Christian, Just Think! That's All You Have to Do. Think!

In yet another attempt to defend his beliefs my friend Kevin Harris wrote: "Christian theology teaches that Adam perfectly represented you and me. We all would do the same thing even in the fantastic beauty and circumstances of Eden." Link. But if we would all do exactly what Adam & Eve did by sinning, then we were imperfectly made, or it was entrapment, hence the buck stops with the Creator. Only if some of us would not have sinned as they did can Christians claim otherwise. Q.E.D

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

To continue...but if it's the case that some of us would not have sinned as Adam & Eve did, then Adam & Ev cannot represent us all.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

John wrote, "by sinning, then we were imperfectly made, or it was entrapment, hence the buck stops with the Creator."

Instead of laying blame, consider this: God's grace allows for antagonism/enmity to exist. We have the liberty to develop a preference for light or dark - laying blame/accusation for the purpose of indictment is a practice of darkness.

Anonymous said...

yea, you really know something inside out when you design it and make it. He's the kind of dad that leaves matches laying around and tells the kid not to play with them, knowing full well they're going to play with them, and he's going to have to punish them.

anyway, there was no adam. No christian that i've ever seen has even come close to pointing to a time frame he would fit in.

Not to mention, the fact that Neanderthals don't fit anywhere in their scheme of things. Neanderthal burials show that they had some kind of ritual associated with death.

They were THE OTHER HUMANS.

So god must have made at least two sets of humans, otherwise they developed via evolution, which leads to the question of why wouldn't it apply to us?

Steve said...

"God's grace allows for antagonism/enmity to exist"

LOL, you just couldn't make this stuff up.

Oh and "whoosh". That is the sound of John's point flying right over MMM's head. If God made us in a way that we would ALL have chosen the same as Adan & Eve, then it was entrapment plain and simple. Understandable though, since his bloodlust seems insatiable.

Anonymous said...

MMM,
what the heck do you mean by "grace"?

Grace enough to let antagonism and enmity exist?

Thats incoherent.

Unknown said...

1. If God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from that tree, why didn't he move the tree somewhere else?

2. In Genesis, it doesn't say much about what Adam does other than name the animals and tell God that he is lonely. Even in the lost books of the Bible, Adam doesn't really do anything that we can say is good. So what does the author mean?

3. Want to go somewhere nice? how about Hawaii? Why look for Eden?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

In response to what Steve wrote, "That is the sound of John's point flying right over MMM's head" I will let Twilight Z. Clown's comment serve as a source to provoke thought:what the heck do you mean by "grace"?

Thank you for providing Exhibit A for Jesus's invitation out of blindness and deafness! :-)

Best to you!
3M

D.L. Folken said...

I am sure John would not have sinned against God in the garden.

John is just too smart and wise to have rejected the love of God.

Oh my, I may have to rethink this through...

Mark Plus said...

What keeps the saints in heaven from rebelling against god? After all, god might have arranged for that to happen as the next stage in his plan. He doesn't have to wrap everything up for christians' convenience. For all we know, god might have predestined one of the christians posting to this forum to become the next Adam or Satan.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Twilight Z. Clown wrote: "He's the kind of dad that leaves matches laying around and tells the kid not to play with them, knowing full well they're going to play with them, and he's going to have to punish them."

Keep in mind that the OT writings are without the benefit of Jesus's example of spiritual salvation - so while God's grace allows a well loved enemy to infect the world with danger, God knowing this provides for salvation, not punishment. It is we who are drawn to the temptation to punish and condemn that which we do not love.

Chuck said...

MMM you said,

"It is we who are drawn to the temptation to punish and condemn that which we do not love."

Because (according to your theology) were were MADE that way. Why do you worship a being that made you in such a way that would ensure you would hurt other people so that in hurting them you eventually come to revere him as perfect? That sounds despotic to me. You give God all power and give the powerless sinner all responsibility. That is illogical.

Edwardtbabinski said...

Aside from the hypothetical mindbender that "Adam's disobedience cursed him and his children for eternity but in a metaphysical way," what EVIDENCE is there for the existence of Adam, Eve, a garden with trees of knowledge and life and their magical fruit, and a talking serpent "the wisest beast of the field that the Lord God had made."

Gandolf said...

Mark Plus said... "What keeps the saints in heaven from rebelling against god? After all, god might have arranged for that to happen as the next stage in his plan"

Hopefully we can sneak a few 44gallon drums of paraquat spray defoliant and weed-killer up to heaven with us.So we can get rid of all those evil trees that Eve ate from and damned us all.

Oh and Crikey !! yes, just remember to pack slashers and machetes etc,for dealing to any damn talking snakes .

Anonymous said...

mmm,
its not people that set up the lake of fire, or eternal punishment or whatever to put unbelievers in.

over 60% of the world, most of them good people are damned by your thinking.

Russ said...

I, dear ol' Russ, am as perfect a human being as has ever existed. But, then, so, too, are all of you.

Surely, I've got my flaws, but then so did that Biblical fiction called Jesus. We - all of us here - are as good as humanity gets, and that includes Biblical Jesus. To have flaws, to be fallible, is to be human. If Biblical Jesus was human, he was also fallible: it can't be otherwise. The religious claim that Jesus was "perfect," but that is merely one of the the delusional fantasies of the religious. Each of us is smarter than Biblical Jesus. Each of our schoolchildren after about second grade is smarter than Biblical Jesus. Each of us lives a higher moral understanding than Biblical Jesus.

If Biblical Jesus ever existed - and there do exist many good reasons to think he/she/it never existed - he was certainly nothing special. Nothing in the Bible attributed to some Jesus was original. Everything ascribed to Biblical Jesus had been said and written many times well in advance of its having been put in the mouth of Jesus by those who wrote the Bible. But, what really tells us how crude Biblical Jesus' understanding of the world and mankind was, is all the things that Jesus failed to do, say and otherwise communicate. Biblical Jesus is precisely as ignorant of the world as the scribes that created him.

Remember, Jesus as God incarnate was supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient. That's a whole lot of omni and it should have resulted in omni-Jesus having shared much more useful information about the world than it did. A typical fifth-grader today is more intellectually advanced than Biblical Jesus. It's not the case that the people living around the time of Biblical Jesus could not have understood the world in terms of atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms, and ecosystems. Atoms had been postulated long before Biblical Jesus is claimed to have descended from supernatural rape. Evolution had been exercised by mankind for thousands of years before Biblical Jesus was instantiated by some profoundly ignorant scribe.

So, if Biblical Jesus had been anything more than the product of the pathetically limited creativity of some ignorant and superstitious scribe, he would have described the world and our relationship to it in more realistic terms, more modern terms. Again, remember, Biblical Jesus is claimed to have been a whole lot of omni, but from what he/she/it didn't say in the Bible, we can see Biblical Jesus was, in fact, really quite stupid. Not opinion, observable fact.

If Biblical Jesus was moral, he/she/it would have told us about the germ theory of disease, however, being only as moral as the scribes who created him/her/it, Biblical Jesus was made to do parlor tricks like turning water into wine, an act of solipsistic self-aggrandizement. Something like atomic theory would have been far more useful to mankind than walking on water ever was. By the way, I myself have walked on water many times. No big deal for one who understands a bit of physics like the changes in index of refraction of convecting gases as the temperature rises. Hell, for that matter, I've witnessed lots of cars driving on water where no water was present. Oooh!, a miracle? No. Physics. Physics that our ol' turd of a Biblical Jesus, observably did not know.

If BJ(Biblical Jesus) was moral, it would have told us about evolution and explained the mythological origins of the outrageously stupid Genesis creation story. We know what BJ clearly did not know: Adam and Eve never existed and Genesis is myth. We can appreciate it as literature, but it bears no resemblance to what we know today as the evolutionary origins of mankind and all other living things. Instead, it reflects the profound ignorance of the Bible's creators. This completely justifies our rejection of the Bible, Biblical Jesus, and the Bible's morally repugnant deity.

Modern man, including each of us, is so much better than the Bible's vulgar cast of characters.

Gandolf said...

Russ said... "I, dear ol' Russ, am as perfect a human being as has ever existed. But, then, so, too, are all of you."

Oh cheers thanks Russ !!....Needed that thumbs up!

Folks been calling us nihilists.Heathen scum without moral

Russ said...

Gandolf,

If, as John has suggested, the religious would think, they would observe the huge discrepancy betweeen their claims and reality. With thought, they would also realize that if the world we currently inhabit is as bad as they say, then it's just a manifestation of the best that religion can offer since most of the world is religious.

If the religious turned to thought, they would understand that the only thing they ever offer mankind that is of any real value is humanitarian aid, while they would also be forced to conclude that humanitarian aid is not specific to or limited to them, their sect, their umbrella religion or any other religion. They would be forced to see that humanitarian aid is a universal human undertaking. The aid offered by the religious is only as life sustaining as that given by me, or any other 100 percent supernatural-free materialist.

If they put John's thought thing to work, they would see that the most generous, caring, healthy, and happy countries on the planet are not the most religious like the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia, but instead the least religious like Sweden, Denmark, and Japan. Whereas the Swedes, the Danes and the Japanese are observably committed to actually having societies that benefit all their citizens, those other countries are committed to keeping every head bowed and every eye closed so unfairness and injustice can't be seen. Where caring is real it is obvious; where caring is faked, imposed, or non-existent there is the big pacifier called religion.

If the religious thought, they would see that only a tiny fraction of the money they pump into religious groups ends up helping anyone. Here in the US, only about 10 percent of donated money becomes humanitarian aid. The rest is profit for clergy or "cost of doing business."

I think. From that I see my fellow man in need, and I act to fulfill those needs. Simple straightforward acts of love and kindness without the overhead of religious mumbo jumbo, and almost no "cost of doing business."

So, Gandolf, the religious will say of us what they will, but if they heeded John's suggestion, if they really did think, they would know they are themselves so much less than they claim to be, and we atheists much more than the claims they make about us.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Chuck! You commented thusly: "Because (according to your theology) were were MADE that way" A very astute observation! I think the Catholic term is "original sin" but instead of saying we were "made" that way, I would say that we were infected with this sometimes insidious and othertimes more overt bloodthirsty inclination (whether it be on an emotional, mental, spiritual or physical level).

God loves sinners - He enlightens not for the purpose of domination and destruction, but for bonding to Him to be set free.

And then, the endearing Twilight Z. wrote this: "its not people that set up the lake of fire, or eternal punishment or whatever to put unbelievers in.

over 60% of the world, most of them good people are damned by your thinking."

You too are an astute observer! I agree - people do not set up the lake of fire, but we are lured into cooperating with keeping it going! Any by faith, over I see 100% of the people being loved by God (but not all love God in return).

Hope to talk again soon!
3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Dear Russ,

Conceit can numb one's conscience so that harming and degrading others seems justified. Jesus did not condone getting involved in mistreatment or abusing one's power. You must be debunking the theology of a god that says "behave yourselves or else I'll hate you and destroy you!" I like Jesus who said He doesn't condemn and advised to love my enemies (and He doesn't ask me to do something He hasn't already demonstrated Himself) The only threat a believer has to others is to offend those infected with egotistical conceited pride - which, BTW, happens to be good news.

Take care!
3M

Anonymous said...

Aside from the hypothetical mindbender that "Adam's disobedience cursed him and his children for eternity but in a metaphysical way," what EVIDENCE is there for the existence of Adam, Eve, a garden with trees of knowledge and life and their magical fruit, and a talking serpent "the wisest beast of the field that the Lord God had made."

KH> Ed, I think these are questions internal to Christianity, i.e. given the general truth of the Adam and Eve account, what follows? There is nothing inconsistent about Paul's explanation in Romans 5 about our status based on Adam's sin.

Whether the account is true is an external question. We shouldn't punt to external if internal is being considered and vice versa.

BTW, I certainly don't think Genesis demands a boa with vocal cords nor any kind of "magic".


Kevin

Chuck said...

MMM you said,

"God loves sinners - He enlightens not for the purpose of domination and destruction, but for bonding to Him to be set free."

Yet he enslaves them in the first place. It is simple logic. If my creator creates me with an unavoidable urge to sin and the only way I can defeat that urge is by unquestioning worship of the creator then, the creator is both slave-master and liberator and by any human standard is a passive-aggressive, narcissistic, manipulative despot. Your theology sets self-hatred and authoritarian cruelty as the standards for goodness and, by those standards, I consider your faith incoherent and immoral.

Chuck said...

Kevin,

You said, "There is nothing inconsistent about Paul's explanation in Romans 5 about our status based on Adam's sin." Yes but what does that theology say about god's character? A being that punishes descendents of a creation he created with an internal flaw is neither good or wise.

Beautiful Feet said...

Hi again Chuck! You wrote, "Yet he enslaves them in the first place. It is simple logic" - I keep forgetting that you are debunking a theology that espouses a god that doesn't have any enemies and of course, if he did, wouldn't love them or have compassion or grace for them. God allows liberty to cooperate with light or dark - some people prefer darkness (and complaining impotently about the dark is one of the symptoms of darkness BTW) Ciao!
3M

Chuck said...

3M,

You said, "God allows liberty to cooperate with light or dark - some people prefer darkness (and complaining impotently about the dark is one of the symptoms of darkness BTW) Ciao!"

Really, tell that to the 35 year old father of 2 pre-school age kids who has just been diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme. How does that dad cooperate with light or dark? How do his children?

No, you've applied a fairy-tale to randomness and have created a meta-cognitive condition known as the "availability heuristic". Just because you think something is real (or in your case have been told by others who validate its reality in group-think) you think it is important and real. Your theology allows you to feel good about yourself but has little to do with how the real world operates.

You also show the classic evangelical hubris when you passive-aggressively condemn my reasoned interrogation of your beliefs as evidence to my "dark" character. I think the Elders of Salem did the same thing before the burned witches.

I don't find your comments insightful.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Chuck -

You wrote, "Really, tell that to the 35 year old father of 2 pre-school age kids who has just been diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme. How does that dad cooperate with light or dark? How do his children?"

By faith, I no longer have to stand idly by and try and "figure" out why evil exists when I've already been told the truth to acknowledge its existence.

I can mature in my ability to respond with compassion. Of course one can grow bitter because of the truth, especially if one believed in a wat-you-call a fairy tale god that claimed there would be no evil or physical death - that is a definite recipe for bitterness and unhappiness for sure!!

God provides Himself as a safe place to bring hard and uncivil feelings - He offended many in a crowd of onlookers when He offered them to come eat His body and drink His blood (He didn't just say this at the last supper)- we hurt each other when we inflict our unhappiness on one another, but when confessed to God, hard feelings are shaped into compassionate outreach.

I wish you the best Chuck!

3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi again Chuck - I also wanted to respond to what you said here, "You also show the classic evangelical hubris when you passive-aggressively condemn my reasoned interrogation of your beliefs as evidence to my "dark" character"

Thanks for bringing this up! I do not want to ever forget where I come from (and sometimes still reside/visit) - darkness! Without that as my motivator, I lack love and compassion.

You have projected a motive of "condemnation" upon my writing, as though I suffer from an infection of moral conceit, but the only thing I claim to know is where I have been before (darkness!) and that God is saving me from perishing - I do not escape suffering, but I am learning to share in it and to love in the midst of it. I am not afraid of condemnation or hell and I will go there on purpose if I see someone perishing there.

I do not have to be a slave of circumstances - nor do you. Grief and anguish, hatred, rage - all of these happen but these can be safely and powerfully deposited with God instead of acting these hard feelings out on others.

At any rate, I'm glad to have made your acquaintance here, Chuck. Thanks for conversing.

Chuck said...

3M,

Can you do me a favor?

Count the many times you mention "I" in relation to the benefit of you faith in the following paragraph.

"You have projected a motive of "condemnation" upon my writing, as though I suffer from an infection of moral conceit, but the only thing I claim to know is where I have been before (darkness!) and that God is saving me from perishing - I do not escape suffering, but I am learning to share in it and to love in the midst of it. I am not afraid of condemnation or hell and I will go there on purpose if I see someone perishing there."

It is perfectly okay in my book for one to find life transformation within a faith calling but, what is not agreeable is when that person extrapolates their personal experience as if it is somehow necessary for all. Christians in America don't only demand others view their delusion as the primary necessity for all but, stand in the way of useful science as practice of their superstitious necessity.

I don't doubt that your delusion has helped you leave a dark place. The Nation of Islam did the same for Malcolm X. Would you consider the Nation of Islam's theology absolute truth based on Malcolm's transformation?

Your theology and defense of it only confirms for me the driving benefit of Christianity is the ability of uncivilized and hateful folks to channel their "darkness" within a delusion that allows for greater possibilities towards civilization. That is fine but, it is a flimsy proof that all must accept your theology or be condemned to Hell.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi
Chuck! Enjoying the exchange here -

One of the hazards of presumption is that it alienates people from growing close connections by projecting ulterior and hurtful motives. I can speak about this because, like I've said before, I've been there and can be tempted to revisit from time to time.

At any rate, you wrote, "Christians in America don't only demand others view their delusion as the primary necessity for all but, stand in the way of useful science as practice of their superstitious necessity."

I'm glad you brought up superstition and science - great stuff! I love science! I am not intimidated by scientific examination - it's exciting and interesting!However, if you look at the track record of scientific conclusions/deductions, you can find that it is an ever evolving process to find accuracy in the examination. In other words, there have been some very erroneous and wrongful conclusions drawn by those examining creation!

Also, I am not offended by your offenses at my use of "I" in my writings! :-) I understand and remember how I closed myself in with all sorts of offenses and rules and conditions that I would place on others!

The gospel is an invitation - like I've said before (and it is in scripture) some prefer darkness. Would God condemn condemnation?? Not likely - that would be rather redundant wouldn't it? If you don't like condemnation, you are invited to turn away from cooperating with it!

Maybe we'll talk again soon?
3M

john said...

"We all would do the same thing...."

Speaking as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I can say that we certainly do not believe the same thing.

Which of the Church Fathers ever said such a thing? (If you say Augustine, then we reply, Augustine alone doesn't count - the Church's teaching is not based on the opinions of one man alone)

He makes a typical error of confusing person and nature.

He places sin in our nature, whereas we say that sin was an act of a person, not a nature.

Thus, if there were say 1000 persons in Eden with Adam, we have no certainty that any of those 1000 persons would have done what Adam did.

What necessity are we under to do the same thing Adam did?

The sin of Adam did not so alter human nature that human nature is now bound to commit the same sin of Adam.

Death came through Adam. It is obvious that all men die. That is the way in which Adam represents us all. Adam was not born naturally immortal, but by obeying God he would not have suffered death. He chose to disobey, thus death. Christ came to give all men the immortality Adam lost. He did that. It is up to us how we choose to spend that immortality - in God's presence or in eternal separation from Him.

Kelly said...

MMM we still do not know what "God's *grace*" has to do with allowing antagonism/enmity to exist.

You didn't show a correlation between the two things.

Unless Christianity is a religion which revels in or even supports antagonism/pain/enmity/sin, how is God being "graceful" by allowing it to exist?


Russ: talking about intelligence, I am extremely disappointed by your post.

We are trying to point out the ignorance of many Christian theologies, and your post seemed just as ignorant and incoherent as theirs.

Calling a second-grade pupil smarter and more moral than a "fictitious Jesus" (I think that's what you meant, although you didn't spell it correctly) is not validly backed up by any evidence. Secondly, to call Jesus a he/she/it, is downright disrespectful.

The only poster I can agree with is the one who wrote this article, and I think ALL you commenters need to THINK.