| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Truth Hunter" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 06:48:01 AM |
| Object: |
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God =3D Atonement
God created A&E beings knowing from the start that they would not
please him. And when they would not please him, he knew he would have
to arrange to have the humans torture and kill him/God in the form of
Jesus so that he could forgive them for being the way he created them
to be and the way he knew they would be from the beginning. And he
knew, at the beginning, that if people did not accept that he would do
something so utterly ridiculous, he would have to cast them into hell
where they would weep and gnash their teeth in a lake of fire forever.
All this to please his own fragile ego, apparently.
This is the most ridiculous concept I have ever been asked to accept,
and I don't accept it. I cannot accept that an all knowing, all
perfect, all good God would be such a sadistic idiot. Apparently
Christians can.
God sacrificed himself to himself to satisfy his anger and human beings
for being exactly the way he created them to be and for being exactly
the way he knew they would be from the beginnning of time. And yet God
now threatens to torture people for eternity if they don't believe that
he is stupid enough to do something like this.
It constantly amazes me that Christians can pretend that this makes
some kind of sense.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro=ADm his own
wrath ! (Author unknown)
.
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Keshav?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
18 Apr 2005 01:48:04 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com>
| André Keshav
| >| >Jesus was both human and divine, so it was a real sacrifice.
| >|
| >| Nope. Jesus was not a cloven-hooved, non cud-chewing animal.
| >| Ergo, invalid sacrifice.
| >|
| >| > Because he was also
| >| >divine and sinless, his sacrifice had the effect of a universal atonment.
| >|
| >| Non judaic and non TANACH concept..
| >
| >It may be more suitable as a Christian concept.
|
| But since xerism claims to be from judaism, it must have in its
| sacrificial system the judaic one.
I don't see how that follows. Christianism stems from Judaism, but Christianism
has some fundamental differences, or else they wouldn't be considered as
distinct religions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
18 Apr 2005 08:59:08 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:48:04 +0200, André Keshav
<andre_dumarc@hotmayle.com> wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com>
| André Keshav
| >| >Jesus was both human and divine, so it was a real sacrifice.
| >|
| >| Nope. Jesus was not a cloven-hooved, non cud-chewing animal.
| >| Ergo, invalid sacrifice.
| >|
| >| > Because he was also
| >| >divine and sinless, his sacrifice had the effect of a universal atonment.
| >|
| >| Non judaic and non TANACH concept..
| >
| >It may be more suitable as a Christian concept.
|
| But since xerism claims to be from judaism, it must have in its
| sacrificial system the judaic one.
I don't see how that follows.
Because jesus was a jew. Ergo, he must be sacrificed in the
judaic manner, which is impossible, because humans are unfit for
sacrifice.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
17 Apr 2005 08:37:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:27:44 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:4nm161522k3673p82mk2h9u358789veh1v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:09:02 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:9bkv51h74oi8u2b3b7aoa6att3c4tfmv8i@4ax.com...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:36:37 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
<snip>
Jesus had a bad weekend for your sins and is in heaven. What an under
achiever. IMO
All of us may in fact do a lot more suffering and will not get up after
our
little nap. You should set the bar a little higher.
Once we have been set free by the truth, in serving the truth, we
sometimes have to give up our freedom for the sake of others. That is
what Jesus did.
What did Jesus give up? Nothing. He is still god. right?
He gave up everything including his own life.
you call that a life? You should get a better one. Jesus taught for 3
years.
then went to sleep for 3 days and went back home. Amazing.
Yep. That is certainly an amazing life. The fastest way to return to
our real home in heaven as far as I know.
What happened in the end
doesn't nullify the sacrifice.
Of course it does, creating a universe is something to be revered. Dying
like every other thing on earth as though that is somehow special to our
existance is not, *I repaeat* not an achievement.
It was never meant to be an achievement. That is why it's called the
sacrifice.
By definition, a sacrifice means a loss, Jesus is still god, nothing has
been lost.
Jesus was restored to his heavenly existence only after he sacrificed
his earthly life. Yes, by the grace of God, nothing has been lost, but
that is God's glory. That does not mean Jesus did not make the
sacrifice. Jesus, by making his own sacrifice, showed us the way in
receiving God's grace. That is why his sacrifice is so important to
us.
On the contrary, it affirms the
sacrifice to be worthy of heaven.
As if there was anywhere else he would go hahaha
Right, that is the only good thing for being the son of God, he has
nowhere else to go to except heaven.
A very redundant sacrifice IMO
Not really. From what I understand, sacrificing ourselves for the love
of God is the most important lesson we have to learn.
Tom
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by themselves, after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able to judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment", but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why there are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
13 Apr 2005 08:18:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by themselves, after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able to judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment", but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why there are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
disasters. Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
cause of all human suffering.
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
No, I have not contradicted myself. I believe natural disaster is
natural, but human suffering is unnatural. I think I explained my
point with the above previous statement.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
13 Apr 2005 05:16:48 PM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:ru6q51pi5nt98d41j4l5npnauc7fugus39@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for
food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one
wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil
before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the
fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by themselves,
after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able to
judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree
you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense
of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment",
but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before
eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To
Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil
before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why there
are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
disasters. Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
cause of all human suffering.
How can we know that without natural suffering, there would be no suffering?
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
No, I have not contradicted myself. I believe natural disaster is
natural, but human suffering is unnatural. I think I explained my
point with the above previous statement.
I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
respectfully,
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
13 Apr 2005 09:10:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:16:48 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:ru6q51pi5nt98d41j4l5npnauc7fugus39@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for
food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one
wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil
before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the
fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by themselves,
after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able to
judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the tree
you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense
of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral judgment",
but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before
eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct. To
Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and evil
before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why there
are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
disasters. Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
cause of all human suffering.
How can we know that without natural suffering, there would be no suffering?
I believe without sin, there would be no suffering. What is "natural
suffering"?
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
No, I have not contradicted myself. I believe natural disaster is
natural, but human suffering is unnatural. I think I explained my
point with the above previous statement.
I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I think I'm talking about the cause of human suffering.
respectfully,
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Keshav?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
15 Apr 2005 07:53:43 AM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com>
"Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
| >> People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
| >> disasters. Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
| >> natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
| >> cause of all human suffering.
| >
| >How can we know that without natural suffering, there would be no suffering?
|
| I believe without sin, there would be no suffering. What is "natural
| suffering"?
Do you mean original sin, as a condition of mankind, or actual sin, i.e. that
suffering is due to peoples' committing sin continuously, in which case we would
have the possibility to reach a state where we no longer suffer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
15 Apr 2005 05:33:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:53:43 +0200, André Keshav
<andre_dumarc@hotmayle.com> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com>
"Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
| >> People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
| >> disasters. Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
| >> natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
| >> cause of all human suffering.
| >
| >How can we know that without natural suffering, there would be no suffering?
|
| I believe without sin, there would be no suffering. What is "natural
| suffering"?
Do you mean original sin, as a condition of mankind, or actual sin, i.e. that
suffering is due to peoples' committing sin continuously, in which case we would
have the possibility to reach a state where we no longer suffer?
I'm not sure I can make that distinction. To me, they are all the
same. It's because of the original sin, we commit the worldly sins. By
committing worldly sins, we are more lost in the original sin. The two
are closely connected.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
14 Apr 2005 05:33:45 PM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:hggr51d0kh4k1j8b5vo5aepl9s6urg29kn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:16:48 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:ru6q51pi5nt98d41j4l5npnauc7fugus39@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for
food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one
wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil
before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the
fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by themselves,
after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able to
judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the
tree
you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's
edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense
of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral
judgment",
but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before
eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct.
To
Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and
evil
before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why there
are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
disasters. Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
cause of all human suffering.
How can we know that without natural suffering, there would be no
suffering?
I believe without sin, there would be no suffering.
What evidence can there be to test that assertion?
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
No, I have not contradicted myself. I believe natural disaster is
natural, but human suffering is unnatural. I think I explained my
point with the above previous statement.
I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I think I'm talking about the cause of human suffering.
the cause of human suffering is pain. Pain is a biological phenomenom that
protects us from harm. IE put your hand in the fire and it hurts. Take your
hand out and eventually the pain goes away and you are left with a hand to
put food into your mouth.
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
15 Apr 2005 09:45:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:hggr51d0kh4k1j8b5vo5aepl9s6urg29kn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:16:48 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:ru6q51pi5nt98d41j4l5npnauc7fugus39@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for
food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one
wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil
before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate the
fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by themselves,
after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able to
judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the
tree
you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's
edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no sense
of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral
judgment",
but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before
eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct.
To
Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and
evil
before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why there
are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
disasters. Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
cause of all human suffering.
How can we know that without natural suffering, there would be no
suffering?
I believe without sin, there would be no suffering.
What evidence can there be to test that assertion?
None. It's not something to be proven. It's what we have to learn to
understand.
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
That would be natural pain instead of natural suffering. Pain does not
necessarily mean suffering. They are not the same thing.
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
No, I have not contradicted myself. I believe natural disaster is
natural, but human suffering is unnatural. I think I explained my
point with the above previous statement.
I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I think I'm talking about the cause of human suffering.
the cause of human suffering is pain. Pain is a biological phenomenom that
protects us from harm. IE put your hand in the fire and it hurts. Take your
hand out and eventually the pain goes away and you are left with a hand to
put food into your mouth.
Tom
Pain does not always cause human suffering. It only causes human
suffering when sin is involved. There are times people can take a lot
of pain without the feeling of suffering. There are also times people
can collapse to their feet just by looking at the pain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
15 Apr 2005 05:59:07 PM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:k8iu51p91ub6mkamo5cq5a6ji899uicmh5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:hggr51d0kh4k1j8b5vo5aepl9s6urg29kn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:16:48 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:ru6q51pi5nt98d41j4l5npnauc7fugus39@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good
for
food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one
wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil
before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate
the
fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by
themselves,
after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able
to
judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the
tree
you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's
edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no
sense
of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral
judgment",
but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before
eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct.
To
Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and
evil
before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The
erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why
there
are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
disasters. Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
cause of all human suffering.
How can we know that without natural suffering, there would be no
suffering?
I believe without sin, there would be no suffering.
What evidence can there be to test that assertion?
None. It's not something to be proven. It's what we have to learn to
understand.
No it is not something you learn it is something you believe. If it is
something you learn then a child will thing that god is punishing them for
sticking their hand in the fire.
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
That would be natural pain instead of natural suffering. Pain does not
necessarily mean suffering. They are not the same thing.
What is natural suffering?
If pain does not necessarily mean suffering the can you give an example
where pain does not cause suffering?
If Jesus experienced natural pain, could it be that he really didn't suffer?
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
No, I have not contradicted myself. I believe natural disaster is
natural, but human suffering is unnatural. I think I explained my
point with the above previous statement.
I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I think I'm talking about the cause of human suffering.
the cause of human suffering is pain. Pain is a biological phenomenom that
protects us from harm. IE put your hand in the fire and it hurts. Take
your
hand out and eventually the pain goes away and you are left with a hand to
put food into your mouth.
Tom
Pain does not always cause human suffering. It only causes human
suffering when sin is involved. There are times people can take a lot
of pain without the feeling of suffering.
Bravo to them
There are also times people
can collapse to their feet just by looking at the pain.
Eric, have you done much suffering in your life? Better still, have you
experienced much natural pain in your life?
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
16 Apr 2005 02:00:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:59:07 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:k8iu51p91ub6mkamo5cq5a6ji899uicmh5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:hggr51d0kh4k1j8b5vo5aepl9s6urg29kn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:16:48 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:ru6q51pi5nt98d41j4l5npnauc7fugus39@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:16:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:21 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:11:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:51:34 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:48:43 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:21:50 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:33:00 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:23:15 -0400, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:ot5f51946d06ck5lo4qnr5dpmb4fvrkrk6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:30:47 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:7oad51tefkf19es9gjvttvv83ebv6hjen3@4ax.com:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:32:33 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:okuc511g9hpgste4pphkvvrfjl0ceima01@4ax.com:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good
for
food,
and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one
wise, she
took of its fruit, and gave it to her husband.
This is the proof that Adam and Eve *knew* good and evil
before
they ate the fruit. The difference is, before they ate
the
fruit,
they had no ability to judge good and evil by
themselves,
after
they ate the fruit, they became like God and were able
to
judge
good and evil all by themselves.
Crappola. The woman isn't making a moral judgement of the
tree
you
loon, she is making a determination of edibility.
Correct. I think that is my point.
No, loon, it isn't. You are trying to use Eve's
edible/inedible
decision as evidence that she knew good/evil. Eve had no
sense
of good
and evil before eating from the tree.
I agree Eve had no ability to make independent "moral
judgment",
but
that does not mean Eve had no sense of good and evil before
eating
from the tree. All life forms demonstrate certain level of
intelligence. In animal kingdom, we call it animal instinct.
To
Adam
and Eve, their natural instinct is their sense of good and
evil
before
eating from the tree of knowledge.
And you are wrong. Intelligence does not equate to morality.
Actually, I think intelligence is all about morality. The
erratic
human intelligence has run away from morality, that is why
there
are
so much human suffering in the world.
So the tsunami happened because of sin?
No, but human suffering is always because of sin.
So the tsunami happened because of sin. You see, the tsunami
caused human suffering. Ergo, the tsunami happened because of sin.
Don't like it? Then stop claiming that human suffering is
always because of sin.
Natural disaster is natural.
But it caused human suffering. Ergo, human suffering is
natural.
It's tragic that people do suffer in natural disasters.
So you admit that people do suffer from natural disasters. Then
you must also admit that such suffering is not due to sin. Which means
you must now admit that human suffering isn't always because of sin.
People in this world are suffering in sin with or without natural
disasters. Natural disaster will make the suffering more obvious, but
natural disaster is not the cause of human suffering. Sin is the only
cause of all human suffering.
How can we know that without natural suffering, there would be no
suffering?
I believe without sin, there would be no suffering.
What evidence can there be to test that assertion?
None. It's not something to be proven. It's what we have to learn to
understand.
No it is not something you learn it is something you believe. If it is
something you learn then a child will thing that god is punishing them for
sticking their hand in the fire.
Well, regardless whether the child thinks it's punishment from God or
punishment from natural law, as long as the lesson is learned, I don't
see any problem with that. As for the lesson about sin and suffering,
the spiritual teaching of God is the only way to understand it
correctly.
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
That would be natural pain instead of natural suffering. Pain does not
necessarily mean suffering. They are not the same thing.
What is natural suffering?
That is what I was asking. I don't think there is such thing called
natural suffering.
If pain does not necessarily mean suffering the can you give an example
where pain does not cause suffering?
Sure. When Iraqi insurgents battle against the Americans in defending
their country, they take a lot of pain and loss, but they fight
fearlessly without suffering.
If Jesus experienced natural pain, could it be that he really didn't suffer?
Bull's eye! That's the key to defeat death for salvation.
But death
comes to us in many different ways everyday. Regardless how much we
love life, we must learn to accept death. We express joy when a baby
is born. We express sorrow when a person is dead. But we should not
make things any worse than what they already are to suffer in such
sorrow. Yes, we experience pain and loss, but we don't have to suffer
in pain and loss. So, human suffering is unnatural.
Then you contradict yourself, and no one should believe anything
you say.
No, I have not contradicted myself. I believe natural disaster is
natural, but human suffering is unnatural. I think I explained my
point with the above previous statement.
I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I think I'm talking about the cause of human suffering.
the cause of human suffering is pain. Pain is a biological phenomenom that
protects us from harm. IE put your hand in the fire and it hurts. Take
your
hand out and eventually the pain goes away and you are left with a hand to
put food into your mouth.
Tom
Pain does not always cause human suffering. It only causes human
suffering when sin is involved. There are times people can take a lot
of pain without the feeling of suffering.
Bravo to them
There are also times people
can collapse to their feet just by looking at the pain.
Eric, have you done much suffering in your life? Better still, have you
experienced much natural pain in your life?
I would say: a little bit of both. :-)
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
16 Apr 2005 04:24:32 PM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:0nn2615lub5asi0mb4cbp9k4enla88d3dr@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:59:07 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
<snip>
What is natural suffering?
That is what I was asking. I don't think there is such thing called
natural suffering.
If pain does not necessarily mean suffering the can you give an example
where pain does not cause suffering?
Sure. When Iraqi insurgents battle against the Americans in defending
their country, they take a lot of pain and loss, but they fight
fearlessly without suffering.
If Jesus experienced natural pain, could it be that he really didn't
suffer?
Bull's eye! That's the key to defeat death for salvation.
Well to me that is a let down. Jesus, not only did not suffer, he rose
again. Where in lies the sacrifice? 3 years of ministry, 3 days of
suffering, back to heaven in 3 days. You call that a sacrifice for a god?
<snip>
Pain does not always cause human suffering. It only causes human
suffering when sin is involved. There are times people can take a lot
of pain without the feeling of suffering.
Bravo to them
There are also times people
can collapse to their feet just by looking at the pain.
Eric, have you done much suffering in your life? Better still, have you
experienced much natural pain in your life?
I would say: a little bit of both. :-)
your day is coming. (as is mine)
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
17 Apr 2005 08:03:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:24:32 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:0nn2615lub5asi0mb4cbp9k4enla88d3dr@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:59:07 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
<snip>
What is natural suffering?
That is what I was asking. I don't think there is such thing called
natural suffering.
If pain does not necessarily mean suffering the can you give an example
where pain does not cause suffering?
Sure. When Iraqi insurgents battle against the Americans in defending
their country, they take a lot of pain and loss, but they fight
fearlessly without suffering.
If Jesus experienced natural pain, could it be that he really didn't
suffer?
Bull's eye! That's the key to defeat death for salvation.
Well to me that is a let down. Jesus, not only did not suffer, he rose
again. Where in lies the sacrifice? 3 years of ministry, 3 days of
suffering, back to heaven in 3 days. You call that a sacrifice for a god?
In the kingdom of God, everybody sacrifices themselves for everybody
else, yet by the grace of God, nobody is sacrificed. That is the rule
of heaven. If we learn that rule, we will find ourselves in heaven. If
we don't learn that rule, we will not be qualified to enter the
kingdom of God.
<snip>
Pain does not always cause human suffering. It only causes human
suffering when sin is involved. There are times people can take a lot
of pain without the feeling of suffering.
Bravo to them
There are also times people
can collapse to their feet just by looking at the pain.
Eric, have you done much suffering in your life? Better still, have you
experienced much natural pain in your life?
I would say: a little bit of both. :-)
your day is coming. (as is mine)
Tom
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
15 Apr 2005 09:20:52 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:45:45 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
That would be natural pain instead of natural suffering. Pain does not
necessarily mean suffering. They are not the same thing.
Yes, they are. I am in pain; ergo I suffer.
Eric, just give up. You're an idiot who is desperately trying
to keep his myth afloat, but it's so full of holes that it's already
sunk.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
15 Apr 2005 05:33:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:20:52 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:45:45 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
That would be natural pain instead of natural suffering. Pain does not
necessarily mean suffering. They are not the same thing.
Yes, they are. I am in pain; ergo I suffer.
No. Your body is in pain, but you as the owner of your body have two
choices, to either deal with the pain or suffer in the pain.
Obviously, you chose the later, but that does not mean everyone will
choose the later.
Eric, just give up. You're an idiot who is desperately trying
to keep his myth afloat, but it's so full of holes that it's already
sunk.
Not so fast, Mister. At least you should win the debate first.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
15 Apr 2005 06:04:57 PM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:j9d061het67n9o242tuh65frk3vc4dj3cu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:20:52 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:45:45 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
That would be natural pain instead of natural suffering. Pain does not
necessarily mean suffering. They are not the same thing.
Yes, they are. I am in pain; ergo I suffer.
No. Your body is in pain, but you as the owner of your body have two
choices, to either deal with the pain or suffer in the pain.
you are stating the *you* is separate from *you're body* and you are in fact
wrong.
Obviously, you chose the later, but that does not mean everyone will
choose the later.
Apparently.
Eric, just give up. You're an idiot who is desperately trying
to keep his myth afloat, but it's so full of holes that it's already
sunk.
Not so fast, Mister. At least you should win the debate first.
Don: 1
Eric: 0
Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
16 Apr 2005 02:00:33 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:04:57 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:j9d061het67n9o242tuh65frk3vc4dj3cu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:20:52 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:45:45 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
That would be natural pain instead of natural suffering. Pain does not
necessarily mean suffering. They are not the same thing.
Yes, they are. I am in pain; ergo I suffer.
No. Your body is in pain, but you as the owner of your body have two
choices, to either deal with the pain or suffer in the pain.
you are stating the *you* is separate from *you're body* and you are in fact
wrong.
I'm stating "you" as the *soul* who is only temporarily living in the
body. Just because the body is in pain, doesn't necessarily mean the
soul is in pain also.
Obviously, you chose the later, but that does not mean everyone will
choose the later.
Apparently.
Eric, just give up. You're an idiot who is desperately trying
to keep his myth afloat, but it's so full of holes that it's already
sunk.
Not so fast, Mister. At least you should win the debate first.
Don: 1
Eric: 0
Tom
Based on your biased opinion, I'm not sure you are qualified to judge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
16 Apr 2005 01:41:08 PM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:04:57 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:j9d061het67n9o242tuh65frk3vc4dj3cu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:20:52 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:45:45 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
That would be natural pain instead of natural suffering. Pain does not
necessarily mean suffering. They are not the same thing.
Yes, they are. I am in pain; ergo I suffer.
No. Your body is in pain, but you as the owner of your body have two
choices, to either deal with the pain or suffer in the pain.
you are stating the *you* is separate from *you're body* and you are in
fact wrong.
I'm stating "you" as the *soul* who is only temporarily living in the
body. Just because the body is in pain, doesn't necessarily mean the
soul is in pain also.
Soul? Can you even prove such a thing exists?
Hard evidence only please!
And what does this sould do and how dopes it work?
Hard evidence only please!
Biblical assertions are only that, assertions needing
evidence to support biblical claims.
Not for example that all through the OT, there is
no mention of a soul or an afterlife. Odd god would be in daily
contact with Moses and the Jews and fail to mention that!
Obviously, you chose the later, but that does not mean everyone will
choose the later.
Apparently.
Eric, just give up. You're an idiot who is desperately trying
to keep his myth afloat, but it's so full of holes that it's already
sunk.
Not so fast, Mister. At least you should win the debate first.
Don: 1
Eric: 0
Tom
Based on your biased opinion, I'm not sure you are qualified to judge.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
15 Apr 2005 03:43:26 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:33:02 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:20:52 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:45:45 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:33:45 -0400, "Tom" <ttt@tboytel.net> wrote:
What is "natural
suffering"?
Umm, lets just say I hit my thumb with a hammer. Does that help?
That would be natural pain instead of natural suffering. Pain does not
necessarily mean suffering. They are not the same thing.
Yes, they are. I am in pain; ergo I suffer.
No.
Yes. I am in pain; ergo I suffer. You have nothing to refute
that with.
Eric, just give up. You're an idiot who is desperately trying
to keep his myth afloat, but it's so full of holes that it's already
sunk.
Not so fast, Mister. At least you should win the debate first.
Did that a long time ago.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Adam/ Eve's sin and the torture of Jesus/God = Atonement |
16 Apr 2005 02:00:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:43:26 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:33:02 -0700, Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.ma | | | | | | | | | | |
