For the love of Christ

[Davin]

Ok fine, I won't assume anything about ye of superior mind and unflappable constitution. You do get kind of brazen , I mean we can both admit that right.

Neither you nor I have any idea if I do have a superior mind. As for brazen, yes I am without shame and when I'm sure of something I am bold. Kudos for you for assuming something about me correctly. What you most likely wouldn't have assumed is that I've never felt shame.

"there is nothing you can do to even mildly irritate me...[Harrumph]" That is making a generalization about me...you have no idea how annoying I have the potential to be.

You're right, I have no idea how potentially annoying you can be, however: in my entire time that I've been alive I've never been irritated by people talking, because posting is your only ability to have any kind of interaction with me, I colloquially know that it's impossible, while there might be an extremely tiny chance that it is.

I don't feel like I know you well enough yet, but give me enough time, and I bet I could annoy you...at least a little bit.

I really doubt it, and further reading of the things you've stated only serve to increase my surety that you won't be able to annoy me.

"speculations about me, are just a waste of time and I already tend to get very verbose"

This seems close to annoyance, Mr. Verbose. I actually appreciate the time you take to articulate your points.

I do like speaking my mind and having discussions with people, which is why I still do it. People assuming to know my emotional and/or mental state and being wrong is a very common occurance for me. The "seems" is what usually throws people off: 98° seems like a temperature that metal would be a solid.

I think that at this point I want to try to back this train up a little bit. I believe that humanity, and possibly consciousness itself are not a bunch of individual bits, but a larger thriving system, we are all specialist primates, using our specialist functions to drive the organism. What we have discovered in the arguments above is that if we trace any act of an individual back far enough then yes we are all accountable. Like I said above, you cannot remove yourself from reality, therefore we all  Accountable for reality. I mean that says it all, ultimately yes we are all responsible for everything.

Then why did you only apply the word hypocrite to Christians? We are all hypocrites according to this concept. Also, this is your belief, and as far as beliefs go... I like how Christopher Hitchens said it, "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

That is what I believe, that is where atheism has brought me, to a place of full acceptance of the insignificance and the impact of each one of my infinite decisions. I do not have a problem taking accountability for humanity I am a part of it...a larger part of some aspects, a smaller part in others I do not try to exclude myself from the whole it's not possible.

Then we are all both accountable and not accountable for everything. This is similar to the Christian concept that we're all sinners, in that you're saying that we're all bad by default and there's nothing we can do about it except to never have been born into the system in the first place. That's fine for your personal beliefs, and I don't have any problems with people believing what they want, but I also don't have any problems publicly voicing the problems I see in the beliefs that people profess publicly.

My problem lies in the fact that most people particularly those of faith never take full accountability not only for themselves but the systems they support, in particular their religion.

This is one of my contentions, you stated that we're all responsible for everything, but then go and single out religious people who are no more or less responsible for everything as you are (or anybody else). In your concept, there is no way to hold anyone accountable or responsible for anything, and yet you think that you can make some kind of exception just because people believe differently than you do. Also, you need to take full accountability for people not taking full accountability.

So I just feel like maybe this debate has begun to lose the spirit of my initial post and has come down to arguments over semantics and has gotten to that point where explanation has left the central idea dry and withered. Which is perhaps the state in which it belongs.

You're responsible for it. However I feel that you've not cleared up your original post when you called all Christians hypocrites, because you went on to claim that all Christians are hypocrites because they're Christians and then to show that you consider everyone a hypocrite... then still focused in on Christians by calling them hypocrites.

Accountability and responsibility for me is in the people that either have actually done things (performed actions) or had a reasonable chance to do actually do something. Which means that I don't hold the boys being raped by priests accountable for being raped by priests, I hold the priests accountable for raping the boys becuase they actually did something. There are points where the accountability is blurry, but I can under no conditions see how one could reasonably hold a boy responsible for being raped by a preist as you do.

[Twentythree]

Ok fine, I won't assume anything about ye of superior mind and unflappable constitution. You do get kind of brazen , I mean we can both admit that right.

Neither you nor I have any idea if I do have a superior mind. As for brazen, yes I am without shame and when I'm sure of something I am bold. Kudos for you for assuming something about me correctly. What you most likely wouldn't have assumed is that I've never felt shame.

this does not seem normal, you may want to get an evaluation. Feeling no shame is part of a sociopathic behavior profile. I've left a link, if there are any more similarities you may want to see a psychologist and get on some medication.

Entitled Sociopath

Entitled sociopath can either be from genes or developmental. It's a state of over entitlement , where self needs justify any ends. These type of people have no ideals & feel no shame in their actions, very often feel satisfaction in what they do. Many of them enjoy making fun of authority & feel proud of it.

http://sociopathx.com/

I don't know what else to say on this topic. Just to be sure you don't find Christianity as a belief system any more hypocritical, or contradicting than other belief systems? 

[thedport]

I have to say there are certain problems I have with the interpratation of logic. Like, I do not see the logic behind, in many states if you know someone is going to commit suicide but do nothing to try and stop it, you can be charged with invaulentary MANSLAUGHTER! I love that word, it looks and sounds ridiculous. MANSLAUGHTER! Oh, not in a million years did I think that my first post would be the foundation to such healthy debate. Yay, and on my birthday. LOL

I love it, great topic! Happy Birthday sir. Like i said there are sliding scales of accountability. What do you think about the insane, should they be excluded from accountability for their actions. when a person has a different conscious experience can we hope to hold them accountable for anything they do? Not really a question for a "religion" forum, but I think this topic jumped those tracks about a page and a half ago.

Well, I kind of agree. This went from being a religious topic to a philosophical/moral debate. I think we have started to get into known unknowns. Under the pretenses of this entire conversation being based on oppiniative hypothosies we will never actually know what the correct stand on this should or will ever be. This series of points and rebutles show how quickly a topic can transistion. LOL, and I have enjoyed reading and participating in a, at times heated, social discussion. I had thought about closing this topic after this post but I think that some very good ideas have sprouted from this discussion. So I will leave said topic open for further discussion, until either Admin or myself see this going to far dawn hill in personal heated discussion to furhter the point in positive direction. Again thanks for making this a great discussion. 

[Davin]

Ok fine, I won't assume anything about ye of superior mind and unflappable constitution. You do get kind of brazen , I mean we can both admit that right.

Neither you nor I have any idea if I do have a superior mind. As for brazen, yes I am without shame and when I'm sure of something I am bold. Kudos for you for assuming something about me correctly. What you most likely wouldn't have assumed is that I've never felt shame.

this does not seem normal, you may want to get an evaluation. Feeling no shame is part of a sociopathic behavior profile. I've left a link, if there are any more similarities you may want to see a psychologist and get on some medication.

It's not normal, that however doesn't mean that it's a problem.

Entitled Sociopath

Entitled sociopath can either be from genes or developmental. It's a state of over entitlement , where self needs justify any ends. These type of people have no ideals & feel no shame in their actions, very often feel satisfaction in what they do. Many of them enjoy making fun of authority & feel proud of it.

If feeling satisfaction in things one does means one is a sociopath, then I've not met a person that wasn't a sociopath. I mean who doesn't very often feel satisfaction in what one does? I can see how self needs justifying any ends is a problem, but why would any of the other things be an issue?

I don't know what else to say on this topic. Just to be sure you don't find Christianity as a belief system any more hypocritical, or contradicting than other belief systems?

I find Christianity just as hypocritical and contradicting as other belief systems, more so than some and less so than others. I see no reason to have a belief system.

[PapistItalian16]

Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.

I'm going to butt in here, but only briefly...

This is one sort of thinking that I have a personal problem with (I've met a few people who place responsibility for their failures and bad acts on satan). Why is it that some people have a real problem seeing their faults as their own failures instead of placing the blame on a thrid party (satan)?

That really doesn't make sense. People say that we have free will, except when we do bad things. 

Thats a good point, but hear this:

What makes Satan so opposite of God is the fact that he has the ability to affect free will. A demon can possess someone whether the person wants it or not, but if a person wishes to have an experience with the Holy Spirit, they first must want it, then ask for it.


PS: Sorry I havent been posting recently, I was at a re-enactment all weekend, away from any modern technologys and conveniences. And sorry about bad spelling.  

[xSilverPhinx]

Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.

I'm going to butt in here, but only briefly...

This is one sort of thinking that I have a personal problem with (I've met a few people who place responsibility for their failures and bad acts on satan). Why is it that some people have a real problem seeing their faults as their own failures instead of placing the blame on a thrid party (satan)?

That really doesn't make sense. People say that we have free will, except when we do bad things.  

Thats a good point, but hear this:

What makes Satan so opposite of God is the fact that he has the ability to affect free will. A demon can possess someone whether the person wants it or not, but if a person wishes to have an experience with the Holy Spirit, they first must want it, then ask for it.


PS: Sorry I havent been posting recently, I was at a re-enactment all weekend, away from any modern technologys and conveniences. And sorry about bad spelling.  

This topic interests me because I've had to deal with people who, after having done bad things, place the blame on a third party, the most convenient being satan.

So why can satan affect free will and god can't? Has satan found something in which his power is greater than that of god?

It just looks like an awfully convenient argument for the immoral to me...

Have fun?

[Stevil]

What makes Satan so opposite of God is ...

Satan is crucial to god's plan. Without Satan the story of the apple in Eden wouldn't have happened, there would be no free will, no original sin, god's plan of earth wouldn't have worked. The two character's of god and Satan go hand in hand towards the same outcome.
If you were to try and rewrite the bible without satan you would find a lot of the key stories wouldn't work.

[Too Few Lions]

Satan is crucial to god's plan. Without Satan the story of the apple in Eden wouldn't have happened, there would be no free will, no original sin, god's plan of earth wouldn't have worked. The two character's of god and Satan go hand in hand towards the same outcome.
If you were to try and rewrite the bible without satan you would find a lot of the key stories wouldn't work.

I don't know that's necessarily true. The story of the Garden of Eden and the fall of humanity is far older than the idea of God v Satan, and works perfectly well without the idea of Satan being attached to it (humanity's disobedient, gets thrown out of paradise).

I think the concept of Satan is something that Christians have developed as one way of trying to explain how there is so much suffering and evil in a world supposedly created by a good and omnipotent deity. It's also a nice easy way of religious folk being able to abrogate themselves of responsibility when they do morally incorrect things (Satan made me do it...)

[fester30]

What makes Satan so opposite of God is ...

Satan is crucial to god's plan. Without Satan the story of the apple in Eden wouldn't have happened, there would be no free will, no original sin, god's plan of earth wouldn't have worked. The two character's of god and Satan go hand in hand towards the same outcome.
If you were to try and rewrite the bible without satan you would find a lot of the key stories wouldn't work.

Satan wasn't in the garden of Eden.  Most people assume so, but Satan was not mentioned, only "the serpent," a talking snake. 

[fester30]

Satan is crucial to god's plan. Without Satan the story of the apple in Eden wouldn't have happened, there would be no free will, no original sin, god's plan of earth wouldn't have worked. The two character's of god and Satan go hand in hand towards the same outcome.
If you were to try and rewrite the bible without satan you would find a lot of the key stories wouldn't work.

I don't know that's necessarily true. The story of the Garden of Eden and the fall of humanity is far older than the idea of God v Satan, and works perfectly well without the idea of Satan being attached to it (humanity's disobedient, gets thrown out of paradise).

I think the concept of Satan is something that Christians have developed as one way of trying to explain how there is so much suffering and evil in a world supposedly created by a good and omnipotent deity. It's also a nice easy way of religious folk being able to abrogate themselves of responsibility when they do morally incorrect things (Satan made me do it...)

I think it's interesting that Satan wasn't always an evil being.  He used to be on God's team.  Job was probably written by many different people in layers over the course of maybe a thousand or so years.  The injection of Satan into the story probably means the book was finished after the Babylonian Exile, around the 590s BCE.  However, there are parts of the Book of Job very similar to ancient Sumerian traditions, and may have been written perhaps around the 1500s BCE.  In college, the Rabbi that taught the OT class told us Job was the oldest book.  However, just doing simple Google searches tells me this isn't set in historical concrete, and there are many different opinions.  Satan's Heavenly job in Job was to tempt man.  He and God debated about man.  To me, Satan seemed more like a lawyer than anything else back then.

Satan wasn't developed by Christians, but by Jews.  However, I do agree that Satan was created so that believers no longer had to preach about a wrathful God, as perhaps that wasn't so popular.

[Too Few Lions]

Satan wasn't in the garden of Eden.  Most people assume so, but Satan was not mentioned, only "the serpent," a talking snake. 

Spot on. The serpent was originally the guardian of the Tree of Life, and not Satan.

[Stevil]

Spot on. The serpent was originally the guardian of the Tree of Life, and not Satan.

So what was it doing hanging around an apple tree then? and with earth being so big why did god put the apple tree in the garden of eden along with Adam and Eve?

Also, how did Adam and Eve learn a language?

If they disobeyed god does that mean that they are bad or simply that god didn't have very good parenting skills?

I prefer to use naughty corner with my child rather than casting her out of my special garden, never speaking to her again, and ensuring she and all her female offspring for all generations to come endure pain at child birth. But that's just me, I am less than perfect after all.

[Too Few Lions]

Spot on. The serpent was originally the guardian of the Tree of Life, and not Satan.

So what was it doing hanging around an apple tree then? and with earth being so big why did god put the apple tree in the garden of eden along with Adam and Eve?

Also, how did Adam and Eve learn a language?

If they disobeyed god does that mean that they are bad or simply that god didn't have very good parenting skills?

I prefer to use naughty corner with my child rather than casting her out of my special garden, never speaking to her again, and ensuring she and all her female offspring for all generations to come endure pain at child birth. But that's just me, I am less than perfect after all.

hmmm, it's a myth and possibly shouldn't be questioned quite so literally. There's a serpent guarding the tree because serpents were quite often guardians in myths and quite often found alongside trees in mythology (eg the Garden of the Hesperides in Greek mythology where a serpent also guarded some very special apples on a tree).

[xSilverPhinx]

To me, Satan seemed more like a lawyer than anything else back then.

That's interesting because I once read somewhere that scholarly Jews engage in some sort of "interrogation" with god when debating their scriptures. They encourage skeptical analysis to a higher degree than Christians do and satan in a way reflects that pre Fall era?

I also find it interesting that the word "demon" or "daemon" originally meant something like "wise man".

[xSilverPhinx]

I prefer to use naughty corner with my child rather than casting her out of my special garden, never speaking to her again, and ensuring she and all her female offspring for all generations to come endure pain at child birth. But that's just me, I am less than perfect after all.

When somebody calls you mere human, take that as a compliment!