I haven't been idle, let's look at sex in the Bible

[AnimatedDirt]

Jesus' suffering supposedly redeemed the original sin of Adam

Do any Atheists understand how the death of a person can redeem for anther person's sins?
Sin is something against a god, right?
Does the god get into a state of psychotic joy, so much that it decides to give forgive all of humanities sins simply because the humans gave it the pleasure of watching one person tortured and killed?
But throughout history, many, many people have been tortured and killed. How come those deaths don't also atone for our sins?
If the god story turns out to be true and the second coming appears on earth, should we be motivated to capture, torture and kill it so that we can again be atoned?

It is simple yet to some degree complicated.  Romans is a great book to read through to understand this better.

In a nutshell:  Adam sinned and thus because all humanity is decended from Adam, all humanity is tainted...from conception.  The sting of sin is death.  How can a person with sin pay for his own sins AND that of others when he is sinful?  So God knowing this, sent his son (who is also God and thus sinless) down in the form of man, born of a virgin (pure), not of a man, but the seed of God (God didn't have sex with Mary) for the sole purpose of dying as a sinless "lamb", or innocent of sin and thus paid for all sin through His death of which he was blameless.  How does God die?  I don't know...but if He didn't, he's lied to us and there is no salvation.  But the fiction says that God raised Him on the third day...the only reason God could raise Him is because He was sinless.  God cannot justly raise a sinner because God cannot go against His own Righteous Judgement.  The sinner has paid for being a sinner him/herself and death is the price.

However, if we, the deluded (ha) put our faith in Christ, then His death is counted as our death.  If we take the gift and truly believe...then we have died with Christ and can justly be raised after dying.

I'm no theologian, nor am I an expert in conveying this.  I would suggest Romans in the least, of that book of fiction, if you want a better understanding.

[Stevil]

It is simple yet to some degree complicated.  Romans is a great book to read through to understand this better.

In a nutshell:  Adam sinned and thus because all humanity is decended from Adam, all humanity is tainted...from conception.  The sting of sin is death.  How can a person with sin pay for his own sins AND that of others when he is sinful?  So God knowing this, sent his son (who is also God and thus sinless) down in the form of man, born of a virgin (pure), not of a man, but the seed of God (God didn't have sex with Mary) for the sole purpose of dying as a sinless "lamb", or innocent of sin and thus paid for all sin through His death of which he was blameless.  How does God die?  I don't know...but if He didn't, he's lied to us and there is no salvation.  But the fiction says that God raised Him on the third day...the only reason God could raise Him is because He was sinless.  God cannot justly raise a sinner because God cannot go against His own Righteous Judgement.  The sinner has paid for being a sinner him/herself and death is the price.

However, if we, the deluded (ha) put our faith in Christ, then His death is counted as our death.  If we take the gift and truly believe...then we have died with Christ and can justly be raised after dying.

I'm no theologian, nor am I an expert in conveying this.  I would suggest Romans in the least, of that book of fiction, if you want a better understanding.

Thanks for your response AD.
It doesn't make any sense to me, just lots of assertions.
Death paying for sin, people inheriting sin from ancestors, Jesus is god, Jesus is man, Jesus without sin even though he is man. God being unable to raise a sinner from death.
It all seems very nonsensical.

All the god would have needed to do is to not hold people accountable for what their ancestors have done. I certainly don't blame anyone for the actions of their parents, does that make me better than the god?

[Sweetdeath]

It's always nice to be blamed for something you didn't do. Taking that same concept, if your great grandparents were thieves, and the boss at work got that info; didn't trust you, it would be illegal for him to fire you, since you did NOTHING WRONG YOURSELF.

whaaaat exactly did god/jeebus die for if man is still "tainted" with sin?
All these horrible parent telling their kids they sinned and going to hell for a "sin" that happened thousands of years ago is repulsive.

[AnimatedDirt]

Thanks for your response AD.
It doesn't make any sense to me, just lots of assertions.
Death paying for sin, people inheriting sin from ancestors, Jesus is god, Jesus is man, Jesus without sin even though he is man. God being unable to raise a sinner from death.
It all seems very nonsensical.

All the god would have needed to do is to not hold people accountable for what their ancestors have done. I certainly don't blame anyone for the actions of their parents, does that make me better than the god?

Let's discuss under the guise of the piece of fiction...not under what "you" think is "all god would have needed to do..."

While God is the Law Giver, there is something that God might not be able to help.  There are points brought up in the piece of fiction about sin unable to exist in the presence of God, whose nature is Righteous.  It's His nature.  Much like we cannot simply step out our front door, flap our arms and fly like a bird.  We can't necessarily change that.  Strap on a jetpack or get an Iron Man suit...I suppose we can, but not likely and not just like a bird.  So in this sense God's Law that to sin = death is more of an unavoidable consequence.  Next is He is Righteous and a Righteous Judge.  He cannot do anything outside of the/His Law.  So if anything apart from Him cannot live, then anything that chooses to be apart from Him, when it dies, it dies and ceases to exist...forever.

While Sweetdeath, and I'm sure most of Atheism, doesn't like the thought of being blamed for something "you" didn't do, it's just the way sin works.  Much like getting handed a gene that makes on prone to cancer...or whatever disease is handed down genetically.  Some things in life are just "unfair".  I think we can all agree on this.

Legally then there are two ways out of this problem.  1. Die on your own and pay the penalty of sin yourself or 2. Put your faith in the fictional character of Jesus and be counted dead already in Him...even though you live.

Again, I think it can be difficult for the typical Atheist to discuss this exclusively from the standpoint of the piece of fiction.  Much like LoTR, there are wizards, dragons, evil spirits, rings that have power...all these things are accepted as "truth" and can be reconciled within that context.  The question then is; can "we" do the same with that piece of fiction?  It may not make sense to "your" life here now, but can it make sense WITHIN the context of the "truth" therein?

[Sweetdeath]

I feel very very sad that you believe in inherited sin, AD.
So even a baby is held accountable? Such a laugh.

[Gawen]

I feel very very sad that you believe in inherited sin, AD.
So even a baby is held accountable? Such a laugh.

My opinion is Christianity, in all its guises is a despicable and corrupt and sinister religion that was built on the following:
Fills a void for the faithful gullible who wish to find whatever they wish to divine what and define as truth and
Tailor made for those that willingly refuse to think for themselves
Tailor made power base for those special few that would suppress and/or oppress anyone who do not think for themselves
Gussied up with a God that allegedly loves, that however doesn't seem to live up to it, let alone reveal itself in any other way than revealed wisdom to those that are lucky enough to have that magic Earth-to-Heaven pipeline and
Continues to thrive for the same reasons above.

Scathing review, yes, but my opinion nevertheless.

[AnimatedDirt]

I feel very very sad that you believe in inherited sin, AD.
So even a baby is held accountable? Such a laugh.

You're sad why?  This implies you understand my beliefs...which is odd since I'm not sure I've conveyed what I believe, nor what I think the piece of fiction has to say about the innocence of children and their salvation, if it mentions anything at all...and a "laugh" to boot.

It would be best to really understand the points and know what you're talking about AND THEN you can laugh.  Right now you're just laughing to somehow belittle what you perceive I believe.
This is the second time in this thread alone.

I simply *loooove* people who want to judge the prostitute, but not the  men who chose to sleep with her.

Honestly, if you ask, I'll tell you, but until then I ask that you hold your condescending laughs until you at least understand what you're laughing at.  At this point, it's evident on these two points you really don't know what you're talking about.

[The Magic Pudding]

Thanks for your stuff Gawen.



AD, I hope your god is awarding you points for your time amongst us, I would but I'm not sure that's a good sign.  Would replacing the band-aids and hat with a target on your forehead be more appropriate?

[Stevil]

It may not make sense to "your" life here now, but can it make sense WITHIN the context of the "truth" therein?

I would like to have this conversation with you AD. I am honestly struggling to understand what you are saying.
I think we need to remove the word "truth" as this is not how one would consider concepts from a fictional work.
Sorry to keep harping on about words, but they do alienate me, making me want to point out why this is not the truth in real life and I don't think we should try to relate the story to my real life. At the moment I cannot see any linkages, the story seems nonsensical.

Also can you please simply refer to the bible as the bible rather than a piece of fiction. At least both of us agree that it is the bible. If we speak from a common ground than at least we are both being honest. You know that I take it to be fictional and I know that you take it to be historical so lets move on from this redundant point.
I am keen to try and understand your viewpoint better.
I would also like to have a thread conversation with you in order to explain atheism to you, if you would be so keen to oblige. Not to convince one another which way is the truth, but so that we can simply understand each other.

[The Magic Pudding]

You can have a truth within a fiction, Indiana Jones wears a hat, Doctor Jekyll wears a top hat, so does the cat in a hat. 

[Stevil]

You can have a truth within a fiction, Indiana Jones wears a hat, Doctor Jekyll wears a top hat, so does the cat in a hat. 

Indiana is the fictional dog's name. The dog doesn't exist and the fictional dog character does not wear a hat.
Doctor Jekyll doesn't exist and neither does cat in a hat.
There are drawings of cat in a hat in a hat but the hat is a drawing, it isn't actually a hat, just a two dimensional rendition of a hat.
The only truth is that there was an author who created the fictional characters and whom decided they should be characterised as being hat wearers, all except for Indiana whom is a dog that does not wear hats.

[Sweetdeath]

I feel very very sad that you believe in inherited sin, AD.
So even a baby is held accountable? Such a laugh.

You're sad why?  This implies you understand my beliefs...which is odd since I'm not sure I've conveyed what I believe, nor what I think the piece of fiction has to say about the innocence of children and their salvation, if it mentions anything at all...and a "laugh" to boot.

It would be best to really understand the points and know what you're talking about AND THEN you can laugh.  Right now you're just laughing to somehow belittle what you perceive I believe.
This is the second time in this thread alone.

I simply *loooove* people who want to judge the prostitute, but not the  men who chose to sleep with her.

Honestly, if you ask, I'll tell you, but until then I ask that you hold your condescending laughs until you at least understand what you're laughing at.  At this point, it's evident on these two points you really don't know what you're talking about.

You try so very hard to try to make people understood a series of stories that aren't real.

[DeterminedJuliet]

While God is the Law Giver, there is something that God might not be able to help. 

This is the bit I've never been able to understand. If God is the omnipotent law giver, how can there be things that he cannot help?
FYI, even when I was Catholic, I could never wrap my head around original sin.

[Cecilie]

Dear god, that's terrifying.

[The Magic Pudding]

Dear god, that's terrifying.

It wouldn't be hard to animate it so it blinks occasionally.