Why does the story of Adam and Eve suggest sex is wrong, when without it we would have died out years ago?

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I know this isn't related to the question, so if you want to ignore my comment, I'll understand.
  
  Since god didn't want us to have knowledge of good and evil, then does that mean that he ideally wanted us to be obedient but stupid? Or does it mean that we just wouldn't have known the difference between right and wrong, ultimately making it still possible for such horrible acts as pedophilia without us knowing that it's wrong in the first place?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on March 7th, 2010

• Would you consider a child to be obedient but stupid? It is perfectly possible to be intelligent and innocent. If the thought of having sex with a child never crossed through the human mind, how would pedophilia be possible?

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on March 7th, 2010

• A child is different from adults due to the lack of time to gather information. So no, I would not consider a child stupid. I agree with your assessment that a person can be intelligent and innocent, even in times when "evil" deeds are done. Such as an intelligent person in the military who kills others because they believe they are doing the "right" thing.
  
  "If the thought of having sex with a child never crossed through the human mind, how would pedophilia be possible?"
  
  I think we interpret the tree of knowledge differently. I was under the impression that it meant Adam and Eve would know the difference between right and wrong as opposed to it just giving them knowledge. Therefore I see it as Adam and Eve living without knowing if their actions are good or bad. This would mean then that pedophilia could have existed without them knowing that it was bad, ultimately making it an "innocent" infraction.
  
  However, if we look at the tree as just supplying knowledge, then how would Adam and Eve been able to do anything since, from the way I interpreted your last comment, they wouldn't have known how to do it in the first place?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on March 19th, 2010

• I think what is meant here is that they had innocent knowledge; that is, what a child would know or be able to figure out: instinctual knowledge. Eating of the tree, whether it is allegory or an actual happening, means seeking out the knowledge of what is evil and depraved. In wanting to be like a God themselves, they have sought out the knowledge of not only what is good, but also that which is evil. It is kind of like kids sneaking into R or X rated movies. Until they sought out the knowledge of things they shouldn't have know, they didn't know anything except that which is innocent and good. But once they have seen that R or X rated scene, they will never get it out of their head and most kids will be tempted to try it, thus corrupting their experience even further. Left to innocent devices, they will eventually figure out innocent, bonding, child begetting sex on their own in the right time. Brought to it too soon and with evil undertone or an overtly evil message, and they are likely to end up at best having some unhappy stimulation of genitals that has nothing to do with the kind of sex that makes you happy and bonds you to another person, and at worst, they may end up in some pretty sick and sadistic stuff.
  
  Also, be careful about how you interpret a military person. The Bible, even in English translations, makes it pretty clear by context that the word meant is murder, not kill. Elsewhere, God sends Israel into battle to deal with some pretty evil and corrupted cultures, so it is clear that war is not meant by the commandment. Elsewhere in the law, the Bible gives clear guidelines for the death penalty, so it is clear that execution is not what is meant by kill. I've also just been reading that in the original and early translations, the word used makes it clear that murder is what is meant, not execution for a serious crime or war. Neither of those applications would ever be needed if some folks didn't purposefully choose to harm others. But since there are those who actually prefer being evil, it leaves no choice but to contain their evil so it only spreads so far as we are unable to limit it.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on March 19th, 2010

• Didn't Adam and Eve already have a definition of "evil" before they ate the fruit? Also, wouldn't you have to know that which is evil in order to know not to do it?
  
  I agree with your argument about kids continuing on an evil trend if they happen to be "educated" in an incorrect way, say as using a violent sex film to learn about sex. However, if educated in a healthy way, then I think it can lead to better individuals, morality wise. That doesn't mean that children wouldn't have learned about sex sooner or later. So wouldn't it be wiser for us to educate children on sex at a younger age before they are "corrupted" by poor teachers?
  
  Don't we use soldiers to promote what we see as what's best? If we don't know what's best, how can we be sure we are "killing" instead of "murdering"? For instance, Nazis thought they were "killing" to promote a better future. Does that mean god would let them off the hook?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on March 20th, 2010

• If you have never been tempted in any way to do something evil or perverted, never had any thought of it, never seen it done, why would you need a definition? If God created you with an innocent mind and innocent thoughts were all you'd ever had, why would you need laws? My child is home schooled. We watch little TV and even less movies. She has no idea what perverted sex is. Her questions are being answered as she asks them, and not before. She has no concept of obscene, no concept of pornography, no concept of depravity. Her understanding of sex is totally innocent, and that is the way I intend to keep it for as long as I can. That is the way it is supposed to be for all of us.
  
  As for soldiers being used to promote what is best or Nazis killing to promote a better future, there is no provision in the Bible for that. There is nothing in the Bible about eugenics. There is nothing about killing someone for racist reasons. There is nothing about killing to promote a better future. There are very specific laws dealing with any kind of killing that isn't in self defense or an accident. The instances of war in the Bible were to take the homeland of a people who were sacrificing their children in the most horrifying manner you can imagine and give it to God's chosen people who were given strict laws about how to treat the young, the old and the helpless.
  
  Before you twist this in some way, I want you to think about this very carefully. Do you know who the Samaritans were? When Babylon sacked Israel and took the Israelites off to Babylon as slaves, it left a vacuum of empty land in Israel. The Babylonians settled people from lands East of Israel, of other races, in Israel. When those settlers were attacked and some of them killed by lions, the Babylonians sent an Israeli priest back to Israel to teach the Samaritans to worship God. These people were hated by the Jews. These were foreigners of another land, not only taking their land but taking their God as well. But who did Jesus go to in several instances? He showed love and forgiveness to a Samaritan woman who'd been married five times and actually was only shacking up with the last one. He forgave her sin. And one of His most oft told parables features a Samaritan as the hero, the one who gets it right. Clearly Jesus, who was a Jew, was not racist if He made a hero of a traditional enemy of His people.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on March 20th, 2010

• Well, unfortunately, not everyone has the opportunity to shelter their child from the evils of the world as you do. In fact, many of them have to live face to face with the reality that something bad can happen at any moment.
  
  I have unfortunately read some extreme examples of what are in my opinion unjustified reasons for killing, such as what you should do with gay people. So I have a hard time believing that the word of god is a reliable source of morality and understanding, much as you have a hard time believing that the word of Nazis are a reliable source of morality and understanding. So why is it that god's allowed to kill based on sexual orientation prejudice but it's not ok for Nazis to kill on religious orientation?
  
  As for your analogy, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. For one thing, I don't find it wrong for a person to get married 5 times. People make mistakes, and many times they make them over and over, so why should she be judged a bad person for it, ultimately requiring "forgiveness"?
  
  As for Jesus not being racist, I'm not sure exactly what you want me to take from that. I can guess it means Hitler was going against the bible? I am against what Hitler did, and I am not a racist, yet I don't believe in god. So is it not possible for people to stand for things that are good without the need for religion? And besides, if Jesus is god, then he is also responsible for, what I perceive to be atrocities, such as the overreactive nature to homosexuality, atheism, the acceptance to kill in the name of a country, etc. So how good is he really?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on March 20th, 2010

• You have way more there than I can cover in one comment, but I have talked extensively about all these topics on here, and if you page through my profile, you can find much of the discussion. But I think the bottom line here is that you don't understand who God is, you don't understand who you are, and you don't understand what sin is. Until you understand those, nothing I say will make any sense and I might as well save my breath to cool my soup.
  
  The bottom line is that pop culture and secular humanism go to great length to teach us that God is fiction, that morals are relative and that if there is a God, He makes no sense, is immoral and is only trying to trip us up and squash us like bugs (and they don't seem to have any qualms with the statement that he's fiction, but if he isn't he's....). I was raised that way and believed all that too, so I'm not pointing any fingers.
  
  Try reordering that. Start with God exists. He is real. He is powerful enough to create all the universe and you in it. He can call life into being. For all that scientists want to claim it can happen on its own without help, have any of them with all their creativity and intelligence gotten any closer to that than manipulating cells that already exist?
  
  If God exists, and He has set rules for how we are to live, do we get to stamp our feet and say "NO, THAT ISN'T HOW I WANT IT TO WORK!" That is kind of a ridiculous picture isn't it? Standing up to the creator and ruler of the universe and throwing a temper tantrum? Fortunately, God is patient and loving or He'd have wiped us all out a long time ago.
  
  Now, the next thing you've got to deal with is that God doesn't react a certain way because He wants to trip us up. Rather, God created us to work a certain way and gave us an owner's manual so we wouldn't destroy ourselves. Saying that God shouldn't do that and we won't obey it because we don't like it is rather like saying you don't want to change the oil in your car and you shouldn't have to and Ford is immoral for creating a car that needs oil. You can do that, but your engine will still seize and you'll still be left with a junk car that will never run again. God puts those laws in place to protect us, not for a high stakes game of GOTCHA!

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on March 21st, 2010

• You are absolutely right that I don't know who god is when almost everyone who does believe in him, has some sort of differing opinion, however inconsequential. With so many differing opinions, it's kind of hard to just assume that anyone is right. I'm not sure what you mean by I don't understand who I am, but you may be right. Sin as a term of religious "wrong" I don't understand either when certain things in the Bible cause me to believe the Bible is wrong.
  
  "...and they don't seem to have any qualms with the statement that he's fiction, but if he isn't he's..."
  
  In most of my experiences with debating people on subjects they feel very passionate about, it usually helps to start from their perspective of belief to get them to recognize the inconsistencies. The problem is that any time religious folks don't know something they attribute it to god to help strengthen their case, where I accept that I can't possibly know beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only reason why people try to start from another's perspective is because it's more effective, not because they believe god to be real.
  
  Why should I start with your version of god existing before someone else's version of god? For instance, why should I start from the assumption that Jews are correct before assuming Christians are correct? This is why I start from the basis of knowing nothing, or my blank slate analogy, and piece together any evidence that seems to be the most reliable. Using someone else's assumptions doesn't get me any closer to the truth if their assumptions are based on faulty evidence. Scientists that study exploding stars and their movements, to me, is more reliable than a guy snapping his fingers and then earth appearing. Not that you can't believe otherwise, I mean no disrespect. As far as scientists not being able to create life in the sense that god did, all I can say is that I agree with you that people are not as intelligent as we like to think we are.
  
  I'm not saying that I'm stamping my feet shouting "no that's not how I want it to work." What I'm saying is that god created a situation where it's impossible for me to take a leap of faith in his direction if it requires me to not take a leap of faith in another direction. If he creates a situation where more than one direction can't be proven wrong, then it isn't my fault for not believing in him, but his for not creating a more believable story. And if he wants to hold that against me, then it seems to me that he's even less merciful for not being able to understand that. In other words, not as "good" as people make him sound, ultimately meaning perhaps not worthy of worship.
  
  Your oil in a car analogy is faulty since I can survive in life without having to pay respects to god. I can't survive if I don't eat. However, eating isn't proof to god's existence either. So please use another analogy.

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on March 21st, 2010

• You missed my point in nearly every point I made, and you missed it precisely because of what I said at the start. You don't know who God is, you don't know who you are and you don't know what sin is. Until you know those things, you aren't capable of understanding what I'm saying. It is as if I'm teaching in classical Greek and you haven't yet mastered the rudiments of English.
  
  If you want to know who God is, why don't you start by asking Him? You don't even have to believe. Just a "God, if you are real and you can hear me, would you show me?" will do.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on March 21st, 2010

• And how do I know if he responds?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on March 21st, 2010

• You'll know. It might not be immediate, but you'll know.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on March 21st, 2010

• And if he doesn't or I don't recognize it?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on March 21st, 2010

• Trust me, when He reveals himself to you, you won't miss it. It is different for each of us, because God created us as delightfully individual, and He meets us where we are. He values our individuality precisely because He created it. However He reveals Himself to you, it will be meant just for you and only you, but it will be in a way that you will know that it is Him. For some people, it is a growing recognition of His presence over years. For others, it is a knocked down on the road to Damascus blinding flash experience. For some it is a word of prophecy that comes true, something that couldn't possibly be coincidental or random, for others, it is many, many words of prophecy, because God knows a skeptic when He sees one. If you look in my profile, you'll find a link to how He reached me, but understand that He will reach you differently, and only if you invite Him. You will also find a definition of the word hesed which is a word for the love of God. Remember, He bears hesed for you, and if you invite Him, you will be pursued by hesed.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on March 22nd, 2010

• I was a believer in god for a large portion of my life. I've asked for "signs" and even did what I thought was against his wishes, and tested god. Any sign I saw could be interpreted in many different ways, not making it clear that there is indeed a god. I'll use a more recent sign that my mom pointed out when her mother died. It happened to snow the day of her viewing and my mom said that it was a sign god was watching over her because my grandmother liked snow. I immediately responded by saying what about the people who's viewings are also today who didn't like snow? Does god not like them? Needless to say, my mom was a bit perplexed. Basically, signs can't be trusted.
  
  Now I'm a firm believer that our minds are what makes things "real." So to someone who refuses to believe that god is myth, therefore believing him to be fact, it's quite difficult to gracefully get that person to recognize that it's only fact if they want it to be fact. However, if an equal amount of skepticism is applied to every belief system, then no one would be able to determine the right one. For instance, we are not arguing over the merits of ancient Greek mythology because we both believe it to be faulty. However, the people at the time knew it to be fact. So why should I believe in the Judeo-Christian god but not Zeus?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on March 24th, 2010

• Ah, but you missed Paul. Because Paul noticed on his way to speak to the Greeks that they had many temples to many Gods, but they also had a temple to an unknown God, and that was who he brought to them. The Greeks had no problems believing in the God that Paul preached, except when their income was derived from making trinkets for pilgrims to the temples.
  
  One of the problems many believers have is that the mistake God's motives. He isn't interested in giving you little signs to play with. He asks that you step out in faith and then He makes the way clear, and He does it WHEN YOU ARE DOING HIS BUSINESS. Sorry, I don't mean to shout, but it isn't possible to italicize, and I don't want you to miss that statement. God is not a magician that idly gives you signs to play with, He is a God who gives you what you need to do His work. If you aren't about His work, don't expect signs for no reason. God didn't tell Moses to wait while he parted the sea, He told Moses to take the Israelites right to the edge of the sea where they were cornered and raise his arm over the sea, making a complete fool of himself if God didn't come through, and then God parted the sea. You don't get to ask for private little signs for you only that cost you nothing. When you have given and committed everything, and you are on His business, then He will give you what you need to do that job.
  
  Nonetheless, I feel for your mom. She was probably grieving her grandmother, and instead of getting support and love from her child, she got smart-aleck questioning of her faith. Way to go there kiddo, I'd say she'd have rather had someone to hug her and wipe her tears.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on March 24th, 2010

• Regarding the Greeks comment in your last one, if they are willing to accept gods based on money, then what makes Paul's god any different?
  
  Doing god's business, how can anyone be sure they are doing his business if they didn't perceive his sign to be from him? This may lead to trying things differently, ultimately leading them away from god, especially if they perceive a sign to be from god when it happened to just be coincidence.
  
  As for my mom, the conversation didn't happen at the viewing. I know my comment may have led you to believe that, but it was in fact at an auto repair shop. We were having a conversation on the merits of religion, and that was one of the points she raised. So it was not in fact a verbal smack in the face that I think you perceived it to be, but a debate. And if you still think ill of me for my comment to my mother, please inform me on the best way to respond that doesn't come across as wrong, but doesn't belittle myself in the process by making her beliefs seem more important than mine.

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on March 26th, 2010

• Regarding the Greeks, they are no different that anyone else. They didn't accept God based on money, some rejected God based on money. We still do that. People have done it throughout history. But never forget that many have left all to follow Christ. God doesn't give you money to believe in Him. In fact, following Him often costs all you have. When you follow God, you realize that everything you have, including the talents by which you earn a living, are gifts from Him. For many people, that is a bigger commitment than they want to make. They'd rather pretend that they got everything, including their talents, on their own or from their DNA. It was and still is a difficult thing for me.
  
  As for doing God's business, when you are called to do something, you usually know it. But you may be given signs too. It may seem stupid or humiliating to do it, but it will never be out of line with scripture. For an example, try reading God's Smuggler. Over and over, Andrew stepped out to do things that looked impossible and foolish, and over and over God provided the means. He was only a recent example of what Christians have been doing through the centuries.
  
  As for your mom, as long as you were respectful of her and didn't treat her unkindly, I have no problem with it. God is big enough to handle your questions and doubts. I think too often people feel like they need to defend God, like He needs a lawyer because He can't handle it Himself. I don't see it that way. Many of the worst blunders in the Bible happened precisely when people didn't believe God could handle things and needed them to help it along, as when Sara laughed at God and gave Abraham her slave girl, for of course God didn't know what He was talking about when He said she would bear a child. I believe that God can easily prove Himself to you or any other unbeliever, just as soon as you are brave enough to ask Him to. Just because your mother couldn't think of anything at that moment, that doesn't mean there wasn't an answer to your question. It just means you were asking the wrong person. Try asking God next time.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on March 26th, 2010

• I asked god to show me a sign. Nothing. Now what?
  
  Also, is there any proof that the supernatural things in the bible are fact?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on March 31st, 2010

• Give Him time. He is no magician to do tricks on command. It may be a while, but you'll hear from Him. He's not big on having someone demand a sign from Him. He ignored Herod when He made that demand. Try a humble request to show Himself to you.
  
  As for proof that the supernatural events in the Bible are fact, if you are looking for scientific proof you'll wait a long time. Science tends to look in the opposite direction as hard as it can. Many scientists have made up their mind that there is no God, and they dismiss any evidence that might point to God out of hand, because if there is no God, it can't point to God. They have put blinders on their own eyes. But if you go back and actually read the Bible, you'll notice that the apostles, who were writing for a contemporary audience within the lifetimes of people who'd seen those miracles, over and over they tell their audience who saw it, where it happened and who to go ask about it. You don't do that if it didn't really happen. You don't do it if it were smoke and mirrors. Has David Copperfield ever given the names and addresses of his assistants and audience members? Most of that audience is paid actors. And ask yourself how Jesus would have done those miracles without smoke nor mirrors. Mirrors were invented then, but they were typically small. Gunpowder wasn't invented yet. Cameras weren't invented yet. Plexiglass wasn't invented yet. None of the standard devices of what we call magic were invented yet.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on March 31st, 2010

• Fair enough. I'll agree that science that does look for any answer but god. However, believers look for no answer but god. So let's apply the same skepticism you show science to belief in religion. Do people regularly see people resurrect after 3 days of death? No. So is it more reasonable to believe that it didn't happen, using the same skepticism you show science now, or that it was the only time it did happen and can't be proven without faith that people were telling the truth at a time back too far to verify?
  
  I apply my skepticism to science as well as religion. The only reason why I have a problem with people believing in a religion is because of what I perceive to be potential problems to every individual. For instance, the realization that any sign you thought was from god, could actually have just been coincidence. When someone finds that out, I have no doubt they would have a hard time accepting it, let alone immediately. So I think it's time we stop indoctrinating children into any religion until they are of an age that they can choose for themself. I believe religion wouldn't have a problem with it, if it thought it could sustain itself, but I'm sure most people would agree that if children are not taught to believe, would have a hard time believing as adults.

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 3rd, 2010

• Well, that sounds really good, but in practice it doesn't work so well. I was raised in that kind of home, came to what Dinesh D'Souza calls a "crayon faith" in my late teens, turned my back on it again until my thirties and only finally committed to it in my forties. My aunt had about the same experience. We both find that we wish our parents had trained us in the faith, as it would have saved us many years of fruitlessly searching for what was right under our noses, had we but known. My grandparents were believers but left it up to my father and aunt to find their own belief. My parents had none whatsoever, and the only training I got was from my grandparents. I find, like the Bible says, that to not train me up in the knowledge and love of God brought me to exasperation.
  
  As for applying the same skepticism to both religion and science, for many years I applied that skepticism only to religion and accepted whatever science said was truth. It was only later in life that I came to realize that science deserved more skepticism and religion needed less. Whatever Bakker and Swaggart or the pedophile priests might have done, that doesn't mean Christ condoned it or that they won't have to answer for it.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 3rd, 2010

• Why does science require more skepticism but religion less? Science makes "educated guesses" at their explanations as to how things work, where religion attributes it to god. And if we don't understand it, then it's because god works in mysterious ways or humans are just too simple to understand the complexity of god. This to me seems like a deliberate determination to "protect" your faith from skepticism because it can't possibly hold up when you apply the same amount of skepticism you apply to science. For example, how was the sun created? Science believes it had something to with a ball of matter and energy that exploded leaving a temporary light source. Religion says, god wanted it, so it was done. So to apply skepticism to science, we can say, well what proof do we have that a ball of matter and energy can do such a thing? Then we point to measurements and calculations made by other exploding stars, the speed of the surrounding matter, and the effect of gravity on that matter. To apply it to religion, can any one else just think of something and make it happen without any aid whatsoever? No. So I don't understand how someone can apply standards of rationality to a rational practice (science) but then not apply it to supernatural events (religion.)
  
  I by no means would ever blame everyone in any organization for the actions of the few. So I don't mean to say that Jesus would have condoned those actions. However, it does prove that any organization is just as susceptible to human imperfections as everything else, including religion. Therefore, it just adds to my belief that the people who claim to know of supernatural events are people not worthy of believing when everything in the physical world is contrary to a singular entity "thinking" something into existence.

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 3rd, 2010

• Yes, but religion has God behind it working to perfect it and to correct the actions of imperfect men, science does not. Science can only be corrected by the actions of other imperfect men and women, with their own agendas.
  
  I don't need to protect my faith from skepticism, God is big enough to handle it. I studied science in college, up until I decided I didn't want a degree that required a Phd. or M.D. to be usable. So I do understand what science says and I'm not adverse to science, nor do I feel it poses any threat whatsoever to my faith nor to the existence of God. All science is doing is poking around in God's toolbox. They have deciphered a small piece of how God did it, but they are completely unable to replicate His results or to take it back beyond a certain point. Just because they've figured out that it has something to do with a ball of matter and energy does not in any way mean God didn't do it, it just shows HOW God did it.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 4th, 2010

• That may be your theory, but without taking that leap of faith that there even is a god, there is no evidence to lead us to his existence. The proof of existence does not prove god exists, unless you can just as easily take the same leap of faith to propose that the alternate reality of the movie "the Matrix" is equally plausible.
  
  To get to a conclusion (in this case that there is a god) we need to start at a beginning. If we examine the things in existence, it gets quite easy to deny that someone can actually heal another person just with a touch. (For the purpose of this conversation, I am omitting the fact that it's possible for people to be healed through a placebo effect.) If we can easily deny that a mutant from the comic book or movie X-Men is not real, but has the same powers, then it should stand to reason that a different character from a different book with the same powers is equally unrealistic.
  
  Now we can't rely on the factual nature of the bible since neither of us was there to experience those happenings. It takes a leap of faith to assume those people were telling the truth, but to believe that when someone else writes similar stories to be false, it takes a selective mentality that I believe is made easier by others believing the same. A herd mentality, if you will.
  
  So here's where I stand. I believe existence to be possible without a god. I believe people to generally be unreliable when it comes to truth, even if they believe they are telling the truth. I believe I've never seen god or any part thereof that would cause me to believe he's real. I believe that people holding erroneous beliefs to be rampant throughout our species, including myself. I believe that to reject a long held belief is emotionally devestating causing people to avoid it at almost all costs.
  
  Can you prove god exists without basing it on the bible?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 5th, 2010

• No one can prove Him, with or without the Bible, but no one can disprove Him either, with or without the Bible or any other means. So you are right back where you started.
  
  You are right that people can tell an untruth, even when they mean to tell the truth. You are right that people write fiction. You are missing the point that the writers of the Gospel went out of their way to give their contemporary audience every possible clue to allow them to go investigate. They didn't anticipate the length of time before Jesus returned, so they didn't anticipate someone still investigating 2000 years later with no one to ask, but I fail to see what they could have done differently even so. Its up to you to go investigate whether there are any contemporary writers who debunked what they say or even talked about it. You are in luck that people have been investigating it for that entire 2000 years, and have done a lot of the legwork for you, but feel free to double check their work. God can withstand your scrutiny. You are right that to even investigate whether there is a God, you will have to suspend disbelief just enough to ask and to investigate. You have to make the first move.
  .
  .
  .
  .
  Its all on you to make the first move.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 5th, 2010

• I have been researching the religion, since I can financially support myself to be able to travel on site. My "research" has led me to believe that he doesn't exist. Being someone who used to believe and go through the process of abandoning firmly held beliefs, it was not something I took lightly. Yet, I can't deny that I feel much more rational today than I did at that time. Now I've made the first move and it's led me away from god. I've asked for a sign and nothing. Now what?
  
  I think it might be time we agree that we will never see eye to eye on this issue.

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 5th, 2010

• Well, you can do that if you want, but something keeps bringing you back here. It can't be my scintillating company. I'm not that interesting. So what keeps bringing you back? God is not head knowledge. We've already decided that you can neither prove nor disprove God. So this is not rational knowledge. But your heart is still speaking to you, and heart knowledge is still valid knowledge. You can neither prove nor disprove that you love your mother. There can be an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence, but since you can't touch, taste, see, hear or smell love, you can't rationally prove it. But your heart knows it and it is valid and real and worth knowing that you do. It is also heart knowledge that you can't feel, taste, smell, see or audibly hear that God exists. You can't rationally prove it, but it is worth knowing. It is valid. It is real. Your senses can't measure everything that exists. They can only measure what is tangible, what has mass and matter. But there is much that exists that does not have mass or matter. Hate has no mass or matter, but it exists.
  
  I'd be curious to know exactly how you have researched this, and how deeply. Have you really investigated Christ? For instance, have you read any Christian literature with an open mind? Or have you just read atheistic literature? If I suggested that you read C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, would you go buy a copy and read it carefully with an open mind? Or would you just read what atheists said about Lewis and consider that enough? If I suggested that you read Lee Strobel, would you go get a copy and read it with an open mind, or would you just decide that if a Christian wrote it, it can't be valid? Exactly how seriously and carefully have you approached this? Have you given both sides an equal hearing? Have you considered the demeanor of both camps, and which side is actually the side that is trying to do the most good in the world? And when you asked for a sign, did you demand that God do what you asked, right now, snap to it, and I'll save your life like Herod did, or did you humbly approach it from the point of view that there might possibly (however remote) be a God who did create the universe, and that if there is, He might appreciate a bit of respect? Did you ask Him, if He is there, if He would reveal Himself to you in a way that you could understand, and then wait patiently to see what He would do? He's not a magician performing for tips, He's God. He'll honor your request, but in a way that suits His purposes. You aren't the only person in the world He has to worry about, and He tends to do things in a way that meets you where you are but reveals His glory and builds the faith of others as well.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 6th, 2010

• What is love? How does it feel?
  
  Research has consisted mostly of philosophers such as Aquinas and Augustine. If I wasn't going through one of my nonreading phases and 3 books behind where I want to be as it is, then there would be the possibility of getting one of those books. I wouldn't guarantee it since if I'm going to the store I would probably prefer to get something else that suits my interests a little better.
  
  I can understand the creator wanting a little respect, except that I have a problem with Judeo-Christian god in that I don't find him worthy of respect. I think a truly good creator who is capable of anything, would have found a better way. And he DEFINITELY, in my opinion, would have avoided things such as the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials.

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 6th, 2010

• You definitely need to do some research. Clearly, you don't understand the concept of free will. In order for the love a believer gives to God to be real, they have to have the ability to reject Him or to not do His will. Even believers can get it wrong, and there are many people who claim to be believers who really aren't. I mean, I can claim to be a doctor, but unless I have a diploma to back it up, I'm not really a doctor, am I?

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 6th, 2010

• But if you can agree that believers can get it wrong, then who's to say who is right?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 9th, 2010

• God is the only reliable arbiter.
  
  But you need to remember some other things too. Some people claim to be believers who are not believers at all. They use the church for cover, while they do evil things. I would say the Inquisition falls into that category. The Inquisition, at least what I've read about it, seems to be much more about the power of the government. I just went back and looked up several sites and double checked what I remembered. My general impression from a quick read seems like I remembered right. It was a whole lot more about the Queen maintaining her power and culture against foreign refugees and invaders moving in with their own religion and culture than it was about anything else. And you need to remember the setting of this event too. The Inquisition began in 1478. Gutenberg had invented his printing press roughly 40 years earlier. Up until that point, Bibles were hand copied and extremely rare and expensive. It really didn't matter much, because most people couldn't read anyway. They were used to having a handful of learned men read the Bible aloud to them and explain what it meant. I can't find anything to tell me how old the lectionary is, but when you read from a lectionary, you only get the Bible in fragments, which makes it even harder to understand. If they were reading from the lectionary that far back, and I suspect they were, they got the Bible in bits and pieces over years. It isn't the easiest way to get a good understanding of the faith. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, he and shortly thereafter, others, started cranking out Bibles. Suddenly, it was possible for anyone to have a Bible, not just the church. And as others started reading the Bible and realizing the church was off track, they started to complain and to break away. This was not a threat to Christ. These people were trying very hard to follow Christ. It was a threat to the established political structure. And the Queen reacted by getting the church to enforce her political structure. She was also facing an upheaval from Jewish and Muslim refugees and invaders. She got permission from the pope to use the church to enforce her power. One of the sites I just checked said that the pope tried to stop it when he saw what she was doing. But this was about political power, not Christianity. And the sufferers were often Christians as well, and Christians who preferred death to worshiping God incorrectly.
  
  As for the Salem Witch Trials, it wasn't just the Puritans who were doing that. It was a wide spread phenomenon, according to my history professor in college. It was occurring across Europe and only came to the colonies late. It wasn't even solely a Christian or Judeo-Christian phenomenon. I know many people don't think Wikipedia is any good, but this article says pretty much what my professor taught us, I'd say its pretty accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
  
  From what I'm seeing, schools are teaching a pretty skewed view of history these days, designed to make school kids hate Christianity. You need to understand that what you've been taught focuses on certain topics designed to make you think a certain way and leaves out a whole lot of details. In fact, they are teaching some things in such a skewed fashion as to be almost an outright falsehood. This isn't surprising, as the founders of public education in the U.S. actually signed documents saying they wanted to stamp out the Christian faith and replace it with secular humanism. So if what is being taught in schools now is designed to make kids hate Christianity, it isn't surprising at all. That was what they intended school to do.
  
  But back to your question. Believers can get it wrong. But a believer that is studying the whole Bible carefully, sincerely praying for help from the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible and faithfully applying what he learns shouldn't get it far wrong. He should know that Christians are jud

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 10th, 2010

• If I were to write down some things and say it was divinely inspired, would you believe me?
  
  For example, if I were to write that no religion or religious book points the correct direction to God, and claim that it was divinely inspired, then would you believe me? If not, then why do you believe someone who you can't even question their viability?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 10th, 2010

• I have no idea what you are asking me.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 10th, 2010

• I'm trying to figure out if you can believe to be true things said by individuals who you have no access to scrutinizing, then would you believe things I say to be true if I claim divine inspiration?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 11th, 2010

• Those people you say I have no access to scrutinizing were scrutinized by people in their day. If you look at the Bible, you'll see that over and over the writers of the New Testament left notes telling the reader to whom a miracle happened and in what town. That was because they wanted their contemporary reader to go and check. I know that writing materials and the cost of hiring someone to write was very high, but if they were lying, don't you think a record of an investigation would have surfaced in all that time? Do you think that Josephus, or Herod would have written about it if they could have found fault in it? Remember that the Jewish faith didn't like Jesus very much, and they were sticklers for truth, given the law they lived under. Don't you think someone would have written a rebuttal? The Romans tried to stamp it out by killing Christians brutally. If they could have rebutted it, don't you think they would have? The record the apostles left has been meticulously scrutinized by millions of people over thousands of years. Whole universities, like Princeton and Harvard, were founded to scrutinize that record. Somewhere along the line, don't you think someone would have written something to prove that Jesus was a fraud, if he were?
  
  So, if you say something and I can find 2000 years worth of written record by learned people who founded whole universities to study what you said, and those were people who believed in getting at the truth because heaven or hell depended on them getting it right, then maybe I might. But if you are just spouting off on AB, sorry, you are out of luck.
  
  There is a sort of historical chauvinism that is rampant these days that assumes the modern high school or college educated mind is so much superior to those primitive, uneducated, superstitious minds of the past. May I tell you how much education has been dumbed down just in my lifetime? As my mother said, she had more credits in high school than did the kids she was teaching in college at their college graduation. And my grandfather took a degree, not a diploma, from his high school. In Jesus case, we are talking about the Roman empire, and many of the people to whom Paul carried the Gospel were Greeks, post Socrates and Plato Greeks. These were people raised to think and question and Paul and others were telling them exactly where to go to investigate. Don't you think they might have actually checked before they changed their whole culture, and risked death doing it? People did actually travel then. The Roman roads and the pax Romana made that possible and they took advantage of it. There is plenty of evidence in Acts and Paul's letters of much back and forth.
  
  The problem I find is that too many supposedly learned modern people reject things out of hand without bothering to do the serious investigation or thought required.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 12th, 2010

• Look, I'm not trying to be mean or anything like that if that's what you're taking from this, but anyway... Regarding contemporary scrutinization, there are a couple problems with it. For one thing, the printing press wasn't invented until about 1400, therefore chiefly kept spoken or hand copied records to be used in congregations. Since the church held the hard copies, it would suffice it to say that they would have motive to manipulate texts to their benefit.
  
  Another, science has improved and therefore scrutiny more aptly applied today than during that time based chiefly on the most reliable scrutinizer.
  
  I've only done a quick check on the first person you mentioned, Josephus, but I've found reason to doubt his credibility as a witness to Jesus or his works. For one thing, he wasn't born until year 37. Therefore would have to rely on someone else's word it was true. Also, considering he was a Jew and the passages that Christians point to as "proof" speaks of Jesus in exactly the way the Christians would want him spoken of, makes me suspect forgeries.
  
  I have no problem putting thought into anything. The way I see it, my beliefs can change at a moment's notice. I'm constantly trying to learn and to expand my horizons and beliefs.
  
  Now let me ask you a couple questions. Were you raised Christian? Were you or do you live in a Christian majority region? Do believe in "herd mentality"? Do you believe if you were born in a Jewish majority region, that you could possibly be Jewish today? Muslim?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 13th, 2010

• I was not raised Christian. My parents were, but had totally rejected it and become atheists by the time I was born. My stepfather liked to make a game of baiting preachers, whenever one had the misfortune to knock on our door. I do live in a Bible belt state now, there have been times when I didn't. I don't believe in a herd mentality, at least not for me. I have always been a questioner, and sometimes I wish I hadn't been. I can see now that I held something wonderful at arms length for most of my life, and that my life would have been much better and much fuller if I hadn't. Unfortunately, like most humans, it took some pretty hard knocks to knock some sense in my head. If you actually read the Bible, you'll see that there are many people in Jesus time who were the same way. I know that many people like to think that our ancestors were somehow primitive and gullible, but the written record seems to show many more skeptics than you'd think.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 13th, 2010

• So instead of questioning beliefs other people wanted you to hold, you think it's better to take that leap of faith?
  
  Besides if there were people during Jesus' time who didn't believe he was divine, then why should I believe the words of a few men who wrote the Bible?
  
  Our ancestors were more primitive, perhaps not more gullible. That may be an inevitable fact of humanity where all it does is shift a bit every so often. For instance, instead of people believing the earth was created by a god and he created it flat, now people believe it was created by a god and it's round.
  
  I don't even need to know about the gullibility of people in the past to know that people can't be trusted. For example, if the Pope really cared about the children who were abused by their religious authorities, than he would prioritize them above the "image" of the church. Meaning that even if it meant the ultimate destruction of Catholocism, he should still do what he can to encourage authorities to investigate thoroughly the cases of child abuse. Instead, he uses arguments such as don't blame the organization for a few bad apples. Don't get me wrong, I agree, but I wouldn't do anything to hinder the efforts of authorities in any way whatsoever, like using religious public opinion, to ensure that the company I work for stays in business. That is untrustworthy and irresponsible to the people who were being raised believers. What reason would they have to trust another priest? Should they take a leap of faith and assume it won't happen again? What about the reasons for why it's so widespread, meaning not just in the U.S. but around the world?

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 16th, 2010

• I'm going to try to take these in order. I'm not even taking a leap of faith, more of a suspending disbelief just a little so you can even ask good questions. As long as you reject it out of hand, you aren't really investigating. For instance, could Christopher Columbus investigate whether the world was flat or round without suspending disbelief enough to sail out far enough to test his theory? As long as everyone was certain that the world was flat, they were only looking for evidence to prove that the world was flat. In order to investigate the truth, they had to suspend disbelief enough to sail away from the coast and trust they wouldn't fall off the edge.
  
  As for the men in Bible times, look at them closely. Some were too arrogant to ever think they were wrong, like Herod. But others, many others, became Christians, like Nicodemus. Nicodemus was so afraid for his own reputation, so afraid of his colleagues on the Sanhedrin and so skeptical that he would only come to Jesus at night when darkness hid him. But he did suspend disbelief just enough to come and ask questions. And he didn't understand the answers and left shaking is head. I'd love to know what happened in his mind between that point and the crucifixion, because after Jesus breathed his last Nicodemus threw all caution to the wind, went to Pilate and asked for Jesus body and buried it in his own tomb. How did a man go from being a frightened skeptic to an emboldened believer after watching a man brutally and torturously executed on a cross? My guess is that a man in his position had to know the law and prophecies inside and out, forward and backward and that as he watched Jesus die, the words of Isaiah were ringing in his mind. He was probably wondering how Isaiah had so exactly described the scene unfolding before him, when Isaiah had died hundreds of years before.
  
  It is true that science has moved forward, but this isn't about science. It is a fallacy to think that it is. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science isn't really even in this conversation. They don't know anything about it, and they can't find out anything about it. This is beyond their sphere of study. They can study and describe creation, but they can't create. They can study the universe, but they can't get outside of it. They don't actually know anything about it. They are speculating, based on their own beliefs. Some scientists are Christians. The man who is probably going to be our bishop was a scientist with the Smithsonian Institute studying deep water creatures and specifically sea cucumbers. He was nearly as high in his field as he could go, and then he left it all to go to seminary. When his infant son died of SIDS, he realized that his beloved science could not help him.
  
  http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1764772
  
  http://miletusnetwork.blogspot.com/2009/01/miletus-bishop-revd-john-e-miller-iii.html
  
  Lastly, it always seems to boil down to the Catholic church and the pedophile priests, doesn't it? Look, Christ never said that the pope was infallible. He never said that any human being is infallible and in fact, he has a long history of doing great things with the very most fallible people. It is a convention of the church that the pope is infallible, and I would say that it is an ungodly tradition. There is nothing in the Bible to back that up, at least not that I've found in that large and complex book. Human beings are as inclined to evil as the sparks fly upward. We are all sinners. He did wrong, as did those priests. It was a sin and a crime and they will answer for it when they stand before Jesus. James 3:1 says that teachers will be held to a higher standard than everyone else, and they didn't meet the standard for everyone else. I hate this more than you know. It sickens me. I spent three years working in a facility for troubled youth which included twelve beds for juvenile sex offenders. Every one of the boys I wo

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 16th, 2010

• I'm not sure what you mean by that first paragraph. Are you trying to encourage me to suspend my disbelief? If so, why is it that I have to be the one to suspend my disbelief, but you can't suspend your belief? But either way, I agree with the statement that people were only looking for things that fit their beliefs. That's what I think religion does.
  
  Regarding Nicodemus, I'm sorry to say that he must not be all that important to history considering how short of articles they have for him, and the Jewish equivalent Nicodemus ben Gurion. It seems there are multiple other uses for the name that seem to be of more importance. Regardless, the main information on the character on which you speak comes from the gospel of John. We just went over the pointlessness of "squaring the circle," so to speak. So why use something I have no faith in being accurate to explain your point? What I have been saying all along is people can't be trusted, including John, who seems to be one of the few people to have known this Nicodemus. So, I apologize, but I don't take what John had to say about him as accurate and therefore a poor example to prove your point to god's existence.
  
  You are right about science being unable to disprove (or prove) the existence of god. That's not what I was trying to convey. Science can be used to disprove acts attributed to god. For instance, if ancient Greeks thought Zeus was responsible for blocking out the sun, then science has proven that it's not necessarily an act of god, but something that is inevitable. This is why religion has to constantly square the circle, since new science continues to disprove previously held religious beliefs.
  
  Sorry to say also, but science could potentially save that scientists sun. Just not yet. But to give up on trying to predict and prevent SIDS seems to be the religious mentality. (We're not capable yet, so might as well believe in god.)
  
  I'm not saying that the Pope or the priests are infallible. What I am saying though, is that the church has had a recurring history of unreliable beliefs and inhumane treatment to innocent people. Let's use an alternate example. Let's say Blue Cross and Blue Shield has had a widespread history of letting down its customers. Should people continue to believe that BCBS will be able to help them or should they look somewhere else? Religion has murdered, raped, and deceived people, and yet people want to grant them mercy since the institution is supposed to bring about pleasant experiences for those involved. Islam is another example. We see people defending Islam even though they have plenty of experience in inhumane treatment to others, because they also strive to bring about a pleasant existence for those who believe in that religion. The worst part is though, that Catholicism not only perpetrated crimes against nonbelievers, but their own parishioners as well. I don't know how anyone would want to be a part of that type of organization.

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 16th, 2010

• I think you managed to miss every single one of my points. I think you need to go back and reread and rethink.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 16th, 2010

• Or perhaps you're realizing that when it comes to certain matters that rely on faith, it's impossible to be proven wrong, though you can't be proven right either. I choose to not have faith that the people in the Bible were telling the truth, and you do. Beyond that, there probably isn't anything I can say or do to get you to believe otherwise, and vice versa. That's why I consider myself agnostic leaning atheist. I don't know, but based on what I think I can believe, I doubt the existence of a supreme being. You, not so much.

  • Report
  

  by Stevie on April 16th, 2010

• No, I think you missed the point entirely. What I said was, if you can't suspend disbelief just a little bit, you can't search for ANY truth. Go back and read what I said. If Christopher Columbus couldn't suspend disbelief enough to sail away from land, he would never have discovered the earth is round. It is that way with every scientific discovery as well as every religious discovery. You can't discovery anything, I repeat, anything, without suspending disbelief. If you don't believe in little life forms too small to be seen with the naked eye, how would you ever discover antibiotics? If you don't believe space flight is possible, how would you build a rocket? If you don't believe that expanding gases have force and can move solid objects, how would you build a steam engine or an internal combustion engine. The first step in science is to suspend disbelief enough to see that something is possible. Then you can go do the research to prove or disprove it. The steps are exactly the same with faith. First you have to believe that a God is possible before you can even start to research. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke and trapped in the beliefs you already have. You are stuck on shore believing the earth is flat.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 17th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

• So basically God was fine with sex to reproduce, but when they used it for pleasure they realised they were naked... Ok. I'm beginning to understand...

  • Report
  

  by Patrick on November 13th, 2009

• From your answer it is clear you are NOT beginning to understand! The realisation of nakedness was about loss of innocence, not the sudden realisation the "sex was wrong".

  • Report
  

  by skeptic on July 1st, 2010

Comments

• But why did he goet all thick with them when they "took the forbidden fruit?" I was under the impression that the forbidden fruit was a metaphor.

  • Report
  

  by Patrick on November 13th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments