or dictated by Jesus, so it does not comprise of correct teachings of Jesus and what Jesus believed.
The founder of modern Christianity is not Jesus but it was founded by Paul mostly on the tenets of Pagan-Christ.

Regards

Nonsense, Christ never wrote anything either. So, everything you know Him about was written by an Apostle.

So, do you trust the Apostles ? Weren´t they specifically chosen by Christ to have the authority to lead and direct the Faith through the Spirit ?

Do you trust the Apostles ? Through their authority, and through the Spirit, they accepted Paul as an Apostle. Did they make a mistake ? Would God allow them to make a mistake in so great a decision ?

They made no mistake. They would not have taken this step without deep prayer, and they would not have taken the step without knowing that Paul being an Apostle was Gods will. Who better to know than the men ordained by God to do his work.

Do you trust the Apostles ? They agreed with Pauls teachings, knowing they were from God.

You can decide to distrust them, and make your own religion where what you don´t like is ignored.

However, what you are ignoring is ordained by God through one of His Apostles.

You are rolling the dice, I hope you are prepared to pay the price

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wow, talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

Where did I make any statement about anyone being doomed to forgo salvation ?

You said: "A person who sins, and every person sins, can only find salvation through Christ, period."

Thus, it seems perfectly obvious to me, if that is true, that everyone who does not believe that statement (which must -- by definition -- include all those who never heard of Christ, as you can't believe what you've never heard about), cannot find salvation, and therefore must forgo it.

You really haven´t a clue, just spout nonsense you cling to like a rock sinking in the ocean.

As you like to say, repeatedly. The difference between us, by the way, is that when I disagree with what you say, I give my reasons -- as I just did above -- while you just tell me I haven't got a clue and spout nonsense. Which nonsense you don't even bother to specify, let alone justify why it's nonsense.

BTW what you find tragic means Jack to me, like your plethora of diatribes based in ignorance and anger.

Clearly.

I get it, you hate Christianity, it really rattles your sense of self. Fine, you are free to do so.

Sorry, but you don't get it at all. I do not hate Christianity, although it is completely true that I detest many things that, throughout history -- up until this present moment -- Christians have done, supported by beliefs that I think a reasonable person should be able to see cannot be substantiated. Like Calvin burning Michael Servetus (and his books) to ashes, only because of his views on the Trinity and infant baptism. Good a reason for inflicting a horrifying death on anyone, I'm sure some people think. I ain't one of them.

And yes, the persistent efforts by much of the Christian world to anathematize me for my sexual orientation...yes, I'll admit that since I am what I am and can be no other, I think that's just a bit on the unfair side. No doubt you disagree for abstruse theological reasons, but since I don't think there is a theos, theology means Jack to me.

At least try to understand a conversation before you chime in with your always powerfully unpowerful comments.

I might give you the same advice, except that I'm aware that understanding is always a personal, and imperfect, thing, only improved by repeated efforts at clarity.

As I'm trying to do now.

 

[shmogie]

You said: "A person who sins, and every person sins, can only find salvation through Christ, period."

Thus, it seems perfectly obvious to me, if that is true, that everyone who does not believe that statement (which must -- by definition -- include all those who never heard of Christ, as you can't believe what you've never heard about), cannot find salvation, and therefore must forgo it.

As you like to say, repeatedly. The difference between us, by the way, is that when I disagree with what you say, I give my reasons -- as I just did above -- while you just tell me I haven't got a clue and spout nonsense. Which nonsense you don't even bother to specify, let alone justify why it's nonsense.

Clearly.

Sorry, but you don't get it at all. I do not hate Christianity, although it is completely true that I detest many things that, throughout history -- up until this present moment -- Christians have done, supported by beliefs that I think a reasonable person should be able to see cannot be substantiated. Like Calvin burning Michael Servetus (and his books) to ashes, only because of his views on the Trinity and infant baptism. Good a reason for inflicting a horrifying death on anyone, I'm sure some people think. I ain't one of them.

And yes, the persistent efforts by much of the Christian world to anathematize me for my sexual orientation...yes, I'll admit that since I am what I am and can be no other, I think that's just a bit on the unfair side. No doubt you disagree for abstruse theological reasons, but since I don't think there is a theos, theology means Jack to me.

I might give you the same advice, except that I'm aware that understanding is always a personal, and imperfect, thing, only improved by repeated efforts at clarity.

As I'm trying to do now.

Any and all salvation is by Christ, from the beginning. God has not said specifically what will happen to those who have never heard of him.

However, He is all merciful, and he may very well save those who instinctively pursue good. I don know, you don know. All merciful covers a lot of mercy.

Why would any Christian judge you for your sexual proclivities, thats your problem, and we casnnot ever judge the souls of others.

AS I have repeated ad nauseum, the only judging of homosexuals that can Biblically be done is church membership.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does this make any sense?

So if someone wants a relationship with you, you can't stop him/her? If you want to love someone, you don't have to "open a valve and let her/him in?" That's called opening your heart.

Is it any bleeding wonder that your are confused?

Oh, so we're not talking about God, but just another person?

But I ask you, "if you want to love someone, don't you have to know that they are there, before you can let them in?" Or do you just fall in love with imaginary friends at will?

I know your brain cannot seem to process this, but if I write it slowly and in capital letters, maybe I can help shine a little light: I K-N-O-W N-O G-O-D. Therefore, loving it is an impossibility. Do you love the Invisible Pink Unicorn? If she wants a relationship with her, why can't you just open up and let her in? Or Zeus, or Isis, or Quetzalcoatl, or any of the other gods you've heard of, and know full well that were worshipped by millions? You say it's that easy, but you don't ever do it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well for one thing, Adam and Eve did not commit the original sin.
Lucifer alas Satan, committed the original sin, back before Adam and Eve were created,
All Adam and Eve did was fall into Satan's trap of committing sin against God.

But it was Lucifer alas Satan that committed the original sin against God back during the first earth age.

All Lucifer alas Satan is doing, is using us human beings as his means to take people's eyes off of him and focus on Adam and Eve,
That it was Adam and Eve who committed the original sin, but in reality it was Lucifer alas Satan who actually committed the original sin himself.


That's why God destroyed the first earth age of the dinosaurs because of
Lucifer alas Satan rebellion and leading a third of Angels in his rebellion against God.

This is all recorded throughout the Bible and in the book of Revelation 12.

It's "Lucifer alias Satan."

And this is even less likely than the usual Christian interpretations.

 

[Kenny]

Oh, so we're not talking about God, but just another person?

But I ask you, "if you want to love someone, don't you have to know that they are there, before you can let them in?" Or do you just fall in love with imaginary friends at will?

I know your brain cannot seem to process this, but if I write it slowly and in capital letters, maybe I can help shine a little light: I K-N-O-W N-O G-O-D. Therefore, loving it is an impossibility. Do you love the Invisible Pink Unicorn? If she wants a relationship with her, why can't you just open up and let her in? Or Zeus, or Isis, or Quetzalcoatl, or any of the other gods you've heard of, and know full well that were worshipped by millions? You say it's that easy, but you don't ever do it.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y! You can ignore and pretend that He isn't there.

Hope you find your peace.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Any and all salvation is by Christ, from the beginning. God has not said specifically what will happen to those who have never heard of him.

However, He is all merciful, and he may very well save those who instinctively pursue good. I don know, you don know. All merciful covers a lot of mercy.

I cannot for an instant understand how it is that you know (as you claim) that "He is all merciful," but then none of the rest? For myself, I don't think you know that He is "all merciful," nor even, actually, that He is.

Why would any Christian judge you for your sexual proclivities, thats your problem, and we casnnot ever judge the souls of others.

No, it's not my problem, it's theirs. Their own Bible tells them not to judge, and yet they do.

AS I have repeated ad nauseum, the only judging of homosexuals that can Biblically be done is church membership.

And church membership has surely done exactly that. I have followed the arguments in many such, including the Anglican (Episcopalian) communities around the world, the latest happening only recently https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...ada-votes-against-same-sex-marriage-1.5211051.

I'm guessing you don't think that hurts many people directly affected, but I assure you that it does. It most certainly does.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y! You can ignore and pretend that He isn't there.

Hope you find your peace.

You see what you are trying to do -- and extremely disingenuously, Ken?

First, that comment does not answer any of my questions, in any respect at all. That's disingenuous.

Second, you say that my not "knowing God" is because I am "ignoring" and "pretending." That's disingenuous. I've told you many, many, many times why I do not believe...you have simply decided to ignore all of that and fall back on "ignore and pretend."

And, Ken, I am at peace. I'm in the latter phase of my life, and I'm happy. I'm unafraid of the future. I'm immensely interested in the present, and I'm well informed about the past. I am engaged in an intellectual exercise because exercising my intelligence gives me great pleasure. And since you know that, too, from our many conversations, I assume that you are being disingenuous there, too. It's either that, or you are ignoring and pretending never to have heard anything I've said before.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's "Lucifer alias Satan."

And this is even less likely than the usual Christian interpretations.

Ho my a typo,
There is no interpretation of the bible.
The bible speaks for itself.

A lot of Christians don't realize this. But wants to give their own interpretation.

The bible speaks for itself, if people would let the bible do that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ho my a typo,
There is no interpretation of the bible.
The bible speaks for itself.

A lot of Christians don't realize this. But wants to give their own interpretation.

The bible speaks for itself, if people would let the bible do that.

And the bible also contradicts itself, over and over and over again. Sometimes, something is true, other times it isn't. Facts get jumbled. It can be read thousands of different ways -- and it has been, leading to dozens of denominations, and tens of thousands of sects. In other words, as a guide to "important and existential truth," it is perfectly useless.

 

[Desert Snake]

Speaking of which, almost everyone has heard of Jesus Christ, the argument is losing steam.

 

[sooda]

And the bible also contradicts itself, over and over and over again. Sometimes, something is true, other times it isn't. Facts get jumbled. It can be read thousands of different ways -- and it has been, leading to dozens of denominations, and tens of thousands of sects. In other words, as a guide to "important and existential truth," it is perfectly useless.

Its been amended and redacted so many times its hard to know what it started out to be.