| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Awmte" |
| Date: |
23 Mar 2005 07:01:09 AM |
| Object: |
A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
The concept of redemption/salvation is based on the validity of
Original Sin. Without this, the whole edifice crumbles, for if we have
not "Fallen" we do not need to be redeemed, and therefore, do not need
a "redeemer".
Thus, the sinfulness of man is a necessary condition of Christianity.
Let us, however, examine the concept of Original Sin from a moral
viewpoint.
Let us grant that the book of Genesis is factually perfect (ignoring
all the problems of logic, science and even internal consistency). Let
us grant that the Fall happened exactly as portrayed. The issue in
question is this - was the fall morally justified?
Let us review the sequence of events. Satan (or the serpent) tempted
Eve to eat of the tree of Good and Evil. Eve succumbed, and
furthermore, tempted Adam into the same sin, thus resulting in the
"Fall".
The question I wish to pose is: Exactly where in this sequence of
events did this putative sin occur?
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and a
volitional, volitional act of evil. Any act is morally neutral without
this foundation: they could have sinned only after they had eaten of
the fruit.
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin
before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did not,
therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned
before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Note that they were summarily expelled form the garden before they had
committed any other sin.
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and
that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.
Man does not need to be redeemed, just freed from the clutches of his
irrational guilt. Whose sin did Christ die for?
.
|
|
| User: "Ph˙ltęr" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 02:07:56 PM |
|
|
"Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> astounded us with:
news:1111557899.104901.18710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
The concept of redemption/salvation is based on the validity of
Original Sin. Without this, the whole edifice crumbles, for if we have
not "Fallen" we do not need to be redeemed, and therefore, do not need
a "redeemer".
Thus, the sinfulness of man is a necessary condition of Christianity.
Let us, however, examine the concept of Original Sin from a moral
viewpoint.
Let us grant that the book of Genesis is factually perfect (ignoring
all the problems of logic, science and even internal consistency). Let
us grant that the Fall happened exactly as portrayed. The issue in
question is this - was the fall morally justified?
Let us review the sequence of events. Satan (or the serpent) tempted
Eve to eat of the tree of Good and Evil. Eve succumbed, and
furthermore, tempted Adam into the same sin, thus resulting in the
"Fall".
The question I wish to pose is: Exactly where in this sequence of
events did this putative sin occur?
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and a
volitional, volitional act of evil. Any act is morally neutral without
this foundation: they could have sinned only after they had eaten of
the fruit.
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin
before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did not,
therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned
before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Note that they were summarily expelled form the garden before they had
committed any other sin.
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and
that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.
Man does not need to be redeemed, just freed from the clutches of his
irrational guilt. Whose sin did Christ die for?
Who gives a *****? It's merely a catholic construct to keep the sheep under
control. "Mea Culpa" springs to mind, it's hammered into them, until they
believe it, and feel unworthy. If anywhere should be nuked, it's Vatican
City
--
Ph˙ltęr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
25 Mar 2005 04:12:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:07:56 GMT, "Ph˙ltęr" <phylter@hsotmail.com>
wrote:
"Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> astounded us with:
news:1111557899.104901.18710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
The concept of redemption/salvation is based on the validity of
Original Sin. Without this, the whole edifice crumbles, for if we have
not "Fallen" we do not need to be redeemed, and therefore, do not need
a "redeemer".
Thus, the sinfulness of man is a necessary condition of Christianity.
Let us, however, examine the concept of Original Sin from a moral
viewpoint.
Let us grant that the book of Genesis is factually perfect (ignoring
all the problems of logic, science and even internal consistency). Let
us grant that the Fall happened exactly as portrayed. The issue in
question is this - was the fall morally justified?
Let us review the sequence of events. Satan (or the serpent) tempted
Eve to eat of the tree of Good and Evil. Eve succumbed, and
furthermore, tempted Adam into the same sin, thus resulting in the
"Fall".
The question I wish to pose is: Exactly where in this sequence of
events did this putative sin occur?
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and a
volitional, volitional act of evil. Any act is morally neutral without
this foundation: they could have sinned only after they had eaten of
the fruit.
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin
before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did not,
therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned
before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Note that they were summarily expelled form the garden before they had
committed any other sin.
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and
that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.
Man does not need to be redeemed, just freed from the clutches of his
irrational guilt. Whose sin did Christ die for?
Who gives a *****? It's merely a catholic construct to keep the sheep under
control. "Mea Culpa" springs to mind, it's hammered into them, until they
believe it, and feel unworthy. If anywhere should be nuked, it's Vatican
City
Neutron bomb. There's lots of history in that pirates den of theives.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 02:20:23 PM |
|
|
"Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111557899.104901.18710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The concept of redemption/salvation is based on the validity of
Original Sin. Without this, the whole edifice crumbles, for if we have
not "Fallen" we do not need to be redeemed, and therefore, do not need
a "redeemer".
Thus, the sinfulness of man is a necessary condition of Christianity.
Let us, however, examine the concept of Original Sin from a moral
viewpoint.
Let's not - It's just a myth.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 12:45:51 PM |
|
|
"Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote in news:1111557899.104901.18710
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
The concept of redemption/salvation is based on the validity of
Original Sin. Without this, the whole edifice crumbles, for if we have
not "Fallen" we do not need to be redeemed, and therefore, do not need
a "redeemer".
Thus, the sinfulness of man is a necessary condition of Christianity.
Let us, however, examine the concept of Original Sin from a moral
viewpoint.
Let us grant that the book of Genesis is factually perfect (ignoring
all the problems of logic, science and even internal consistency). Let
us grant that the Fall happened exactly as portrayed. The issue in
question is this - was the fall morally justified?
Let us review the sequence of events. Satan (or the serpent) tempted
Eve to eat of the tree of Good and Evil. Eve succumbed, and
furthermore, tempted Adam into the same sin, thus resulting in the
"Fall".
The question I wish to pose is: Exactly where in this sequence of
events did this putative sin occur?
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and a
volitional, volitional act of evil. Any act is morally neutral without
this foundation: they could have sinned only after they had eaten of
the fruit.
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin
before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did not,
therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned
before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Note that they were summarily expelled form the garden before they had
committed any other sin.
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and
that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.
Man does not need to be redeemed, just freed from the clutches of his
irrational guilt. Whose sin did Christ die for?
Well, considering that it's all just myth anyway, it doesn't really
matter much does it.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 02:13:25 PM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
"Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote in news:1111557899.104901.18710
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
The concept of redemption/salvation is based on the validity of
Original Sin. Without this, the whole edifice crumbles, for if we have
not "Fallen" we do not need to be redeemed, and therefore, do not need
a "redeemer".
Thus, the sinfulness of man is a necessary condition of Christianity.
Let us, however, examine the concept of Original Sin from a moral
viewpoint.
Let us grant that the book of Genesis is factually perfect (ignoring
all the problems of logic, science and even internal consistency). Let
us grant that the Fall happened exactly as portrayed. The issue in
question is this - was the fall morally justified?
Let us review the sequence of events. Satan (or the serpent) tempted
Eve to eat of the tree of Good and Evil. Eve succumbed, and
furthermore, tempted Adam into the same sin, thus resulting in the
"Fall".
The question I wish to pose is: Exactly where in this sequence of
events did this putative sin occur?
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and a
volitional, volitional act of evil. Any act is morally neutral without
this foundation: they could have sinned only after they had eaten of
the fruit.
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin
before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did not,
therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned
before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Note that they were summarily expelled form the garden before they had
committed any other sin.
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and
that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.
Man does not need to be redeemed, just freed from the clutches of his
irrational guilt. Whose sin did Christ die for?
Well, considering that it's all just myth anyway, it doesn't really
matter much does it.
It matters in that tens of millioins of deeply ignorant,
gullible morons actually believe this totally stupid
tall tale.
And that is sort of a touch stone. On one side,
people who snap immediately to the fact it is a
myth. On the other, those who can't figure out
that it is a rather silly bronze aged myth.
That frankly, scares me. People THAT dumb are
dangerous.
The other aspect is that even when the dumbasses have
the problems pointed out to them, they remain stubborn
dumbasses.
That REALLY scares me. A man that being faced with
the problmes in this myth and still can't figure it
out is not really a man.
We have a god who creates us out of dirt, stupid
and mortal, as stoop labor, a gardener. This god
firstthing, lies to us. He has no intention of sharing
knowledge or immortality with us and throws
us out of the garden to prevent Adam from becoming a man.
And god loves us!
Well, no. That IS the point. God does not love us.
He was exploiting us for manual labor.
Still the dumbasses rant and rave about the inglorious
beginnings of man as an ape as per evolution.
This is better? More glorious?
God's our friend and wants us to be immortal and
live with him in heaven.
Yeah?
Why isn't heaven or immortal life in
the hearafter mentioned in the OT or explained to
Moses by god?
Explaining ths to cretins and watching them
make a concious decision to BE cretins is disheartening.
Why would god want to live with deeply stupid people
like this forever in heaven?
And where is sin mentioned at all anyway?
All we had was a panicky god, frightened man may become
a rival god to him.
So much for the concept of an infinite omnipotent god
in the bible.
What this all shows us is, religion makes you stupid.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 09:26:12 AM |
|
|
Awmte wrote:
The concept of redemption/salvation is based on the validity of
Original Sin. Without this, the whole edifice crumbles, for if we
have
not "Fallen" we do not need to be redeemed, and therefore, do not
need
a "redeemer".
Thus, the sinfulness of man is a necessary condition of Christianity.
Let us, however, examine the concept of Original Sin from a moral
viewpoint.
Let us grant that the book of Genesis is factually perfect (ignoring
all the problems of logic, science and even internal consistency).
Let
us grant that the Fall happened exactly as portrayed. The issue in
question is this - was the fall morally justified?
Let us review the sequence of events. Satan (or the serpent) tempted
Eve to eat of the tree of Good and Evil. Eve succumbed, and
furthermore, tempted Adam into the same sin, thus resulting in the
"Fall".
The question I wish to pose is: Exactly where in this sequence of
events did this putative sin occur?
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently,
could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and
a
volitional, volitional act of evil. Any act is morally neutral
without
this foundation: they could have sinned only after they had eaten of
the fruit.
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin
before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did
not,
therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned
before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Note that they were summarily expelled form the garden before they
had
committed any other sin.
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and
that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.
Man does not need to be redeemed, just freed from the clutches of his
irrational guilt. Whose sin did Christ die for?
Calvinism is stupid and can be destructive, but not all Christians are
Calvinists. I am pretty sure that Mormons are anti-Calvinist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secular Fundamentalist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 09:15:38 AM |
|
|
Awmte wrote:
The concept of redemption/salvation is based on the validity of
Original Sin. Without this, the whole edifice crumbles, for if we have
not "Fallen" we do not need to be redeemed, and therefore, do not need
a "redeemer".
Thus, the sinfulness of man is a necessary condition of Christianity.
So far, so correct.
Let us, however, examine the concept of Original Sin from a moral
viewpoint.
Let us grant that the book of Genesis is factually perfect (ignoring
all the problems of logic, science and even internal consistency). Let
us grant that the Fall happened exactly as portrayed. The issue in
question is this - was the fall morally justified?
Let us review the sequence of events. Satan (or the serpent) tempted
Eve to eat of the tree of Good and Evil. Eve succumbed, and
furthermore, tempted Adam into the same sin, thus resulting in the
"Fall".
Actually it was the tree of *knowledge of* good and evil.
The question I wish to pose is: Exactly where in this sequence of
events did this putative sin occur?
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Of *course* they could. They wouldn't have known they had, so they
couldn't have avoided it!
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and a
volitional, volitional act of evil. Any act is morally neutral without
this foundation: they could have sinned only after they had eaten of
the fruit.
People who do things not knowing the consequences are nonetheless
responsible for those consequences.
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin
before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did not,
therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned
before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Note that they were summarily expelled form the garden before they had
committed any other sin.
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and
that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.
Man does not need to be redeemed, just freed from the clutches of his
irrational guilt. Whose sin did Christ die for?
He didn't. He didn't exist. Neither did the schizophrenic sky fairy.
That's the trouble with trying to philosophise using fantasy games. Any
morality based on theological abstractions is going to be fatally flawed
because it is based on a falsehood.
Religion is founded on the ability to believe things which contradict
each other. Believers justify this by making a great play of saying 'no,
but this is what it really meant..' and using vandalised semantics and
mystical language to evade objective scrutiny. Someone who has been
sufficiently brainwashed with this process will actually regard it as
reasoning and call people stupid for not following it - yes, Duke, I am
talking about you.
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Awmte" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
24 Mar 2005 04:35:09 AM |
|
|
Of *course* they could. They wouldn't have known > they had, so they
couldn't have avoided it!
Perhaps I was unclear. By "sin" I meant the popular Christian concept
of a conscious and volitional act of evil. Can a baby sin?
People who do things not knowing the >consequences are nonetheless
responsible for those consequences.
The judicial system might beg to differ. We do not normally assign
moral guilt to those incapable of distinguishing between good and evil.
Can a baby sin?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
25 Mar 2005 02:52:51 AM |
|
|
On 23 Mar 2005 20:35:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Of *course* they could. They wouldn't have known > they had, so they
couldn't have avoided it!
Perhaps I was unclear. By "sin" I meant the popular Christian concept
of a conscious and volitional act of evil. Can a baby sin?
Yes, by the processes of; breathing, ingestion, and elimination.
People who do things not knowing the >consequences are nonetheless
responsible for those consequences.
The judicial system might beg to differ. We do not normally assign
moral guilt to those incapable of distinguishing between good and evil.
Can a baby sin?
The Christian tome of drooling idiocy says; 'Yes.' Once again mere
humans routinely outperform 'God.'
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "someone" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 10:15:09 PM |
|
|
I think you're maybe taking the story a bit too seriously, but just to
give another side to the argument:
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and a
volitional, volitional act of evil.
But what is 'good' and what is 'evil'? I'm going to give the definition
of 'good' act as a selfless act, and an 'evil' act is a selfish act.
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin
before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did
not,
therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned
before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Original sin was self awareness, from which selfishness grows.
Before they ate the apple, they weren't self aware. Therefore any act
they committed wasn't a volitional act of selfishness, and wasn't
therefore a sin.
They were banished for their disobedience.
Once they ate the apple though, they were self aware (original sin),
and selfishness (sin) grew.
Whose sin did Christ die for?
It could be argued that he died to point humanity back to the selfless
path. I can't think of a much more selfless act than to give your life
for strangers.
You could then question whether to follow the selfless path (that Jesus
pointed to), purely to get into heaven, is a selfish act in itself.
To which there is the counter argument, that even if someone started on
the selfless path, purely to save their soul, that selfishness would
have no external manifestations, they would just be carrying the burden
of original sin. On travelling the path though, they might see the
beauty of the selfless path, and wish to travel no other. The fact that
travelling the path has an unbelievably big bonus at the end, would be
a side issue.
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and
that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.
You can conclude what you like, it's your choice, but I fail to see how
your reasoning unearthed any fundamental flaw.
As a side issue though, I don't understand why you are even bothering
to try.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Awmte" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
24 Mar 2005 08:23:04 AM |
|
|
Original sin was self awareness, from which selfishness grows.
That would not, indeed, be the definition of sin, original or
otherwise.
They were banished for their disobedience
In the absence of morality (ie, knowledge of good and evil) a
preference of obedience over disobedience becomes totally arbitrary.
Why should one value obedience over disobedience, unless one already
has a preconceived notion of right and wrong? In the context which
obtains, being banished for obedience holds the same moral ground as
being banished for disobedience.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
25 Mar 2005 04:24:34 AM |
|
|
On 23 Mar 2005 14:15:09 -0800, "someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com>
wrote:
I think you're maybe taking the story a bit too seriously, but just to
give another side to the argument:
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and a
volitional, volitional act of evil.
But what is 'good' and what is 'evil'? I'm going to give the definition
of 'good' act as a selfless act, and an 'evil' act is a selfish act.
All acts are selfish, if you get right down to the foundation. Does
that mean helping a motorist broke down way out in the middle of
nowhere is evil?
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin
before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did
not,
therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned
before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Original sin was self awareness, from which selfishness grows.
There is no 'Original SinŽ' outside the world of superstition.
Before they ate the apple, they weren't self aware. Therefore any act
they committed wasn't a volitional act of selfishness, and wasn't
therefore a sin.
They were banished for their disobedience.
That's called 'blaming the victim.'
Once they ate the apple though, they were self aware (original sin),
and selfishness (sin) grew.
LMAO at you.
Whose sin did Christ die for?
It could be argued that he died to point humanity back to the selfless
path. I can't think of a much more selfless act than to give your life
for strangers.
A scheduled minor inconveniance while the 'promotional corner office'
was being decorated and furnished is a 'sacrifice?' :D
You could then question whether to follow the selfless path (that Jesus
pointed to), purely to get into heaven, is a selfish act in itself.
'Jesus' was a lying hypocrite and racked up enough 'sins' on his own.
To which there is the counter argument, that even if someone started on
the selfless path, purely to save their soul, that selfishness would
have no external manifestations, they would just be carrying the burden
of original sin. On travelling the path though, they might see the
beauty of the selfless path, and wish to travel no other.
There is no 'selfless path,' moron.
The fact that travelling the path has an unbelievably big bonus
at the end, would be a side issue.
Liar. It is the issue. You've described 'dog training' morality.
Christians like you can't be trusted 'off-leash.'
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and
that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.
You can conclude what you like, it's your choice, but I fail to see how
your reasoning unearthed any fundamental flaw.
That's because you've got your blinders on.
As a side issue though, I don't understand why you are even bothering
to try.
It's stuff Christians drool adnauseum. He was curious to see where
things went when it was examined. Of course, it vanished at the mere
glance. {shrug}
Humans outperform 'God' routinely. And atheists routinely outperform
Christians. Christians expect a 'eternal reward.' Atheists lend an
assist without expectation of a reward-eternal or otherwise. I've
never charged anyone for my assistance.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
24 Mar 2005 06:13:52 AM |
|
|
someone wrote:
I think you're maybe taking the story a bit too seriously, but just to
give another side to the argument:
Sin presupposes an ability to distingiush between good and evil, and a
volitional, volitional act of evil.
But what is 'good' and what is 'evil'? I'm going to give the definition
of 'good' act as a selfless act, and an 'evil' act is a selfish act.
Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin
before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did
not,
therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned
before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.
Original sin was self awareness, from which selfishness grows.
Before they ate the apple, they weren't self aware. Therefore any act
they committed wasn't a volitional act of selfishness, and wasn't
therefore a sin.
What is it about this myth that turns people's brains to
dogshit?
They were self aware. They just did according to the myth
have any understanding of good or evil, having been purposefully
so created to not have an understanding of good and evil.
Therefore they could not have had a true understanding
of the concept obey.
Why is this so hard for people to read and state the simple
facts of the matter?
It is indeed a stupid false, idiotic myth. But the myth
tell us something. Yet simple as it is, most people simply
cannot read this and get it, even when the facts are pointed
out NUMEROUS times in a thread!
They were banished for their disobedience.
Once they ate the apple though, they were self aware (original sin),
and selfishness (sin) grew.
There was no sin. Nor self awareness.
But the awareness of good and evil.
And even then, this was stupid.
As if a magic fruit tree hands out knowledge of good and evil.
Yet people don'tthink about any of this and cobble it all together to
'support' deeply false and deeply stupid theology.
Religion is evil.
it turns your brains to *****.
Whose sin did Christ die for?
It could be argued that he died to point humanity back to the selfless
path. I can't think of a much more selfless act than to give your life
for strangers.
You could then question whether to follow the selfless path (that Jesus
pointed to), purely to get into heaven, is a selfish act in itself.
To which there is the counter argument, that even if someone started on
the selfless path, purely to save their soul, that selfishness would
have no external manifestations, they would just be carrying the burden
of original sin. On travelling the path though, they might see the
beauty of the selfless path, and wish to travel no other. The fact that
travelling the path has an unbelievably big bonus at the end, would be
a side issue.
We conclude that there is no moral justification for Original Sin and
that any morality based upon it is, therefore, fundamentally flawed.
You can conclude what you like, it's your choice, but I fail to see how
your reasoning unearthed any fundamental flaw.
As a side issue though, I don't understand why you are even bothering
to try.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 12:25:51 PM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the garden
except one. If he does, he will die that day.
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said don't, the
snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 01:45:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:25:51 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the garden
except one. If he does, he will die that day.
Nothing there explaining what 'dying' meant I see. (since nobody has
yet died it would be beyond Adams comprehension and he would not have
a clue what it meant would he)
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said don't, the
snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
Indeed, very clear. You blame women for all the ills of the world.
There you have it folks. Eve was responsible for that Tsunami gods
says, 'sorry nowt to do with me'
but wait
I note that in this concept (as quoted above by you) god specifically
told Adam not to eat the fruit, not Eve. So the supposed sin (what's
that) was Adam eating the fruit NOT Eve. She did not disobey god, she
did nothing wrong it was Adam's choice alone that mattered. So is it
the case that women are being punished for man's sin? Daft story
anyway.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 11:21:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:27 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Nothing there explaining what 'dying' meant I see. (since nobody has
yet died it would be beyond Adams comprehension and he would not have
a clue what it meant would he)
As time passes, it clearly becomes spiritual death. Ala baptism.
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said don't, the
snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
Indeed, very clear. You blame women for all the ills of the world.
Hey, when the shoe fits, let them wear it.
There you have it folks. Eve was responsible for that Tsunami gods
says, 'sorry nowt to do with me'
but wait
Whoa, look out now.
I note that in this concept (as quoted above by you) god specifically
told Adam not to eat the fruit, not Eve.
I suspect she was standing behind him 3 ft away as any good woman of those days
would.
So the supposed sin (what's
that) was Adam eating the fruit NOT Eve.
Close, real close. Actually, with woe(man) having no statue, Adam took the hit.
Just as man has always done since then.
She did not disobey god, she
did nothing wrong it was Adam's choice alone that mattered. So is it
the case that women are being punished for man's sin? Daft story
anyway.
Daft only to those that don't wish to understand, such as you.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
24 Mar 2005 01:56:46 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:b5u3419mfther1962481j02h58h57oq1tu@4ax.com:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:45:27 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Nothing there explaining what 'dying' meant I see. (since nobody has
yet died it would be beyond Adams comprehension and he would not have
a clue what it meant would he)
As time passes, it clearly becomes spiritual death. Ala baptism.
Where is "spiritual death" described in Genesis 2?
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said
don't, the snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
Indeed, very clear. You blame women for all the ills of the world.
Hey, when the shoe fits, let them wear it.
I can see why you don't have children...
There you have it folks. Eve was responsible for that Tsunami gods
says, 'sorry nowt to do with me'
but wait
Whoa, look out now.
I note that in this concept (as quoted above by you) god specifically
told Adam not to eat the fruit, not Eve.
I suspect she was standing behind him 3 ft away as any good woman of
those days would.
Well, once again, Duke doesn't know his own myths. God told Adam in Gen
2:17 that he couldn't eat the fruit or he would die. Then in Gen 2:21-
22, this god took Adam's rib and made Eve. So, how do you think she was
standing behind him?
So the supposed sin (what's
that) was Adam eating the fruit NOT Eve.
Close, real close. Actually, with woe(man) having no statue, Adam
took the hit. Just as man has always done since then.
She did not disobey god, she
did nothing wrong it was Adam's choice alone that mattered. So is it
the case that women are being punished for man's sin? Daft story
anyway.
Daft only to those that don't wish to understand, such as you.
You struggle so hard to maintain your delusions, don't you.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 12:46:55 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:dmn24114e9o4j9he63tdfk66q5pjckc814@4ax.com:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently,
could not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Yeah, isn't it funny that this god lied to Adam, but the serpent actually
told Eve the truth. What does that tell us about xian mythology?
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the
garden except one. If he does, he will die that day.
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said
don't, the snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 11:15:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:46:55 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
Yeah, isn't it funny that this god lied to Adam, but the serpent actually
told Eve the truth. What does that tell us about xian mythology?
What lie? Adam did - not physical death but spiritual death.
Yes Sireeee.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the
garden except one. If he does, he will die that day.
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said
don't, the snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
24 Mar 2005 01:50:51 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:i2u341lgfqo66srdlr0p2qgqcm40t9m7r7@4ax.com:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:46:55 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
Yeah, isn't it funny that this god lied to Adam, but the serpent
actually told Eve the truth. What does that tell us about xian
mythology?
What lie? Adam did - not physical death but spiritual death.
Yes Sireeee.
And where in the bible does it say this?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MsAnthrope" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
24 Mar 2005 02:16:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:46:55 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:dmn24114e9o4j9he63tdfk66q5pjckc814@4ax.com:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently,
could not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Yeah, isn't it funny that this god lied to Adam, but the serpent actually
told Eve the truth. What does that tell us about xian mythology?
That we're backing the wrong horse?
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
25 Mar 2005 04:10:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:16:34 -0800, MsAnthrope <ms@nthr.ope> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:46:55 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:dmn24114e9o4j9he63tdfk66q5pjckc814@4ax.com:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently,
could not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
Yeah, isn't it funny that this god lied to Adam, but the serpent actually
told Eve the truth. What does that tell us about xian mythology?
That we're backing the wrong horse?
That you can't trust anything about it, which includes the "Eternal
LifeŽ" routines.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 01:58:13 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the
garden
except one. If he does, he will die that day.
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said don't,
the snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
No knowledge of good and evil, no knowldge disobedience is bad.
And on top of that, it was god who was the liar.
And on top of THAT, god threw them out of teh garden, not to punish them,
but to keep Adam from becoming immortal and a god.
Why didn't he want Adam to become as a god and be immortal?
The rest was pure mean spiritness.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 11:23:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:58:13 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the
garden
except one. If he does, he will die that day.
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said don't,
the snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
No knowledge of good and evil, no knowldge disobedience is bad.
Oh, they understood. Just like you do today.
And on top of that, it was god who was the liar.
No, he held up his end of the deal.
And on top of THAT, god threw them out of teh garden, not to punish them,
but to keep Adam from becoming immortal and a god.
They were thrown out for disobedience of the worst kind.
Why didn't he want Adam to become as a god and be immortal?
They couldn't even follow simple instructions.
The rest was pure mean spiritness.
Too bad they didn't listen.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
24 Mar 2005 06:06:58 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:58:13 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently, could
not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the
garden
except one. If he does, he will die that day.
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said don't,
the snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
No knowledge of good and evil, no knowldge disobedience is bad.
Oh, they understood. Just like you do today.
You are stupid and getting stupider by the day.
This is why religion is evil.
It makes peope as stupid as you.
No, he held up his end of the deal.
No, god lied to Adam and tried to keep him stupid and mortal.
Again, you lie because you are stupid and evil
Religion has mede you a liar and a fool.
Its a myth, it did not happen at all, and even then
you can't read that myth and admit its stupid.
because you are intellectualy willfully stupid.
Religion is evil. It encouragses this degenaration
and utter perosnal dishonesty.
And on top of THAT, god threw them out of the garden,
not to punish them,
but to keep Adam from becoming immortal and a god.
They were thrown out for disobedience of the worst kind.
Gen 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good
and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of
life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the
ground from whence he was taken.
3:24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden
Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of
the tree of life.
You are stupid and dishonest, as usual.
This is what religion makes you into.
A lying, canting, moron.
Why does he throw Adam out. So he will not
become a god.
You are now totally dishonest in all things and so
degenerate you haveno shwam when that is proven
to teh world at large.
That is why religionis evil, it creases fools and
liars without same.
Why didn't he want Adam to become as a god and be immortal?
They couldn't even follow simple instructions.
Your stupid myth shows us they were withot concept of good or evil.
This is logical, but not a fool how has turned his back on
logic and evil.
You are evil. Having abandoned rationality
you cannot be trusted. And you urge other to alos
throw out all rationality.
Religion is evil. If makes men fools ad irrational.
The rest was pure mean spiritness.
A petty evil, mean god.
Which makes for petty evil mean believers.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 07:41:49 PM |
|
|
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 07:58 am, wcb wrote:
duke wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently,
could not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the
garden
except one. If he does, he will die that day.
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said
don't, the snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
No knowledge of good and evil, no knowldge disobedience is bad.
And no concept of "death".
And on top of that, it was god who was the liar.
And on top of THAT, god threw them out of teh garden, not to punish
them, but to keep Adam from becoming immortal and a god.
Why didn't he want Adam to become as a god and be immortal?
The rest was pure mean spiritness.
Why even put those trees there? I sure wouldn't let God babysit a
toddler! "Here's a fork, there's an electric socket. Don't put the
fork in the socket. Now, time for me to go in the other room and call
my boyfriend."
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
a.a. #1347, Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 09:22:24 PM |
|
|
Tukla Ratte wrote:
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 07:58 am, wcb wrote:
duke wrote:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently,
could not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the
garden
except one. If he does, he will die that day.
But you know women and their relationship with snakes. God said
don't, the snake said go for it, and Eve bit the bullet.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
No knowledge of good and evil, no knowldge disobedience is bad.
And no concept of "death".
And on top of that, it was god who was the liar.
And on top of THAT, god threw them out of the garden, not to punish
them, but to keep Adam from becoming immortal and a god.
Why didn't he want Adam to become as a god and be immortal?
The rest was pure mean spiritness.
Why even put those trees there? I sure wouldn't let God babysit a
toddler! "Here's a fork, there's an electric socket. Don't put the
fork in the socket. Now, time for me to go in the other room and call
my boyfriend."
You'd think god, the supposedly smartest being in the Universe
would have been bright enough to put a Sears and Roebuck electric
fence up around his special trees.
What a doofus.
I have never gotten any of the dimbulbs to tell me
why god didn't want Adam to become a god and live
forever.
Aquinas and Augustine also avoid expounding
on this riddle.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 07:35:43 PM |
|
|
on 23 Mar 2005 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently,
could not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the
garden except one. If he does, he will die that day.
He eats it anyway. Then he continues to live another 900 or so years,
contradicting those verses, as he did not die that day.
It's a stupid, contradictory, meaningless myth. It's time for 21st century
Renaissance Man to emerge from the godfog and get on with the evolution of
the species.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
23 Mar 2005 11:24:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:35:43 -0600, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 23 Mar 2005 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently,
could not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the
garden except one. If he does, he will die that day.
He eats it anyway. Then he continues to live another 900 or so years,
contradicting those verses, as he did not die that day.
Spiritual death, bubba.
It's a stupid, contradictory, meaningless myth. It's time for 21st century
Renaissance Man to emerge from the godfog and get on with the evolution of
the species.
Yeah, go for it, and see how far you get. You're already digging your hole.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Moral Basis For Original Sin? |
24 Mar 2005 06:38:22 AM |
|
|
On 23 Mar 2005, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:35:43 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 23 Mar 2005 in alt.atheism, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
On 22 Mar 2005 23:01:09 -0800, "Awmte" <awmtea@rediffmail.com>
wrote:
Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil and, consequently,
could not have sinned before they ate of the fruit.
In Genesis 2:16-17, God told Adam that he may eat of any tree in the
garden except one. If he does, he will die that day.
He eats it anyway. Then he continues to live another 900 or so years,
contradicting those verses, as he did not die that day.
Spiritual death, bubba.
What exactly is that?
It's a stupid, contradictory, meaningless myth. It's time for 21st
century Renaissance Man to emerge from the godfog and get on with the
evolution of the species.
Yeah, go for it, and see how far you get. You're already digging your
hole.
49 years and no fatal lightening bolt. No Vic-shaped pillar of salt. I
guess the OT god is folklore, and what does that leave?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
