06 Sep 09
The post that was quoted here has been removedOriginal Sin is a nonsense and an affront to humanity.
Okay, that's not technically a question, but it is a statement in need of correction.
OS could only be considered nonsense if judged on a value scale other than that which has been established by God. Without naming that value scale, Tim has simply made an unsubstantiated claim.
As far as OS being an affront to humanity, apparently Tim knows something that eludes all the rest of us. Namely, he is able to bypass all of the wretched things man has done to man and look beyond to the wholesomeness that man represents. Perhaps it is just the rest of us. Perhaps there isn't anything wrong with the whole wide world...
I'm sorry that people are brought into the world and made to feel guilt for something that clearly didn't happen and is an invention by man used by man to subjugate man.
Again, not a question, but begging for correction. Guilt has nothing to do with truth. Nothing. Guilt is only a factor in religion. Religion is a subjugator of man--- as are other forms of power plays--- but religion has no connection to truth.
06 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat a load of tripe. I can very easily nonsense OS wihtout using any scale of judgement whatsoever. All I need to do is say that that the reification of evil is invalid and hey presto, OS is rendered null.
[b]Original Sin is a nonsense and an affront to humanity.
Okay, that's not technically a question, but it is a statement in need of correction.
OS could only be considered nonsense if judged on a value scale other than that which has been established by God. Without naming that value scale, Tim has simply made an unsubstantiated claim.
A ator of man--- as are other forms of power plays--- but religion has no connection to truth.[/b]
Your second argument is just appealing to the gallery strawmanery. There is plenty wrong with the world but it would be utterly illogical to connect the problems of human interaction to an invalid reification of something to be judged by some magical sky being nobody can see.
EDIT: Oh, and take it to spirituality, Spanky.
06 Sep 09
Originally posted by StarrmanI can very easily nonsense OS wihtout using any scale of judgement whatsoever. All I need to do is say that that the reification of evil is invalid and hey presto, OS is rendered null.
What a load of tripe. I can very easily nonsense OS wihtout using any scale of judgement whatsoever. All I need to do is say that that the reification of evil is invalid and hey presto, OS is rendered null.
Your second argument is just appealing to the gallery strawmanery. There is plenty wrong with the world but it would be utterly illogical to conne ...[text shortened]... dged by some magical sky being nobody can see.
EDIT: Oh, and take it to spirituality, Spanky.
Easier said than done, really. You still lack a standard by which to make the claim.
By using your standard, we could just as easily say anything we wish about any supposedly abstract thought.
There is plenty wrong with the world but it would be utterly illogical to connect the problems of human interaction to an invalid reification of something to be judged by some magical sky being nobody can see.
Illogical? You have a better explanation than what has been offered by God? Get crackin'!
Oh, and take it to spirituality, Spanky.
Whatever you say, Buckwheat.
06 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Easier said than done, really. You still lack a standard by which to make the claim.
I don't need a standard, all I'm saying is that there is no such thing as a reified evil. Why would I need some sort of standard? Do I need a standard to say there is no such thing as a pink unicorn, if so, what?
By using your standard, we could just as easily say anything we wish about any supposedly abstract thought.
I'm not using a standard. You yourself have already said so, you are contradicting yourself. At least try and be consistent with your sloppy arguments.
Illogical? You have a better explanation than what has been offered by God? Get crackin'!
Here you go: The wrong in the world of man is a result of the gradient between the individual's desire to compete and his need to hold common values with other individuals.
A simple, strong standpoint which is far more effective than the unfalsifiable notion of a reified evil and a magical sky being.
06 Sep 09
Originally posted by StarrmanI don't need a standard, all I'm saying is that there is no such thing as a reified evil.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Easier said than done, really. You still lack a standard by which to make the claim.
I don't need a standard, all I'm saying is that there is no such thing as a reified evil. Why would I need some sort of standard? Do I need a standard to say there is no such thing as a pink unicorn, if so, what?
By us ...[text shortened]... far more effective than the unfalsifiable notion of a reified evil and a magical sky being.
Of course you do need a standard. You can’t just say whatever you want all willy-nilly-like.
Why would I need some sort of standard?
Gee, I dunno. Authority maybe?
Do I need a standard to say there is no such thing as a pink unicorn, if so, what?
Yes, you do need a standard. That standard is called reality.
I'm not using a standard. You yourself have already said so, you are contradicting yourself. At least try and be consistent with your sloppy arguments.
You may wish to go back and read what was written, for the sake of clarity. I said you lack a standard by which to make the claim, which is referencing my previous statement that (like you) Tim had not named the value scale which he was using to make his like-minded claims.
Here you go: The wrong in the world of man is a result of the gradient between the individual's desire to compete and his need to hold common values with other individuals.
Really? So Stalin was just an ultra-competitive guy? Hitler? That woman who drowned her kids in the bathtub was just trying to stay up the Jones’? Dahmer’s “sin” was nothing more than trying to stay ahead of the next guy?
A simple, strong standpoint which is far more effective than the unfalsifiable notion of a reified evil and a magical sky being.
Sad. Simple, weak and overwhelmingly, naively sad.
06 Sep 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf reality is the standard you have absolutely nothing and I've got a stacked deck. Unless you can prove otherwise, reality offers no place for a reified concept of evil, nor a magical sky being. And I'll say again, you tell me in one sentence that I need a standard and then accuse me of using a standard, be more clear in your arguments.
[b]I don't need a standard, all I'm saying is that there is no such thing as a reified evil.
Of course you do need a standard. You can’t just say whatever you want all willy-nilly-like.
Why would I need some sort of standard?
Gee, I dunno. Authority maybe?
Do I need a standard to say there is no such thing as a pink unicorn, if so ...[text shortened]... ified evil and a magical sky being.
Sad. Simple, weak and overwhelmingly, naively sad.[/b]
You asked for a real world explanation for man's problems which would not include god, you did not specify an explanation of evil. I gave you one which works. You did not ask for a specific reasons based on specific cases. For example, mental illness was not something we talked about. I suppose you're going to tell me that violent schizophrenics like Dahmer had the entity called Evil in them. Do you know how crazy that actually sounds?
What's sad and naive is that someone in the 21st centuary would believe in magic and an actual entity called Evil.
06 Sep 09
The post that was quoted here has been removedAccording to the Church, Original Sin is the cause; what you describe (The Fall of Man) is the result of Original Sin, if that's what you believe.
I don’t believe what “the Church” says, unless “the Church” agrees with what the Bible says. The Fall of Man--- wherein the man and the woman chose a system other than that which was offered by God--- is the original sin. As a result, man has since passed on to each and every successive generation a sin nature.
Are you being intentionally disingenuous? You're deliberately misrepresenting me.
No, I might be arriving at the wrong conclusion based upon your words, but I’m not misrepresenting you.
If you bother to read my posts, you can see I state that my objection to OS is because it deigns to write us off before we develop the consciousness to decide our own actions.
Not sure what you mean by “write off” here. But if you mean that we’re born with a predisposition toward sin, well, gee, doesn’t that just about fit the bill with what we have seen in the world up to this point. However, it also means that we’re pretty much toast when it comes to figuring out how to rectify our situation--- again, an exact fit to the human condition.
I don't have a rose-tinted view of the world. I leave that for the self-loathing, romantics and fairy tale believers, such as yourself…
You’re not making a whole lot of sense here. How could a self-loathing romantic/fairy tale believer such as myself be considered to be keeping a rose-tinted view of the world at the same time I am so knee-deep in self-loathing?
maybe Jesus will stop the ice caps melting! I'd prefer human action to problems rather than prayer.
Who said we should pray for ice caps?
Seems Christian Aid and Trocaire think the same. Isn't there a contradiction there?
I truly don’t give a rat’s ass about any organizational claims to God’s work: I’ll stick with what the Bible says. As stated earlier, there is nothing wrong with the secondary alleviation of pain, just so long as the primary task is the salvation of souls.
06 Sep 09
Originally posted by StarrmanIf reality is the standard you have absolutely nothing and I've got a stacked deck. Unless you can prove otherwise, reality offers no place for a reified concept of evil, nor a magical sky being.
If reality is the standard you have absolutely nothing and I've got a stacked deck. Unless you can prove otherwise, reality offers no place for a reified concept of evil, nor a magical sky being. And I'll say again, you tell me in one sentence that I need a standard and then accuse me of using a standard, be more clear in your arguments.
You asked for ...[text shortened]... that someone in the 21st centuary would believe in magic and an actual entity called Evil.
Ah, just so. Your standard for reality is what you can empirically verify. That’s a bit short-sighted, don’t you think? Too much blind faith for my palette, thank you very much.
And I'll say again, you tell me in one sentence that I need a standard and then accuse me of using a standard, be more clear in your arguments.
You can say it again and again. And each time, I will remind you to read what was written.
You asked for a real world explanation for man's problems which would not include god, you did not specify an explanation of evil. I gave you one which works.
Sure you did. You said “the wrong in the world of man is a result of…” Sound familiar? It was only two hours ago that you posted it. Furthermore, your explanation doesn’t work. It is woefully inadequate.
You did not ask for a specific reasons based on specific cases. For example, mental illness was not something we talked about.
No, I didn’t, and no we didn’t. I’m hoping you’re not prepared to say that it’s all mental illness.
I suppose you're going to tell me that violent schizophrenics like Dahmer had the entity called Evil in them.
There’s an entity that goes by that name? Creepy. That being said, I was under the impression that Dahmer used logic to justify his actions. Curious, huh.
Do you know how crazy that actually sounds?
Violently, schizophrenically crazy.
What's sad and naive is that someone in the 21st centuary would believe in magic and an actual entity called Evil.
I do not believe in centaurs, or in magic or that creepy guy with the creepy name.
06 Sep 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou've just reminded me why I've been so much happier on RHP for the last 6 months. It's because I haven't been in the spirituality forum wasting my time and getting wound up by arguing with retards. I do not intend to return to such days, so carry on spouting bull, I'm out.
[b]If reality is the standard you have absolutely nothing and I've got a stacked deck. Unless you can prove otherwise, reality offers no place for a reified concept of evil, nor a magical sky being.
Ah, just so. Your standard for reality is what you can empirically verify. That’s a bit short-sighted, don’t you think? Too much blind faith for my pal ...[text shortened]... il.[/b]
I do not believe in centaurs, or in magic or that creepy guy with the creepy name.[/b]