And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

I accept your surrender. I'm glad you get the point.

Not really.
That I won't cough up my private info, means I'm obliged to entertain that Genies, Leprechauns, and Banshees are real?

Wow, if that's it, it's really stupid.

I wasn't saying original sin was logical, i was saying that telling a symbolic story to communicate the truth of it to people who wouldn't have understood the actual details was logical and plausible.


As for the concept itself - I may be analogizing it myself and the truth my be so metaphysically complex that even i the 21st century I couldn't understand it, but that said:

The best way to understand sin is as a sort of spiritual disease. No one is actually being punished for Adam & Eve's sin (and any doctrine which claims thus is laughable, IMO) but rather, they are subject to punishment for the symptoms of the disease which has been passed on to all their descendants.

Even then, the concept of "punishment" is wildly ham-fisted - it was a concept necessarily employed to primitive cultures that is now an outdated device.

No one is "punished" for sin in any real sense - rather, God offers a cure for the disease and those who refuse the cure suffer, by their own hands, the symptoms of the disease.

This set of circumstances was described to primitive cultures in terms they could comprehend and far too many believers in the modern age fear they are being unfaithful if they move past that primitive imagery. But the concept you refer to - people being "punished" for the sins of another is not really what's going on.

Think about it for a minute. You've got your reasons for not fully revealing yourself to all us "lesser beings" here. I can rant and rave all day that they're not good ones but it doesn't prove or disprove your existence and it certainly doesn't invalidate your reasons.

Before you get the big head here, the same logic at least partially goes with God choosing not to fully reveal Himself to us. He's got his reasons whether or not we understand or agree with them.

One of the more commonly given reasons in answer to the basic question, though, is that his fully revealing himself to us invalidates any further choices we may have had. God wants us to come to Him but knows that basic fact.

I find it hard to believe people who make such a pretense of schooling ignorant people have such difficulty with context and reading comprehension.

More likely it just doesn't make sense. The rest is just bullshit theological tapdancing, as Dickynoo would say.

You idiots are a real hoot. Tuttle's entirely correct. You're not at all interested in an exchange of ideas, or finding out why someone believes what they do. You want someone to dig themselves into a rhetorical hole, then be able to laugh at their inability to dig themselves out.

Any time religion rears it's ugly head hereabouts, the response from the is, in summary, "Look at me, I'm enlightened, and your beliefs SUCK! " You fellas are homunculi*, trying to fill the void in your lives with a few cheap laughs at the fundamental beliefs of folks who haven't injured or diminished you in their pursuit of those beliefs.

I trust we'll never hear another word about "bullying" from any of the three of you.









*For all those know-it-all, self-important authors who, apparently, don't actually know enough to google the big words that they want to impress everyone with, this is the word which you've misused for the last 4 months.

One thing I can say for sure: If I thought of Christianity the same way Rick and Diacanu do, I wouldn't believe it for a minute, either.

So in a sense, I'm with them: I'm as much of an "atheist" as they are, with regard to those particular beliefs.

Speaking for myself, I am. That's why I'm here. But it does not stop me expressing my own opinion.

And that accusation, coming from you of all people. Seriously?

Ooh, fun, the Pharisees are here!

Stop telling me how my posts make you FEEL, you're worse than fuckin Vlad.

Well, if you think me kicking down bad arguments is "bullying", then you're an incredible pussy.
But, you're not, so this is some pure bullshit on your part, isn't it?
Enough.

Either frame a rational argument for why religion deserves a special respect that politics doesn't get, or piss off.

Seems like you're claiming to know the mind of God.

So, you're saying "God's unknowable, but he's knowable".

Fallacy, sorry.

one wonders if you guys have a similar reaction to other intellectually complex concepts.

This just came to me and I can't figure it out.

When I was standing in the checkout line and said "Oh crap, I forgot the peas," who was I talking to?

Okay, fine, let's go through it again...

Fine and dandy.

Except, I've revealed myself to multiple witnesses.

That's revelation, you can choose to believe I'm a computer, or not.

Now, if you heard a second hand story, you'd be less likely to oblige the claim.

And if the story was handed down from centuries?
And it was full of implausible stuff, like me turning a potato chip into a pork roast?

I'm not obliged to give it any credence at all.

Yes, your little narrative is plausible, but microscopically probable.

There's no reason to privilege this shy, mute, invisible God over Celtic fairies.

It isn't complex. It's contradictory. I have a very similar reaction to other such concepts, 1+1=3 for example.

So has God. Yet, I believe it was you that said you wouldn't accept the multiple witnesses unless you were one of them. I've got no direct proof that you're really a human being. Therefore, you don't exist.

Check. And you can choose to believe in God, or not. A god who'd force you into line wouldn't be deserving of your love, now would he?

Are you talking about yourself again?

Six minutes ago or 2,000 years ago. My original statement still stands. I've got more and more convincing proof of the existence of Jesus than of you.

You put out a LOT of implausible stuff, Dicky. Are you sure you're talking about the Bible and not your posts?

Present it.

When have I claimed to have superhuman powers?
(That wasn't a skit, or a gag)

I presented the proposition to you first. You were unwilling.

I'm telling you, trolling Christians is what Dan does, maybe because he was forced into Christianity as a child he's damned to spend the rest of his life rebelling against it. I dunno, but there is no point in discussing any aspect of Christianity with Dan.

Here's a classic Dan Leachism:

He throws this nonsense out whenever anybody calls him on his prejudice. We can talk about religion, but we're not supposed to point out tired trolls?

Pathetic indeed.

Yes Dan....

What's "nonsense", about it?

FTFY

When did I ever?

Never?
All right then.

Whatever your view of the plausibility of, well, ANYTHING attributed to God, the simple bare bones of Bock's point is this:

Just as you are not obliged to reveal every detail of your life, beliefs, whatever - to the masses, let alone prove or disprove that which is attributed to you, in like manner, neither is any other being - including the theoretical god in question - so obliged. Neither you, nor anyone else, is obliged to justify that choice either - you have your reasons, as does (in theory) he.

It seems to me that whatever obsessive skepticism you might be burdened with, that's an entirely rational point.

Not sure how you sophisticated Brits do it, but that sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME in my world, no one ever thinks it's unusual - because virtually everyone does it.

Are you just dancing here, Dicky style? You can't seriously be claiming it is unusual in the least for a person to speak aloud a thought not intended for anyone else to hear?

Please describe what is contradictory in my post to which you refer.