[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
not considering they {the Jews} also pretty much control the US).[/quote]
Do you really think Jewish people control the USA? Where does this stuff come from? Halldis Neegaard Ã??stbye?[/quote]
It comes from bigotry. I have heard this nonsense before and it has no basis in fact.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
In my former agnostic/atheist days, I too would get all caught up with the concept of God’s wrath and punishment. As I got a little older and a little more open minded, it began to occur to me that God simply separates himself from sin. In that lonely vacuum, the sinner punishes himself.
But remember, I am that bread of Christian that does not believe that every story in the Bible is to be taken in an absolutely literal sense.
And this will probably frustrate my friend Tiribulus. [/quote]
Well, what you described has a name and it’s called ‘The problem of evil’. There is a notion by atheists or non-believers that if there was a God, then there would be no evil. Of course, that’s patently false. Evil is the bastard child of freewill. And no religion of any credence promises an easy life, or a life free from evil. What religion does put forth is that there is more to everything than can be observed by simple observation and there is hope despite it all. It’s tough thing to understand when you steel yourself against the possibility of belief. Actually, it unintelligible if you refuse to try to understand.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t see what condoms have to do with it.[/quote]
What?
[/quote]
You heard!
Typo, it should have read:"religion does not corner the market on know-it-all’s
Well, I live in the Bible belt of America, and I don’t see many religious billboards. They exist but they are not prevalent. And yeah, the atheist ones make the news. Particularly because they are always targeted. They are next to a church, or outside a conference of a religious nature, shit like that. If you put one in the middle of nowhere, I doubt it would get much coverage on the news.
[quote]2busy wrote:
So…
This thread is NOT about Bill Maher trying to get some of Edgy…[/quote]
Threads seldom stay on topic. I think I hold some responsibility for derailing it pretty early on. In the end, as long as a good conversation results, it’s cool with me.
[quote]espenl wrote:
…So back to the original topic, though I prefer humanity to outgrow religion…[/quote]
This is pretty naive and ignorant. There is nothing to outgrow. There is no great maturity to non-belief and you just demonstrated. It’s not enlightened, it’s not advanced, it’s not evolutionary, it holds no advantage.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
In my former agnostic/atheist days, I too would get all caught up with the concept of God’s wrath and punishment. As I got a little older and a little more open minded, it began to occur to me that God simply separates himself from sin. In that lonely vacuum, the sinner punishes himself.
But remember, I am that bread of Christian that does not believe that every story in the Bible is to be taken in an absolutely literal sense.
And this will probably frustrate my friend Tiribulus. [/quote]
Well, what you described has a name and it’s called ‘The problem of evil’. There is a notion by atheists or non-believers that if there was a God, then there would be no evil. Of course, that’s patently false. Evil is the bastard child of freewill. And no religion of any credence promises an easy life, or a life free from evil. What religion does put forth is that there is more to everything than can be observed by simple observation and there is hope despite it all. It’s tough thing to understand when you steel yourself against the possibility of belief. Actually, it unintelligible if you refuse to try to understand.
[/quote]
Indeed, and I don’t harp on the problem of evil for this very reason. Omnibenevolent God + Omnipotent God =/= No possibility of evil, because evil is logically necessary: either human beings will or will not be granted free will. The former allows evil to exist (even to flourish at times) indirectly, but (I would argue that) the latter is an evil in and of itself.
My purpose in this thread is much narrower in scope–it’s about one single kind of “sin.”
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
You insist on using this word, “sin.” Whatever your personal beliefs–atheist or not–this is a Christian view of the prohibitions and commandments; i.e. God commands and God provides punishment directly and individually. Your further thoughts then become trapped in the “sin/retribution” duet, inseparably. Lets leave this all behind, shall we?[/quote]
Fair point. I am very aware of the fact that I’m a Christian rather than a Jewish agnostic–it’s the inevitable product of having studied religion in a Christian country in a Christian setting and under the tutelage of a devout Catholic. Which is why I am enjoying this.
[quote]So, for example, Ex 20:12 “honor thy father…” is the culmination of the first 5 commandments, and the reward (no punishment mentioned here) is “…that your days will be long.”
In your restricted definition, then, dishonoring one’s father is a “thoughtcrime,” yes? But the “sin” of private thought is not punished (here), but adherence to God’s admonition is rewarded by long life to the entire nation . If one acts, and dishonors (or strikes) one’s father, then, yes, there is individual punishment after trial, witnesses, etc. etc. Punishment is a civil action, unless God otherwise specifies or infers specific punishments and rewards.[/quote]
Do X and you will live long could be understood to carry the implicit threat of not living long as a consequence of not doing X. In which case failure to perform X is just as much grounds for punishment as is the performance of X grounds for reward.
Perhaps that’s a stretch. It doesn’t exactly matter, because it’s not the dishonoring of parents that we’re concerned with at the moment: what exactly is understood to be the specific reward or punishment with regard to “chabad” (I hope that I am spelling this correctly, it’s from memory)? You’ve alluded to courts and witnesses on a number of occasions now, which I take as an implication that this is one of those things that God puts in our hands–but this is self-evidently absurd, given that what’s in question here is a mental state.
So, if the commandment against covetousness is violated, it falls to God to either do something or not do something. If the former, what does he do?
So, gather every single “thoughtcrime” prohibited by God. And then fill my head with them (let’s pretend I’m a Jew)–suppose I spend most of my waking hours coveting my neighbor’s trophy wife and Ferrari, and dishonoring my parents (in thought), and contemplating whatever else has been deemed a dis-favorable mental state. I never do anything wrong, but my mind is a cesspit of iniquitous pursuits. I would not be punished?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
…So back to the original topic, though I prefer humanity to outgrow religion…[/quote]
This is pretty naive and ignorant. There is nothing to outgrow. There is no great maturity to non-belief and you just demonstrated. It’s not enlightened, it’s not advanced, it’s not evolutionary, it holds no advantage.
[/quote]
It isn’t going to happen, ever. Not only does the notion fly in the face of how many thousands of years of human civilaization, but it assumes human nature will change.
Humans will always worship at the alter of something, and I would assume the worship of power isn’t ever going to fade…
Outgrowing religion would require outgrowing ourselves…
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
In my former agnostic/atheist days, I too would get all caught up with the concept of God’s wrath and punishment. As I got a little older and a little more open minded, it began to occur to me that God simply separates himself from sin. In that lonely vacuum, the sinner punishes himself.
But remember, I am that bread of Christian that does not believe that every story in the Bible is to be taken in an absolutely literal sense.
And this will probably frustrate my friend Tiribulus. [/quote]
Well, what you described has a name and it’s called ‘The problem of evil’. There is a notion by atheists or non-believers that if there was a God, then there would be no evil. Of course, that’s patently false. Evil is the bastard child of freewill. And no religion of any credence promises an easy life, or a life free from evil. What religion does put forth is that there is more to everything than can be observed by simple observation and there is hope despite it all. It’s tough thing to understand when you steel yourself against the possibility of belief. Actually, it unintelligible if you refuse to try to understand.
[/quote]
Indeed, and I don’t harp on the problem of evil for this very reason. Omnibenevolent God + Omnipotent God =/= No possibility of evil, because evil is logically necessary: either human beings will or will not be granted free will. The former allows evil to exist (even to flourish at times) indirectly, but (I would argue that) the latter is an evil in and of itself.
My purpose in this thread is much narrower in scope–it’s about one single kind of “sin.”[/quote]
And I appreciate that you are able to converse about that in a sensible and reasonable manner. It separates truth seeker from hater. And the discussions are often good. I like the challenges because it requires me to think about my beliefs, that in itself is a good thing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
Did anybody answer my question the other day as exactly how we got all the different races
and colors from just Adam and Eve?
That’s a tough one.[/quote]
Babel, as in the tower. It’s an easy one.[/quote]
Hey, that’s what I named my pecker.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
You insist on using this word, “sin.” Whatever your personal beliefs–atheist or not–this is a Christian view of the prohibitions and commandments; i.e. God commands and God provides punishment directly and individually. Your further thoughts then become trapped in the “sin/retribution” duet, inseparably. Lets leave this all behind, shall we?[/quote]
Fair point. I am very aware of the fact that I’m a Christian rather than a Jewish agnostic–it’s the inevitable product of having studied religion in a Christian country in a Christian setting and under the tutelage of a devout Catholic. Which is why I am enjoying this.
[quote]So, for example, Ex 20:12 “honor thy father…” is the culmination of the first 5 commandments, and the reward (no punishment mentioned here) is “…that your days will be long.”
In your restricted definition, then, dishonoring one’s father is a “thoughtcrime,” yes? But the “sin” of private thought is not punished (here), but adherence to God’s admonition is rewarded by long life to the entire nation . If one acts, and dishonors (or strikes) one’s father, then, yes, there is individual punishment after trial, witnesses, etc. etc. Punishment is a civil action, unless God otherwise specifies or infers specific punishments and rewards.[/quote]
Do X and you will live long could be understood to carry the implicit threat of not living long as a consequence of not doing X. In which case failure to perform X is just as much grounds for punishment as is the performance of X grounds for reward.
[/quote]
That comes in Deuteronomy’s last speech. It is worth the effort to read it. (Especially regarding the question of individual responsibility versus national punishment that is at the core of your question.
[quote]
Perhaps that’s a stretch. It doesn’t exactly matter, because it’s not the dishonoring of parents that we’re concerned with at the moment: what exactly is understood to be the specific reward or punishment with regard to “chabad” (I hope that I am spelling this correctly, it’s from memory)? You’ve alluded to courts and witnesses on a number of occasions now, which I take as an implication that this is one of those things that God puts in our hands–but this is self-evidently absurd, given that what’s in question here is a mental state.
So, if the commandment against covetousness is violated, it falls to God to either do something or not do something. If the former, what does he do?
So, gather every single “thoughtcrime” prohibited by God. And then fill my head with them (let’s pretend I’m a Jew)–suppose I spend most of my waking hours coveting my neighbor’s trophy wife and Ferrari, and dishonoring my parents (in thought), and contemplating whatever else has been deemed a dis-favorable mental state. I never do anything wrong, but my mind is a cesspit of iniquitous pursuits. I would not be punished?[/quote]
Hell if I know.
I am not a theologian. I am reading a text with you. Is a head filled with misguided thoughts–a wasted mind-- its own punishment? Does the character God punish evil thoughts or the ensuing evil acts? You have been taught the former, and I infer it is the latter. Some bad stuff happens to individuals as individuals, but, often, the retribution for disobedience is visited upon the entire nation. (Again, an appeal to read the last speech in Deutornomy. You have the time to read it.)
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
You insist on using this word, “sin.” Whatever your personal beliefs–atheist or not–this is a Christian view of the prohibitions and commandments; i.e. God commands and God provides punishment directly and individually. Your further thoughts then become trapped in the “sin/retribution” duet, inseparably. Lets leave this all behind, shall we?[/quote]
Fair point. I am very aware of the fact that I’m a Christian rather than a Jewish agnostic–it’s the inevitable product of having studied religion in a Christian country in a Christian setting and under the tutelage of a devout Catholic. Which is why I am enjoying this.
[quote]So, for example, Ex 20:12 “honor thy father…” is the culmination of the first 5 commandments, and the reward (no punishment mentioned here) is “…that your days will be long.”
In your restricted definition, then, dishonoring one’s father is a “thoughtcrime,” yes? But the “sin” of private thought is not punished (here), but adherence to God’s admonition is rewarded by long life to the entire nation . If one acts, and dishonors (or strikes) one’s father, then, yes, there is individual punishment after trial, witnesses, etc. etc. Punishment is a civil action, unless God otherwise specifies or infers specific punishments and rewards.[/quote]
Do X and you will live long could be understood to carry the implicit threat of not living long as a consequence of not doing X. In which case failure to perform X is just as much grounds for punishment as is the performance of X grounds for reward.
Perhaps that’s a stretch. It doesn’t exactly matter, because it’s not the dishonoring of parents that we’re concerned with at the moment: what exactly is understood to be the specific reward or punishment with regard to “chabad” (I hope that I am spelling this correctly, it’s from memory)? You’ve alluded to courts and witnesses on a number of occasions now, which I take as an implication that this is one of those things that God puts in our hands–but this is self-evidently absurd, given that what’s in question here is a mental state.
So, if the commandment against covetousness is violated, it falls to God to either do something or not do something. If the former, what does he do?
So, gather every single “thoughtcrime” prohibited by God. And then fill my head with them (let’s pretend I’m a Jew)–suppose I spend most of my waking hours coveting my neighbor’s trophy wife and Ferrari, and dishonoring my parents (in thought), and contemplating whatever else has been deemed a dis-favorable mental state. I never do anything wrong, but my mind is a cesspit of iniquitous pursuits. I would not be punished?[/quote]
My take on this notion of sin an punishment is not insert sin, get said punishment. There is an elegance to the whole process. You certainly reap what you sow, I think even an observant atheist or agnostic would have to acknowledge that persistent evil, or ‘bad behavior’ eventually leads to a day of reckoning. I have never seen a case for instance where a person benefits from say, adultery. In the end there is hell to pay.
However, there is the matter of who you are and where your heart is. Everybody sins, but it’s the desire to do better and get better. It’s the acknowledgement of your sins and the redemption of admission and the desire to get better that gives the believer hope. You will still trot across the brambles you lay down for yourself. But for the believer it’s different.
It’s about that relationship you have with your Creator. It’s not about avoiding sin to avoid punishment. It’s about loving God and maintaining a relationship with Him. Just like you don’t want to hurt your wife, mother, children, etc. we don’t want to offend God. Not because we’re going to get burned, but because we love Him. And like any relationship, it’s a two way street.
We religious folk can see God in our lives in very real ways. He responds to us, and interacts with us in ways that are difficult to express, but it’s very real. And if we had the tact and elegance to express what a reciprocal relationship with God is like, people would believe more.
It’s an odd analogy but I believe trying to express one’s personal relationship with God and how it works is like trying to explain an acid trip to somebody who’s never done it. You can tell them your experience, but they won’t, they cannot get it unless they have done it themselves. Likewise, you cannot get a relationship with God, until you have one. Then you get it. And I wouldn’t trade it for anything.
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s an odd analogy but I believe trying to express one’s personal relationship with God and how it works is like trying to explain an acid trip to somebody who’s never done it. [/quote]
I will respond to the rest later, but for now–I love this analogy.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s an odd analogy but I believe trying to express one’s personal relationship with God and how it works is like trying to explain an acid trip to somebody who’s never done it. [/quote]
I will respond to the rest later, but for now–I love this analogy.[/quote]
The analogy is spot on, but it will only convey meaning to someone who has actually dropped acid. 
Babel has to do with why we speak different languages and don’t get along.
We have different races because people existed before adam…like adams first wife… and so on.
There is no sin in gods eyes. Sin is man made, so are most of the laws in the bible. Jesus said there are 614 laws its way too many. God wasn’t passing down all these laws. Everything is neutral. What you believe is righteous and not a sin is to someone else, therefore it cancels itself out and becomes neutral.
Though we cant say for sure what god is or is not, how it thinks or even exists so its all speculating and beliefs/faiths so ultimately we are going to have a debate/argument/conversation that goes no where unless we can agree on hypothetical understanding of terms. That’s what I love about religious talks like these; mostly youre not going to change your opinions/beliefs and they aren’t going to change theirs so we are talking in circles…yay!
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s an odd analogy but I believe trying to express one’s personal relationship with God and how it works is like trying to explain an acid trip to somebody who’s never done it. [/quote]
I will respond to the rest later, but for now–I love this analogy.[/quote]
The analogy is spot on, but it will only convey meaning to someone who has actually dropped acid. :)[/quote]
Yes indeed, I was in college once.
Haha oh push, care to explain how that’s not true?