Do you believe in God?

[RalliArt/////]

What about all the Christmas Songs that celebrate Christ? Their are millions of Christians who sing and celebrate with these songs during Christmas. The 3 Wise men who gave Gifts to the newborn King, gifts to a child, isn't this what we practice when we give gifts to Children?

You need to thoroughly research the origin and history of Christmas to understand why Christmas shouldn't be associated with Jesus. Christmas is just the tip of the iceberg.

Most "Christians" believe that Jesus was born in a manger on the 25 December and was visited by 3 wise men at the time of his birth. You'd think they'd get that much right... but no, I wonder what else...

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

But millions of Christians couldn't be wrong.. could they?

Matthew 7:14
"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Luke 12:32
"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom."

 

[dxld]

You need to thoroughly research the origin and history of Christmas to understand why Christmas shouldn't be associated with Jesus. Christmas is just the tip of the iceberg.

Most "Christians" believe that Jesus was born in a manger on the 25 December and was visited by 3 wise men at the time of his birth. You'd think they'd get that much right... but no, I wonder what else...

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

But millions of Christians couldn't be wrong.. could they?

Matthew 7:14
"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Luke 12:32
"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom."

So we should not sing Christmas songs withe Lyrics like "Noel, Noel, Born is the King of Israel"

does the date really matter, or is the Celebration of his Birth more important? Nobody has figured out the exact date of his Birth.

Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

 

[RalliArt/////]

So we should not sing Christmas songs withe Lyrics like "Noel, Noel, Born is the King of Israel"

does the date really matter, or is the Celebration of his Birth more important?

I really don't have any more to say on this.
Colossians 1:9

 

[dxld]

I really don't have any more to say on this.
Colossians 1:9

Romans 14:6 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day does it for the Lord.

And thanks I will keep Colossians 1:9 in mind also.

 

[Famine]

"Every day is an atheist holiday" - Penn Jillette.

What about all the Christmas Songs that celebrate Christ? Their are millions of Christians who sing and celebrate with these songs during Christmas.

Part of the Christianisation of the much older festivities of the season - as part of the Christianisation of the Roman Empire.

The 3 Wise men who gave Gifts to the newborn King, gifts to a child, isn't this what we practice when we give gifts to Children?

Nope. Like Saturnalia before it, Yule before that and even earlier celebrations, the giving of gifts has always been a part of solstice celebrations. That and feasting and more than a smidge of mead-imbibing.

Of course there's no small irony that certain religious groups seek to remind us every year that we should remember what Christmas is about - Christ, and not presents, food and alcohol. That'd be quite like reminding GTPlanet's members that we're about Forza Motorsport.

So we should not sing Christmas songs withe Lyrics like "Noel, Noel, Born is the King of Israel"

You can sing it if you like. I mean, Christianity's had its fingers in solstice celebrations for 1600 years.

does the date really matter, or is the Celebration of his Birth more important? Nobody has figured out the exact date of his Birth.

Or indeed year - since contemporaries put it somewhere between 2 years before Herod died and ten years after. But if people were celebrating my birthday, I'd quite like it to be that day - seems a bit rude to not really be that bothered by the precision of it.

And though there's a borderline consensus that someone of that approximate name and description was born around 4-6BC, the jury is by no means settled on the factual status.

 

[KSaiyu]

Religion is dangerous, But you know what else is dangerous? Art is dangerous! You know another field that is also dangerous ? Science. So is the field of Politics.

Art is important, people lead better lives with appreciation of art in at least one form. Art is as important as religion, or any of these other fields.

I addressed it in my reply, I should have said "only". As humans we're naturally skeptical of things, and can (hopefully) recognise when things like art or politics are twisted to become dangerous. Religion is different in that you are conditioned to not be skeptical of what is taught to you, and that it can offer you and others only good things - be it beneficience or salvation. You trust a doctor becuase they're trained and regulated; you trust a priest because you're told to. (Before you say it, yes I know priests are regulated but that's not the point I'm making)

 

[mister dog]

IMO people can only guess what or whom god is; either from personal experiences during their lives, or what they were breastfed through their particular "religion".

IMO religions were generated by mankind, mostly for the benefit of manipulating the masses and through that the goal of gaining power and social status, books were written, afterwards manipulated by whomever had the chance and after thousands of years ended up in the "versions of thruth" we have today...

Fact of the matter is we do not know for sure what our goal is in this universe, and if god is there (which i believe he is); what would he want with humanity...

Insignicifant as our lives are, we can only try to be the best person we can be; and if god is there as a higher force controlling everything the closest we will get upon him revealing himself to us, will be on the moment we say goodbye to planet earth, and not a moment sooner.

 

[Touring Mars]

As I've said before, true Christianity is about relationship, as opposed to Religion.

One thing that rings true among theists that I know is exactly this point - their relationship with God is a highly personal thing. This, however, leads me to wonder why it should be, then, that there has to be such strict adherence to a central dogma, holy text etc.. i.e. all the trappings of the religion. If one's relationship with God is personal and direct, why the need for one's beliefs to conform to anybody else's (let alone everybody else's)? And what happens when one's relationship with God results in beliefs that conflict with what is written in the holy text? I'm guessing that this doesn't happen often within mainstream religions (but obviously does happen between religions), since one's beliefs are likely based on what is written in the holy text in the first place - but this begs the question, is one's relationship with God truly 'personal', or is the holy text (e.g. the Bible) always the deciding factor when it comes to ascertaining what God is really 'saying'?

 

[Dotini]

One thing that rings true among theists that I know is exactly this point - their relationship with God is a highly personal thing. This, however, leads me to wonder why it should be, then, that there has to be such strict adherence to a central dogma, holy text etc.. i.e. all the trappings of the religion. If one's relationship with God is personal and direct, why the need for one's beliefs to conform to anybody else's (let alone everybody else's)? And what happens when one's relationship with God results in beliefs that conflict with what is written in the holy text? I'm guessing that this doesn't happen often within mainstream religions (but obviously does happen between religions), since one's beliefs are likely based on what is written in the holy text in the first place - but this begs the question, is one's relationship with God truly 'personal', or is the holy text (e.g. the Bible) always the deciding factor when it comes to ascertaining what God is really 'saying'?

My take on this is that people have personal experiences that lead them to places that remain strange to the rest of us. This includes the religious experience, but also other numinous, spiritual, or transformational experiences. We've all met people who are nutters or have their heads in the clouds over one thing or another. Nature. Animals. Plants. Music and choir. Sex. Near-death experience (NDE). Psychedelics. UFOs. Precognition and other paranormal experiences. The list is long that accounts the experiences people have which leads them to alter their beliefs from the mainstream, and seek out others who have had similar transformations. Several people whom I know that have become religious have had traumatic experiences or extremely disturbing encounters with crime or apparent evil. And of course religious literature is rife with accounts of miracles, encounters with otherworldly beings, great disasters and triumphs. All these things still occur to people today, and this leads them to imagine that life and the universe is about more than just themselves and the bits and pieces that make it up. It is what leads people to a more holistic approach to life, rather than a reductionist approach.

 

[Imari]

It is what leads people to a more holistic approach to life, rather than a reductionist approach.

Why do I feel like you're using "reductionist" as a pejorative, as opposed to the "holistic" approach that you've just described to us as being held by "people who are nutters or have their heads in the clouds"?

You're hardly making this holistic approach sound like something a rational person would want to explore.

 

[Dotini]

Why do I feel like you're using "reductionist" as a pejorative, as opposed to the "holistic" approach that you've just described to us as being held by "people who are nutters or have their heads in the clouds"?

You're hardly making this holistic approach sound like something a rational person would want to explore.

Some people seek out transformative experiences. They don't need encouragement - certainly not from me! With others, transformative experiences occur spontaneously, serendipitously. Encouragement won't help them, either. Also, there's no guarantee that a transformative experience will be good for you.

I'm satisfied merely expressing my opinion and experience. I don't want to change anyone. You're all fine the way you are.

 

[dxld]

I addressed it in my reply, I should have said "only". As humans we're naturally skeptical of things, and can (hopefully) recognise when things like art or politics are twisted to become dangerous. Religion is different in that you are conditioned to not be skeptical of what is taught to you, and that it can offer you and others only good things - be it beneficience or salvation. You trust a doctor becuase they're trained and regulated; you trust a priest because you're told to. (Before you say it, yes I know priests are regulated but that's not the point I'm making)

when I was raised I was encouraged to ask questions, and be skeptical. Other times we prepare ourselves to answer those questions, and when we can't answer them, the spirit will move us to find those answers.

".But if people were celebrating my birthday, I'd quite like it to be that day - seems a bit rude to not really be that bothered by the precision of it.

And though there's a borderline consensus that someone of that approximate name and description was born around 4-6BC, the jury is by no means settled on the factual status.

In the US we celebrate Washingtons Birthday, but we do it on the third Monday of February, not on his recorded Birthday Feb 22. No American considers this rude and I highly doubt George Washington would find it rude. Many children's birthdays are celebrated on the weekend, and most of those kids are happy just for a weekend celebration. A lot of adults don't really make a huge deal about their Birthdays, it's just another numerical addition to their age. Christ definitely would not complain, there is no inherent evil or sin in the celebration of his birth.

As Christians we celebrate the Lords birth because it was a miracle. From the biblical account we celebrate and remember what Mary and Joseph went thru to protect the infant Jesus from being killed by King Herods men. It is not mandated by God or his words in the Bible to celebrate Christmas, it's just a way of us to show how much we love him.

 

[Scaff]

Christ definitely would not complain, there is no inherent evil or sin in the celebration of his birth.

Odd, because over the history of your religion celebration of Christmas has most certainly been seen as a sin, in particular when its been linked with festivities, gift giving, singing, dancing, etc. In fact it was not celebrated until the 4th centry and your own text indicate that celebration of birthdays is something done by the sinful.

"The Chronography of 354 AD contains early evidence of the celebration on December 25 of a Christian liturgical feast of the birth of Jesus. This was in Rome, while in Eastern Christianity the birth of Jesus was already celebrated in connection with the Epiphany on January 6.[39][40] The December 25 celebration was imported into the East later: in Antioch by John Chrysostomtowards the end of the 4th century,[40] probably in 388, and in Alexandria only in the following century.[41] Even in the West, the January 6 celebration of the nativity of Jesus seems to have continued until after 380.[42] In 245, Origen of Alexandria, writing about Leviticus 12:1–8, commented that Scripture mentions only sinners as celebrating their birthdays, namely Pharaoh, who then had his chief baker hanged (Genesis 40:20–22), and Herod, who then had John the Baptist beheaded (Mark 6:21–27), and mentions saints as cursing the day of their birth, namely Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:14–15) and Job (Job 3:1–16).[43] In 303, Arnobius ridiculed the idea of celebrating the birthdays of gods, a passage cited as evidence that Arnobius was unaware of any nativity celebration.[44] Since Christmas does not celebrate Christ's birth "as God" but "as man", this is not evidence against Christmas being a feast at this time.[7] The fact the Donatists of North Africa celebrated Christmas may indicate that the feast was established by the time that church was created in 311."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

Seems to once again be a case of the faithful ignoring its own religious text.

Oh any particular reason why you didn;t bother answering my questions as well, or have you given up on Exodus now?

 

[dxld]

Odd, because over the history of your religion celebration of Christmas has most certainly been seen as a sin, in particular when its been linked with festivities, gift giving, singing, dancing, etc. In fact it was not celebrated until the 4th centry and your own text indicate that celebration of birthdays is something done by the sinful.

"The Chronography of 354 AD contains early evidence of the celebration on December 25 of a Christian liturgical feast of the birth of Jesus. This was in Rome, while in Eastern Christianity the birth of Jesus was already celebrated in connection with the Epiphany on January 6.[39][40] The December 25 celebration was imported into the East later: in Antioch by John Chrysostomtowards the end of the 4th century,[40] probably in 388, and in Alexandria only in the following century.[41] Even in the West, the January 6 celebration of the nativity of Jesus seems to have continued until after 380.[42] In 245, Origen of Alexandria, writing about Leviticus 12:1–8, commented that Scripture mentions only sinners as celebrating their birthdays, namely Pharaoh, who then had his chief baker hanged (Genesis 40:20–22), and Herod, who then had John the Baptist beheaded (Mark 6:21–27), and mentions saints as cursing the day of their birth, namely Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:14–15) and Job (Job 3:1–16).[43] In 303, Arnobius ridiculed the idea of celebrating the birthdays of gods, a passage cited as evidence that Arnobius was unaware of any nativity celebration.[44] Since Christmas does not celebrate Christ's birth "as God" but "as man", this is not evidence against Christmas being a feast at this time.[7] The fact the Donatists of North Africa celebrated Christmas may indicate that the feast was established by the time that church was created in 311."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

Seems to once again be a case of the faithful ignoring its own religious text.

Oh any particular reason why you didn;t bother answering my questions as well, or have you given up on Exodus now?

Genesis 40:20-22 does mention the Pharoahs Birthday, but it was not the Birthday that was the Sin. The major Sin occurred when Pharoahs hanged his own baker.

When referring to King Herod beheading John the Baptist on his birthday, here is what it reads in context.

Mark 6:21-29

21 But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22 For when Herodias's daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests. And the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it to you.” 23 And he vowed to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half of my kingdom.” 24 And she went out and said to her mother, “For what should I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” 25 And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” 26 And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. 27 And immediately the king sent an executioner with orders to bring John's[e] head. He went and beheaded him in the prison 28 and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

So the sin happened because the King was tricked by the daughter of Herodias. John the Baptist was killed on the event of King Herod's birthday, but the sin of murder was committed due to trickery.

The last example of Job who cursed the day of his birth by wishing he were not born, that is him complaining. Job was not instructed by God to curse his birthday. There is no instruction from The Lord that tells us specifically not to celebrate our birthday or Christ's Birth.

 

[Imari]

So the sin happened because the King was tricked by the daughter of Herodias. John the Baptist was killed on the even of King Herod's birthday, but the sin of murder was committed due to trickery.

Anyone who would kill someone rather than break their word just because a girl danced nice is a freaking idiot. Or a psychopath. Or both.

 

[Scaff]

Genesis 40:20-22 does mention the Pharoahs Birthday, but it was not the Birthday that was the Sin. The major Sin occurred when Pharoahs hanged his own baker.

When referring to King Herod beheading John the Baptist on his birthday, here is what it reads in context.

Mark 6:21-29

21 But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22 For when Herodias's daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests. And the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it to you.” 23 And he vowed to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half of my kingdom.” 24 And she went out and said to her mother, “For what should I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” 25 And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” 26 And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. 27 And immediately the king sent an executioner with orders to bring John's[e] head. He went and beheaded him in the prison 28 and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

So the sin happened because the King was tricked by the daughter of Herodias. John the Baptist was killed on the even of King Herod's birthday, but the sin of murder was committed due to trickery.

The last example of Job who cursed the day of his birth by wishing he were not born, that is him complaining. Job was not instructed by God to curse his birthday. There is no instruction from The Lord that tells us specifically not to celebrate our birthday or Christ's Birth.

Nice way to ignore Leviticus which specifically states that birth requires a 'sin offering' (some nice OT animal sacrifice) to atone for it. You seem to forget that a central theme of your whole religion (which ever one that is today - as it seems to migrate between Judaism and Christianity) is that your born with sin (a concept that is utterly daft), as such the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be the only ones still following that part.

Which is the exact reason why it tool Christianity 400 years to get around to celebrating it, and I would argue that they only did so to allow the hijack of other festivals to attempt to strengthen Christianity as a religion (given that Jesus, if he existed, certainly wasn't born in December).


Oh, I will also take it that you have given up of Exodus now.

 

[BobK]

Oh any particular reason why you didn;t bother answering my questions as well, or have you given up on Exodus now?

Oh, I will also take it that you have given up of Exodus now.

Apparently he has already fled from that discussion:

Maybe I will get back to you later, I've got better things to do with my life.

My comment on this was:

In other words you can't substantiate your claims, so you're running away. We see this time and time again in both this thread and the CvE thread.

 

[dxld]

Apparently he has already fled from that discussion:



My comment on this was:

Running away, why am I still here? I went over Exodus enough, I'm not dwelling on one aspect of the Bible until ad-nausea. I'm convinced the Jews were in Egypt, and I'm convinced their were slaves in Egypt, and I've come to the conclusion their were Jewish slaves in Egypt which many Archaeologist have come to that conclusion as well. So I will get back to Exodus when the time is appropriate. I doubt I can convince you even if I give you ten more facts, each of the ten facts would just make you less convinced., Kind of like Pharaoh was not convinced. I'm not going to dwell on that subject over and over repeatedly.

The subject at hand now is Birthdays, and the Bible does not prevent you from celebrating your Birthday. Their are a few denominations of Christianity that do not celebrate birthdays or Christmas as his Birthday such as the Jehovah witnesses, but as a whole the majority do.

Anyone who would kill someone rather than break their word just because a girl danced nice is a freaking idiot. Or a psychopath. Or both.

Yes King Herod was a psychopath, he killed John the Baptist. It happened during the event of his Birthday which was no sin, the killing was the sin, not the birthday celebration.

 

[Scaff]

Running away, why am I still here? I went over Exodus enough, I'm not dwelling on one aspect of the Bible until ad-nausea. I'm convinced the Jews were in Egypt, and I'm convinced their were slaves in Egypt, and I've come to the conclusion their were Jewish slaves in Egypt which many Archaeologist have come to that conclusion as well. So I will get back to Exodus when the time is appropriate. I doubt I can convince you even if I give you ten more facts, each of the ten facts would just make you less convinced., Kind of like Pharaoh was not convinced. I'm not going to dwell on that subject over and over repeatedly.

Actually archaeologists are pretty much agreed that no evidence exists (which is why the most recent you cited was from the 1930's), I've supplied this information and you have ignored it.

The only 'facts' you have provided are that Jews were in Egypt, something that is not in dispute, so its not a case of giving ten more facts, its a case of starting with some that support your position.

The subject at hand now is Birthdays, and the Bible does not prevent you from celebrating your Birthday. Their are a few denominations of Christianity that do not celebrate birthdays or Christmas as his Birthday such as the Jehovah witnesses, but as a whole the majority do.

Then please explain the chapter from Leviticus, original sin (which it would be odd to celebrate), the missing 400 years and the requirement for a sin sacrifice!

 

[Famine]

In the US we celebrate Washingtons Birthday, but we do it on the third Monday of February, not on his recorded Birthday Feb 22. No American considers this rude and I highly doubt George Washington would find it rude. Many children's birthdays are celebrated on the weekend, and most of those kids are happy just for a weekend celebration.

Seems rather like the occasion itself has been forgotten at the expense of the party.

Quite rude.

As Christians we celebrate the Lords birth because it was a miracle. From the biblical account we celebrate and remember what Mary and Joseph went thru to protect the infant Jesus from being killed by King Herods men.

Except Luke thinks it happened a decade after Herod died. Still, what would he know?

 

[Devil240Z]

I read the topic title and thought, Oh god. but no I don't believe in anything.

 

[dxld]

Nice way to ignore Leviticus which specifically states that birth requires a 'sin offering' (some nice OT animal sacrifice) to atone for it. You seem to forget that a central theme of your whole religion (which ever one that is today - as it seems to migrate between Judaism and Christianity) is that your born with sin (a concept that is utterly daft), as such the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be the only ones still following that part.

Which is the exact reason why it tool Christianity 400 years to get around to celebrating it, and I would argue that they only did so to allow the hijack of other festivals to attempt to strengthen Christianity as a religion (given that Jesus, if he existed, certainly wasn't born in December).


Oh, I will also take it that you have given up of Exodus now.

We are not saying he was born in December, no one knows for sure when he was born. And yes it could of been a ploy to divert Pagan rituals to focusing unto Christ.

Actually archaeologists are pretty much agreed that no evidence exists (which is why the most recent you cited was from the 1930's), I've supplied this information and you have ignored it.

The only 'facts' you have provided are that Jews were in Egypt, something that is not in dispute, so its not a case of giving ten more facts, its a case of starting with some that support your position.




Then please explain the chapter from Leviticus, original sin (which it would be odd to celebrate), the missing 400 years and the requirement for a sin sacrifice!

The Original sin was eating of the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Not of child birth.

As for the Child birth, it
was the oncoming unsanitary uncleanliness type of sin, not of the deadly sin that can condemn a person to hell.

 

[Scaff]

The Original sin was eating of the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Not of child birth.

Are you seriously that unaware of the text in question!

The end result of that action was?

We are now born with sin, as such birth is not something to be celebrated, because its the birth of sin in the person in question.

Honestly its as if you are doing all you can to ignore your own doctrine.

 

[Touring Mars]

Original sin must be the barmiest concept there is.

If God created everything, then that includes the Tree Of Knowledge and Adam and Eve.

Furthermore, if God created everything, then he is also responsible for bestowing various properties upon his creations, including freewill. In other words, God gave Adam and Eve their capability for disobedience, as well as the perfect opportunity to disobey him. And the result? The first human beings God ever created disobeyed him at the first opportunity. Not content with setting up the whole thing in the first place, God also prescribed the consequences of Adam and Eve's displeasing behaviour... that the species he had chosen to create in his own image, and to whom he had granted dominion over every other living thing (and Earth itself) should be condemned to be born in sin forevermore and to be subjected to death, and all based on a single displeasing decision made by the first humans he had bothered to make.

If humankind was so disappointing to God that he would choose to hate them forever, why couldn't he have just bumped off Adam and Eve and started again? Of course, God did apparently think of this some time later, and wiped out every human being on Earth except for Noah and his family of superhuman zookeepers, but again, he failed to take the opportunity to simply start from scratch, and elected once again to populate the Earth from flawed starting materials.

You have to ask why God would do any of this. Either it was on purpose (which would constitute acts of sheer malice) or it was by accident. Either way, it is hardly behaviour befitting of a perfect or benevolent Creator.

 

[dxld]

Original sin must be the barmiest concept there is.

If God created everything, then that includes the Tree Of Knowledge and Adam and Eve.

Furthermore, if God created everything, then he is also responsible for bestowing various properties upon his creations, including freewill. In other words, God gave Adam and Eve their capability for disobedience, as well as the perfect opportunity to disobey him. And the result? The first human beings God ever created disobeyed him at the first opportunity. Not content with setting up the whole thing in the first place, God also prescribed the consequences of Adam and Eve's displeasing behaviour... that the species he had chosen to create in his own image, and to whom he had granted dominion over every other living thing (and Earth itself) should be condemned to be born in sin forevermore and to be subjected to death, and all based on a single displeasing decision made by the first humans he had bothered to make.

If humankind was so disappointing to God that he would choose to hate them forever, why couldn't he have just bumped off Adam and Eve and started again? Of course, God did apparently think of this some time later, and wiped out every human being on Earth except for Noah and his family of superhuman zookeepers, but again, he failed to take the opportunity to simply start from scratch, and elected once again to populate the Earth from flawed starting materials.

You have to ask why God would do any of this. Either it was on purpose (which would constitute acts of sheer malice) or it was by accident. Either way, it is hardly behaviour befitting of a perfect or benevolent Creator.

Thru Noah came Abraham who was a man who loved God, and God made a convenant with Abraham to make his people more numerous than the Stars that can be counted in the sky, Abraham had Isaac and then thru Isaac came the Jews, then King David, then eventually Jesus. Everyone who follows the ways of Christ and respects the ways of the Jews are saved.


As for the doctrine of original Sin, that is not a widely accepted Biblical Doctrine. that Doctrine is actually a theory.

Here is one Biblical verse that rejects that Born Sinners Original Sin concept.

Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

 

[LeMansAid]

Thru Noah came Abraham who was a man who loved God, and God made a convenient with Abraham to make his people more numerous than the Stars that can be counted in the sky, Abraham had Isaac and then thenIsaac came the Jews, then King David then eventually Jesus. Everyone who follows the ways of Christ and respects the ways of the Jews are saved.

A "convenient" eh? Sounds like a shady deal. Many might be scoffing right now about the "convenient of marriage", and how their reality suggests otherwise.

 

[dxld]

A "convenient" eh? Sounds like a shady deal. Many might be scoffing right now about the "convenient of marriage", and how their reality suggests otherwise.

That was supposed to say covenant, which I just corrected. The autocorrect functions on these iPads are terrible.

Here is more for the so called Doctrine of Original Sin. The following text is taken from this website.


http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation5.html

This is simply unbiblical. The text does not tell us that Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden of Eden because they sinned. (Please note that the first time the Bible uses the term, 'sin,' it is NOT in reference to Adam and Eve, it is in reference to the jealousy of Cain against Abel in Genesis 4:7.) Rather, Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden of Eden because there was another tree in the Garden from which Gd did not want them to eat. That tree was the Tree of Life.

But think about this logically. If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become immortal, then Gd made them mortal to begin with. Adam and Eve were created in such a way that Death was a natural part of their existence, from the moment of their Creation.

The text of Genesis 3:22-24 tells us that Adam and Eve were almost like Gd and the Angels, because they knew the difference between Good and Evil. Both Gd and the Angels know the difference between Good and Evil, but both Gd and the Angels are immortal as well. Because Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good And Evil, they instantly knew the difference between Good and Evil. However, Adam and Eve were not yet immortal because they had not yet eaten from the Tree of Life. Therefore Gd separated Adam and Eve from the Tree of Life by casting them out of the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve did not bring Death into the world.


And the Etrnl Gd 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: Therefore the Etrnl Gd sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 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. [Genesis 3:22-24]

The verses above make it abundantly clear. Why were Adam and Eve driven out of the Garden of Eden? 'Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree Of Life, and eat and live for ever, THEREFORE THE ETERNAL SENT HIM FORTH...' Gd evicted Adam and Eve so that they could not become immortal by eating from the Tree of Life. Just as Adam and Eve (and their descendants) became responsible for their choices between Good and Evil because they ate that first time from that tree, so would they and their descendants become immortal the first time Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Life as well. Additionally, to ensure that Adam and Eve and their descendants would remain separated from the Tree of Life, Gd placed the Cherubim and the flaming sword 'to keep the way of the Tree Of Life.'

We human beings do not die because of their sin, we die because Gd made Death a part of life from the moment of Creation. There may be such a thing as The Original Mistake, but there is no such thing as Original Sin.

 

[Imari]

Well, we've narrowed down dxld's denomination a little further.

The Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the concept of the fall but rejects the idea that the guilt of original sin is passed down through generations, based in part on the passage Ezekiel 18:20 that says a son is not guilty of the sins of his father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man

 

[KSaiyu]

when I was raised I was encouraged to ask questions, and be skeptical. Other times we prepare ourselves to answer those questions, and when we can't answer them, the spirit will move us to find those answers.

That was never good enough for me. In effect if I kept questioning most aspects of my faith I'd keep coming to the same end game: "Because it just is". I'm trying to say religion is so dangerous because it becomes so entrenched in a person's consciousness, thoughts and reasoning. People can justify their actions because they may have come to a completely different, and sometimes very harmful conclusion after asking the same questions.

 

[Scaff]

We are not saying he was born in December, no one knows for sure when he was born.

Actually mainstream Christianity makes quite a bit deal of saying just that.

And yes it could of been a ploy to divert Pagan rituals to focusing unto Christ.

Its a little more than a 'could'

The Original sin was eating of the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Not of child birth.

And as a result the vast majority of the Christian sects now believe you are born with sin.

As for the Child birth, it
was the oncoming unsanitary uncleanliness type of sin, not of the deadly sin that can condemn a person to hell.

A bit of an obsesion with making perfectly natural functions 'unclean', its a wonder anything gets born.