07 Nov 18
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThat was for the claim that the unborn/born absolutely have no religious affiliations. As if that was a fact that couldn’t be challenged, granted only those that accept scripture would see it, unless they change the text into metaphors, or reject the author, or ....,,
Did you just equate an atheist with a lifeless blob?!
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
08 Nov 18
1 edit
@kellyjay saidI think what the real truth is that once I answered your question (on the previous page), you decided not to persue the subject as you realised that you were in a potential “checkmate” scenario so you ducked out.
You deflected and refused to answer during the discussion. Now I don’t care what you think about those topics.
I see through you old boy.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Conversely, does the baby come out declaring -
"Oh, I just want you all to know, I believe in God"?
I think that something like "an age of accountability" is probably true.
(Babies are born with a lack of speech and a complete lack of belief in the divine, rendering them atheists).
So the several plants under the window in the living room where I am are atheists ?
So the few pebbles and rocks in the garden outside are all atheists ?
I don't buy that. It would also imply that a corpse is immediately an atheist regardless if she had been a theist for all of her adult life.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29756
08 Nov 18
@sonship saidSorry I was discussing babies, not plants or pebbles.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Conversely, does the baby come out declaring -
"Oh, I just want you all to know, I believe in God"?
I think that something like "an age of accountability" is probably true.
(Babies are born with a lack of speech and a complete lack of belief in the divine, rendering them atheists).
So the several plants un ...[text shortened]... at a corpse is immediately an atheist regardless if she had been a theist for all of her adult life.
Definition of atheist:
'A 'person' who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.'
08 Nov 18
@kellyjay saidReligious affiliations are a product of nurture and not present when one is born. If you had been born here in my country and had found religion in your 20s or whenever it was, your religious affiliation now would most likely be to Islam and it would not have been the case at the time you were born.
That was for the claim that the unborn/born absolutely have no religious affiliations.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
08 Nov 18
1 edit
KellyJay has decided to duck out; is there anyone else who wants to defend his inference that despite being born into original sin a foetus has a belief that god exists?
Not sure if this means a “belief unto salvation” or just a sort of vague understanding that there is a god.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29756
08 Nov 18
@divegeester saidMany theists misconstrue this notion of a person being born with a belief or awareness of the divine.
KellyJay has decided to duck out; is there anyone else who wants to defend his inference that despite being born into original sin a foetus has a belief that god exists?
Not sure if this means a “belief unto salvation” or just a sort of vague understanding that their is a god.
In actuality a person is born with a fear and uncertainty of the world around them, which in turn manifests itself (for many) in a theistic outlook to provide answers and reassurance.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
08 Nov 18
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAgreed.
Many theists misconstrue this notion of a person being born with a belief or awareness of the divine.
In actuality a person is born with a fear and uncertainty of the world around them, which in turn manifests itself (for many) in a theistic outlook to provide answers and reassurance.
Also however from a Christian theological perspective those who believe in the doctrines of both eternal torture + original sin need to consider the consequences of their beliefs.
I’ve always found this is one good way to test doctrine; to pair the doctrine with other doctrines and see if it stacks up. Clearly the doctrine of eternal suffering combined with the doctrine of original sin means that’s babies cannot have a “belief unto salvation” and therefore go straight to Hell.
KellyJay recognised this in my reply to him which is why he wisely chose to duck out of the conversation.
KellyJay this is a great example to you of why the doctrine of enteral suffering is error. Have a think about it.
08 Nov 18
@divegeester saidGrampy Bobby used to claim that humans' "sinful" nature is passed on to the next generation through human sperm.
KellyJay has decided to duck out; is there anyone else who wants to defend his inference that despite being born into original sin a foetus has a belief that god exists?
Not sure if this means a “belief unto salvation” or just a sort of vague understanding that their is a god.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
08 Nov 18
@fmf saidHe probably extrapolated that from the biblical explaination that we were all “in Adam” when he sinned and therefore all have sinned or have the sinner nature or unregenerate spirit.
Grampy Bobby used to claim that humans' "sinful" nature is passed on to the next generation through human sperm.
It begs the question that if Adam had not sinned then would the entire human race have been auto-saved. Or what if one of Adams great grandchildren had sinned would just their offspring have been unregenerated? What if an unregenerate person had a child with a regenerated child?
There is a passage in the NT which speaks about one partner being made whole by the saved partner “or your children would be unclean”. Not unsaved, unclean.
It’s a logical, scriptural and moral minefield.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29756
08 Nov 18
@divegeester saidFor me such contemplations are moot.
He probably extrapolated that from the biblical explaination that we were all “in Adam” when he sinned and therefore all have sinned or have the sinner nature or unregenerate spirit.
It begs the question that if Adam had not sinned then would the entire human race have been auto-saved. Or what if one of Adams great grandchildren had sinned would just their offspring h ...[text shortened]... hildren would be unclean”. Not unsaved, unclean.
It’s a logical, scriptural and moral minefield.
Humans evolved from Homo sapiens (from the genus Homo) not from a perfectly formed pair of humans in a garden. Therefore, if there were no 'literal' Adam and Eve there couldn't be a 'literal' original sin either.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121323
08 Nov 18
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI’m aware of that of course, but the topic becomes interesting when dropped into the theism of some of the posters in this forum.
For me such contemplations are moot.
08 Nov 18
@fmf saidTwo different things, what you are taught and what you had a birth. Assuming one
Religious affiliations are a product of nurture and not present when one is born. If you had been born here in my country and had found religion in your 20s or whenever it was, your religious affiliation now would most likely be to Islam and it would not have been the case at the time you were born.
is the same as the other, is just that an assumption.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYour belief system doesn't line up with the text so the text is wrong, there are a lot
For me such contemplations are moot.
Humans evolved from Homo sapiens (from the genus Homo) not from a perfectly formed pair of humans in a garden. Therefore, if there were no 'literal' Adam and Eve there couldn't be a 'literal' original sin either.
of people of that mindset.