Sin=natural

[Beta]

So, you have to do what god says, or else? How is that a choice?

If you had read my answer correctly you would not have come up with the above reply bearing no resemblance to my words.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I know what you were saying: that we can either choose to follow god, and be saved, or choose not to follow god, and be damned. So, it's not god who condemns us to hell, but ourselves. At least, that's the line of reasoning as I understand it from Christians. But, a person would not consciously choose to go to hell, nor would a person consciously choose not to go to heaven. The problem comes in that there is absolutely no objective evidence that any of that is real. So, to me, by rejecting god, I'm not condemning myself to hell, but accepting the rational view that god nor hell actually exists.

 

[waitasec]

No contradiction - we choose to do as God says because we agree with him

and how do you come to an agreement with him? if i were to compare it to a parent/child relationship...i wouldn't say the child agrees because they are not capable of foresight. they are told what to do, there is no choice, is there?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's like if someone gave you a loaded gun, and told you to shoot yourself, or they were going to shoot you. You don't have the choice to not get shot, but only who's going to shoot you. It's kind of the same thing. It's not a real choice.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To me, an all loving and all forgiving god would not have to threaten someone with eternal punishment, but, as we are supposed to be his children, his creation, would love us and forgive us regardless. Faith and obedience would just be brownie points, so to speak.

I view this "God" as man made because I find it hard to come to grips that this All Knowing, All Seeing god who is everywhere at all times would create man and give his creation rules demanding his creation to not do something or he will punish man. It would occur to me that a god of this magnitude (if you will) would not do this. It would be futile. What would be "God's" purpose? Would the purpose even matter considering the end result is already known by him/she/it?

I revert back to my signature for the answers......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I know what you were saying: that we can either choose to follow god, and be saved, or choose not to follow god, and be damned. So, it's not god who condemns us to hell, but ourselves. At least, that's the line of reasoning as I understand it from Christians. But, a person would not consciously choose to go to hell, nor would a person consciously choose not to go to heaven. The problem comes in that there is absolutely no objective evidence that any of that is real. So, to me, by rejecting god, I'm not condemning myself to hell, but accepting the rational view that god nor hell actually exists.

:clap

 

[waitasec]

The problem comes in that there is absolutely no objective evidence that any of that is real. So, to me, by rejecting god, I'm not condemning myself to hell, but accepting the rational view that god nor hell actually exists.

absolutely right on target!!!

 

[Blackheart]

can i ask you this?
is it at all possible that you can understand the reason i would have this opinion? in other words, is the opinion i hold a reasonable one from your point of view?
and would it be fair to say that the reason you believe otherwise is because of your faith?

Im simply trying to understand why you believe that this specific story can not be literal or is it just that you dont believe that anything in the bible is to be taken literally?

 

[Blackheart]

for the reason i highlighted. how could they know if they hadn't eaten the fruit yet? and it seems as though free will is what god doesn't want for us, otherwise why make it a set up for failure?

from what i understand, the jewish tradition thinks this to be understood as humanity being lifted up for gaining knowledge. and it also explains why we die.
in a way, metaphorically speaking , it make sense. because once we have knowledge our innocence is dies.

Firstly the Jewish tradition believing that this story should not be taken literally doesnt tell me why you think the story shouldnt be taken literally, unless you are saying that you simply believe what you are told by others with the same scriptures to hand as yourself. Secondly knowledge does not remove our innocence. Free will means that we have the choice as to how we use our knowledge. Just becuase there are cookies in the jar doesnt mean that I must steal them.

As for Adam and Eve not knowing what death was, well the bible does not describe them as being simpletons who knew absolutely nothing until they ate from the tree. They lived off the earth which would of required some knowledge. Adam knew that he felt companionship with Eve so he had knowledge of his feelings. The tree of knowledge refers to more than basic knowledge (of which I would include the ability to know what your creator was saying to you).

 

[waitasec]

Im simply trying to understand why you believe that this specific story can not be literal or is it just that you dont believe that anything in the bible is to be taken literally?

i'm not sure. there are a lot of stories that are not very realistic. however, i can see why people would interpret the bible as a metaphor for various lessons of life, sure. but it's the talking snakes, the tower of babel, the parting of the sea, the virgin birth and resurrection that most unbelievers have trouble understanding why would anyone actually believe those impossible things happened.

sure maybe there was a tower, but the backdrop of this story is highly unlikely.
it's just a story that explains why there are different languages for those that were curious about how that came about....i'm sure if you studied the history of language there would be plenty of theories that would oppose this legend.
and even the exodus story, there are no egyptian archaeological accounts of that happening.

Archaeology
While some archaeologists leave open the possibility of a Semitic tribe coming from Egyptian servitude among the early hilltop settlers and that Moses or a Moses-like figure may have existed in Transjordan ca 1250-1200, they dismiss the possibility that the Exodus could have happened as described in the Bible.[21] A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[18] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i'm sure you can see why the skepticism.

 

[waitasec]

Firstly the Jewish tradition believing that this story should not be taken literally doesnt tell me why you think the story shouldnt be taken literally, unless you are saying that you simply believe what you are told by others with the same scriptures to hand as yourself.

actually i didn't even know anything about the oral tradition. i didn't know the bible you have doesn't have the tanakh.

All Old Testament canons are related to the Jewish Bible Canon (Tanakh), but with variations. The most important of these variations is a change to the order of the books: the Hebrew Bible ends with the Book of Chronicles, which describes Israel restored to the Promised Land and the Temple restored in Jerusalem; in the Hebrew Bible God's purpose is thus fulfilled and the divine history is at an end, according to Dispensationalism and Supersessionism (see Jewish Eschatology for Jewish beliefs on the subject). In the Christian Old Testament the Book of Malachi is placed last, so that a prophecy of the coming of the Messiah leads into the birth of the Christ in the Gospel of Matthew.
The Tanakh is written in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, and is therefore also known as the Hebrew Bible (the text of the Jewish Bible is called the Masoretic, after the medieval Jewish rabbis who compiled it). The Masoretic Text (i.e. the Hebrew text revered by medieval and modern Jews) is only one of several versions of the original scriptures of ancient Judaism, and no manuscripts of that hypothetical original text exist. In the last few centuries before Christ, Hellenistic-Jewish scholars produced a translation of their scriptures in Greek, the common language of the Eastern portion of the Roman Empire since the conquests of Alexander the Great. This translation, known as the Septuagint, forms the basis of the Orthodox and some other Eastern Old Testaments. The Old Testaments of the Western branches of Christianity were originally based on a Latin translation of the Septuagint known as the Vetus Latina, this was replaced by Jerome's Vulgate, which continues to be highly respected in the Catholic Church, but Protestant churches generally follow translations of a scholarly reference known as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued the Divino Afflante Spiritu which allows Catholic translations from texts other than the Vulgate, notably in English the New American Bible.

Old Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly knowledge does not remove our innocence.
Free will means that we have the choice as to how we use our knowledge. Just becuase there are cookies in the jar doesnt mean that I must steal them.

innocence and free will are not one in the same. that's not what i mean.
for instance, just tonight, a chicken was found roaming the freeway causing a traffic jam, now was that chicken in violation or was that chicken free from the law? i am not calling adam and eve chickens but i think you can see how one can not be bound by a law if they are not privy to it.
if you take the story of adam and eve metaphorically, the end of innocence is the beginning of knowledge. innocence is ignorance. and the way this story plays out it was the knowledge of good and evil. therefore, if taken literally, one would also literally take into account they didn't have knowledge of good and evil and not assume they did, right?

As for Adam and Eve not knowing what death was, well the bible does not describe them as being simpletons who knew absolutely nothing until they ate from the tree.

so they chose to die on purpose before ever observing it 1st hand? so what would seem to be the most probable? keep in mind what the narrative is implying...they did not have knowledge or understand the consequence of dying because they hadn't experienced death.

They lived off the earth which would of required some knowledge. Adam knew that he felt companionship with Eve so he had knowledge of his feelings. The tree of knowledge refers to more than basic knowledge (of which I would include the ability to know what your creator was saying to you).

for these very things that you are saying is why i find this story unlikely in the literal sense.

man was created on the 6th day, and here we need to stop and think what that means to you...was a day a million years or a literal day? if we are going to take this part of the story literally then we should take the entire story literally, right?
for all we know they were vegetarians..."You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;" there was not one word mentioned about eating animals but he was to name them..."He brought them(animals) to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

so can you see why this account is approached with skepticism?

 

[Beta]

and how do you come to an agreement with him? if i were to compare it to a parent/child relationship...i wouldn't say the child agrees because they are not capable of foresight. they are told what to do, there is no choice, is there?

We are in agreement with God when we are spiritually mature and no longer ignorant children Eph.4v14.

 

[waitasec]

We are in agreement with God when we are spiritually mature and no longer ignorant children Eph.4v14.

being spiritually mature means you're capable of knowing the mind of god because you're on his level...?
gee it's no wonder why non-believers think believers have an undue sense of self-importance...
:biglaugh:

 

[Blackheart]

being spiritually mature means you're capable of knowing the mind of god because you're on his level...?
gee it's no wonder why non-believers think believers have an undue sense of self-importance...
:biglaugh:

Are you incapable of reading what he actually wrote?

 

[waitasec]

Are you incapable of reading what he actually wrote?

yes i am very capable. that is why i find this hysterical.

 

[Danmac]

I'm not a follower of your bible or your god so "sin" does not exist.

The "golden rule" as you call it is not a new concept and was written long before appearing in the bible so whether I follow it or not it has nothing to do with your god.

Is it, "the golden rule"an objective moral law to be followed by all?

 

[waitasec]

Is it, "the golden rule"an objective moral law to be followed by all?

how i see it is; empathy...
we are hard wired with empathy, without it our species wouldn't survive.
mix empathy with logic and reason and you get the golden rule.
empathy created the golden rule not the god of the bible.

confucius: "Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us.

even animals have empathy to a lesser degree, nonetheless they are most certainly capable of it.

 

[PolyHedral]

Is it, "the golden rule"an objective moral law to be followed by all?

Yes. .

 

[Danmac]

Yes. .

So you believe in objective moral absolutes?

 

[Danmac]

how i see it is; empathy...
we are hard wired with empathy, without it our species wouldn't survive.
mix empathy with logic and reason and you get the golden rule.
empathy created the golden rule not the god of the bible.

Evolution is a selfish process. It is survival of the fittest. The golden rule says, "lend to the weak so that it may survive. How do you account for this?