Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question

lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is directed at Christians mostly I guess.

If the original sin was eating a fruit, which taught Adam and Eve right from wrong, why do you <christians in general> find it so compulsory to educate people on right and wrong and your religion?

I mean think about it, the original sin must be the worst since EVERYONE is being punished from it, even tho only two people committed it.

The original sin was gaining knowlage.

So then is your messege
1) spreading sin
2) trying to keep people from gaining knowlage, so they will stop sinning
3) keep them from eatng fresh fruit. <okay so 3 isn't so much what I'm getting at>

And also if Christians believe that "blessed are he who never hears of the father but lives like it anyway" <whatever the real wording is> then why spread the messege at all?
The vast majority of atheists live a pretty christian-esque life style. Maybe not go to church or believe in God, but they tend to be good giving people, hard working, and generally feel bad when they hurt others or do something wrong.
Why then preach to them, and basically condemn them?

I'm sure I will have more questions, those just came to mind first.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:06:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
This is directed at Christians mostly I guess.

If the original sin was eating a fruit, which taught Adam and Eve right from wrong, why do you <christians in general> find it so compulsory to educate people on right and wrong and your religion?

I mean think about it, the original sin must be the worst since EVERYONE is being punished from it, even tho only two people committed it.

The original sin was gaining knowlage.

So then is your messege
1) spreading sin
2) trying to keep people from gaining knowlage, so they will stop sinning
3) keep them from eatng fresh fruit. <okay so 3 isn't so much what I'm getting at>

And also if Christians believe that "blessed are he who never hears of the father but lives like it anyway" <whatever the real wording is> then why spread the messege at all?
The vast majority of atheists live a pretty christian-esque life style. Maybe not go to church or believe in God, but they tend to be good giving people, hard working, and generally feel bad when they hurt others or do something wrong.
Why then preach to them, and basically condemn them?

I'm sure I will have more questions, those just came to mind first.

I don't do this. I'm Christian. and I said in another post that I believe most atheist to be good people. In fact i believe the number of good atheist is relative to the number of good theist
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:20:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 1:06:39 AM, MarquisX wrote:

I don't do this. I'm Christian. and I said in another post that I believe most atheist to be good people. In fact i believe the number of good atheist is relative to the number of good theist

I never said all Christians do. I just want to know the motivation some have about spreading the messege.

I also kinda want to know what the deal is with the first sin. How is knowing right from wrong bad? <other than "God said..." I know why its a sin, but I want to know why God thought it was bad>
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:30:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am the Lord thou God who has taken you out of Isreal, you shall have no other gods before me

Non Christian, 'moral' people still go to hell, unless you follow the dante's Divine Comedy concept of hell, where they go to nice hell, the first circle.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:31:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 1:30:09 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I am the Lord thou God who has taken you out of Isreal, you shall have no other gods before me

Non Christian, 'moral' people still go to hell, unless you follow the dante's Divine Comedy concept of hell, where they go to nice hell, the first circle.

Your quote, real or not, refers to ignostics, the ignorant, not people who know of Christianity.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:46:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 1:31:56 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/15/2010 1:30:09 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I am the Lord thou God who has taken you out of Isreal, you shall have no other gods before me

Non Christian, 'moral' people still go to hell, unless you follow the dante's Divine Comedy concept of hell, where they go to nice hell, the first circle.

Your quote, real or not, refers to ignostics, the ignorant, not people who know of Christianity.

Which is why I assert that to be a true Christian and want the best for people they should all become anti-theists, stop trying to teach about God in places where its not allowed and people don't know about it, stop teaching it to children, stop spreading the belief etc.
Its the only way to get everyone into heaven, and God wants everyone to go to heaven, and to be a true Christian, you must also try and helpothers go to heaven.
So to be a true Christian you must not teach Christianity.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:53:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 1:46:26 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 1:31:56 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/15/2010 1:30:09 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I am the Lord thou God who has taken you out of Isreal, you shall have no other gods before me

Non Christian, 'moral' people still go to hell, unless you follow the dante's Divine Comedy concept of hell, where they go to nice hell, the first circle.

Your quote, real or not, refers to ignostics, the ignorant, not people who know of Christianity.

Which is why I assert that to be a true Christian and want the best for people they should all become anti-theists, stop trying to teach about God in places where its not allowed and people don't know about it, stop teaching it to children, stop spreading the belief etc.
Its the only way to get everyone into heaven, and God wants everyone to go to heaven, and to be a true Christian, you must also try and helpothers go to heaven.
So to be a true Christian you must not teach Christianity.
Lol, a bit late to stop preaching and if they lived a Christian life they would have no problems with Christianity.

Anti-Theism is not Christian.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 1:59:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 1:53:32 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/15/2010 1:46:26 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 1:31:56 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/15/2010 1:30:09 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I am the Lord thou God who has taken you out of Isreal, you shall have no other gods before me

Non Christian, 'moral' people still go to hell, unless you follow the dante's Divine Comedy concept of hell, where they go to nice hell, the first circle.

Your quote, real or not, refers to ignostics, the ignorant, not people who know of Christianity.

Which is why I assert that to be a true Christian and want the best for people they should all become anti-theists, stop trying to teach about God in places where its not allowed and people don't know about it, stop teaching it to children, stop spreading the belief etc.
Its the only way to get everyone into heaven, and God wants everyone to go to heaven, and to be a true Christian, you must also try and helpothers go to heaven.
So to be a true Christian you must not teach Christianity.
Lol, a bit late to stop preaching and if they lived a Christian life they would have no problems with Christianity.


Ah, but according to Christianity all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. If they have not heard of said God, and those that have not heard are saved, then it is safe to assume thebest way to save souls is to keep people ignorant of Christianity <right and wrong. Do not partake of sharing of the forbidden fruit> Maybe I'm being kinda weak, but I just want to know how its void in any cae <I have no doubt someone will prove it wrong, or even laugh, I just want a better understanding>
As far as it is too late, maybe if we stop traveling places to educate people <the very first sin> and stop teaching our children about it, we could save all the future souls.

Anti-Theism is not Christian.

Lol well just saying. You have to be against religion, to be anti-theist, which you also have to be to be Christian in my example. Sort of. Maybe this is the part where I messed up tho.
Well atheist=/=anti-theist maybe anti-theist=/=atheist. Idk.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 2:36:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
The original sin was gaining knowlage.

The original sin was disobedience. Knowledge was just the particular effect of that.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 7:54:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 2:36:14 AM, Puck wrote:
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
The original sin was gaining knowlage.

The original sin was disobedience. Knowledge was just the particular effect of that.

The fruit had knowlage. God didn't want them to have knowlage. They ate the frut. God was pissed ever since.
Clearly he didn't want them to gain knowlage.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:22:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 7:54:41 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 2:36:14 AM, Puck wrote:
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
The original sin was gaining knowlage.

The original sin was disobedience. Knowledge was just the particular effect of that.

The fruit had knowlage. God didn't want them to have knowlage. They ate the frut. God was pissed ever since.
Clearly he didn't want them to gain knowlage.

That's irrelevant, as the SIN was disobedience. Your general statement "God did not want them to have knowledge" is erroneous at best. He clearly supplied them with plenty of knowledge that He conveyed when He spoke to them.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:24:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 8:22:29 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/15/2010 7:54:41 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 2:36:14 AM, Puck wrote:
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
The original sin was gaining knowlage.

The original sin was disobedience. Knowledge was just the particular effect of that.

The fruit had knowlage. God didn't want them to have knowlage. They ate the frut. God was pissed ever since.
Clearly he didn't want them to gain knowlage.

That's irrelevant, as the SIN was disobedience. Your general statement "God did not want them to have knowledge" is erroneous at best. He clearly supplied them with plenty of knowledge that He conveyed when He spoke to them.

Not the knowlage of good and bad tho.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:29:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 8:24:22 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 8:22:29 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/15/2010 7:54:41 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 2:36:14 AM, Puck wrote:
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
The original sin was gaining knowlage.

The original sin was disobedience. Knowledge was just the particular effect of that.

The fruit had knowlage. God didn't want them to have knowlage. They ate the frut. God was pissed ever since.
Clearly he didn't want them to gain knowlage.

That's irrelevant, as the SIN was disobedience. Your general statement "God did not want them to have knowledge" is erroneous at best. He clearly supplied them with plenty of knowledge that He conveyed when He spoke to them.

Not the knowlage of good and bad tho.
That's better. So you are saying that God did not want them to have the knowledge of good and evil. That is correct and is still true to this day! This is why God is the only One that is to determine what is good & what is evil!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:06:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 8:29:27 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/15/2010 8:24:22 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 8:22:29 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/15/2010 7:54:41 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 2:36:14 AM, Puck wrote:
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
The original sin was gaining knowlage.

The original sin was disobedience. Knowledge was just the particular effect of that.

The fruit had knowlage. God didn't want them to have knowlage. They ate the frut. God was pissed ever since.
Clearly he didn't want them to gain knowlage.

That's irrelevant, as the SIN was disobedience. Your general statement "God did not want them to have knowledge" is erroneous at best. He clearly supplied them with plenty of knowledge that He conveyed when He spoke to them.

Not the knowlage of good and bad tho.
That's better. So you are saying that God did not want them to have the knowledge of good and evil. That is correct and is still true to this day! This is why God is the only One that is to determine what is good & what is evil!

He wouldn't tell us what good and evil are tho. He would try and keep it hidden from us. So lets say the bible was divenely inspired. God would have lied about whats wrong or not wrong. The only thing we can trust is what we know, without the bible.
Just face it, God never intended people to know what is good or evil, he wanted people to judge for themselves, to test if they are moral. Not give them strict rules. Playing by set rules is easy enough. Finding for yourself what is wrong or right is hard.
Maybe he doesn't hate gays at all <which accounts for gay Christians, and Jews, claiming God understands and knows and accepts them> Maybe God never thought any number of things that cause no harm are wrong. Maybe God doesn't even care about what causes harm. It is impossible to know what God actually wants because the bible is unreliable, even for its own faith.

The best way to live in accordance with the bible, is to not spread the faith at all.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 10:50:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:06:55 PM, lovelife wrote:

He wouldn't tell us what good and evil are tho. He would try and keep it hidden from us. So lets say the bible was divenely inspired. God would have lied about whats wrong or not wrong. The only thing we can trust is what we know, without the bible.
Just face it, God never intended people to know what is good or evil, he wanted people to judge for themselves, to test if they are moral. Not give them strict rules. Playing by set rules is easy enough. Finding for yourself what is wrong or right is hard.
Maybe he doesn't hate gays at all <which accounts for gay Christians, and Jews, claiming God understands and knows and accepts them> Maybe God never thought any number of things that cause no harm are wrong. Maybe God doesn't even care about what causes harm. It is impossible to know what God actually wants because the bible is unreliable, even for its own faith.

The best way to live in accordance with the bible, is to not spread the faith at all.

No offense but I'm having a hard time trying to figure what you're even trying to say.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 11:18:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:06:55 PM, lovelife wrote:
He wouldn't tell us what good and evil are tho. He would try and keep it hidden from us.
Yes. I believe that WAS the point.

So lets say the bible was divenely inspired.
OK.

God would have lied about whats wrong or not wrong. The only thing we can trust is what we know, without the bible.
Only IF we had NOT eaten from the fruit, but we did: ergo, your statement does not follow.

Just face it, God never intended people to know what is good or evil, he wanted people to judge for themselves, to test if they are moral. Not give them strict rules. Playing by set rules is easy enough. Finding for yourself what is wrong or right is hard.
Again, non sequitur.

Maybe he doesn't hate gays at all <which accounts for gay Christians, and Jews, claiming God understands and knows and accepts them>
I don't think God hates gays, as do most Christians & Jews. He may not agree with some of the things they do...but that goes for everyone.

Maybe God never thought any number of things that cause no harm are wrong. Maybe God doesn't even care about what causes harm. It is impossible to know what God actually wants because the bible is unreliable, even for its own faith.
Or maybe not.

The best way to live in accordance with the bible, is to not spread the faith at all.
Beautiful contradiction!

At 9/15/2010 10:50:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No offense but I'm having a hard time trying to figure what you're even trying to say.
15.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 11:53:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 11:18:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:06:55 PM, lovelife wrote:
He wouldn't tell us what good and evil are tho. He would try and keep it hidden from us.
Yes. I believe that WAS the point.

So lets say the bible was divenely inspired.
OK.

God would have lied about whats wrong or not wrong. The only thing we can trust is what we know, without the bible.
Only IF we had NOT eaten from the fruit, but we did: ergo, your statement does not follow.

Just face it, God never intended people to know what is good or evil, he wanted people to judge for themselves, to test if they are moral. Not give them strict rules. Playing by set rules is easy enough. Finding for yourself what is wrong or right is hard.
Again, non sequitur.

Maybe he doesn't hate gays at all <which accounts for gay Christians, and Jews, claiming God understands and knows and accepts them>
I don't think God hates gays, as do most Christians & Jews. He may not agree with some of the things they do...but that goes for everyone.

Maybe God never thought any number of things that cause no harm are wrong. Maybe God doesn't even care about what causes harm. It is impossible to know what God actually wants because the bible is unreliable, even for its own faith.
Or maybe not.

The best way to live in accordance with the bible, is to not spread the faith at all.
Beautiful contradiction!

At 9/15/2010 10:50:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No offense but I'm having a hard time trying to figure what you're even trying to say.

I cannot make sense of what you have said. If the bible is correct the best way to save the most souls is to not spread the faith at all. Make sure everyone is ignorant on it.

15.

?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 11:59:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The irony is amazing.

The original sin is eating of the tree of knowledge(i.e. knowledge is sinful). The most revealing thing in the bible.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 12:01:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 11:59:03 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The irony is amazing.

The original sin is eating of the tree of knowledge(i.e. knowledge is sinful). The most revealing thing in the bible.

Exactly my point.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 12:05:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
LMAO at people saying "the sin wasn't gaining knowledge, the sin was disobedience!" As if obedience is so virtuous! LMFAO!

In fact, I find that disobedience being a sin is more reprehensible than gaining knowledge a sin.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 12:10:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 11:53:26 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 11:18:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:06:55 PM, lovelife wrote:
He wouldn't tell us what good and evil are tho. He would try and keep it hidden from us.
Yes. I believe that WAS the point.

So lets say the bible was divenely inspired.
OK.

God would have lied about whats wrong or not wrong. The only thing we can trust is what we know, without the bible.
Only IF we had NOT eaten from the fruit, but we did: ergo, your statement does not follow.

Just face it, God never intended people to know what is good or evil, he wanted people to judge for themselves, to test if they are moral. Not give them strict rules. Playing by set rules is easy enough. Finding for yourself what is wrong or right is hard.
Again, non sequitur.

Maybe he doesn't hate gays at all <which accounts for gay Christians, and Jews, claiming God understands and knows and accepts them>
I don't think God hates gays, as do most Christians & Jews. He may not agree with some of the things they do...but that goes for everyone.

Maybe God never thought any number of things that cause no harm are wrong. Maybe God doesn't even care about what causes harm. It is impossible to know what God actually wants because the bible is unreliable, even for its own faith.
Or maybe not.

The best way to live in accordance with the bible, is to not spread the faith at all.
Beautiful contradiction!

At 9/15/2010 10:50:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No offense but I'm having a hard time trying to figure what you're even trying to say.


I cannot make sense of what you have said. If the bible is correct the best way to save the most souls is to not spread the faith at all. Make sure everyone is ignorant on it.


...that...doesn't follow at all.

Even if many people are saved through Jesus while not having knowledge of him it'd also be the case that many other people are saved by gaining knowledge of him.

Besides if your premise is that the Bible is true and furthermore it is supposed that Christians should follow Jesus' commands then:

"19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 12:11:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 12:05:38 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
LMAO at people saying "the sin wasn't gaining knowledge, the sin was disobedience!" As if obedience is so virtuous! LMFAO!

In fact, I find that disobedience being a sin is more reprehensible than gaining knowledge a sin.

Lmao, how so? I find them both disgusting, but why do you place disobedience as worse than knowlage? If its what I think then I agree to an extent tho you would need knowlage.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 12:15:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 12:10:37 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/15/2010 11:53:26 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 11:18:17 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:06:55 PM, lovelife wrote:
He wouldn't tell us what good and evil are tho. He would try and keep it hidden from us.
Yes. I believe that WAS the point.

So lets say the bible was divenely inspired.
OK.

God would have lied about whats wrong or not wrong. The only thing we can trust is what we know, without the bible.
Only IF we had NOT eaten from the fruit, but we did: ergo, your statement does not follow.

Just face it, God never intended people to know what is good or evil, he wanted people to judge for themselves, to test if they are moral. Not give them strict rules. Playing by set rules is easy enough. Finding for yourself what is wrong or right is hard.
Again, non sequitur.

Maybe he doesn't hate gays at all <which accounts for gay Christians, and Jews, claiming God understands and knows and accepts them>
I don't think God hates gays, as do most Christians & Jews. He may not agree with some of the things they do...but that goes for everyone.

Maybe God never thought any number of things that cause no harm are wrong. Maybe God doesn't even care about what causes harm. It is impossible to know what God actually wants because the bible is unreliable, even for its own faith.
Or maybe not.

The best way to live in accordance with the bible, is to not spread the faith at all.
Beautiful contradiction!

At 9/15/2010 10:50:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No offense but I'm having a hard time trying to figure what you're even trying to say.


I cannot make sense of what you have said. If the bible is correct the best way to save the most souls is to not spread the faith at all. Make sure everyone is ignorant on it.


...that...doesn't follow at all.

Even if many people are saved through Jesus while not having knowledge of him it'd also be the case that many other people are saved by gaining knowledge of him.

Besides if your premise is that the Bible is true and furthermore it is supposed that Christians should follow Jesus' commands then:

"19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I believe it was you that actually got me started in this way of thinking.

If you want tve souls, it is best that they remain ignorantof Christianity, so that they may be saved unconditionally.
Sure some may actually follow it and be saved, but most that know of it and turn away are condemned.

Everyone sins, everyone goes to hell, unless they are ignorant or accept a mindset and live the right way.
It is better and easier that people remain ignorant and are taught to live good lives where no one is cruel, or mean to others, then to try and force religion which will start more confict and in the end damn more souls.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 12:21:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 12:15:35 AM, lovelife wrote:

I believe it was you that actually got me started in this way of thinking.

If you want tve souls, it is best that they remain ignorantof Christianity, so that they may be saved unconditionally.

Nope.

I only said some people who are ignorant of Jesus will probably be saved - not all.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
the-good-teacher
Posts: 444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 3:20:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
This is directed at Christians mostly I guess.

If the original sin was eating a fruit, which taught Adam and Eve right from wrong, why do you <christians in general> find it so compulsory to educate people on right and wrong and your religion?

I mean think about it, the original sin must be the worst since EVERYONE is being punished from it, even tho only two people committed it.

.

So then is your messege
1) spreading sin
2) trying to keep people from gaining knowlage, so they will stop sinning
3) keep them from eatng fresh fruit. <okay so 3 isn't so much what I'm getting at>

And also if Christians believe that "blessed are he who never hears of the father but lives like it anyway" <whatever the real wording is> then why spread the messege at all?
The vast majority of atheists live a pretty christian-esque life style. Maybe not go to church or believe in God, but they tend to be good giving people, hard working, and generally feel bad when they hurt others or do something wrong.
Why then preach to them, and basically condemn them?

I'm sure I will have more questions, those just came to mind first.

------------------

What a load of utter garbage this post is !
"The original sin was gaining knowledge", ?????' <((((><

I have never heard such rubbish, the sin was not the result but rather the "action".

Adam and Eve were both guilty of a sin called "Parakoee", meaning "Disobeying the voice of God, not the word but the "voice" !

As a result of this sin Adam and Eve were in a position to "knowingly sin" and therefore had to be seperated from the "tree of life".

We being born of Adam, can also "knowingly sin".
Rom 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous".

Note, According to this verse Eve does NOT pass her sin nature to her offspring, meaning "only men pass on the sin nature", Jesus had a father of Heaven and Mother of earth, so he did not have the same sin nature we are born with.

-------------------------------o O ---^5 ---
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 5:55:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 7:54:41 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 2:36:14 AM, Puck wrote:
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
The original sin was gaining knowlage.

The original sin was disobedience. Knowledge was just the particular effect of that.

The fruit had knowlage. God didn't want them to have knowlage. They ate the frut. God was pissed ever since.
Clearly he didn't want them to gain knowlage.

So why plant a tree with dangerous fruit next to two innocents then order them not to eat it, when they don't as yet have any conception of right and wrong, then allow a serpent to sneak up on the poor innocent Eve and urge her to eat it? Then punish the whole of the human race for something He constructed and allowed in the first place?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 8:01:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 11:53:26 PM, lovelife wrote:
I cannot make sense of what you have said.
What I have said is INFINITELY simpler than the Bible. If you can't understand what I said, then that means you have NO CLUE what the Bible says.

If the bible is correct the best way to save the most souls is to not spread the faith at all. Make sure everyone is ignorant on it.
Again, that could be so IF Adam & Eve did not eat of the fruit, but they did, so what you said makes no sense. Then again, had they not eaten the fruit, there wouldn't be a Bible & we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be no souls to save!

15.
?
popculturepooka said that he was having a hard time trying to figure what you were trying to say. I responded with your age. :o)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 8:08:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 3:20:25 AM, the-good-teacher wrote:
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
This is directed at Christians mostly I guess.

If the original sin was eating a fruit, which taught Adam and Eve right from wrong, why do you <christians in general> find it so compulsory to educate people on right and wrong and your religion?

I mean think about it, the original sin must be the worst since EVERYONE is being punished from it, even tho only two people committed it.

.

So then is your messege
1) spreading sin
2) trying to keep people from gaining knowlage, so they will stop sinning
3) keep them from eatng fresh fruit. <okay so 3 isn't so much what I'm getting at>

And also if Christians believe that "blessed are he who never hears of the father but lives like it anyway" <whatever the real wording is> then why spread the messege at all?
The vast majority of atheists live a pretty christian-esque life style. Maybe not go to church or believe in God, but they tend to be good giving people, hard working, and generally feel bad when they hurt others or do something wrong.
Why then preach to them, and basically condemn them?

I'm sure I will have more questions, those just came to mind first.

------------------

What a load of utter garbage this post is !
"The original sin was gaining knowledge", ?????' <((((><

I have never heard such rubbish, the sin was not the result but rather the "action".

Adam and Eve were both guilty of a sin called "Parakoee", meaning "Disobeying the voice of God, not the word but the "voice" !

As a result of this sin Adam and Eve were in a position to "knowingly sin" and therefore had to be seperated from the "tree of life".

We being born of Adam, can also "knowingly sin".
Rom 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous".

Note, According to this verse Eve does NOT pass her sin nature to her offspring, meaning "only men pass on the sin nature", Jesus had a father of Heaven and Mother of earth, so he did not have the same sin nature we are born with.

-------------------------------o O ---^5 ---

Sweet, women are sinless :p
Not sure why tho. She ate of the forbidden fruit too. That may be why women seem so divine sometimes, I have no clue.

At 9/16/2010 5:55:22 AM, Ogan wrote:
At 9/15/2010 7:54:41 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 2:36:14 AM, Puck wrote:
At 9/15/2010 12:55:20 AM, lovelife wrote:
The original sin was gaining knowlage.

The original sin was disobedience. Knowledge was just the particular effect of that.

The fruit had knowlage. God didn't want them to have knowlage. They ate the frut. God was pissed ever since.
Clearly he didn't want them to gain knowlage.

So why plant a tree with dangerous fruit next to two innocents then order them not to eat it, when they don't as yet have any conception of right and wrong, then allow a serpent to sneak up on the poor innocent Eve and urge her to eat it? Then punish the whole of the human race for something He constructed and allowed in the first place?

My question exactly.

At 9/16/2010 8:01:42 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/15/2010 11:53:26 PM, lovelife wrote:
I cannot make sense of what you have said.
What I have said is INFINITELY simpler than the Bible. If you can't understand what I said, then that means you have NO CLUE what the Bible says.


No what you said were small attacks that meant little/nothingand made no sense.

If the bible is correct the best way to save the most souls is to not spread the faith at all. Make sure everyone is ignorant on it.
Again, that could be so IF Adam & Eve did not eat of the fruit, but they did, so what you said makes no sense. Then again, had they not eaten the fruit, there wouldn't be a Bible & we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be no souls to save!


Exactly and with no souls to save there would be none to be damned. They fvcked up. That doesn't mean we can't fix it by stopping the spread of Christianity tho.

15.
?
popculturepooka said that he was having a hard time trying to figure what you were trying to say. I responded with your age. :o)

Not sure what my age has to do with anything...
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 8:26:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 8:08:47 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/16/2010 8:01:42 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
What I have said is INFINITELY simpler than the Bible. If you can't understand what I said, then that means you have NO CLUE what the Bible says.
No what you said were small attacks that meant little/nothingand made no sense.
There were no attacks in what I said before; it was quite short (as you admitted) & simple. The only attack is written above to your claim that my simple and admittedly short responses were not understood by you. Again, if what I said, which was short & simple, made no sense to you, then how do you expect to understand the Bible that is both lengthy and complex?

If the bible is correct the best way to save the most souls is to not spread the faith at all. Make sure everyone is ignorant on it.
Again, that could be so IF Adam & Eve did not eat of the fruit, but they did, so what you said makes no sense. Then again, had they not eaten the fruit, there wouldn't be a Bible & we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be no souls to save!
Exactly and with no souls to save there would be none to be damned. They fvcked up. That doesn't mean we can't fix it by stopping the spread of Christianity tho.
Still don't get it, do you. Unless you can go back in time and undo what Adam & Eve did, you can't fix it. Stopping the spread of Christianity is like making sure that more people's souls get damned. The issue isn't whether or not one KNOWS about Adam and Eve, the issue is that it happened. Being ignorant ESPECIALLY willfully ignorant is not going to save your soul.

15.
?
popculturepooka said that he was having a hard time trying to figure what you were trying to say. I responded with your age. :o)
Not sure what my age has to do with anything...
Really? Do you think that an 8 year old has the same reasoning abilities & knowledge as a 15 year old? No. Does a 15 year old have the same reasoning abilities & knowledge as a 40 year old? No.

What would a 15 yo answer to this be like: "You can't generalize like that! That's not always true! Why I know 15 yo that are smarter & more knowledgeable than some 50 yo!"

Anyways, it's a generalization, ergo NOT a 100% rule; however, it is more than proven true in this case by simply reading the thread.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 8:34:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 8:26:16 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 9/16/2010 8:08:47 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/16/2010 8:01:42 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
What I have said is INFINITELY simpler than the Bible. If you can't understand what I said, then that means you have NO CLUE what the Bible says.
No what you said were small attacks that meant little/nothingand made no sense.
There were no attacks in what I said before; it was quite short (as you admitted) & simple. The only attack is written above to your claim that my simple and admittedly short responses were not understood by you. Again, if what I said, which was short & simple, made no sense to you, then how do you expect to understand the Bible that is both lengthy and complex?


It didn't get to the point. Not really. Just like saying stop sometimes gets to the point, unless there are multiple people doing multiple things and you could be talking to anyone. Short does not always mean clear.
Length does not always mean its informative either. I think R_R had a pretty good example of how to write a paragraph about nothing.

If the bible is correct the best way to save the most souls is to not spread the faith at all. Make sure everyone is ignorant on it.
Again, that could be so IF Adam & Eve did not eat of the fruit, but they did, so what you said makes no sense. Then again, had they not eaten the fruit, there wouldn't be a Bible & we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be no souls to save!
Exactly and with no souls to save there would be none to be damned. They fvcked up. That doesn't mean we can't fix it by stopping the spread of Christianity tho.
Still don't get it, do you. Unless you can go back in time and undo what Adam & Eve did, you can't fix it. Stopping the spread of Christianity is like making sure that more people's souls get damned. The issue isn't whether or not one KNOWS about Adam and Eve, the issue is that it happened. Being ignorant ESPECIALLY willfully ignorant is not going to save your soul.


Its not willfully ignorant if the information isn't even there. If I didn't know that chocolate chip cookies existed then I'm not being willfully ignorant by not trying to find the recipe.

15.
?
popculturepooka said that he was having a hard time trying to figure what you were trying to say. I responded with your age. :o)
Not sure what my age has to do with anything...
Really? Do you think that an 8 year old has the same reasoning abilities & knowledge as a 15 year old? No. Does a 15 year old have the same reasoning abilities & knowledge as a 40 year old? No.

What would a 15 yo answer to this be like: "You can't generalize like that! That's not always true! Why I know 15 yo that are smarter & more knowledgeable than some 50 yo!"

Anyways, it's a generalization, ergo NOT a 100% rule; however, it is more than proven true in this case by simply reading the thread.

Generalizations, not always accurate. I'm sure she could find my age or whatever she wanted to generalize me by from my profile. It really is an individual thing tho.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave