It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking Original Sin

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


So you're arguing against the validity of the theory of evolution? I assume you have an alternative theory to offer, one with evidence and scientific compatibility that surpass any known theories that support evolution?




posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kody27


If you expect me to sit down and watch a youtube video that's an hour and a half long on "intelligent design" you're crazy. Anyone who believes in creationism is obviously the product of un-intelligent design.


So you do not want to really look at information? I have no dog in this fight but, if I was arguing a point I would want to look at the information they are using in order to find the possible errors. You seem to have decided to believe something without investigating. If information disagrees with your pov just ignore it. Nice approach.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Khaleesi
 


Has it ever occurred to you that living organisms are going to adhere to a specific function that furthers their own survival? First law of evolution: preserve thyself. This includes adhering to biological programming designed to improve your physiology.

Hence, what you call 'intelligent design', I call 'successful auto-engineering'. It's a proven biological mechanism. Just thought I'd throw that out there.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UB2120
 


That little story doesn't agree with evolution.


How does it not? It perfectly explains evolution and shows that its a process that is controlled to a certain degree. Again, it is called progressive evolution. Evolution is nothing more that God's creative technique in time and space. Just because God (actually those designated by him) plants and initiates life does not take anything way from the unfolding of life. Life adapts to the specific planet it is started from.

On our planet the mammal branch is the one that developed will. On another planet, and there are trillions of other inhabited worlds, a completely different type of will creature could develop.
edit on 8-8-2013 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Khaleesi

Originally posted by Kody27


If you expect me to sit down and watch a youtube video that's an hour and a half long on "intelligent design" you're crazy. Anyone who believes in creationism is obviously the product of un-intelligent design.


So you do not want to really look at information? I have no dog in this fight but, if I was arguing a point I would want to look at the information they are using in order to find the possible errors. You seem to have decided to believe something without investigating. If information disagrees with your pov just ignore it. Nice approach.


is there a fly buzzing around here?



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kody27
 



Originally posted by Kody27

Originally posted by Khaleesi

Originally posted by Kody27


If you expect me to sit down and watch a youtube video that's an hour and a half long on "intelligent design" you're crazy. Anyone who believes in creationism is obviously the product of un-intelligent design.


So you do not want to really look at information? I have no dog in this fight but, if I was arguing a point I would want to look at the information they are using in order to find the possible errors. You seem to have decided to believe something without investigating. If information disagrees with your pov just ignore it. Nice approach.


is there a fly buzzing around here?


That's an immature response to a completely valid observation.
edit on 8-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by UB2120
 


One, because all investigation and observation leads scientists to believe the process was (and still is) a lot more complicated than that. Two, because there's no actual proof that anything other than purely natural biological mechanisms were responsible for the process. Three, because any evidence that suggests otherwise doesn't give a clear and conclusive answer of anything specific, which just leads us to a speculation festival that invites assumption and extrapolation, neither of which is helpful to investigation without further evidence. Four, you provided little to no evidence aside from referencing the Urantia Book. It would help if you quoted the relevant selections and provided peer-reviewed data supporting the quotes.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Khaleesi
 


Has it ever occurred to you that living organisms are going to adhere to a specific function that furthers their own survival? First law of evolution: preserve thyself. This includes adhering to biological programming designed to improve your physiology.

Hence, what you call 'intelligent design', I call 'successful auto-engineering'. It's a proven biological mechanism. Just thought I'd throw that out there.


Did you read what I wrote? I said I have no dog in this fight but, I am willing to look at information from each side.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 





If not everyone is an offspring of Adam and Eve, then not everyone would have been subject to original sin. Right?


Personally, I feel that hatred/disdain/contempt is the true original sin, and the story of Adam and Eve is allegory for making the choice to hate instead of love.

If God gave them a perfect environment, out of love, so that they could enjoy creation, with only one request to be obeyed, then surely Eve's free will choice to disobey showed contempt for God's love.

Until we embrace love over selfish desire, our sin - and punishment - will be eternal.
Again, I say this from an allegorical standpoint.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy
 



Personally, I feel that hatred/disdain/contempt is the true original sin, and the story of Adam and Eve is allegory for making the choice to hate instead of love.


I think the true original sin was made by "God" in the stories. And in order to cover his ass, he blamed it all on Lucifer. Why? Because Lucifer is the one who called him out on his flaws. Lucifer noticed "God" was becoming something less benevolent and more self-serving, and that's when "God" decided to concoct a little fairy tale so he had an excuse to cast Lucifer out. It would explain a lot of things.

Although...did "God" create the universe, or just this planet? Because I've always wondered why "God" didn't just give Lucifer a universe of his own and seal it off.

edit on 8-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy
 



Personally, I feel that hatred/disdain/contempt is the true original sin, and the story of Adam and Eve is allegory for making the choice to hate instead of love.


I think the true original sin was made by "God" in the stories. And in order to cover his ass, he blamed it all on Lucifer. Why? Because Lucifer is the one who called him out on his flaws. Lucifer noticed "God" was becoming something less benevolent and more self-serving, and that's when "God" decided to concoct a little fairy tale so he had an excuse to cast Lucifer out. It would explain a lot of things.


Interesting view. I understand this is your opinion but, I'd like to hear how you formed this idea. Frankly. I am not a biblical scholar and haven't read the Bible in it's entirety but, I am curious how you hypothesize this scenario. When was Lucifer cast out? You say after he 'called God out' on flaws. What were these flaws and when were they manifested? Maybe this is material for another thread but I am curious how you came to this conclusion,



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Khaleesi
 


I suspect that Lucifer became aware of "God"s plans for the human species and didn't feel those plans were appropriate. "God" then threw him out by attaching the most atrocious of crimes to his name - wanting to surpass the almighty. LE GASP!! Muy Terrible!

Obviously, whatever such a metaphorical story stands for, it won't be what really happened. Remember, history is written by the victors. The Bible never did make much sense. "God" and his heavenly host sound like complete and utter simpletons. Everything is black and white to them. Oh, and fear is love, faith is knowledge, and oppression is security.

Idealistically, they are morons. All of them. Except for Lucifer. And that's why he was cast out and painted as the biggest and baddest of all the Biblical villains. So that in case he ever did open his mouth (which he hasn't) no one would listen to him. It's curious, isn't it? There's a reason our government doesn't run its investigations the way most theists do. BECAUSE IT'S STUPID. Everything about the investigation stinks of the blind leading the blind. But we gotta have a scapegoat, right? Poor Lucifer. No good deed goes unpunished.
edit on 8-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 




I think the true original sin was made by "God" in the stories.


Sure, naturally, God would be the source of everything.
I look at it this way...

If I awoke one day from eternal slumber as pure consciousness, with nothing around me, I would probably feel somewhat lonely.

I might then use my conscious energy (imagination) to create some stuff to enjoy - like a planet.
I then might create some flora for decoration, then some fauna to enjoy my creation. But the fauna would simply react to its own biology, and not admire things the way I could...

So, then I might make a creature with free will, who could willingly choose to enjoy creation, and be somewhat creative themselves, made more or less like me (in my image.)

Of course, with true free will, and creative imagination, anything could then happen.
However, if I intervened at every step, then I would negate the free will that I created.

Oh God, what have I done?!



edit on 8-8-2013 by DeReK DaRkLy because: sp



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


More Stephen Meyer vids? really? did you not read my last reply?......

Do you have anything to say yourself? or do you think the argument for irreducible complexity, a take on the old watchmaker argument hasn't been encountered and debunked before?

Nothing creationists/I.D proponents present hasn't already been said many many many times before, and all they can do is repackage old arguments like Stephen Meyer has done in those vids in the hope of snaring folk like you.

Think for yourself, have an opinion and present it



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 


More Stephen Meyer vids? really? did you not read my last reply?......

Do you have anything to say yourself? or do you think the argument for irreducible complexity, a take on the old watchmaker argument hasn't been encountered and debunked before?

Nothing creationists/I.D proponents present hasn't already been said many many many times before, and all they can do is repackage old arguments like Stephen Meyer has done in those vids in the hope of snaring folk like you.

Think for yourself, have an opinion and present it


Don't you think the same can be said for the Dennett/ Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris followers? Not having anything to say for themselves? The debunkingings that you speak of are far from exhaustive. There are plenty of scholarly "folk" that come down on both sides of the argument. Far from a closed case.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

. . . original sin and how, and why, that belief persists . . .

Within Christianity, so-called original sin is built into by way Paul's writings in the New Testament.
Through the first man, sin entered into the world, and with it death.
So even if you believed in evolution, whoever that fist man was, he sinned, and so every man after him also dies.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Not all Christians agree with the concept of original sin.


The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews (as it is to Christian sects such as Baptists and Assemblies of G-d). Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.


Jewish leaders didn't teach the concept of originals, and Jesus, who was Jewish didn't teach original sin either.


In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death. oca.org...



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

. . . Jesus, who was Jewish didn't teach original sin . . .

We don't know everything that Jesus taught, so you can't say that Jesus didn't teach original sin, it just wasn't emphasized in the gospels which were more concerned with christology, legitimising Jesus' position in the heavenly hierarchy.
Like I said earlier, Paul did teach original sin, and you can't explain it away by looking at what other people did or didn't teach.
edit on 9-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Christians are followers of Jesus Christ, not Paul Christ. Paul's musings are his opinions and not gospel.

That being said, I don't think that Paul DID teach original sin, as in all men are born guilty of sin.


Romans 5:13
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Christians are followers of Jesus Christ, not Paul Christ. Paul's musings are his opinions and not gospel.
Maybe by one definition but in practical terms, Christians are followers of Christianity, which happens to be largely based on Paul's letters. Paul wrote the gospel before what we call the Gospels were written.

That being said, I don't think that Paul DID teach original sin, as in all men are born guilty of sin.
You left out a key verse for original sin, which is verse 12,

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
(2011 NIV)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join