Feel-good atheist anti-Christian propaganda

[Steve Hayes]

The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda, which
caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that any
Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it. Not only was
the whole thing wrong; every single part of it was wrong too.

It seemed to me that it was most likely to be "feel-good" propaganda by
militant atheists for militant atheists to make themselves feel good and
smugly superior to Christians.

You have to see it, though, to believe it, and you can find it here, along
with my deconstruction of it.

http://methodius.blogspot.com/2012/06/ridiculous-beliefs.html

And anyone is welcome to add their own deconstruction of it, there or here on
Usenet.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Mike Painter]

On 6/27/2012 10:45 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda, which
> caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that any
> Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it. Not only was
> the whole thing wrong; every single part of it was wrong too.
>
> It seemed to me that it was most likely to be "feel-good" propaganda by
> militant atheists for militant atheists to make themselves feel good and
> smugly superior to Christians.
>
> You have to see it, though, to believe it, and you can find it here, along
> with my deconstruction of it.
>
> http://methodius.blogspot.com/2012/06/ridiculous-beliefs.html
>
> And anyone is welcome to add their own deconstruction of it, there or here on
> Usenet.
>
>

Aside from the minor point of man and woman being created with "original
sin" and leaving out the part about killing all but 8 people who
promptly started doing what the rest had been doing, it seems pretty
correct to me.

They also could have added the"love me or I'll kill" you part.

[thomas p.]

"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:Ub6dndn85aiYaHbS...@giganews.com...

Even the original sin part can be seen as true, if we remember that each and
everyone of us is supposed to have a soul created by god. Being omnipotent,
he would not have to include or allow (actually the same thing if one is
omnipotent) original sin in that creation.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[MarkA]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:45:57 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

> The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda,
> which caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that
> any Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it. Not
> only was the whole thing wrong; every single part of it was wrong too.
>
> It seemed to me that it was most likely to be "feel-good" propaganda by
> militant atheists for militant atheists to make themselves feel good and
> smugly superior to Christians.
>
> You have to see it, though, to believe it, and you can find it here, along
> with my deconstruction of it.
>
> http://methodius.blogspot.com/2012/06/ridiculous-beliefs.html
>
> And anyone is welcome to add their own deconstruction of it, there or here
> on Usenet.

Your "deconstruction" seems to focus on speculation regarding the
motivations of those who produced it. You never get around to actually
refuting what it says. Like many atheists here in alt.atheism, I was a
Christian for many years. Though the priests and clerics like to hide the
absurdity in flowery language, the statement is an accurate distillation
of the core beliefs of Christianity, is it not?

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Don Martin]

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda, which
> caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that any
> Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it.

<snip>

With such examples as yourself running loose, why need atheists bother
writing propaganda about christians?

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Ben Kaufman]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:45:57 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda, which
>caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that any
>Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it. Not only was
>the whole thing wrong; every single part of it was wrong too.
>
>It seemed to me that it was most likely to be "feel-good" propaganda by
>militant atheists for militant atheists to make themselves feel good and
>smugly superior to Christians.
>
>You have to see it, though, to believe it, and you can find it here, along
>with my deconstruction of it.
>
>http://methodius.blogspot.com/2012/06/ridiculous-beliefs.html
>
>And anyone is welcome to add their own deconstruction of it, there or here on
>Usenet.

You are looking into the mirror. Pretty much in line with other religious
myths.

Ben

[thomas p.]

"Don Martin" <drdon...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:1688153616362582263.0102...@news20.forteinc.com...

> Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda,
>> which
>> caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that any
>> Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it.
>
> <snip>
>
> With such examples as yourself running loose, why need atheists bother
> writing propaganda about christians?

He seems to totally lack a sense of humor. Since the atheist satire is not
literally what churches teach, he thinks it can be declared invalid.

>
> --
> aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
> BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
> Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
> The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[MarkA]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:08:30 +0200, thomas p. wrote:

> "Don Martin" <drdon...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:1688153616362582263.0102...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda,
>>> which
>>> caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that any
>>> Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> With such examples as yourself running loose, why need atheists bother
>> writing propaganda about christians?
>
> He seems to totally lack a sense of humor. Since the atheist satire is
> not literally what churches teach, he thinks it can be declared invalid.
>
>

I wouldn't call it satire. It is an accurate statement of Christian core
beliefs, presented in a language that makes clear how absurd they are.
For all of his lengthy deconstruction, he never actually refutes the
statement. The closest he comes is to call it "heretical", without
explaining where the heresy lies.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:49:46 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

What kind of moron imagines an atheist can be heretical?

Mind you, we've seen Hayes before. The same loonies keep cropping up.

[Steve Hayes]

No, as I pointed out, it is not an accurate statement of the core beliefs of
Christianity.

[thomas p.]

"MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> skrev i meddelelsen
news:pan.2012.06.28....@nowhere.invalid...

> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:08:30 +0200, thomas p. wrote:
>
>> "Don Martin" <drdon...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:1688153616362582263.0102...@news20.forteinc.com...
>>> Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>> The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda,
>>>> which
>>>> caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that any
>>>> Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> With such examples as yourself running loose, why need atheists bother
>>> writing propaganda about christians?
>>
>> He seems to totally lack a sense of humor. Since the atheist satire is
>> not literally what churches teach, he thinks it can be declared invalid.
>>
>>
>
> I wouldn't call it satire. It is an accurate statement of Christian core
> beliefs, presented in a language that makes clear how absurd they are.

In other words satirically, and yes, it is completely accurate.

> For all of his lengthy deconstruction, he never actually refutes the
> statement. The closest he comes is to call it "heretical", without
> explaining where the heresy lies.

He probably just learned to spell "deconstruction" and thought it would make
him sound profound. I was duly impressed.

>
> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
> About eight o'clock
>

[MarkA]

He was referring to members of the church being heretical if they believed
the statement.

>
> Mind you, we've seen Hayes before. The same loonies keep cropping up.

I don't recognize the name, but I can't say that I'm impressed with his
vacuous "deconstruction". At least he has a really cute German Shepard
puppy. (I'm assuming that Hayes is the human in the picture).

[MarkA]

Hmmm. So, you don't believe in "Original Sin", or that Jesus is God, was
born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died for our
sins, and that our sins can only be redeemed by accepting Jesus as our
Savior? I thought all that was pretty much the core beliefs of
Christianity. Perhaps you subscribe to a little-known sect that preaches
that Jesus was nobody special?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:42:41 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>

The problem is that they start off prom a position of belief _and_
that all the attributes they give it are true.

Which is why what seems like a silver bullet to us won't work with
them - cognitive dissonance makes the side we see from outside, ie the
contradictions, impossibilities etc, vanish.

Eg if we ask them why they worship a genocidal, psychopathic maniac
that's simply not how they see it even though it supposedly killed all
life except that which escaped in a boat, tortures people for all
eternity simply because they have no reason to believe, etc.

[Steve Hayes]

The statement posted was wrong in its entirety, and wrong in every particular.

[sbalneav]

No? How so?

"I'm going to create man and woman with original sin"

According to the bible:

1) God created man and woman.
2) God is omniscient (Can see all things, including the future)
3) God created the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Knowledge in the middle.
4) God is omnipotent.
5) God chose not to clean Adam and Eve of their sin, but rather cursed them
because of it.

So, he must have intended Man and Woman to have original sin.

"Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child so that
I can be born."

According to the bible:

God is tripartate. God brought unto Mary a son, which was one part of the
tri-part.

"Once alive, I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself."

I believe John 3:16 is often quoted for this one.

"To save you from the sin I originally condemned you to."

http://www.saintaquinas.com/what_is_the_redemption.html

Exactly *where* is there a logical error? Or, more exactly, why couldn't God
have simply forgiven Adam and Eve of eating from the tree of knowledge?

How is this not an accurate portrayal of the core beliefs of Christianity?
Where is the flaw?

[Syd M.]

From your desperate attempts to discredit it, it must be entiraly true.

[MarkA]

OK, then. You have now passed up 3 opportunities to refute even a single
point in the statement. (Just saying, "It's wrong" doesn't count as a
refutation.) I therefore conclude that you have no refutation, that the
statement is essentially correct, and that you are just a sack-full-o-shit
apologist who is willing to tell a bald-faced lie rather than admit that
your beliefs are illogical. Thanks for playing.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:39:11 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net>
wrote:

Yes, but not, according to the Bible, "with original sin"

>2) God is omniscient (Can see all things, including the future)
>3) God created the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Knowledge in the middle.
>4) God is omnipotent.
>5) God chose not to clean Adam and Eve of their sin, but rather cursed them
> because of it.

Points 2-5 do not show that God said "I'm going to create man and woman with
original sin". The Bible does not say that, nor to my knowledga, has any
Christian theologian said that.

>So, he must have intended Man and Woman to have original sin.
>
>"Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child so that
> I can be born."
>
>According to the bible:
>
>God is tripartate. God brought unto Mary a son, which was one part of the
>tri-part.

"Tripartite" is not an accurate description, but the statement does not
mention it anyway.

>
>"Once alive, I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself."
>
>I believe John 3:16 is often quoted for this one.

It is? That's certainly not what it says.

>"To save you from the sin I originally condemned you to."
>
>http://www.saintaquinas.com/what_is_the_redemption.html
>
>Exactly *where* is there a logical error? Or, more exactly, why couldn't God
>have simply forgiven Adam and Eve of eating from the tree of knowledge?
>
>How is this not an accurate portrayal of the core beliefs of Christianity?
>Where is the flaw?

As I said, the flaw is in the whole thing, and in every particular.

[sbalneav]

It is, however, a logical byproduct. If you're omnipotent, and can see the
future, you already KNEW what they were going to do. Why did God arrange
circumstances in such a way as to guarentee the failure. As well, according to
the bible, God designed our minds, so, again, he would have known that
"curiousity would kill the cat". Oh, and by the way, what was an agent of
Satan doing wandering around the Garden of Eden unescorted. God, surely, would
have known the serpent was there, right?

And even IF we presuppose that all of this somehow happened without God's
knowledge and foresight, why the cursing? Why not just forgive them?

>>So, he must have intended Man and Woman to have original sin.
>>
>>"Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child so that
>> I can be born."
>>
>>According to the bible:
>>
>>God is tripartate. God brought unto Mary a son, which was one part of the
>>tri-part.
>
> "Tripartite" is not an accurate description, but the statement does not
> mention it anyway.

How would you then describe "Father, son, and Ghost" all being part and parcel
of the same God?

>>"Once alive, I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself."
>>
>>I believe John 3:16 is often quoted for this one.
>
> It is? That's certainly not what it says.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

What do you assume the "giving" was for? Isn't it Christian Doctrine that
Jesus' blood sacrifice was the expiation of original sin for Mankind? Or did
that change since I was in Sunday School?

>>"To save you from the sin I originally condemned you to."
>>
>>http://www.saintaquinas.com/what_is_the_redemption.html
>>
>>Exactly *where* is there a logical error? Or, more exactly, why couldn't God
>>have simply forgiven Adam and Eve of eating from the tree of knowledge?
>>
>>How is this not an accurate portrayal of the core beliefs of Christianity?
>>Where is the flaw?
>
> As I said, the flaw is in the whole thing, and in every particular.

The only minor niggle you've managed to come up with is the phrase "created
with original sin". Which, although technically incorrect, certainly seems to
have been, according to the Bible, God's intention, since he deliberately
engineered the circumstances that led to the event that caused original sin,
did absolutely nothing to stop it while the eating of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge was happening, then preceded to hold Adam and Eve accountable for his
idiotic bad management after the fact.

I mean, when my kids were growing up, we didn't put all the bleach, borax, and
lead paint in the middle of the living room, with all the caps off, and issue
the kids a warning not to touch it. We locked the crap up, or got rid of it.

And, of course, the final question; if Adam and Eve didn't have the knowlege of
Good and Evil, since they hadn't eaten the fruit yet, how could they be held
responsible for something they didn't know was wrong? If I tell a 3 year old
"Don't drink this bleach", I don't expect that the three year old will follow
the order; he or she can't POSSIBLY fathom what the consequences will be if
they break that "commandment". I tell them not to take cookies from the cookie
jar, too, and if they break that commandment, I get mad, but they DO get a
cookie to boot.

Sorry, you've failed, on every point, to actually provide any valid reasons why
this isn't true. Other than flat "No, that's not what it says" without any
reasoning or logic as to why you don't think it should be interpreted that way,
you've proven nothing.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:26:06 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net>

No amount of sophistry will turn an incorrect statement into a correct one.

None of it will change that *fact* that the Bible does not say, nor does any
any Christian theologian believe that God said "I'm going to create man and

woman with original sin".

It is the kind of argument usually referred to as "a straw man".

>Sorry, you've failed, on every point, to actually provide any valid reasons why
>this isn't true. Other than flat "No, that's not what it says" without any
>reasoning or logic as to why you don't think it should be interpreted that way,
>you've proven nothing.

Any you have failed, at every point, to show any reason why it *is* true,

Mere assertion is not proof.

[MarkA]

The statement in question is an accurate re-phrasing of what the bible
actually says. And yes, it is absurd.

I'm sorry that you are stuck with an absurd belief system, and that it is
so hard to abandon it for one that is based in logic, reason, and actual
reality. If it is any consolation, perhaps in another couple hundred
generations or so, human brains will be a lot better at recognizing when
they are lying to themselves.

[Steve Hayes]

This discussion has been very interesting.

(Some) atheists (sometimes) demand that Christians (and other theists) provide
evidence or proof of the existence of God.

Something similar would apply in this case.

The way to show that the statements in the poster are accurate statements of
the core beliefs of Christianity would be to provide evidence of the existence
of Christians who believe those statements.

Not only have none of those who participated in the discussion succeeded in
doing this, they haven't even tried.

Instead they they have argued that black is white, that chalk is cheese, and
that a is not a.

Nevertheless, I am open to be convinced, iof you can produce enough evidence,
that somewhere there may just possibly be a pink unicorn that holds all the
beliefs listed in the poster.

(The rest of your mindless ad hominems deleted).

[Anton Shepelev]

Steve Hayes:

> Points 2-5 do not show that God said "I'm going to
> create man and woman with original sin". The
> Bible does not say that, nor to my knowledga, has
> any Christian theologian said that.

The Christian belief is that God endowed man with
free will, which is part of what's referred to as
"His own image". This implies the ability to choose
between good (God) and bad (devil).

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

[Neil Kelsey]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:45:57 PM UTC-7, Steve Hayes wrote:
> The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda, which
> caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that any
> Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it. Not only was
> the whole thing wrong; every single part of it was wrong too.
>
> It seemed to me that it was most likely to be "feel-good" propaganda by
> militant atheists for militant atheists to make themselves feel good and
> smugly superior to Christians.

That's the kind of justification that the object of satire might conjure up, but really it's just satire, in which "human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule" (dictionary.com). And before you get all offended that your beliefs are being ridiculed please remember that your beliefs teach us that most people deserve to be tortured for eternity. In that perspective your delicate feelings are pretty insignificant.

> You have to see it, though, to believe it, and you can find it here, along
> with my deconstruction of it.

Oh yay, another Christian who is incapable of abstract thought. Just because the Bible doesn't explicitly quote God as saying "I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself as her child, so that I can be born. Once alive, I'm going to kill myself as a sacrifice to myself" it doesn't mean we can't derive that from scripture. There is nothing here that contradicts the Bible.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <20120701211314.37ac...@gmail.com>,

Anton Shepelev <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Steve Hayes:
>
> > Points 2-5 do not show that God said "I'm going to
> > create man and woman with original sin". The
> > Bible does not say that, nor to my knowledga, has
> > any Christian theologian said that.
>
> The Christian belief is that God endowed man with
> free will, which is part of what's referred to as
> "His own image". This implies the ability to choose
> between good (God) and bad (devil).

If you believe your god is omniscient, then you CANNOT have free will
because your god knows everything you will ever do; in other words, in
your god's mind you have ALREADY done everything you will ever do, so
you cannot choose to do that which your god has already seen you do. You
cannot not do something you've already done.

--
JD

"the lybian lier"

[Anton Shepelev]

Jeanne Douglas:

> > The Christian belief is that God endowed man
> > with free will, which is part of what's referred
> > to as "His own image". This implies the ability
> > to choose between good (God) and bad (devil).
>
> If you believe your god is omniscient, then you

> CANNOT have free will because your god knows ev-

> erything you will ever do; in other words, in your
> god's mind you have ALREADY done everything you
> will ever do, so you cannot choose to do that
> which your god has already seen you do. You cannot
> not do something you've already done.

This view collates with free will and implies abso-
lute determinism, but it is not a Christian view.
God knows everything about the currect state of the
Universe, but its future state He can't fully calcu-
late because He does not control man's free will.
All mechanical (not involving free will) processes
He can predict of course, while others He can ex-
trapolate with a certain probablity based on his
complete knowledge of the past.

God is omniscient in the sense that He knows every-
thing that can be known, i.e. He possesses all ex-
isting information, which people's future decisions
are not part of.

[Mike Lovell]

On 2012-07-01, Anton Shepelev <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This view collates with free will and implies abso-
> lute determinism, but it is not a Christian view.
> God knows everything about the currect state of the
> Universe, but its future state He can't fully calcu-
> late because He does not control man's free will.
> All mechanical (not involving free will) processes
> He can predict of course, while others He can ex-
> trapolate with a certain probablity based on his
> complete knowledge of the past.
>
> God is omniscient in the sense that He knows every-
> thing that can be known, i.e. He possesses all ex-
> isting information, which people's future decisions
> are not part of.

Great, now you just have to prove he exists! :-)

Good luck with that.


We might as well be discussing what magic powers Harry Potter has!

--
Jews, Christians & Muslims
The content of your posts will show how much you
really believe God is looking over your shoulder

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <20120702005623.db79...@gmail.com>,

Why are you putting limits on your god? I don't think it'd like that, if
it actually existed, so you should be very happy that it doesn't.

[Anton Shepelev]

Mike Lovell:

> [...]

> Great, now you just have to prove he exists! :-)
>
> Good luck with that.
>
> We might as well be discussing what magic powers
> Harry Potter has!

OK, thanks. Remeber a recent discussion where you
(atheists) were referring to abstract thought -- the
ability to discuss things that do not exist?

This at least helps to detect internal inconsisten-
cies, or lack thereof. And if you can't proof that
God does not exists, what external inconsistenxies
can you point to?

[Mike Lovell]

On 2012-07-01, Anton Shepelev <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> [...]
>> Great, now you just have to prove he exists! :-)
>>
>> Good luck with that.
>>
>> We might as well be discussing what magic powers
>> Harry Potter has!
>
> OK, thanks. Remeber a recent discussion where you
> (atheists) were referring to abstract thought -- the
> ability to discuss things that do not exist?

No I don't. There's not some kind of atheist-bloc that answers
questions for you, all approved by the atheist-pope.

We're individuals with vastly different philosophies, politics and
beliefs with just one thing in common.

We don't believe in God.

> This at least helps to detect internal inconsisten-
> cies, or lack thereof. And if you can't proof that
> God does not exists, what external inconsistenxies
> can you point to?

I don't need to prove that God doesn't exist, you can't prove there's
not a giant gorilla at the center of the galaxy, does that mean you
believe there is one?

It's up to you, as the one asserting God exists, to prove so. It's your
claim not mine.

Believing something because it cannot be disproved is not evidence of
anything but your own lack of intelligence thinking. Thousands of Gods
spring into existence by your logic, yet you only believe in one don't
you?


Of course there would be no need to do this if you didn't come to
alt.atheism, you could have just been happy with your own belief, faith
and life and lived it happily keeping your beliefs to yourself.

Who are you trying to convince, us or you? Faith wavering?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 01:13:51 +0400, Anton Shepelev
<anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mike Lovell:
>
>> [...]
>> Great, now you just have to prove he exists! :-)
>>
>> Good luck with that.
>>
>> We might as well be discussing what magic powers
>> Harry Potter has!
>
>OK, thanks. Remeber a recent discussion where you
>(atheists) were referring to abstract thought -- the
>ability to discuss things that do not exist?

The problem here is that one of the participants in this sub-thread is
talking as if it did.

>This at least helps to detect internal inconsisten-
>cies, or lack thereof. And if you can't proof that
>God does not exists, what external inconsistenxies
>can you point to?

It's not our problem.

We're not the one making claims.

About what YOU have to demonstrate is more than just a figment of your
imagination - in the real world.

Why not at least try to think outside the box?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:24:27 -0500, Mike Lovell <dev....@b0h0.com>
wrote:

>On 2012-07-01, Anton Shepelev <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Great, now you just have to prove he exists! :-)
>>>
>>> Good luck with that.
>>>
>>> We might as well be discussing what magic powers
>>> Harry Potter has!
>>
>> OK, thanks. Remeber a recent discussion where you
>> (atheists) were referring to abstract thought -- the
>> ability to discuss things that do not exist?
>
>No I don't. There's not some kind of atheist-bloc that answers
>questions for you, all approved by the atheist-pope.

It's theists who have difficulty understanding that that is all it is
outside their religion.

>We're individuals with vastly different philosophies, politics and
>beliefs with just one thing in common.
>
>We don't believe in God.

Not just a god called "God" but also Zeus, Odin, Mithras Krishna nd
all the others.

All of which are just as irrelevant to him as his is to us.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <20120702011351.c326...@gmail.com>,

Anton Shepelev <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike Lovell:
>
> > [...]
> > Great, now you just have to prove he exists! :-)
> >
> > Good luck with that.
> >
> > We might as well be discussing what magic powers
> > Harry Potter has!
>
> OK, thanks. Remeber a recent discussion where you
> (atheists) were referring to abstract thought -- the
> ability to discuss things that do not exist?
>
> This at least helps to detect internal inconsisten-
> cies, or lack thereof. And if you can't proof that
> God does not exists, what external inconsistenxies
> can you point to?

We don't have to prove that god doesn't exist since that's not what
atheism is.

Nobody has yet presented ANY evidence that this god you speak of exists,
so what possible reason would we have tobelieve it does?

[MarkA]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:13:51 +0400, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Mike Lovell:
>
>> [...]
>> Great, now you just have to prove he exists! :-)
>>
>> Good luck with that.
>>
>> We might as well be discussing what magic powers Harry Potter has!
>
> OK, thanks. Remeber a recent discussion where you (atheists) were
> referring to abstract thought -- the ability to discuss things that do not
> exist?
>
> This at least helps to detect internal inconsisten- cies, or lack
> thereof. And if you can't proof that God does not exists, what external
> inconsistenxies can you point to?

You have already just pointed out an internal inconsistency of God belief:
if God is omniscient, He must know what choices people will make before
they make them. That is incompatible with the idea of "Free will".

Another inconsistency is the idea that God is good, just, and merciful.
If God created people with free will, knowing that they would use their
free will to sin, and thereby merit punishment, then He is negligent in
His creation of us.

OTOH, if God is NOT good, just, and merciful, there is no reason to expect
that He will reward His followers and punish evil-doers, so we are all
screwed whether we believe in Him or not.

So, the only options that are left are that, 1) God is incompetent, 2) God
is evil, 3) God is indifferent, or 4) God doesn't exist. Since choices 3
and 4 are functionally identical, it doesn't really matter if you call
yourself a deist or an atheist.

[MarkA]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:59:40 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:35:26 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:29:58 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> Any you have failed, at every point, to show any reason why it *is*
>>> true,
>>>
>>> Mere assertion is not proof.
>>
>>The statement in question is an accurate re-phrasing of what the bible
>>actually says. And yes, it is absurd.
>
> This discussion has been very interesting.
>
> (Some) atheists (sometimes) demand that Christians (and other theists)
> provide evidence or proof of the existence of God.
>
> Something similar would apply in this case.
>
> The way to show that the statements in the poster are accurate statements
> of the core beliefs of Christianity would be to provide evidence of the
> existence of Christians who believe those statements.
>
> Not only have none of those who participated in the discussion succeeded
> in doing this, they haven't even tried.

So, it is your position that no Christians believe in the Nicene creed?
The congregation at the local Catholic Church might disagree with you on
that point.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:04:30 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

Of course, this is the real world beyond his religion, where it is
merely one of hundreds of different religious beliefs that are
completely irrelevant to everybody else except for its own believers.

Something very few theists can grasp.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> writes:

>So, it is your position that no Christians believe in the Nicene creed?
>The congregation at the local Catholic Church might disagree with you on
>that point.

Obviously not. But it seems that you're being intentionally obtuse
in order to try to make a point. After all, if the argument is
that this piece of propaganda is responding to a caricature of
Christianity, then your rebuttal can only be taken as an insistence
that the caricature is the reality. But then again, this is
precisely the point that the propaganda is itself trying to make.
So without something further to say on the question, all you can
do at this point is restate the very thing that Steve Hayes was
responding to in the first place.

Now, Mr. Hayes knows what he believes, and if you had the proper
respect for him as a person, I think you should take him at his
word that the image on his blog does not represent his Christian
faith. Instead you put yourself in the position of judging what
he really believes on his behalf. But since you won't take my
suggestion, you might rather turn to the subtleties of the theologians
who have written on matters such as the doctrines of the Trinity,
the Incarnation, and Original Sin. And if you will not do that,
then I don't know what you could possibly hope to gain by participating
in this discussion. Nor can I figure how you could possibly say
with any real certainty that atheism is true, if you refuse to (or
are unable to) respond to the authentic claims of Christianity.
Moreover, no Christian will ever be likely to respond to your
rhetoric in a positive manner, and the more educated and rational
the Christian, the less likely it will be. So it is almost as if
you are trying to convince or at least gratify yourself rather than
your true intelocutor; and if that's the case, you aren't trolling
correctly.


Daniel

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:15:44 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:59:40 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:35:26 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:29:58 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> Any you have failed, at every point, to show any reason why it *is*
>>>> true,
>>>>
>>>> Mere assertion is not proof.
>>>
>>>The statement in question is an accurate re-phrasing of what the bible
>>>actually says. And yes, it is absurd.
>>
>> This discussion has been very interesting.
>>
>> (Some) atheists (sometimes) demand that Christians (and other theists)
>> provide evidence or proof of the existence of God.
>>
>> Something similar would apply in this case.
>>
>> The way to show that the statements in the poster are accurate statements
>> of the core beliefs of Christianity would be to provide evidence of the
>> existence of Christians who believe those statements.
>>
>> Not only have none of those who participated in the discussion succeeded
>> in doing this, they haven't even tried.
>
>So, it is your position that no Christians believe in the Nicene creed?

The Nicene Creed was compiled and promulgated for precisely the purpose of
countering the kind of heresies displayed in the poster.

[walksalone]

Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote in news:jsti2d$453$1...@odin.sdf-
eu.org:

Followups set, even though the topic is on topic for thje religious
groups.

> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> writes:
>
>>So, it is your position that no Christians believe in the Nicene creed?
>>The congregation at the local Catholic Church might disagree with you
on
>>that point.
>
> Obviously not. But it seems that you're being intentionally obtuse
> in order to try to make a point. After all, if the argument is
> that this piece of propaganda is responding to a caricature of
> Christianity, then your rebuttal can only be taken as an insistence
> that the caricature is the reality. But then again, this is

Not really, ever hear of propaganda? First, it was a xian who posted it
to the atheist newsgroup, claimed to be able to debunk it, then failed &
claimed victory. Not a very good start.

> precisely the point that the propaganda is itself trying to make.

In what way is the less than well done cartoon in error? Not IYO, or
mine. In what factual way is it in error? Serious questipon BTW.
BTW, the points have been made countless times & are accurate based on
the claims made for the revealed god of the desert. It's in the in the
anthology xians refger to as their bioble. An error really, the Jews
never had a testament, so in reality it is two seperate anthologies.

> So without something further to say on the question, all you can
> do at this point is restate the very thing that Steve Hayes was
> responding to in the first place.

There is a serious difference between responding to, as I am doing to
you, & debunking. Or do think otherwise?

> Now, Mr. Hayes knows what he believes, and if you had the proper
> respect for him as a person, I think you should take him at his

Respect is a two way street, he failed to show it, he has yet to earn it.
He has placed himself in the situation not that dissimilar of a 2nd. Lt,
[US], fresh out of OCS, who has been given command od a Brigade, in full
time combat.

> word that the image on his blog does not represent his Christian
> faith. Instead you put yourself in the position of judging what

What is xian faith? Can you explain it in such a manner thbat I can
relay it to a 12 year old child that has not been exposed to that meme, &
have it make sense? If not, you might want to reconsider & redefine your
definition.

> he really believes on his behalf. But since you won't take my
> suggestion, you might rather turn to the subtleties of the theologians

When I seek directions to a place I am not familiar with, I do not seek
directions from those who know as little as I do. You might want to
consider this, no theological institute of higher learning is accredited
by any official accrediting source. They have to have tgheir very own
accredation system. Reason, they are not teaching but indoctrinationg.
They claim otherwise, but that is reality for you. It may suck but it
remaions the same in that situation.

If theologians [a field not restriced to the xian gods] could actually
explain what they believe, instead of engagiong in apologetics, you may
hav e had a point. They don't, & AFAIK, they never have.

Minor example, xian revealed god in nature, why are there no unique moral
or ethical teachings that could only haved came from a god involved with
their myth?
The Golden rule, sorry variants of that were around long before the
gospels named after disciples were recorded.

How come we can not identify the author of any text in the Hebrew Bible
or Greek Testament?
How come there are two different opposing creation stories where humans
are concerned, & where is the myth from originally?
Why does the sacred text of the revealed gods read like propaganda pieced
rather than etical/moral tereatsies?
Why do they fear their god, & why do xians call it love when a reading of
the text verifies that god has a hard on for humanity

> who have written on matters such as the doctrines of the Trinity,

The what? There was no such doctrine in early xianity. That reqyuired
the council of Nicea. Why the council of Nicea? Because xians were
ripping the Empire apart with their internal squabbling.

> the Incarnation, and Original Sin. And if you will not do that,

The incarnation? Which one? Bubba, Mary?
Original sin? How can that be, remember, their big daddy with the fuzzy
nuts? He knew everything before he created, therefore, he is the sole
source of original sin櫓. Simplified version of course.

> then I don't know what you could possibly hope to gain by participating
> in this discussion. Nor can I figure how you could possibly say
> with any real certainty that atheism is true, if you refuse to (or

Indeed, other than apologetics, whny ar you posting to the atheist
newsgroup. Note, I said to, not from. It appears that you are posting
from the talk.reliogion.misc group.
As to Atheism being tgrue, in what sense? As a scientific theory, well,
yes. After all, it does explain facts observed. As a way of life, you
havedn't a clue if you claim that.

> are unable to) respond to the authentic claims of Christianity.

There has to be one first.
No historical Jesus, all references are self referential.
No possibility of the xian death scene being for real.
BTW, there was at least one Jesus crucified, but he was not Jesus ben
Joseph.
The heroes of the less than gripping tale having the three most common
names in 1st. century Judea.
No known authors for their holy books. If Saul AKA Paul did exist,
maybe. It is knolwn the pastorial works are not his.
The Greek Testaments are & were tailored for illitedrate people. Peopl
not trained to think for themselves, not trained to follow the evidence,
but their emotions.
One as sarcastic as I am might say, when xians meet in congregation, the
opening prayer should either be, To Whom It May Concern, or more
accurately, Mommy, it's dark & I am afraid.

> Moreover, no Christian will ever be likely to respond to your
> rhetoric in a positive manner, and the more educated and rational
> the Christian, the less likely it will be. So it is almost as if

An opinion shared by you. By others, not so much. There are thinking
xians, but they are few & far between where this newsgroup is concerned.
The majority of the better known ones are female. But they let the
secret out.

> you are trying to convince or at least gratify yourself rather than
> your true intelocutor; and if that's the case, you aren't trolling
> correctly.

Strange, I was thinking the same thing about you. I hope you are not
trying to emulate those like Roger the dodger Pearse?
The epitome of civility, & ethically & morally bankrupt.[1]

walksalone who is certainly glad he helped his children learn that even
though the god concept comforts many, there is no logical or ethical
reason they had to go that route. If they are religious, at least it
won't be if rfegard to any of tghe revealed gods. They are still to
honest & ethical for that tomfoolery.

[1] If xianity makes the believer so much a better person, why are their
actions at large, not indicating this?
Rhetorical question BTW.

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the
sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation
or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite
eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons,
about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such
things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by
experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful
and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the
non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on
these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he
might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how
totally in error they are.
-- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

[MarkA]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:18:26 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:15:44 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:59:40 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:35:26 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:29:58 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>> Any you have failed, at every point, to show any reason why it *is*
>>>>> true,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mere assertion is not proof.
>>>>
>>>>The statement in question is an accurate re-phrasing of what the bible
>>>>actually says. And yes, it is absurd.
>>>
>>> This discussion has been very interesting.
>>>
>>> (Some) atheists (sometimes) demand that Christians (and other theists)
>>> provide evidence or proof of the existence of God.
>>>
>>> Something similar would apply in this case.
>>>
>>> The way to show that the statements in the poster are accurate
>>> statements of the core beliefs of Christianity would be to provide
>>> evidence of the existence of Christians who believe those statements.
>>>
>>> Not only have none of those who participated in the discussion
>>> succeeded in doing this, they haven't even tried.
>>
>>So, it is your position that no Christians believe in the Nicene creed?
>
> The Nicene Creed was compiled and promulgated for precisely the purpose of
> countering the kind of heresies displayed in the poster.

As a non-Christian, I see no difference in the content of the two, though
the style of presentation is markedly different.

[fasgnadh]

On 28/06/2012 4:09 PM, Mike Painter wrote:

> On 6/27/2012 10:45 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda,
>> which
>> caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that any
>> Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it. Not
>> only was
>> the whole thing wrong; every single part of it was wrong too.
>>
>> It seemed to me that it was most likely to be "feel-good" propaganda by
>> militant atheists for militant atheists to make themselves feel good and
>> smugly superior to Christians.
>>

>> You have to see it, though, to believe it, and you can find it here,
>> along
>> with my deconstruction of it.
>>

>> http://methodius.blogspot.com/2012/06/ridiculous-beliefs.html
>>
>> And anyone is welcome to add their own deconstruction of it, there or
>> here on
>> Usenet.

# "Ridiculous beliefs".
#
# I agree.

Sure, it was written by an atheist.

You know, people who when they went looking for an ideology, chose one
with JUST ONE IDEA! B^D

# The problem is, though, that I cannot recall ever meeting anyone who #
actually believes that.

Only the atheists who think that creating strawmen and
then debating their own delusions is 'rational debate' B^D

# Can you call something a "belief" if no one believes it?

The atheist clearly believes it's a belief,
and he doesn't attribute it to any one, with a citation,
so we could check who he claims said it,

so it must be his.

Apparently other atheists, ignorant of any theology other
than the ones they fabricate based on their back-of-the-cereal-box
understanding of religions, share his belief:

> Aside from the minor point of man and woman being created with "original
> sin" and leaving out the part about killing all but 8 people who
> promptly started doing what the rest had been doing, it seems pretty
> correct to me.

So there's the only two people who think it's correct.

Originally I thought it was a weak attempt to lampoon something by
someone who doesn't understand it, but this atheist confirms what
must now be taken as the belief of the other one.

Atheists have a a number of these inane beliefs, but if you ask them
about their beliefs they disown them, even try to tell you they are YOUR
beliefs, or claim it's parody.. but it's suck patent, infantile
gibberish that only atheists could take it seriously.


> They also could have added the"love me or I'll kill" you part.



Again, there is no scriptural reference so this is also the
authors own original thinking.

Atheists are the only people in USENET who never debate what you
actually say, but instead FABRICATE STRAWMEN, which they assign
to you, and then mass debate in your absence!

It's hilarious to watch this charade they play endlessly, fooling
no one but themselves




You are of course correct that no mainstream Christians believe
the nonsense these atheists talk.
They are NOT INTERESTED in hearing what YOU ACTUALLY SAY about
your faith, that would be far too challenging for them...

They take some Lowest Common Denominator caricature they
have lashed together, and pretend it is representative of
mainstream belief. Dawkins, et al, do it all the time,
choosing the most outrageous over-simplifications of
fundie beliefs and projecting it to ALL religious..

You should realise that it's a standard propaganda tactic used by
atheists since Lenin:

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)


They are not interested in genuine dialogue,

remember, atheism is an ideology with ONLY ONE IDEA,
it is the most useless sub-branch of pointless Nihilism.






--


When it was revealed that alt.atheism.moderated.by.bigots.and.trolls
was declining in it's daily traffic, Mike Lenin from Pravda
Propaganda set about to "FIX" it: B^D

# From: Mike Lovell <dev....@b0h0.com>
# Subject: The atheism is faith based destruction question
# Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 22:24:25 -0500
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
# Followup-To: alt.atheism.moderated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

# From: Mike Lovell <dev....@b0h0.com>
# Subject: AA: What happens after you die
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
# Followup-To: alt.atheism.moderated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

atheist parasites SIPHON your posts! B^D

---------


The foremost atheist Philosopher of our age recently
launched his new book "Religion for Atheists" and
no atheists are interested in talking about it:


http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com.au/



- Alain de Botton, Lanching his new Book, Religion for Atheists
The Wheeler Centre, Melbourne 19/3/2012


http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2012/03/19/3455152.htm

---------

alt.atheism FAQ:

http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/


http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source



"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)



http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest


"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest

http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg

[MarkA]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 01:31:57 +0000, Daniel Baumgarten wrote:

> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> writes:
>
>>So, it is your position that no Christians believe in the Nicene creed?
>>The congregation at the local Catholic Church might disagree with you on
>>that point.
>
> Obviously not. But it seems that you're being intentionally obtuse in
> order to try to make a point. After all, if the argument is that this
> piece of propaganda is responding to a caricature of Christianity, then
> your rebuttal can only be taken as an insistence that the caricature is
> the reality. But then again, this is precisely the point that the
> propaganda is itself trying to make. So without something further to say
> on the question, all you can do at this point is restate the very thing
> that Steve Hayes was responding to in the first place.
>
> Now, Mr. Hayes knows what he believes, and if you had the proper respect
> for him as a person, I think you should take him at his word that the
> image on his blog does not represent his Christian faith. Instead you put
> yourself in the position of judging what he really believes on his behalf.

No, Mr Hayes is claiming that the poster does not represent what *ANY*
Christian believes. It is my position that the poster represents the
beliefs expressed in the Nicene creed, just in less flattering language.

> But since you won't take my suggestion, you might rather turn to the
> subtleties of the theologians who have written on matters such as the
> doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Original Sin. And if you
> will not do that, then I don't know what you could possibly hope to gain
> by participating in this discussion.

I am trying to get Mr. Hayes to enunciate what he believes is inaccurate
about the poster. So far, all he has done is to call it "heretical", and
to speculate on the motives of the author.

> Nor can I figure how you could
> possibly say with any real certainty that atheism is true, if you refuse
> to (or are unable to) respond to the authentic claims of Christianity.

I never claimed that atheism is "true". I, personally, lack belief in any
gods, including the God of Abraham, but I have no delusions that my
opinions are all absolutely correct. Any god worth his salt would
certainly be able to hide his existence from me, so the strongest
statement I can make is that I see no reason to believe in a god.

> Moreover, no Christian will ever be likely to respond to your rhetoric
> in a positive manner, and the more educated and rational the Christian,
> the less likely it will be.

Perhaps the more educated and rational the Christian is, the more he
realizes that his position is not logically defensible?

> So it is almost as if you are trying to convince or at least gratify
> yourself rather than your true intelocutor; and if that's the case, you
> aren't trolling correctly.
>
>
> Daniel

Thank you for your interest. Mr. Hayes posted here in alt.atheism, among
other groups, claiming that the statement in question was "remarkable
anti-Christian propaganda", and invited people to read his
"deconstruction" and comment. I read the statement, and could not find
anything in it that wasn't a reasonable accurate, if somewhat overstated,
profession of what Christians believe. Nor could I find, in his
deconstruction, anything that even attempted to refute the statement.

When someone says that a statement is "anti-<insert religion here>
propaganda", I think of Jews in the Middle Ages being accused of drinking
the blood of Christian children, which, to my knowledge, never actually
happened. THAT is "anti-<religion> propaganda". Saying that "God
crucified Himself so that He could forgive us of the sins that He created
us with" isn't propaganda in any way. It's more of a clarification of the
central idiocy of Christianity.

As I said to Mr. Hayes, I'm sorry if you are stuck with an absurd belief
system. Human brains are hard-wired to hold onto some beliefs with
incredible tenacity. Some people are able to recognize when their beliefs
are obviously wrong, and change to a different belief. However, that is
the exception. I'm sorry you don't seem to be one of those exceptions.

[Steve Hayes]

Aye, well, that gets to the heart of the matter.

As a non-Christians, you are under no obligation to try to understand the
Christian faith unless you have a particular reason to be interested in it.

So I would not expect you to be able to tell the difference between an
accurate exposition of the Christian faith and a distorted one, or even to
care about it.

But your comments in this thread seem to indicate that you do care about it
very deeply, and that you regard yourself as an authority on the topic of
Christian doctrine -- a greater authority on the subject than any Christian.
You seem to have elevated your views to the level of dogma. And there seem to
be several other non-Christians who have contributed to this thread who seem
to have a similar attitude.

The question is, why should this be?

[fasgnadh]

Game, Set, Match.

[sbalneav]

It's not sophistry, it's pointing out the logical inconsistency of the biblical
creation story.

> None of it will change that *fact* that the Bible does not say, nor does any
> any Christian theologian believe that God said "I'm going to create man and
> woman with original sin".

But that is the consequence of an omnipotent, omniscient God placing the very
thing he didn't want two people he created touching in the very place they had
opportunity to touch it. And no amount of avoidance on YOUR part can make that
go away, either. God either maliciously set up the events that led to original
sin, or he's a piss-poor manager.

> It is the kind of argument usually referred to as "a straw man".

The problem is, with any normal entity, you can excuse lack of foresight. If
the scientist creates the army of worker robots, tries to make sure that
they're only used for good purposes, but some nefarious baddie subverts their
programming to turn them into an army of MurderBots, the scientist can be
somewhat forgiven as he or she cannot see all outcomes. Of course, there's
always the scene in the movie where the hero confronts the scientist and
screams "You created thousands of 10 foot tall iron robots with the strength of
10 men! What did you *THINK* was going to happen?!". And of course, we all
sit there and go "Yeah, ANY idiot could see that this was a bad idea!".

But if God, who *is* actually omniscient, according to the bible, creates a
couple of people *without the knowledge of good and evil*, and tells them
not to touch this special tree WHICH IS RIGHT THERE WITH NO SECURITY, and
they can't form the necessary intent because THEY DON'T KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG,
aren't you kinda sitting there going, "Yeah, well, *ANY* idiot could see this
was a bad idea." The scientist gets a pass because he's not omniscient.

God can't use that excuse. He KNEW what was going to happen. If you're going
to claim he didn't, then he's not omniscient.

>>Sorry, you've failed, on every point, to actually provide any valid reasons why
>>this isn't true. Other than flat "No, that's not what it says" without any
>>reasoning or logic as to why you don't think it should be interpreted that way,
>>you've proven nothing.
>
> Any you have failed, at every point, to show any reason why it *is* true,

That's because your reading comprehension skills could use some improving.
I'll point form it for you:

* God can see the future.
* God creates Garden of Eden, including forbidden fruit.
* God creates Adam and Eve, with no knowledge of Good and Evil
* God tells Adam and Eve "Do not touch" but because of previous point, Adam
and Eve can't see how bad this can really be.
* Inevitable happens.
* God does not forgive.

> Mere assertion is not proof.

Well, there's no proof possible anyway, since the Bible's just a big book of
myths anywho. Since you can't provide any proof that God, the Garden of Eden,
Adam and Eve, heaven, hell, the devil, or any of the rest of it actually
existed or exists, the entire thing's a wash. You're left arguing wording on a
funny image macro.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:35:26 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:29:58 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> Any you have failed, at every point, to show any reason why it *is* true,
>>>
>>> Mere assertion is not proof.
>>
>>The statement in question is an accurate re-phrasing of what the bible
>>actually says. And yes, it is absurd.
>
> This discussion has been very interesting.
>
> (Some) atheists (sometimes) demand that Christians (and other theists) provide
> evidence or proof of the existence of God.
>
> Something similar would apply in this case.
>
> The way to show that the statements in the poster are accurate statements of
> the core beliefs of Christianity would be to provide evidence of the existence
> of Christians who believe those statements.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=077a7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

The mormons believe that the Fall was a necessary part of God's Plan.

Game, set, and Match.

Dismissed. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[MarkA]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 17:06:28 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:22:51 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:18:26 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> The Nicene Creed was compiled and promulgated for precisely the purpose
>>> of countering the kind of heresies displayed in the poster.
>>
>>As a non-Christian, I see no difference in the content of the two, though
>>the style of presentation is markedly different.
>
> Aye, well, that gets to the heart of the matter.
>
> As a non-Christians, you are under no obligation to try to understand the
> Christian faith unless you have a particular reason to be interested in
> it.
>
> So I would not expect you to be able to tell the difference between an
> accurate exposition of the Christian faith and a distorted one, or even to
> care about it.
>
> But your comments in this thread seem to indicate that you do care about
> it very deeply, and that you regard yourself as an authority on the topic
> of Christian doctrine -- a greater authority on the subject than any
> Christian. You seem to have elevated your views to the level of dogma. And
> there seem to be several other non-Christians who have contributed to this
> thread who seem to have a similar attitude.
>
> The question is, why should this be?

There's a very simple, well known explanation. It is called "cognitive
dissonance". The general idea is that when you believe two contradictory
things, the brain will come up with a way to justify the contradiction.

You belong to a religion that holds that a god created humans with a
weakness, put them in a situation where the weakness would manifest
itself, then punished them and all their descendants (as in, the entire
human race) for succumbing to that weakness. A few thousand years later,
he magically impregnated a virgin woman who then gave birth to a human who
was really the god, and who let himself be crucified, so that the sinful
descendants of Adam and Eve could be forgiven for being sinful, because if
He didn't have His human form be crucified, He can't forgive people's sins.

I may not be a practicing Christian, but I know enough about Christianity
to know that statement is an accurate description of Christian beliefs.
You don't like it, because when you put all the absurdities in one
paragraph, instead of spreading them over a couple hundred pages, it makes
it very obvious how absurd they are.

So, rather than recognize the absurdity of your beliefs, you try to
criticize the statement of inanity, but so far, you have failed to poke
any holes in it, or even to scratch the paint.

I hope this helps.

[Steve Hayes]

You are God and I claim my five pounds.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:29:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net>
wrote:

Maybe there was a mistranslation in the Greek, it wasn't Omniscience, it was
diverticulitis?

Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

So we could put a bucket of water over God's office door and he wouldn't know
what hit him?

Ben

[sbalneav]

Anton Shepelev <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeanne Douglas:
>
>> > The Christian belief is that God endowed man
>> > with free will, which is part of what's referred
>> > to as "His own image". This implies the ability
>> > to choose between good (God) and bad (devil).
>>
>> If you believe your god is omniscient, then you
>> CANNOT have free will because your god knows ev-
>> erything you will ever do; in other words, in your
>> god's mind you have ALREADY done everything you
>> will ever do, so you cannot choose to do that
>> which your god has already seen you do. You cannot
>> not do something you've already done.
>
> This view collates with free will and implies abso-
> lute determinism, but it is not a Christian view.

Isaiah 46:9-10: "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and
there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient
times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all
that I please."

This seems pretty clearly to indicate that God supposedly sees the future.

It's also Catholic Doctrine:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IID1

Sorry, God's absolute foreknowledge *is* a Christian view.

> God knows everything about the currect state of the
> Universe, but its future state He can't fully calcu-
> late because He does not control man's free will.

There are any one of a dozen Biblical quotes that DIRECTLY oppose this view
you're promulgating here. The "I am the Alpha and Omega" one immediately
springs to mind. Please cite ONE passage from the Bible that states God's
knowledge of the future isn't perfect.

> All mechanical (not involving free will) processes
> He can predict of course, while others He can ex-
> trapolate with a certain probablity based on his
> complete knowledge of the past.
>
> God is omniscient in the sense that He knows every-
> thing that can be known, i.e. He possesses all ex-
> isting information, which people's future decisions
> are not part of.

What biblical support do you have for this view?

--
__ _ | The library is the temple of learning, and learning has
(_ |_) | liberated more people than all the wars in history.
__)|_) | -- Carl T. Rowan

[Steve Hayes]

Well, if you find that kind of argument convincing, I'm sure this one will
bowl you over:

A proof that a man may be his own Grandfather.裕here was a widow and her
daughter-in-law, and a man and his son. The widow married the son, and the
daughter the old man; the widow was, therefore, mother to her husband's
father, consequently grandmother to her own husband. They had a son, to whom
she was great-grandmother; now, as the son of a great-grandmother must be
either a grandfather or great-uncle, this boy was therefore his own
grandfather.

>> None of it will change that *fact* that the Bible does not say, nor does any
>> any Christian theologian believe that God said "I'm going to create man and
>> woman with original sin".
>
>But that is the consequence of an omnipotent, omniscient God placing the very
>thing he didn't want two people he created touching in the very place they had
>opportunity to touch it. And no amount of avoidance on YOUR part can make that
>go away, either. God either maliciously set up the events that led to original
>sin, or he's a piss-poor manager.

That does not change the *fact* that the Bible does not say, nor does any

Christian theologian believe that God said "I'm going to create man and woman
with original sin".

>> It is the kind of argument usually referred to as "a straw man".

>The problem is, with any normal entity, you can excuse lack of foresight. If
>the scientist creates the army of worker robots, tries to make sure that
>they're only used for good purposes, but some nefarious baddie subverts their
>programming to turn them into an army of MurderBots, the scientist can be
>somewhat forgiven as he or she cannot see all outcomes. Of course, there's
>always the scene in the movie where the hero confronts the scientist and
>screams "You created thousands of 10 foot tall iron robots with the strength of
>10 men! What did you *THINK* was going to happen?!". And of course, we all
>sit there and go "Yeah, ANY idiot could see that this was a bad idea!".

You may multiply entities as much as you like, but that does not change the
*fact* that the Bible does not say, nor does any Christian theologian believe

that God said "I'm going to create man and woman with original sin".

>That's because your reading comprehension skills could use some improving.
>I'll point form it for you:
>
> * God can see the future.
> * God creates Garden of Eden, including forbidden fruit.
> * God creates Adam and Eve, with no knowledge of Good and Evil
> * God tells Adam and Eve "Do not touch" but because of previous point, Adam
> and Eve can't see how bad this can really be.
> * Inevitable happens.
> * God does not forgive.

Even an entity with poor reading comprehension skills could tell that "I'm
going to create man and woman with original sin" is a lot shorter and more
succinct than any of that multiplication of words and inaccurate statements,
which still does not show that the original statement is in the Bible, or in
the Nicene Creed, or that it is believed by Christian theologians who accept
the Nicene Creed (and that doesn't include the LDS).


\

[Virgil]

In article <6tn7v7982a0qnmc81...@4ax.com>,

Whether the bible says it explicitly or not, any god worthy of the name
must have known what would happen.

So why didn't such a god prevent it from happening? Was you alleged god
neither wise enough to see what would happen nor powerful enough to
prevent it happening?

What a wuss it must be if it exists at all!
--

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> writes:

>Whether the bible says it explicitly or not, any god worthy of the name
>must have known what would happen.

>So why didn't such a god prevent it from happening? Was you alleged god
>neither wise enough to see what would happen nor powerful enough to
>prevent it happening?

Man's obedience to God would mean nothing if he didn't really have
the freedom to sin. It is the devil who would force us to obey
him, not God. Thus, it is not that God did not have the power to
prevent it from happening; it is just consistent with His infinite
goodness that he did not. He allows us to make our own decisions
so that, when we do obey, we are fully human and not unwilling
slaves. It is when we sin that we give up the gift of free will
to the power of the devil and fall into vice.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 13:58:57 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Baumgarten
<db...@sdf.org> wrote in alt.atheism:

>Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> writes:
>
>>Whether the bible says it explicitly or not, any god worthy of the name
>>must have known what would happen.
>
>>So why didn't such a god prevent it from happening? Was you alleged god
>>neither wise enough to see what would happen nor powerful enough to
>>prevent it happening?
>
>Man's obedience to God would mean nothing if he didn't really have
>the freedom to sin.

So God had to create evil so people could do good. Really?

>It is the devil who would force us to obey him, not God.

But God created the devil according to Christian dogma, so we are still
back at God.

>Thus, it is not that God did not have the power to
>prevent it from happening;

He chose to make evil happen.

>it is just consistent with His infinite
>goodness that he did not.

God created evil to be good. Sure.

>He allows us to make our own decisions
>so that, when we do obey, we are fully human and not unwilling
>slaves.

So we should be willing slaves. Slaves.

>It is when we sin that we give up the gift of free will
>to the power of the devil and fall into vice.

That's not how people actually act, however, and your justification for
why God created evil makes God look nasty and petty.

[Dakota]

Okay. Are you saying that your god created Satan and the other
'fallen' angels to tempt humans?

[walksalone]

Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote in news:jt1i70$2j4$1...@odin.sdf-
eu.org:

As usual, follow ups set.

> Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> writes:
>
>>Whether the bible says it explicitly or not, any god worthy of the name
>>must have known what would happen.
>
>>So why didn't such a god prevent it from happening? Was you alleged god
>>neither wise enough to see what would happen nor powerful enough to
>>prevent it happening?
>
> Man's obedience to God would mean nothing if he didn't really have
> the freedom to sin. It is the devil who would force us to obey

Blind obediance is for slaces, very small children, & those incapable of
thinking for themselves. In no particular order. Whether you want to
admit it or not, you are espousing the theodicy of might makes right, so
there.::)))))

> him, not God. Thus, it is not that God did not have the power to

Which satan woiuld that be now?
The pre babylonian one, who was a cohort of the god of the day?
The post babylonian vacation one, who was still a member of teh council of
the gods, but with being held in much less esteem by the council.
Or the xian one who is nothing like the Hebrew one?

> prevent it from happening; it is just consistent with His infinite
> goodness that he did not. He allows us to make our own decisions
> so that, when we do obey, we are fully human and not unwilling
> slaves. It is when we sin that we give up the gift of free will

So, chase your tail very often.
Hints follow:
Infinite goodness does not permit the wholesale misery & suffering in the
world.
Infinite goodness does not create life to torture for eternity.
Infinite goodness shows signs of compassion for those less Blessed™ than
others.
Like restoring limbs to amputees, no stillborn children can be considered
acts of infinite goodness.

According to xian reinterpolation of the Hebrew Bible, their 3in1 gods
can't exist, for none of those misconceptions are actually part or parcel
of the hebrew text.

Tell the audience, as best you can, which version of the creation of
humanity is correct.
Genesis 1
1:24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its
kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind'
And it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its
kind; and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth'.
1:27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He
him; male and female created He them.
1:28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
thing that creepeth upon the earth'.
1:29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed,
which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the
fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food;
1:30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I
have given every green herb for food' And it was so.

Or Genesis 2:
2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of the
garden thou mayest freely eat;
2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat
of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'
2:18 And the Lord God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I
will make him a help meet for him.'
2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he
would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature,
that was to be the name thereof.
2:20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and
to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet
for him.
2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he
slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh
instead thereof.
2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made He a
woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.


or the Enuma Elish
[way to large to include, even if it is the source legend for the Hebrew
myth]
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

Or from the Boshongo (Bantu) [my favorite]

Or the Maya [several]

Or the Aztec

Or the Kalahari

I doubt you are willing to Accespt the v alidity of the claims made on
behalf of humanities creators. yet you will be perfectly comfortable if
everyone else accepts your unfounded claims as valid.
Hint, only to you & like minded people, the rest of humanity is not
required to acept xianities false calims based on the publications of
unkown authors.

> to the power of the devil and fall into vice.

The devil the same one that made Geraldine buy that dress?
That devil?

Well yes, you might well accept that, after all, you appear to have a
vested interest in being right, even when you can only engage in assertions
& apologetics.
Must be that Dunning-Kruger effect I'v e read about.

BTW, I've yet to see any response to the followiing previously posted
questions adressed to you. yes, the audince realises you are a very busty
person, but if you don't avoid answering questions put to you, you may end
up with more time.

************

How come we can not identify the author of any text in the Hebrew Bible
or Greek Testament?
How come there are two different opposing creation stories where humans
are concerned, & where is the myth from originally?
Why does the sacred text of the revealed gods read like propaganda pieced
rather than etical/moral tereatsies?
Why do they fear their god, & why do xians call it love when a reading of
the text verifies that god has a hard on for humanity

************************

BTW, that was posted Tueday, 3 July 2012 in the groups you are including in
your look at me newsgroup list.

walksalone who does not rally expect anbswers from the op. Blustering, tap
dancing, playing ring around the rosie, all around the mulberry bush, yes.
Answers, no. After all, that might require so serious study & a chance of
losing what the op thinks may well be more important to them than humanity.

A possible source for religions that promise big daddy loves you & will
always love you?

Delta Dawn what's that flower you have on?
Could it be a faded rose from days gone by?
And did I hear you say he was meetin' you here today
to take you to his mansion in the sky.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:

>So God had to create evil so people could do good. Really?

No. After reading your whole post, it's evident that there are
two main points that need to be addressed here.

The first is that God did not create evil. God created the humans
and angels with the capacity to do evil, but he did not create them
such that they were predetermined to do it. Humans do not have to
actually sin in order to do good, but a human action is characteristically
human only insofar as it was freely chosen, and this means that a
choice to do good is also a choice *not* to do bad.

The second point is that although God did not create evil, we hold
that he is nonetheless the originator of all things. The corollary
is that evil is not a thing in itself. Unlike the good, it is not
a positive force. What the word "evil" signifies, rather, is the
privation of a due good. It signifies an absence of God's will
and therefore an absence of being, because God is the source of
all being.

The reason why we should be "willing slaves" to God -- not slaves
against our will, as we become when we serve the devil -- is
precisely that to perfectly obey God's will is to become fully
actual with respect to our nature (again, this follows from God's
nature as the source of all being). But since we are in a sinful
condition, it is no longer possible for us to do this by our own
power. By sinning, we deprive ourselves and each other of the
fullness of our own nature, that is, our free will. That is why
God's grace is necessary to perfect the fallen human nature, and
why nobody can do any good except by obeying God.

>>It is the devil who would force us to obey him, not God.

>But God created the devil according to Christian dogma, so we are still
>back at God.

According to Christian dogma, the devil was originally good. But
like Adam and Eve, whom he tempted, the devil chose to disobey God.
God did not "make" the devil disobey him. But he did give the
devil such a nature that it was within the devil's own power to
disobey. And humans have an analogous power.

Any atheist who reads this post, and hasn't encountered these
concepts before, has no right to say that they know Christianity
better than Christians themselves do. You should not be reading
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens to find
out what Chrisitans believe. You should be reading Athanasius,
Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. It is not that the claims of
Christianity are not controversial; they are. But as most educated
theists know, the so-called "new atheists" write in response to an
utter caricature not only of Christian theology, but of the very
same Western philosophical tradition that makes their critiques
possible.

[sbalneav]

> A proof that a man may be his own Grandfather.?There was a widow and her

> daughter-in-law, and a man and his son. The widow married the son, and the
> daughter the old man; the widow was, therefore, mother to her husband's
> father, consequently grandmother to her own husband. They had a son, to whom
> she was great-grandmother; now, as the son of a great-grandmother must be
> either a grandfather or great-uncle, this boy was therefore his own
> grandfather.

That's fine; those are titles by marriage. They're not genetics.

What has that to do with the price of tea in china? Shouting "What's that over
there?!" and beating a hasty retreat only works in the movies.

>>> None of it will change that *fact* that the Bible does not say, nor does any
>>> any Christian theologian believe that God said "I'm going to create man and
>>> woman with original sin".
>>
>>But that is the consequence of an omnipotent, omniscient God placing the very
>>thing he didn't want two people he created touching in the very place they had
>>opportunity to touch it. And no amount of avoidance on YOUR part can make that
>>go away, either. God either maliciously set up the events that led to original
>>sin, or he's a piss-poor manager.
>
> That does not change the *fact* that the Bible does not say, nor does any
> Christian theologian believe that God said "I'm going to create man and woman
> with original sin".

At no point did he actually SAY that, correct. It is, however, the upshot of
the entire sequence God supposedly put into play. He's either running the
show, or he's not. If he's running the show, as the Bible seems to indicate,
and man ended up with original sin, then that must have been the desired
outcome.

Christians can't have it both ways; you can't piously fold your hands and
claim, whenever anything happens, that "it's all part of God's plan", but then
when it comes to the Adam and Eve creation story, claim that God was somehow
ignorant of how the whole thing was going to pan out.

>>> It is the kind of argument usually referred to as "a straw man".
>
>>The problem is, with any normal entity, you can excuse lack of foresight. If
>>the scientist creates the army of worker robots, tries to make sure that
>>they're only used for good purposes, but some nefarious baddie subverts their
>>programming to turn them into an army of MurderBots, the scientist can be
>>somewhat forgiven as he or she cannot see all outcomes. Of course, there's
>>always the scene in the movie where the hero confronts the scientist and
>>screams "You created thousands of 10 foot tall iron robots with the strength of
>>10 men! What did you *THINK* was going to happen?!". And of course, we all
>>sit there and go "Yeah, ANY idiot could see that this was a bad idea!".
>
> You may multiply entities as much as you like, but that does not change the
> *fact* that the Bible does not say, nor does any Christian theologian believe
> that God said "I'm going to create man and woman with original sin".

Then if God is running the show, how did Humans end up, supposedly, with
original sin? Please explain how you're squaring an omniscient God who can see
the future with the Fall of Man.

>>That's because your reading comprehension skills could use some improving.
>>I'll point form it for you:
>>
>> * God can see the future.
>> * God creates Garden of Eden, including forbidden fruit.
>> * God creates Adam and Eve, with no knowledge of Good and Evil
>> * God tells Adam and Eve "Do not touch" but because of previous point, Adam
>> and Eve can't see how bad this can really be.
>> * Inevitable happens.
>> * God does not forgive.
>
> Even an entity with poor reading comprehension skills could tell that "I'm
> going to create man and woman with original sin" is a lot shorter and more
> succinct than any of that multiplication of words and inaccurate statements,

1) Please point out where they're inaccurate. You keep levelling that charge
of inaccuracy on my part, but you're not pointing out where the inaccuracy is.
2) The phrase in the image macro is, given the above sequence of events, an
accurate summation. You are correct in stating that God never comes right out
and says that he'll create man with original sin from the get-go, but since
it's clear that he arranged the sequence of events that LED to the Fall of Man
(according to the Bible), one can't help but conclude that that was his
intention all along. You have to somehow square the Fall of Man being an
unexpected and unforseen and uncorrectable event with the fact being that there
was an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God hanging around.

> which still does not show that the original statement is in the Bible, or in
> the Nicene Creed, or that it is believed by Christian theologians who accept
> the Nicene Creed (and that doesn't include the LDS).

And the "No True Scotsman" fallacy gets trotted out.

--
__ _ | If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would
(_ |_) | quickly have perished: for they are forever praying for
__)|_) | evil against one another. -- Epicurus, 341-270 BCE

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 14:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Baumgarten
<db...@sdf.org> wrote in alt.atheism:

>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
>>So God had to create evil so people could do good. Really?
>
>No. After reading your whole post, it's evident that there are
>two main points that need to be addressed here.
>
>The first is that God did not create evil. God created the humans
>and angels with the capacity to do evil, but he did not create them
>such that they were predetermined to do it.

So God does not know the future, He is not omniscient. You are talking
about a god that is not the god of Christianity.

>Humans do not have to
>actually sin in order to do good, but a human action is characteristically
>human only insofar as it was freely chosen, and this means that a
>choice to do good is also a choice *not* to do bad.

Yes, we have the illusion of free choice. Whether it exists is a
question to be resolved in the future by scientists.

>The second point is that although God did not create evil, we hold
>that he is nonetheless the originator of all things. The corollary
>is that evil is not a thing in itself. Unlike the good, it is not
>a positive force. What the word "evil" signifies, rather, is the
>privation of a due good. It signifies an absence of God's will
>and therefore an absence of being, because God is the source of
>all being.

Then it is proper to assign responsibility to God for evil if we assert
he had anything to do with good.

>The reason why we should be "willing slaves" to God -- not slaves
>against our will, as we become when we serve the devil -- is
>precisely that to perfectly obey God's will is to become fully

Yet the theists who post here clearly reject what Jesus taught. How are
they obeying God's will when there are thousands of different
denominations who cannot agree on what God wants?

>actual with respect to our nature (again, this follows from God's
>nature as the source of all being). But since we are in a sinful
>condition, it is no longer possible for us to do this by our own
>power. By sinning, we deprive ourselves and each other of the
>fullness of our own nature, that is, our free will. That is why
>God's grace is necessary to perfect the fallen human nature, and
>why nobody can do any good except by obeying God.

None of this makes any sense. You are making excuses or ignoring the
problem of evil. Why does evil have to be a result of how God created?

>>>It is the devil who would force us to obey him, not God.
>
>>But God created the devil according to Christian dogma, so we are still
>>back at God.
>
>According to Christian dogma, the devil was originally good. But
>like Adam and Eve, whom he tempted, the devil chose to disobey God.
>God did not "make" the devil disobey him. But he did give the
>devil such a nature that it was within the devil's own power to
>disobey. And humans have an analogous power.

You are teaching the doctrine that God's creation wass clearly
defective.

>Any atheist who reads this post, and hasn't encountered these
>concepts before, has no right to say that they know Christianity
>better than Christians themselves do. You should not be reading
>Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens to find
>out what Chrisitans believe. You should be reading Athanasius,
>Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas.

I have. Their arguments are based on false assumptions and invalid
reasons.

> It is not that the claims of
>Christianity are not controversial; they are. But as most educated
>theists know, the so-called "new atheists" write in response to an
>utter caricature not only of Christian theology, but of the very
>same Western philosophical tradition that makes their critiques
>possible.

God does nothing. God is nothing.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
> Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> writes:
>
>>Whether the bible says it explicitly or not, any god worthy of the name
>>must have known what would happen.
>
>>So why didn't such a god prevent it from happening? Was you alleged god
>>neither wise enough to see what would happen nor powerful enough to
>>prevent it happening?
>
> Man's obedience to God would mean nothing if he didn't really have
> the freedom to sin.

That's fine. But why do you need the Fall of Man? Why does ORIGINAL SIN need
to be there? Why not simply have humans born neutral? If they do good things,
they go to heaven, if they do bad things, they go to hell?

> It is the devil who would force us to obey
> him, not God.

Please provide some Biblical support for this assertion of yours. In the
Bible, it is God who does the vast majority of the orders to murder, rape,
sacrifice humans, etc. Apart from Job's family, who does Satan kill? What
evil can be directly ascribed to Satan in the Bible?

Just so we're clear, and I don't face the charge of not believing in God but
believing in Satan; I don't believe in ANY supernatural being. God, Satan,
Loki, Zeus, etc.

> Thus, it is not that God did not have the power to
> prevent it from happening; it is just consistent with His infinite
> goodness that he did not. He allows us to make our own decisions
> so that, when we do obey, we are fully human and not unwilling
> slaves.

Of course, if we choose any way other than his way, according to the Bible,
we're tortured for eternity.

How can a finite being commit a crime so grievous that it merits an infinte
punishment? Why am I supposedly bearing the burden of someone else's sin?
How is this fair? And more importantly, how can someone else's propitiatory
sacrifice absolve me of any wrongdoings I commit?

> It is when we sin that we give up the gift of free will
> to the power of the devil and fall into vice.

For those of you who believe that, sure. I don't believe.

--
__ _ | Kindness is a language which the deaf can hear
(_ |_) | and the blind can read.
__)|_) | -- Mark Twain

[Neil Kelsey]

Why does God torture those who disobey him?

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:

>On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 14:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Baumgarten
><db...@sdf.org> wrote in alt.atheism:

>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>
>>>So God had to create evil so people could do good. Really?
>>
>>No. After reading your whole post, it's evident that there are
>>two main points that need to be addressed here.
>>
>>The first is that God did not create evil. God created the humans
>>and angels with the capacity to do evil, but he did not create them
>>such that they were predetermined to do it.

>So God does not know the future, He is not omniscient. You are talking
>about a god that is not the god of Christianity.

Actually it is you who are talking about a God who is not the God
of Christianity, although you don't realize it. The Christian God
is posited to exist outside of time altogether. He is not the God
of Deism.

Deists believe that the universe is like a clock, and God is the
entity who wound the clock; he set the initial conditions of the
universe and acted upon the universe only in that initial moment,
and thus knows what will happen in the future in much the same way
that we can predict eclipses, simply by knowing the initial state
of the universe and the laws according to which that state must
evolve. This is not how Christians conceive of God's omniscience.

By contrast, Christians believe that God is eternal, in other words,
that his very being is incompatible with the notions of "before"
and "after". This is the mode in which God knows the future,
namely, that all of history is experienced by God as an eternal
Now. There is nothing that passes away or comes anew in his
experience, for he is pure immutable act and is not changed by the
world. However, from within time, the freely willed actions of
humans cannot be attributed entirely to external causes and therefore
cannot be predicted. Even God, if he were a temporal being, could
not predict our actions. But he is not a temporal being and does
not have to make predictions to know what we will do.

>>The second point is that although God did not create evil, we hold
>>that he is nonetheless the originator of all things. The corollary
>>is that evil is not a thing in itself. Unlike the good, it is not
>>a positive force. What the word "evil" signifies, rather, is the
>>privation of a due good. It signifies an absence of God's will
>>and therefore an absence of being, because God is the source of
>>all being.

>Then it is proper to assign responsibility to God for evil if we assert
>he had anything to do with good.

How so?

>>The reason why we should be "willing slaves" to God -- not slaves
>>against our will, as we become when we serve the devil -- is
>>precisely that to perfectly obey God's will is to become fully

>Yet the theists who post here clearly reject what Jesus taught. How are
>they obeying God's will when there are thousands of different
>denominations who cannot agree on what God wants?

They aren't. Everybody sins, including you and me, and we cannot
stop sinning without God's help. Sin also prevents us from
understanding the truth about God.

>>actual with respect to our nature (again, this follows from God's
>>nature as the source of all being). But since we are in a sinful
>>condition, it is no longer possible for us to do this by our own
>>power. By sinning, we deprive ourselves and each other of the
>>fullness of our own nature, that is, our free will. That is why
>>God's grace is necessary to perfect the fallen human nature, and
>>why nobody can do any good except by obeying God.

>None of this makes any sense. You are making excuses or ignoring the
>problem of evil. Why does evil have to be a result of how God created?

Evil doesn't have to be a result of how God created. It was man's
choice, not God's choice, to bring evil into the world, which
properly speaking is actually to remove goodness from the world.
Of course, I am not ignoring the problem of evil here, I am addressing
it. Whether you understand or agree with the solution that I have
proposed (the traditional one, as I understand it) is another
matter.

The creation of beings with a capacity to do evil does not make
those beings defective, any more than the construction of a tool
that has the capacity to break makes the tool defective. Everything
can break in some way, but it is the presence of an actual malfunction
that we call a defect, not merely its possibility.

St. Thomas Aquinas expresses this subtlety in terms of the Aristotelian
doctrine of act and potency, and I am simply following his lead
here. Act is what something is, and potency is what something has
in itself to at some point be. For example, although I am not
actually walking at the same time that I type this, I have not
ceased to be a creature that has the potentiality to walk; in the
same way, evil comes about when a human being with the potentiality
to freely obey God fails by choice to act upon that potentiality.

>>Any atheist who reads this post, and hasn't encountered these
>>concepts before, has no right to say that they know Christianity
>>better than Christians themselves do. You should not be reading
>>Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens to find
>>out what Chrisitans believe. You should be reading Athanasius,
>>Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas.

>I have. Their arguments are based on false assumptions and invalid
>reasons.

If you have read Thomas Aquinas, then how come you don't seem to
grasp the Aristotelian act-potency doctrine upon which much of his
theology rests? Or have you just not got around to your critique
of it?

[Don Martin]

This would have been an excellent point had you bothered to present
any credible evidence that this god thingie upon which your
suppositions are based actually exists. Failing to do that guts your
"argument."

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Don Martin]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 14:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Baumgarten
<db...@sdf.org> wrote:

>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
>>So God had to create evil so people could do good. Really?
>
>No. After reading your whole post, it's evident that there are
>two main points that need to be addressed here.
>
>The first is that God did not create evil. God created

Again, this would have been an excellent point had you bothered to

present any credible evidence that this god thingie upon which your
suppositions are based actually exists. Failing to do that guts your
"argument."

First things first.

On the bunnies and light christian news group, it is possible that
everyone happily assumes god thingies to exist. On alt.atheism,
however, this is not the prevailing notion.

[walksalone]

Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote in

news:jt1kpg$fgr$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org:

followups set.

> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
>>So God had to create evil so people could do good. Really?
>
> No. After reading your whole post, it's evident that there are
> two main points that need to be addressed here.
>
> The first is that God did not create evil. God created the humans

According to the original myth, he did indeed create evil.

Isaih
45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that
there is none beside Me; I am the Lord; and there is none else;
45:7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil;
I am the Lord, that doeth all these things.
45:8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down
righteousness; let the earth open, that they may bring forth salvation, and
let her cause righteousness to spring up together; I the Lord have created
it.
45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker, as a potsherd with the
potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him that fashioned it: 'What
makest thou?' Or: 'Thy work, it hath no hands'?
BTW, who wrote the above? It is known that it is not the original scribe
that wrote the first 39 chapthers of that book.

> and angels with the capacity to do evil, but he did not create them
> such that they were predetermined to do it. Humans do not have to

Right, & the evidencve from the Hebrew Bible is found where. No
apologetics if you please. Or if you don't pleasae.

> actually sin in order to do good, but a human action is

Sin, what, that stolen word from Middle English that means. in English, to
miss the mark? or teh xian version, the debil made me buy that dress?

> characteristically human only insofar as it was freely chosen, and
> this means that a choice to do good is also a choice *not* to do bad.

Not really. Given the claimd authority for the xian myth, & the failure of
xainity to understand why this is so, well, it's all you can do or say.
The fact is evil is decided by society, & I suspect it always has been.
Good or beneficial activities, the same. They may be individual or group
actions, but society is the one that determines that.

> The second point is that although God did not create evil, we hold
> that he is nonetheless the originator of all things. The corollary
> is that evil is not a thing in itself. Unlike the good, it is not

Suck a bullet out of a .45 slabside in front of family & friends. See what
they say. Conversly, help someone you don't know, or know the
circumstances of without their finding out. & don't tell anyone about it.
The xians I've met can't wait for the photographers. I hope there are
exceptions, but I've not met any.

> a positive force. What the word "evil" signifies, rather, is the

So, language is not your first language. When tou are shifting the context
of words around, it would be nice if you mentioned that fact.

Evil
Noun: evil
1. Morally objectionable behaviour
2. That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
3. The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Adjective: evil
1. Morally bad or wrong
2. Having the nature of vice
3. Having or exerting a malignant influence

[WordWeb.info]
Now dictionaries are not the final word, b ut they do help one find the
common usage of words.
You might notice the abscence of big gaddy in the above definition.

Good
Adjective: good (better,best)
1. Having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a
thing specified
2. Having the normally expected amount
3. Morally admirable
4. Deserving of esteem and respect
5. Promoting or enhancing well-being
6. Agreeable or pleasing
7. Of moral excellence
8. Having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude
9. Thorough
10. With or in a close or intimate relationship
11. Financially sound
12. Most suitable or right for a particular purpose
13. Resulting favourably
14. Exerting force or influence
15. Capable of pleasing
16. Appealing to the mind
17. In excellent physical condition
18. Tending to promote physical well-being; beneficial to health
19. Not forged
20. Not left to spoil
21. Generally admired

Noun: good
1. Benefit
2. Moral excellence or admirableness
3. That which is pleasing, valuable or useful
4. A raw material or product that is bought and sold commercially in large
quantities

Adverb: good
1. (often used as a combining form) in a good or proper or satisfactory
manner or to a high standard ('good' is a nonstandard dialectal variant for
'well')
2. Completely and absolutely

[WordWeb.info]

Again, no big daddy, bubba or super spook needeed to convey the information
associated with the word. Strange how you have a problem understanding
that. Wait, Wait, just maybe you don't use standard dictionaries. You use
special ones.

Ones that agree with you.

> privation of a due good. It signifies an absence of God's will
> and therefore an absence of being, because God is the source of
> all being.

As best you can, explain to the audience why tghey should assume you know
what you are talking about.
You see, you are ranting on like a three year olc hild. The way to be
taken seriously is to support yolur claims. In this case, a god is
claimed. yes, I know, you don't know which one, but that does not matter.
What you need to do is quit assuming everyone agrees with youe baseless
premise & establish that there is a god, & it is the one you are carrying
on about.

Subtle hint, the Hebrew Bible acknowledges many gods, with the probability
of there having been three major ones. None known as Jesus ben Joseph.
Who, had he been called messiah, would have been a failed one IAW the
Judaic myth.
One of the first clues, he did not usher in a messianic era, which is the
first sign of the messiah.

> The reason why we should be "willing slaves" to God -- not slaves

A slave is a slave. & no slave is so pathetic as a willing slave.

> against our will, as we become when we serve the devil -- is
> precisely that to perfectly obey God's will is to become fully
> actual with respect to our nature (again, this follows from God's
> nature as the source of all being). But since we are in a sinful
> condition, it is no longer possible for us to do this by our own
> power. By sinning, we deprive ourselves and each other of the
> fullness of our own nature, that is, our free will. That is why
> God's grace is necessary to perfect the fallen human nature, and
> why nobody can do any good except by obeying God.

Ya'know, it is possible you believe this & aren't simply taking the piss.

>>>It is the devil who would force us to obey him, not God.
>
>>But God created the devil according to Christian dogma, so we are
>>still back at God.

> According to Christian dogma, the devil was originally good. But

According to the Hebrew Bible, he was a chum & drinking buddy of that god
of the day. It is a different one in Job than is Genesis 1.

> like Adam and Eve, whom he tempted, the devil chose to disobey God.

Sorry, there is no satan known to have been in the Garden™. Those that
read to learn figurfe that it was indeed a snake god, but not oe of the
Hebrews desire. Still they did worship it & it was in the temple because
of Moses. If you believe the story that is.[1]

> God did not "make" the devil disobey him. But he did give the
> devil such a nature that it was within the devil's own power to
> disobey. And humans have an analogous power.

The only devil is the one that xianity invented to explain why the word was
so tough on the people god loved. Of course, YMWV.

> Any atheist who reads this post, and hasn't encountered these
> concepts before, has no right to say that they know Christianity
> better than Christians themselves do. You should not be reading

But I do. & unlike yolu, I have some understanding as to why xianity is so
screwed up. Would you care to discuss 1st-2nd century xianity, & its
missing books? Its theology did not include a divine bubba Jesus.

> Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens to find
> out what Chrisitans believe. You should be reading Athanasius,

I can read what you write/claim, & reasonably know what you & others
believe. Now the why, well that's not a pretty thought. Every reason I
can come up with is sellf serving & self centered.

> Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. It is not that the claims of

Apologetics, & not very good ones. Of course, you don't follow the advice
of Augustine.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the
sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation
or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite
eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons,
about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such
things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by
experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful
and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the
non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on
these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he
might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how
totally in error they are.
-- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

> Christianity are not controversial; they are. But as most educated
> theists know, the so-called "new atheists" write in response to an
> utter caricature not only of Christian theology, but of the very
> same Western philosophical tradition that makes their critiques
> possible.

Most carticures, in fact all I've read, have a grain of truth in them. The
one you whine about, has several. All from the xian myth, but not
availible to believers. It's that cognitive dissonance thing you see.

walksalone who has to grin when xians try & quote apologetics as authority.
Especially when they don't appear to know what that includes, & the reason
that scholars don't hold thosae apologetics to be authorities anymore. It
might have to do with the loss of the power of life & death by churches.

[1] References on request.

We must not hold back in the battle for children's minds
[Church of England spokesman]

[walksalone]

Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:02709899-f43c-451e...@googlegroups.com:

I object yur 'onor, that is not a fair question to put to a true
believer.

walkalone who is far from ethically or morally perfect, but is much
better than that. Thank gosh.


So, has anyone any doubt about the almost, if not legally de facto,
criminal insanity fostered by xianity?
From an editorial in a called biblical archaeological magazine.


When Jesus appointed his apostles, they were (in the words of Mark 3:
15) ''to have authority to cast out demons' as Jesus himself was able to
do. Today as reported in the popular press, there are those who believe
they have such power, others who have doubts and still others who
egregiously misuse and abuse this New Testament doctrine.
As part of ''the power and vitality of the christian movement in Africa,
it is reported that christian ministers in Zimbabwe are regularly casting
out demons and bringing healing stability and comfort to people of all
ages. Wvayne W Bos writing in Alberta`s Red Deer Express, provides a
graphic firsthand account of his role as an exorcist ''under the auspices
of Do What Jesus Did: The anointing oil drips from my right index finger
as I sign the cross upon a woman's forehead, The demons scream and yell
'nooooooo' and shake her head. For Bos. withcraft is synonymous with a
demon, and JK, Rowling`s Harry Potter series constitutes ''one of the
fiercest promotions of witchcraft. equally memorable is this description
of demons by full-time exorcists Sharon Seevinck (as narrated in The Salt
Lake Tribune): If a house has a cockroach in it, the house is not
possessed by that cockroach. I see demons as irritations, squatters that
are not supposed to be there, descriptions of demon possession often
parallel symptoms associated with mental or other illness, Thus a
correspondent for Newfoundlands St. Joh'ns Telergram concludes that in
Biblical times (and perhaps also today) ''priests tried to cure people
[exhibiting signs of epilepsy] by driving the demons out. Individual
exampies of what I might term abusive casting out of demons range from
the terrifying to the ludicrous, The Associated Press reported a
harrowing occurrence that took place in an assemblies of Jesus church in
Bristol Tennessee. Two sisters, aged 46 and. 64, entered the church at
the start of services to tell their 88-year-old mother that the younger
of them was going to have surgery. The preacher charged off the pulpit
toward the pants-clad duo screaming ''You`re not wearing pants in my
church you demons He went on. 'I got all the demons out of my church and
I want you out. To this tirade, one of the accosted women replied I`m
glad I serve a God who can work through my pants and I don`t believe
you`ve got all the demons out yet. No matter how the judge finds in this
case, assault charges were filed all around-there can be little doubt
that the pastor failed to live up to his name, Rev, (Clarence June)
Love, Even this may not be the last word for sports remains a pristine
enclave in which demons may justly thrive. Thus we read in Australia`s
The, Hill, Shire Times that the pennant Hills Demons who were ''never
threatened`` in their last outing sit on top of the Sydney, AFL ladder``
And the Georgetown Hoyas performed an exorcism of their own when they
cast out the No.1 Blue devils of Duke, thereby simultaneously ''shaking
off any lingering demons about their own basketball program according to
Georgetown University`s The Hoya. But perhaps one more report from
Australia will succeed in making things right after all; in Sydney`s The
Daily Telegraph a sports headline trumpets the Demons` first defeat of
the season with these words Demons dismantled as Slick Saints End Golden
Run, Take that you demons and devils.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 14:51:23 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:11:37 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> Even an entity with poor reading comprehension skills could tell that "I'm
>> going to create man and woman with original sin" is a lot shorter and more
>> succinct than any of that multiplication of words and inaccurate statements,
>
>1) Please point out where they're inaccurate. You keep levelling that charge
>of inaccuracy on my part, but you're not pointing out where the inaccuracy is.

I have pointed it out numerous times. Perhaps you have a problem with reading
comprehension skills.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:

<snip>

> ... God created the humans

> and angels with the capacity to do evil,

Why?

<snip>

> The second point is that although God did not create evil, we hold
> that he is nonetheless the originator of all things.

Paradox.

> The corollary
> is that evil is not a thing in itself. Unlike the good, it is not
> a positive force. What the word "evil" signifies, rather, is the
> privation of a due good. It signifies an absence of God's will
> and therefore an absence of being, because God is the source of
> all being.

Why is the absence of good necessarily evil? Couldn't it be neutral?

> The reason why we should be "willing slaves" to God -- not slaves
> against our will, as we become when we serve the devil

It's impossible to willingly serve the devil in Christian doctrine?

> -- is
> precisely that to perfectly obey God's will is to become fully
> actual with respect to our nature (again, this follows from God's
> nature as the source of all being). But since we are in a sinful
> condition, it is no longer possible for us to do this by our own
> power. By sinning, we deprive ourselves and each other of the
> fullness of our own nature, that is, our free will. That is why
> God's grace is necessary to perfect the fallen human nature, and
> why nobody can do any good except by obeying God.
>
>>>It is the devil who would force us to obey him, not God.
>
>>But God created the devil according to Christian dogma, so we are still
>>back at God.
>
> According to Christian dogma, the devil was originally good. But
> like Adam and Eve, whom he tempted, the devil chose to disobey God.
> God did not "make" the devil disobey him. But he did give the
> devil such a nature that it was within the devil's own power to
> disobey. And humans have an analogous power.

Please square this "power to disobey" with God's supposed omniscience, please.

> Any atheist who reads this post, and hasn't encountered these
> concepts before,

Most of us have. That's why we've realized there is no God. These arguments
are logically inconsistent, and basically just play a lot of fancy word games
and arm waving to try to make it look like the God portrayed in the Bible isn't
culpable for the mess he's supposedly created.

If I design a house but specify that all the construction should be done with
finishing nails instead of Ardox, and after a few weeks in the house, it
collapses and kills the family who bought it, the designer and builder would be
charged with criminal negligence, and rightly so; they're experienced enough to
know that finishing nails ain't going to hold load-bearing structural members
together. And the architect and builder aren't omnipotent, omniscient beings,
they're just normal humans. We expect them to know better.

But you're standing here, frantically waving your arms, trying to say that all
this evil and suffering are somehow not God's fault, if Christianity is true,
because... err, well, God gives people the power to do wrong, and can see the
future and see that they WILL do wrong, but it's still their CHOICE, you see?

No, I don't see. It's bollocks, top to bottom and side to side. God is
*omnipotent* in the Bible; hey can do *anything*. Therefore, BY DEFINITION, he
should be able to create a universe that has free will, but doesn't have all
this evil and suffering.

It's so much simpler to explain all this if you simply accept that there isn't
any Divine artificer steering this ship; that it's just people like you and me,
some of us good, others bad, doing what we do, and living in a world that's
subject to nothing more (or less) than the laws of physics.

has no right to say that they know Christianity

> better than Christians themselves do. You should not be reading
> Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens to find
> out what Chrisitans believe. You should be reading Athanasius,
> Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas.

Read those three. And the Bible. Cover to cover. Couple of times.

That's why I lost my faith. When I strayed off the beaten path of John 3:16
and "The Lord is my Shepherd", and actually started to read about how God
accepted human sacrifice, commanded the murder of millions, etc. that I
realized what a load of baloney the whole thing is. How utterly implausible it
all is.

> It is not that the claims of
> Christianity are not controversial; they are. But as most educated
> theists know, the so-called "new atheists" write in response to an
> utter caricature not only of Christian theology, but of the very
> same Western philosophical tradition that makes their critiques
> possible.

No they respond to what's actually written in the Bible. And what's in there
is pretty darned horrifying.

--
__ _ | I must say I find television very educational. The minute
(_ |_) | somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read
__)|_) | a good book. -- Groucho Marx

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 14:51:23 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>In alt.atheism Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:11:37 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>> Even an entity with poor reading comprehension skills could tell that "I'm
>>> going to create man and woman with original sin" is a lot shorter and more
>>> succinct than any of that multiplication of words and inaccurate statements,
>>
>>1) Please point out where they're inaccurate. You keep levelling that charge
>>of inaccuracy on my part, but you're not pointing out where the inaccuracy is.
>
> I have pointed it out numerous times. Perhaps you have a problem with reading
> comprehension skills.

The only innacuracy I've seen you keep coming back that "No theologian or
Christian asserts that God created humans with original sin". Every other
point you've argued you've simply stated "It doesn't work that way" without any
explanation as to WHY it doesn't work that way.

Sorry, but if you wander into alt.atheism, we tend to follow the motto of the
Royal Society: "Nullius in verba" or, "Take nobody's word for it". So, your
"because I say so" style of debating, while it may work in the theistic
newsgroups, ain't gonna sway anyone over here.

--
__ _ | Somewhere, something incredible is
(_ |_) | waiting to be known.
__)|_) | -- Carl Sagan

[Father Haskell]

On Jun 28, 1:45 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> The other day I came across a remarkable piece of atheist propaganda, which
> caricatured Christian beliefs so thoroughly that I can't think that any
> Christian would believe any of it, and certainly not all of it. Not only was
> the whole thing wrong; every single part of it was wrong too.

Sorry, the bible was someone else's project.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> writes:

>> Man's obedience to God would mean nothing if he didn't really have
>> the freedom to sin.

>That's fine. But why do you need the Fall of Man? Why does ORIGINAL SIN need
>to be there? Why not simply have humans born neutral? If they do good things,
>they go to heaven, if they do bad things, they go to hell?

Because you can't ignore history. We are still responsible for
the sins of our first parents and still feel the consequences of
them. Every human being comes into the world as a being-toward-death,
not as a being-toward-eternal-life.

>> It is the devil who would force us to obey
>> him, not God.

>Please provide some Biblical support for this assertion of yours. In the
>Bible, it is God who does the vast majority of the orders to murder, rape,
>sacrifice humans, etc. Apart from Job's family, who does Satan kill? What
>evil can be directly ascribed to Satan in the Bible?

Please provide some Biblical support of your assertions! There
isn't a single instance of God ordering rape in the Bible. There
is exactly one instance of God ordering human sacrifice, and that
is his test of Abraham. But God stops Abraham from killing his
son. God does order Israel to go to war at certain points in the
Bible, but these are under special circumstances and they are all
justified.

Satan is the one who tempts Adam and Eve knowing full well that
their sin will bring death into the world. Therefore he is partly
culpable for every death that occurs. The human sacrifices due to
the worship of false gods in the Old Testament are also due to the
devil who deceives those worshipers. The simple fact is that ALL
evil is ultimately ascribed to Satan in both Scripture and Tradition.

At any rate, we are way off the track at this point. The original
topic was about the differences between an atheist caricature of
what Christians believe, and what Christians actually believe.
I'm not in the mood to do a detailed scriptural exegesis for the
benefit of one Usenet crank. My suggestion is that you should find
a reputable church in your area and join a Bible study group there.
Most of these groups welcome people of any or no faith. The authentic
Christian faith is not one that is taught by isolated individuals
to themselves. If you are serious about engaging in a dialog with
Christians then you have to put yourself out there. Confining
yourself to the internet, where people can claim to be anything they
want and say anything they want to someone without having to look
at them face to face, is utterly pointless.

>How can a finite being commit a crime so grievous that it merits an infinte
>punishment? Why am I supposedly bearing the burden of someone else's sin?
>How is this fair? And more importantly, how can someone else's propitiatory
>sacrifice absolve me of any wrongdoings I commit?

Even though we are finite beings, we have an infinite capacity for
happiness; and unless we are joined with the only existent source
of infinite goodness, that capacity is doomed to go eternally
unfulfilled. The crime we have committed against God is to fall
short of meriting infinite communion with the divine. Christian
teaching is that it was not always so, but that God created us
capable of walking with him. And thanks to his grace, that capability
can be restored through him. It may seem that no mere human being
could reasonably expect to meet that expectation, but that's exactly
the point. The condition we are born into is *obviously* one of
sin, just going by the definition of the word as "separation from
God." Where atheists and Christians differ is whether there is
really such a thing as sin, or it is just an arbitrary logical
category.

As for bearing the burden of someone else's sin: if I strike you
with my right hand, will you blame only my right hand or will you
blame the whole person of Daniel Baumgarten? The situation with
God is analogous. Because he created the human race as a whole,
he cares about us as a whole just as much as he cares about us as
individuals. Therefore in some cases, we may each of us be culpable
for the sins of humanity against God inasmuch as we are included
in the whole of humanity. But it is hardly an unfair situation,
especially considering how willing God is to forgive.

Anyway, I am done with this thread. Nice talking to you all.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:

> sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> writes:
>
>>> Man's obedience to God would mean nothing if he didn't really have
>>> the freedom to sin.
>
>>That's fine. But why do you need the Fall of Man? Why does ORIGINAL SIN need
>>to be there? Why not simply have humans born neutral? If they do good things,
>>they go to heaven, if they do bad things, they go to hell?
>
> Because you can't ignore history.

Please provide some kind of evidence that the Genesis creation account is in
any way historical.

> We are still responsible for
> the sins of our first parents and still feel the consequences of
> them.

Why? Why, according to Christian Doctrine, are you and I supposedly
"responsible" for these sins? Who placed this responsibility on me? I don't
accept it.

> Every human being comes into the world as a being-toward-death,
> not as a being-toward-eternal-life.

There's plenty of evidence of death, but absolutely no evidence of any life
after death, eternal or otherwise.

>>> It is the devil who would force us to obey
>>> him, not God.
>
>>Please provide some Biblical support for this assertion of yours. In the
>>Bible, it is God who does the vast majority of the orders to murder, rape,
>>sacrifice humans, etc. Apart from Job's family, who does Satan kill? What
>>evil can be directly ascribed to Satan in the Bible?
>
> Please provide some Biblical support of your assertions!

No problem.

> There
> isn't a single instance of God ordering rape in the Bible.

There certainly is:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14:

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.
If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside
will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare
to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to
you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the
women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of
your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Numbers 31:7-18:

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all
the men. All five of the Midianite kings ??? Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba ???
died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then
the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their
cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns
and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the
plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses
and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped
on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet
them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military
commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the
women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's
advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount
Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's
people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a
man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for
yourselves.

Judges 21:10-24:

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill
everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do,"
they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a
virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young
virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at
Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of
Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin
returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who
were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women
for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had
left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked,
"How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the
tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that
an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give
them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn
oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."


Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh,
between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes
from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still
needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of
Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and
each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when
their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them,
'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we
didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead.
And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give
your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as
they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the
celebration and carried them off to the land of their own
inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So
the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they
returned to their own homes.

> There
> is exactly one instance of God ordering human sacrifice, and that
> is his test of Abraham. But God stops Abraham from killing his
> son.

Wrong, again.

Judges 11:29-40:

"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout
the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army
against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you
give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing
coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice
it as a burnt offering."

"So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him
victory. He thoroughly defeated the Ammonites from Aroer to an area near
Minnith ??? twenty towns ??? and as far away as Abel-keramim. Thus Israel
subdued the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his
daughter ??? his only child ??? ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine
and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish.
"My daughter!" he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that
you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot
take it back." And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the
LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given
you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go
up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because
I will die a virgin." "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away
for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because
she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept
his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for
young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the
fate of Jephthah's daughter."

1 Kings 13:1-2:

At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived
there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at
the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A
child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will
sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and
human bones will be burned on you.

2 Kings 23:20-25:

He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and
he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them. Finally, he returned to
Jerusalem. King Josiah then issued this order to all the people: "You must
celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in the Book of
the Covenant." There had not been a Passover celebration like that since the
time when the judges ruled in Israel, throughout all the years of the kings of
Israel and Judah. This Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem during
the eighteenth year of King Josiah's reign. Josiah also exterminated the
mediums and psychics, the household gods, and every other kind of idol worship,
both in Jerusalem and throughout the land of Judah. He did this in obedience
to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the
LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to
the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of
Moses. And there has never been a king like him since.

> God does order Israel to go to war at certain points in the
> Bible, but these are under special circumstances and they are all
> justified.

It's justified killing off entire towns, and enslaving all the women and
children?

Can you please provide for me the circumstances under which slavery is
justified?

> Satan is the one who tempts Adam and Eve knowing full well that
> their sin will bring death into the world.

What biblical passage do you have that supports this claim that the serpent
knew it would bring death into the world:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=NIV
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01003.htm

Also, can you provide any support that the serpent was actually the Devil? No
where there, in Genesis 3, in any translation that I can find, does it say
anything other than "serpent".

Stop making crap up. I'm going to call you on it. You have actually *read*
this bible you seem to be defending here, right?

> Therefore he is partly
> culpable for every death that occurs.

No indication it was anyone other than the serpent, who's punishment was to
crawl on his belly and eat dust, which, of course, snakes do not.

> The human sacrifices due to
> the worship of false gods in the Old Testament are also due to the
> devil who deceives those worshipers.

Biblical support for this?

> The simple fact is that ALL
> evil is ultimately ascribed to Satan in both Scripture and Tradition.

Tradition, maybe. Scripture, certainly not. I'd say enslaving women and
children is pretty evil, and God directly orders that. I'd say human sacrifice
was pretty evil, and God directly either orders, or approves of, that, as I've
provided support for.

Time for YOU to start backing up these claims of yours.

> At any rate, we are way off the track at this point. The original
> topic was about the differences between an atheist caricature of
> what Christians believe, and what Christians actually believe.
> I'm not in the mood to do a detailed scriptural exegesis for the
> benefit of one Usenet crank.

Heh, yeah, don't look too closely at your bible, you won't like what you find.
I know I didn't when I had a good close read of it.

> My suggestion is that you should find
> a reputable church in your area and join a Bible study group there.

Did, long time ago. Actually studying the Bible cured me of my Christianity.

> Most of these groups welcome people of any or no faith. The authentic
> Christian faith is not one that is taught by isolated individuals
> to themselves. If you are serious about engaging in a dialog with
> Christians then you have to put yourself out there.

Actually, I hang out in alt.atheism. The original poster crossposted his
article here, and I've been responding to his unsupported assertions.

> Confining
> yourself to the internet, where people can claim to be anything they
> want and say anything they want to someone without having to look
> at them face to face, is utterly pointless.

I think I've been quite thouough in backing up my support for my position.
I don't confine myself to the internet.

>>How can a finite being commit a crime so grievous that it merits an infinte
>>punishment? Why am I supposedly bearing the burden of someone else's sin?
>>How is this fair? And more importantly, how can someone else's propitiatory
>>sacrifice absolve me of any wrongdoings I commit?
>
> Even though we are finite beings, we have an infinite capacity for
> happiness;

How so? How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that we have an "infinite
capacity for happines"? If you only live for 85 years, how can you possibly
experienced "infinite happiness?"?

Your statement there is just meaningless.

> and unless we are joined with the only existent source
> of infinite goodness,

Oh? What "existent source" would that be, and how can you demonstrate to me
it's existence?

> that capacity is doomed to go eternally
> unfulfilled. The crime we have committed against God is to fall
> short of meriting infinite communion with the divine.

Who determined that was a crime? Why is that considered a crime? And who
supposedly designed us as to make it impossible for us to avoid the crime?

Do you see the problem? According to the Bible, God creates us "broken", then
commands us to be fixed.

When I was in school, they used to have this idiocy called "class detention".
A couple of people would be bad, so the teacher would make the whole class
stay. This happened a couple of times, until I finally got up at 3:30, and
started to leave. The teacher started going on about how she had called a
class detention, and I had to stay. I told her; "I didn't do anything wrong,
I'm not going to be punished for something I didn't do." Long story short, I
ended up in the principal's office next morning with my mom. After me and my
mom were done, guess what? No more class detentions.

Punishing someone for something they themselves didn't do simply isn't just.
Our entire legal system, and in fact, every legitimate legal system *in the
world* is based on this idea.

> Christian
> teaching is that it was not always so, but that God created us
> capable of walking with him. And thanks to his grace, that capability
> can be restored through him. It may seem that no mere human being
> could reasonably expect to meet that expectation, but that's exactly
> the point. The condition we are born into is *obviously* one of
> sin,

Newborns are *obviously* sinful? How is a tiny baby, just minutes out of the
womb, sinful? What "sin" has this child committed? If it's *obvious*, I
should be able to see it, and you should be able to demonstrate it to anyone of
any faith, or someone like me of no faith at all. So please, without reference
to the Bible, since that's what we're trying to determine if it's correct or
not, please point out how newborns are *obviously* sinful.

> just going by the definition of the word as "separation from
> God."

Well, if *that's* your definition, then yeah, we're all sinful, because we're
all separated from something that there's no reason or evidence to suggest it
exists at all. I'm also separated from Unicorns, bigfoot, and Santa Claus, as
well.

That's not a good definition.

> Where atheists and Christians differ is whether there is
> really such a thing as sin, or it is just an arbitrary logical
> category.

Bingo.

> As for bearing the burden of someone else's sin: if I strike you
> with my right hand, will you blame only my right hand or will you
> blame the whole person of Daniel Baumgarten?

As your right hand is controlled by, and attached to, the conscious entity
called Daniel Baumgarten, I'd hold you responsible.

> The situation with
> God is analogous. Because he created the human race as a whole,
> he cares about us as a whole just as much as he cares about us as
> individuals.

So if I take some stem cells from you, and grow them into a clone of you, raise
the clone of you to adulthood, and the clone hits me, I should hold *you*
responsible, since the clone came from you? No, sorry, that doesn't hold. I'd
hold the clone responsible.

I'm responsible for my own wrongdoings, and should try to make ammends. I
wouldn't expect you, or anyone else, to accept responsibility for my
shortcomings. In a like manner, It makes no sense for me to be responsible for
anyone else's failings either.

Guilt is non-transferable.

> Therefore in some cases, we may each of us be culpable
> for the sins of humanity against God inasmuch as we are included
> in the whole of humanity.

By a similar reasoning, you bear responsiblity for every rape and murder ever
committed. Thankfully, I don't think that way. I'm willing to wager that
you're a pretty upstanding individual who follows the laws of the land, tries
to be a good person, and generally conducts himself in a moral and generous
manner. I'd no more hold you responsible for the crimes of humanity than I'd be
willing to hold myself responsible.

> But it is hardly an unfair situation,
> especially considering how willing God is to forgive.

Unless you don't believe. That's the unforgivable sin.

> Anyway, I am done with this thread. Nice talking to you all.

Cheers, pop by alt.atheism anytime. You'll find we're always up for a
rollicking debate.

--
__ _ | To poke a wood fire is more solid enjoyment than almost
(_ |_) | anything else in the world.
__)|_) | -- Charles Dudley Warner

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:07:34 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>> Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> writes:
>>
>>>Whether the bible says it explicitly or not, any god worthy of the name
>>>must have known what would happen.
>>
>>>So why didn't such a god prevent it from happening? Was you alleged god
>>>neither wise enough to see what would happen nor powerful enough to
>>>prevent it happening?
>>
>> Man's obedience to God would mean nothing if he didn't really have
>> the freedom to sin.
>
>That's fine. But why do you need the Fall of Man? Why does ORIGINAL SIN need
>to be there? Why not simply have humans born neutral? If they do good things,
>they go to heaven, if they do bad things, they go to hell?

The point is that it doesn't NEED to be there. "If they do bad thigns" -- the
first bad thing that they do is the original sin. The point is that they were
neutral, sufficient to stand yet free to fall.

Christian theologians have different understandings about original sin, but
none of that I am aware of, except possibly the Calvinists, with their view of
predestination, hold that God *created* man with original sin. Actually, even
th Calvinists don't hold that, but they do seem to imply that God presedtined
some to dalvation and some to damnation.

But not all Christians are Calvinists, and, as Shkespeare put it, the evil
that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. Human
greed wrecks the environment;m future generations will live in a livinmg hell
because of the evil done by earlier generations. Violence begets violence, and
that gets passed on from generation to generation. We inherit the mess our
ancestors made of the world -- that's original sin.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:07:34 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>In alt.atheism Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>>> Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>Whether the bible says it explicitly or not, any god worthy of the name
>>>>must have known what would happen.
>>>
>>>>So why didn't such a god prevent it from happening? Was you alleged god
>>>>neither wise enough to see what would happen nor powerful enough to
>>>>prevent it happening?
>>>
>>> Man's obedience to God would mean nothing if he didn't really have
>>> the freedom to sin.
>>
>>That's fine. But why do you need the Fall of Man? Why does ORIGINAL SIN need
>>to be there? Why not simply have humans born neutral? If they do good things,
>>they go to heaven, if they do bad things, they go to hell?
>
> The point is that it doesn't NEED to be there. "If they do bad thigns" -- the
> first bad thing that they do is the original sin. The point is that they were
> neutral, sufficient to stand yet free to fall.

OK, so again, I ask: why did God, according to the Bible, feel the need to
curse all of humanity *in perpetuity*? He's omnipotent; reverse time to before
the event, or, wipe the brain cells that hold the knowledge of Good and Evil,
and let bygones be bygones. Admit that sticking that tree there was a bad
idea, and bound to failure. Is God somehow restrained from doing this?
Wouldn't this have been a better outcome?

> Christian theologians have different understandings about original sin,

They certainly do.

> but
> none of that I am aware of, except possibly the Calvinists,

Yes, the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination and total depravity works quite
nicely. And as I pointed out, the LDS also believe in this. So that's *two*
Christian sects for whom the phrase "God created man with original sin" is an
accurate representation.

So, in other words, *by your own admission*, the image macro which you railed
against in the original post is correct for some Christian sects.

I think that wraps this up nicely, don't you?

> with their view of
> predestination, hold that God *created* man with original sin. Actually, even
> th Calvinists don't hold that, but they do seem to imply that God presedtined
> some to dalvation and some to damnation.

And since what predestines you to damnation is.... original sin?

> But not all Christians are Calvinists, and, as Shkespeare put it, the evil
> that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. Human
> greed wrecks the environment;m future generations will live in a livinmg hell
> because of the evil done by earlier generations. Violence begets violence, and
> that gets passed on from generation to generation. We inherit the mess our
> ancestors made of the world -- that's original sin.

I'm glad we got it sorted out. I'm quite sure that you, in the spirit of
Christian Honesty, will print a big retration on your blog, indicating that,
yes, that image macro you posted is correct for some Christian denominations.

--
__ _ | Be cheerful while you are alive.
(_ |_) | -- Phathotep, 24th Century B.C.
__)|_) |

[cybrwurm]

+
/ Newsgroups > talk.religion.misc, alt.atheism, alt.christnet.evangelical,
/ alt.religion.christianity, alt.christnet.theology, alt.christian.religion
/
/ Subject > Re: Feel-good atheist anti-Christian propaganda /
/ theologyonline > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Religion >
/ Exclusively Christian Theology / Date > 9 July 2012 / Topic >
.
- - - On Dragging the Faith Through the Mud - - -
.
] "We don't need a cure for the weight of the world, cause it's
] floating round in the universe, just swinging like its tied by a
] string that you own; let it go." -- from 'Let it Go' by Dragonette
.
] An atheist poster sayeth: I'm going to create man and woman
] with original sin. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with
] myself as her child, so that I can be born. Once alive, I will
] kill myself as a sacrifice to myself. To save you from the sin I
] originally condemned you to. Ta dah!!!
.
] Steve Hayes replies: ... What is it supposed to communicate,
] about what, and to whom? Perhaps we could try to deconstruct
] it. Here are some of my attempts at deconstruction ...
.
] MarkA wrote: ... Your "deconstruction" seems to focus on

] speculation regarding the motivations of those who produced
] it. You never get around to actually refuting what it says.

.
wurm say: I noticed this also, and was somewhat confused by
Steve's denials and claims that such ideas were "heretical".
.
] MarkA: Like many atheists here in alt.atheism, I was a Christian

] for many years. Though the priests and clerics like to hide the
] absurdity in flowery language, the statement is an accurate
] distillation of the core beliefs of Christianity, is it not?

.
This is a darn good question, MarkA, and I would like the opportunity to
address it. The first thing is to admit right off the top that the sin-based
christian theologies have always been very popular with the historical
churches of the past and present. I lay the lions-share of the blame for
this squarely at the feet of that swine-saint Augustine; whose influence
upon the western churches of the "dark-age" (after the fall of the
roman-empire) was profound in the extreme.
.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, the Reformers of the sixteenth century
approached Augustine with the same intensity of gushing adoration that
teen-girls today throw at Justin Bieber. And this meant that Augustine's
vile influence was fully revived so that it could live on and also corrupt
all the Protestant churches for the next five centuries! Now it's certainly
true that Paulos was the first to apply atonement-theology to the cross, but
it was Augustine who really takes the glorification of sin to the next
level. No one outside the bible has had a greater impact on the development
of Christianity down through the centuries ...
.
Modern Christianity is what it is today because it is the product of
church-history. It has become the religion of the scribes and pharisees in
equal measure. It has three pillars which support the entire superstructure
of the Christian religion. These foundational elements are:
.
(1) Paul's atonement-theology of the cross
(2) the episcopal trinitarian-theology
(3) Augustine's sin-theology
.
On the other hand, the religion that Jesus of Nazareth practiced has three
very different pillars: (1&2) Love God and neighbor. See Mark 12:28-34.
[Don't be fooled, people. There's nothing anyone can say (inside or outside
the NT) to change the value or authority of this fundamental teaching. This
is as authentic as it gets!] (3) The practice of absolute pacifism. Peace,
baby; that's what it's all about. Dig it!
.
Today Christianity is equally divided between the churches of the pharisees
on one side, and the churches of the scribes on the other. And Augustine's
vile legacy of sin-theology is equally at home in both camps! It's no
wonder, then, that rational people such as yourself walk away from the Faith
in disgust and contempt, for the true heretics in this scenario are the vast
majority of "orthodox" christians who are completely deluded by this deeply
entrenched sin-theology that warps and distorts every aspect of the Faith
such that no one today can even conceive of any form of christianity that is
not utterly corrupted by this ridiculous over-emphasis upon the supposed
"sinful nature" of all humankind.
.
No one ... *except* for the wurm. What if I told you that the Faith can and
does exist apart from sin-theology (and the absurdity of trinitarianism)?
Would you be interested? Would you (at the very least) give such a Faith a
fair hearing before rejecting it outright? Or is it far too late for that?
... I am offering you a form of faith that is NOT based upon sin-theology,
OR magical-thinking, OR priestcraft. Do you think that such a form of
christianity is even possible?
.
Trust me, it is not only possible, but it is here and available even now. It
does NOT require you to disconnect your brain in order to walk with Jesus.
It does NOT require you to wallow in wretchedness, and grovel in sinful
unworthiness begging for forgiveness. This is the true form of christianity
that starts from the recognition that human-being is not all bad, and *can*
in fact be good and noble and something to be proud of. This form of
christianity does NOT worship the HOLY-BIBLE-ALREADY, and does NOT demand
stupidity as the cost of admission!
.
... Are you interested enough to want to know more, MarkA?
.
- the one who offers a better way ~ cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. Providence does not require supernatural intervention; it works just
fine through synchronicity. For example: yesterday I heard a song on the
radio, but the station didn't bother to mention its title or the artist.
Color me miffed. But that very evening I not only got the title and artist,
but a lot more besides. Hey smurfette, I luv firework; great song! :D
x

[Neil Kelsey]

I do. Christianity has taken all sorts of form as it retreats from the Bible, what's one more?

> Trust me, it is not only possible, but it is here and available even now. It
> does NOT require you to disconnect your brain in order to walk with Jesus.
> It does NOT require you to wallow in wretchedness, and grovel in sinful
> unworthiness begging for forgiveness. This is the true form of christianity
> that starts from the recognition that human-being is not all bad, and *can*
> in fact be good and noble and something to be proud of. This form of
> christianity does NOT worship the HOLY-BIBLE-ALREADY, and does NOT demand
> stupidity as the cost of admission!

In this form of Christianity, what happens to those people who do not choose to be Christians in the afterlife?

> ... Are you interested enough to want to know more, MarkA?
> .
> - the one who offers a better way ~ cybrwurm ;>
> .
> P.S. Providence does not require supernatural intervention; it works just
> fine through synchronicity. For example: yesterday I heard a song on the
> radio, but the station didn't bother to mention its title or the artist.
> Color me miffed. But that very evening I not only got the title and artist,
> but a lot more besides. Hey smurfette, I luv firework; great song! :D
> x

Wow. It's almost as if you have magical powers.