Adam's Sin

[bdp]

"Because you listened to your wife

 

To all you marrieds - how much trouble starts this way?

[Kathlene]

The story is not even biblical, makes no logical sense, and is just childish.

 

I'm sorry, I've just had it with this infantile view of reality and deliberate ignorance. People who write, admire and distribute tripe like this are mentally damaged. People who choose out of weakness to believe fairy tales when they know better are disingenuous hypocrites and an embarrassment to sentient beings everywhere.

 

Where's Grandpa Harley when we need him? I'm afraid I lack his extensive and colorful vocabulary, but it's called for here.

 

If the poster didn't have a previous life here, many would be calling TROLL. It's getting ridiculous. Pray for the gift of embarrassment, K, for you should have it.

 

The original post was saying I liked this story, what did everyone else think of it? any opinions? I sure got them...

I apologise if it offended anyone. Close the thread if you want.

[Dagan]

The story is not even biblical, makes no logical sense, and is just childish.

 

I'm sorry, I've just had it with this infantile view of reality and deliberate ignorance. People who write, admire and distribute tripe like this are mentally damaged. People who choose out of weakness to believe fairy tales when they know better are disingenuous hypocrites and an embarrassment to sentient beings everywhere.

 

Where's Grandpa Harley when we need him? I'm afraid I lack his extensive and colorful vocabulary, but it's called for here.

 

If the poster didn't have a previous life here, many would be calling TROLL. It's getting ridiculous. Pray for the gift of embarrassment, K, for you should have it.

 

The original post was saying I liked this story, what did everyone else think of it? any opinions? I sure got them...

I apologise if it offended anyone. Close the thread if you want.

 

We gave our opinions. Here, let me restate in a more blunt way.

 

I think Max Lucado's pretty story is a candy-coated turd. The bible story at the core of his story is crap. No matter how many licks it takes to get to the centre, it's still crap.

[florduh]

The original post was saying I liked this story, what did everyone else think of it? any opinions? I sure got them...

I apologise if it offended anyone. Close the thread if you want.

I doubt anyone is offended, but what would you imagine rational people would think of that feeble minded claptrap? Is this your way of evangelizing without evangelizing?

 

Seriously, why post such drivel here? What interest could we have, considering we aren't mentally impaired or 6 years old? You have become a troll.

[Brakeman]

Personally, Kathlene, I think it just goes to show that Max L. could have written a much better bible than "god".

[Kathlene]

The original post was saying I liked this story, what did everyone else think of it? any opinions? I sure got them...

I apologise if it offended anyone. Close the thread if you want.

I doubt anyone is offended, but what would you imagine rational people would think of that feeble minded claptrap? Is this your way of evangelizing without evangelizing?

 

Seriously, why post such drivel here? What interest could we have, considering we aren't mentally impaired or 6 years old? You have become a troll.

 

 

Look it was a bad call and judgement I made, ok? I said my apologies and asked to close the thread. End of story.

[bdp]

I think there's some overkill going on here - I don't see any need to be so nasty to kathlene.

[hereticzero]

I don't see much of anything worth while to respond to. There was no Adam and no original sin or any kind of sin. The story is a fairy tale, how do you critique a fairy tale?

[Brakeman]

I don't see much of anything worth while to respond to. There was no Adam and no original sin or any kind of sin. The story is a fairy tale, how do you critique a fairy tale?

 

Duh.. Movie Critics do it all the time.

 

Fess up HZ, you're drunk aren't you?

 

Of course I mean drunk in the spirit... Ha Ha

[florduh]

I think there's some overkill going on here - I don't see any need to be so nasty to kathlene.

Sorry, but that self-effacing passive/aggressive evangelism style bugs me more than the overt style. It's more dishonest.

 

If that piece that was posted showed up in your e-mail inbox you'd be pissed at receiving yet another load of Christian spam. If any Christian other than Kathlene made posts like her recent ones, most folks here would realize that there is no intent of honest debate. She is merely parroting various Christian claptrap under the guise of "contributing another viewpoint." Sorry, I call bullshit. Other christian posters would not be given a pass, and rightfully so.

[agnosticator]

My previous post was responding to the idea posited that we have no choice about our feelings. You and I, on the other hand, are both affirming that a mechanism to influence emotional output does exist, i.e. that loving action can lead to loving emotions. My post wasn't meant to be a moral judgment on the choice. It is merely a disagreement regarding the mechanism, which I affirm exists in a low-level form. That is, I believe choices influence our emotional tendencies, but do not control them.

 

Phanta

 

Right, Phanta. When I read your first post, I couldn't help but think about the negative possibilities, and couldn't shut my pie hole. I should have stated specifically that I agreed emotions can be led by choice, and those choices better be directed towards someone that is good for us. In the back of my mind was "love your enemies" and the fact that we can change our feelings towards someone who abuses us, furthering the abuse.

[Phanta]

My previous post was responding to the idea posited that we have no choice about our feelings. You and I, on the other hand, are both affirming that a mechanism to influence emotional output does exist, i.e. that loving action can lead to loving emotions. My post wasn't meant to be a moral judgment on the choice. It is merely a disagreement regarding the mechanism, which I affirm exists in a low-level form. That is, I believe choices influence our emotional tendencies, but do not control them.

 

Phanta

 

Right, Phanta. When I read your first post, I couldn't help but think about the negative possibilities, and couldn't shut my pie hole. I should have stated specifically that I agreed emotions can be led by choice, and those choices better be directed towards someone that is good for us. In the back of my mind was "love your enemies" and the fact that we can change our feelings towards someone who abuses us, furthering the abuse.

 

Wise words. How about: "Love your enemies...from a distance."

 

Phanta

[Brakeman]

I think there's some overkill going on here - I don't see any need to be so nasty to kathlene.

Sorry, but that self-effacing passive/aggressive evangelism style bugs me more than the overt style. It's more dishonest.

 

If that piece that was posted showed up in your e-mail inbox you'd be pissed at receiving yet another load of Christian spam. If any Christian other than Kathlene made posts like her recent ones, most folks here would realize that there is no intent of honest debate. She is merely parroting various Christian claptrap under the guise of "contributing another viewpoint." Sorry, I call bullshit. Other christian posters would not be given a pass, and rightfully so.

 

If she had posted this anywhere but the Lion's den, I would agree, but this is the place that we eat christians for lunch, it's the "Lion's Den".

 

I enjoy ripping up their claptrap. You don't get to debate or debunk anonymous xtian emails. But this is the right place in my opinion.

 

I don't think Kathlene did anything wrong.

[Dave Chan]

If my child is going to do something that is going to result in harm to himself or others, if I love that child I will step in and prevent that child from doing it, thus taking away his choice to do that thing. If I just stand by and let him do it, I cannot claim to love him, just as God cannot claim to love a human being if he stands by and allows that human being to do something that would result in their own destruction. I can even less claim to love my child if I create a system where he is inevitably going to harm himself. I will create a safe play ground for my child, one where he cannot come to any harm. If I create the harm (which God did in the form of Satan), then I must take some of the responsibility when my child is harmed.

This was the crux of the matter for me. Children have free will to do what they want. If I tell a child not to touch a red hot stove, and he still does, is it all his fault? Don't I have some culpability? I can't just say, "Well, he has free will, so it's his fault if he touches the stove." So the whole Xtian story falls apart, as an Omniscient, Omnipotent god is culpable - he created the whole set up - heaven, hell, humans, everything, and he hides behind the excuse, that we're the ones who have free will?

[dagnarus]

If I could make an observation, one of the things which I noticed about my old church was that there were two sets of believes, the core believes which the church lived by, and the surface believes by which the church was to be judged by. The latter set of believes contained stories such as this, based upon false analogies designed to obfuscate the inherent nastiness of the core doctrines. At any rate, one of the important purposes of these surface believes was to make core doctrines which are obviously evil/batshit insane, appear nice and reasonable. Such is how I view this story, it's designed to warps the creation story in such a way as to make the idea that the reason why everyone needs Jesus or else will be sentenced to hell seem more palatable. It's dishonest, disgusting, and design to dupe unsuspecting people into accepting doctrines which they might otherwise see for the evil tripe which they are. I generally agree with florduh, maybe he didn't need to be quite so blunt, but I believe Kathlene needed to be called out on constantly attempting to proselytizing us with the dishonest shit.

[florduh]

I generally agree with florduh, maybe he didn't need to be quite so blunt, but I believe Kathlene needed to be called out on constantly attempting to proselytizing us with the dishonest shit.

Well, it IS the Lion's Den after all.

[Shyone]

If I could make an observation, one of the things which I noticed about my old church was that there were two sets of believes, the core believes which the church lived by, and the surface believes by which the church was to be judged by. The latter set of believes contained stories such as this, based upon false analogies designed to obfuscate the inherent nastiness of the core doctrines. At any rate, one of the important purposes of these surface believes was to make core doctrines which are obviously evil/batshit insane, appear nice and reasonable.

 

Good observation! I was looking at various Christian web sites for confirmation that some sects believed that 1) only members of their sect were going to heaven and 2) everyone else is going to hell. It wasn't easy to find such specifics, and when I did, they were worded in weasley ways that attempted (unsuccessfully) to make them seem reasonable.

 

IOW, the posted material reflected the "surface beliefs" while the core beliefs remained obfuscated by terminology and rhetoric designed to confuse anyone that might express an interest in the sect.

 

I thought it was kind of paradoxical since believing that their sect/denomination was the only one going to heaven should be a major motivator for people to join. It seems, however, that the motivation is used to keep people in the sect/denomination rather than entice people to join.

[mwc]

I generally agree with florduh, maybe he didn't need to be quite so blunt, but I believe Kathlene needed to be called out on constantly attempting to proselytizing us with the dishonest shit.

Blunt was the right tool for the job. He chose well (as usual).

 

mwc

[Franko47]

I don't have a problem with Kathlene posting this; but I'm curious as to whether she thought we would find it childish or actually be "moved to ponder".

 

 

One thing I get tired of, is this constant "linking" of our feelings to the religious belief. Hey, my heart is full of love, in fact it's overflowing half the time, and dripping down to my running shoes. I love my family members, nabes, the birds in the morning, the Universe, all of you heathens (especially), my cat, Google Chrome, and the new waitress at my donut shop.

 

I get tired of this notion that I'm just not "opening my heart to Jesus" thing that's always going on with these Christians. Oh, please. How about a little lovin' from the master vampire himself; yeah, come down from that ivory tower, you "god-beings" and show yourself, state your case, give us some help, or else finish us off with your almighty death ray.

 

Christianity tries to convince everyone that "we" owe the Gods all this devotion and emotion, and conjuring and wishing, and making them the centerpiece of our existence, or else we're "selfish".

 

I think the gods are selfish. I think they're rude. I think they're irresponsible. I think they should get it together. Because sooner or later, they will have to kill us, or we will become much, much, more than they are, or ever could be.

[Vixentrox]

I generally agree with florduh, maybe he didn't need to be quite so blunt, but I believe Kathlene needed to be called out on constantly attempting to proselytizing us with the dishonest shit.

Blunt was the right tool for the job. He chose well (as usual).

 

mwc

There should be no special treatment of any followers of the evil Bible god here. They choose to partake and worship a vile imaginary being.

[StevoMuso]

One thing I get tired of, is this constant "linking" of our feelings to the religious belief. Hey, my heart is full of love, in fact it's overflowing half the time, and dripping down to my running shoes. I love my family members, nabes, the birds in the morning, the Universe, all of you heathens (especially), my cat, Google Chrome, and the new waitress at my donut shop.

 

Brilliant. These feelings are often confused with faith, or "love for God" and what about "gratitude" for what Jesus suffered on our behalf. The OP story reminded me of those old Walt Disney Bamby-style cartoons ... over-the-top slushy feelings brought out by depicting animals/nature acting like humans.

 

Another thing: The story, IMO, reflects a human interpretation of God and what He would have been saying/thinking when creating Man. It has absolutely no connection to the way the Bible presents God. The author is probably a kind and loving person, so he views his God as kind and loving. But the Bible presents a totally different picture of a cruel, unforgiving, genocidal, infanticidal, blood-crazy (etc. we all know the drill) monster. You know, if there was a God even remotely like the one depicted in the story, some of us may even be interested in believing.

[Kathlene]

The original post was saying I liked this story, what did everyone else think of it? any opinions? I sure got them...

I apologise if it offended anyone. Close the thread if you want.

I doubt anyone is offended, but what would you imagine rational people would think of that feeble minded claptrap? Is this your way of evangelizing without evangelizing?

 

Seriously, why post such drivel here? What interest could we have, considering we aren't mentally impaired or 6 years old? You have become a troll.

 

 

Look it was a bad call and judgement I made, ok? I said my apologies and asked to close the thread. End of story.

 

Im just reposting this again...because after I posted it, people either didnt see it or chose to ignore it and yet the thread has still gone on. I ask for no special treatment on this site. I already said I made a bad call and judgement in posting this. It wasn't a dishonest attempt at evangelising. For some stupid reason I was reading it and just thought I would like to get other's opinions of it. Ok, I was wrong, and I apologise. End of story. Close the thread if you want to moderators.

[Vixentrox]

We rarely close threads around here. No, I think the thread should stand as yet another example of Christian feel good nonsense and the absurdity behind it.

[mwc]

For some stupid reason I was reading it and just thought I would like to get other's opinions of it.

But you are getting our opinions of it. The story. The situation. Everything.

 

What could you possibly have been expecting?

 

mwc

[Mriana]

The original post was saying I liked this story, what did everyone else think of it? any opinions? I sure got them...

I apologise if it offended anyone. Close the thread if you want.

I doubt anyone is offended, but what would you imagine rational people would think of that feeble minded claptrap? Is this your way of evangelizing without evangelizing?

 

Seriously, why post such drivel here? What interest could we have, considering we aren't mentally impaired or 6 years old? You have become a troll.

 

 

Look it was a bad call and judgement I made, ok? I said my apologies and asked to close the thread. End of story.

 

Im just reposting this again...because after I posted it, people either didnt see it or chose to ignore it and yet the thread has still gone on. I ask for no special treatment on this site. I already said I made a bad call and judgement in posting this. It wasn't a dishonest attempt at evangelising. For some stupid reason I was reading it and just thought I would like to get other's opinions of it. Ok, I was wrong, and I apologise. End of story. Close the thread if you want to moderators.

 

 

I, for one, did not say whether I liked it or disliked. I, like everyone else, just made a comment and I don't know why you are taking everyone's comments personally. There is nothing to apologize for, IMO.