[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1298040181' post='4775881']
Let me turn this around: how do *you* know sin exists? Someone tells you a fable about a snake and a girl and you buy it just like that? Where's the evidence?

Nope, not "just like that". I've been a Christian for over 25 years and spent and good bit of time before becoming one examining and studying the Bible before accepting it as truth. In all that time I've never found anything to disprove it. The problem seems to be, most people think they're too smart to even consider it to be true so never dig in and examine it.

So, are you going to answer my question?
[/quote]

I dont usually get involved in discussions like this cos where "faith" is involved there is no right or wrong answer. But studying the Bible then accepting it as truth is a wrong way of looking at it, i think. The Bible was written a long time after Jesus died. 4 gospels from dozens (cant remember the exact number) were chosen and probably chosen because they gave the picture of Jesus that the Church wanted. (I know using probably here isnt gonna help, but lets face it, it was 2000 years ago nearly, no-one knows for sure).

So studying what the Bible tells you is not a good way of discovering what is true. If people use it to empower themselves and their faith and use it as a book on how to live their lives, what is the harm (up to a point. Life has evolved and living by a book written centuries ago to the word really isnt doable, nor should the attempt be made in my opinion).

Again, and im only on the accepting as truth thing here, there are records from that time that disprove parts of the Bible. I know some are leaps of faith and thats fine, people are free to believe what they want.

[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1298040181' post='4775881']
Let me turn this around: how do *you* know sin exists? Someone tells you a fable about a snake and a girl and you buy it just like that? Where's the evidence?

Nope, not "just like that". I've been a Christian for over 25 years and spent and good bit of time before becoming one examining and studying the Bible before accepting it as truth. In all that time I've never found anything to disprove it. The problem seems to be, most people think they're too smart to even consider it to be true so never dig in and examine it.[/quote]

I had the misfortune to study the bible for a decade, until someone helped open my eyes and see it for what it is. Apparently some people are even worse off.

So, are you going to answer my question? [/quote]

Are you seriously asking for logical proof that the cardinal sin doesn't exist? It's quite simple, really: we have extensive scientific evidence that women are not created from their husbands' ribs; that snakes don't talk; that knowledge-granting trees don't, in fact, exist; that Mesopotamia doesn't hold a paradise guarded by an angry angel; and that humans evolved from older primates (and in fact interbred with them). Hence the creation story is provably bollocks.

If logic doesn't phase you then let me formulate this differently: *MY* God (with a capital G) is a jealous one and says that you are a sinner and will go to hell if you worthip in false idols. But if you turn to Him, He will instantly absolve you of sin and let you into Heaven, where you'll eat rice for the rest of your eternal life. I *KNOW* that's true because my holy text says so and that's all the proof I need. In other words, your god is a FALSE one and you should be very very careful, because judgment awaits.

Your turn now. Will you answer my question?

[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1298040181' post='4775881']
Let me turn this around: how do *you* know sin exists? Someone tells you a fable about a snake and a girl and you buy it just like that? Where's the evidence?

Define 'sin'.[/quote]


I am specifically talking about the cardinal sin. The stuff you are talking about is not sin: it's sociology, psychology and political sciences.

What I take issue is the implication that I am a guilty by association and a sinner for merely existing. I won't deny that humans can be stupid and self-destructive, but the christian notion of sin? Frankly, it's a pretty obvious control trick (and one that sadly works due to constant indoctrination).

I am specifically talking about the cardinal sin. The stuff you are talking about is not sin: it's sociology, psychology and political sciences.

And how do you know it's not the same thing rephrased in different words?

The 'cardinal sin' is basically corrupted human nature. For me, I have said that the story of Edem is mostly symbolic of the 'fall' of man from a higher state of being without corruption, mainly by the desire to be wise when he's not(and check it out, the 'desire to be wise' phrase is actually in the Edem story: "[color="#010000"][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise"[/font]). The problem is that, every time science explains the HOW of something, we think it 'takes away' something from religion, especially the WHY. It doesn't have to be that way. The Big Bang theory, for instance, is not in contrast with the Bible, at least not from my perspective. We all have, one way or the other, raised with some versions of religion that are scary and distorted. It's hard to break free, as you have, and harder to re-enstate yourself with the faith without all these extra baggage that are there, as you correctly have said, for control. It's a constant struggle, for sure.

For instance, fun fact: Jesus, AFAIK, didn't used the phrase "Hell" as a place for eternal torment in the afterlife. He used(and others before him) the term "Gehenna", which is an actual place, a valley outside ancient Jerusalem where people used to burn garbage. He could have just been saying that those that haven't been able to 'bear good fruits' would be destroyed, as being useless or harmful. Or it could just be symbolic as well, seeing as nobody actually believes that Hell is placed just outside Jerusalem. One thing is sure for me, at least. Jesus didn't come to Earth to inspire fear into people.

[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1298044118' post='4775922']
I am specifically talking about the cardinal sin. The stuff you are talking about is not sin: it's sociology, psychology and political sciences.

And how do you know it's not the same thing rephrased in different words?

The 'cardinal sin' is basically corrupted human nature. For me, I have said that the story of Edem is mostly symbolic of the 'fall' of man from a higher state of being without corruption [...][/quote]

Proof, please. As far as I know, we are descended from primates, which cannot really be considered a higher state of being (seeing how they have almost all of our basic instincts and capabilities but lack intellect).

The problem is that, every time science explains the HOW of something, we think it 'takes away' something from religion, especially the WHY. It doesn't have to be that way. The Big Bang theory, for instance, is not in contrast with the Bible, at least not from my perspective. We all have, one way or the other, raised with some versions of religion that are scary and distorted. It's hard to break free, as you have, and harder to re-enstate yourself with the faith without all these extra baggage that are there, as you correctly have said, for control. It's a constant struggle, for sure.[/quote]

a. Why is that a problem?

b. Take away this extra baggage and you are left with a more or less pure form of theism or agnosticism. Personally, I have no problem with that - it's the religious people who do. Try telling a pious christian that church is an immoral institution designed to control people (this "sheep and herd" stuff) and that its existence contradicts the teaching of jesus (and most of the bible, for that matter).

Proof, please. As far as I know, we are descended from primates, which cannot really be considered a higher state of being (seeing how they have almost all of our basic instincts and capabilities but lack intellect).

I don't need to prove a symbolic image, man. It's symbolic of a "Golden Age", which exists in almost all mythologies. Maybe it existed, for a while, when we all lived in the forests and the jungles. Who knows. It's nice for me to think that it's there, as a possibility that existed in the past or exists in the future. That is all. That one day human affairs will be as harmonic as nature(before man started destroying it).

a.Why is that a problem?
[/quote]

Because as I said, it's unfair for religion. The fact that psychology explains some things doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong.

b. Take away this extra baggage and you are left with a more or less pure form of theism or agnosticism. Personally, I have no problem with that - it's the religious people who do. Try telling a pious christian that church is an immoral institution designed to control people (this "sheep and herd" stuff) and that its existence contradicts the teaching of jesus (and most of the bible, for that matter).
[/quote]

I don't care what the churches and priests do. Jesus have said "I am the good shepard. The good shepard lays down his own life for his sheep". If they are indeed good shepards let them do so. Otherwise, I won't let them destroy my faith. It's mine. As he said: "[color="#010000"][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away—and the wolf snatches them and scatters them." I think that is descriptive of quite a few people.[/font]
[color="#010000"][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] [/font]
[color="#010000"][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]As an aside: You're from Greece too, am I right? Just want to see if we have the same experiences as about religious people [/font]

I dont usually get involved in discussions like this cos where "faith" is involved there is no right or wrong answer. But studying the Bible then accepting it as truth is a wrong way of looking at it, i think. The Bible was written a long time after Jesus died. 4 gospels from dozens (cant remember the exact number) were chosen and probably chosen because they gave the picture of Jesus that the Church wanted. (I know using probably here isnt gonna help, but lets face it, it was 2000 years ago nearly, no-one knows for sure).

That is not accurate at all. The gospels were actually written shortly after Jesus was alive, and the 4 gospels were chosen for the Bible based on them being written by people who were in direct contact with Jesus, not because they best fit the early church's idea of what Christ should be.

[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1298040181' post='4775881']
Let me turn this around: how do *you* know sin exists? Someone tells you a fable about a snake and a girl and you buy it just like that? Where's the evidence?

Nope, not "just like that". I've been a Christian for over 25 years and spent and good bit of time before becoming one examining and studying the Bible before accepting it as truth. In all that time I've never found anything to disprove it. The problem seems to be, most people think they're too smart to even consider it to be true so never dig in and examine it.

So, are you going to answer my question?
[/quote]

Can I step in? ;o Well I did (and still do) study some aspects of the Bible. But what I find most INTERESTING is that people like you can pull such a different meaning from it.

When I read the Bible, I see something that worked for a particular people in a particular time. And nothing in there suggests it was a factual story...there's just too many holes. Add to that the fact that alot of things can be explained by literary techniques.

If you care enough to find out, I explained in an earlier post why Jesus being pierced in his side would produce WATER and blood after he had just drunken vinegar. It's all metaphor that someone just made up to get a message across. It was that Jesus is life, etc, etc.

And one of the MOST GLARING CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible is the in genealogy of Jesus...it's completely different in Luke and Matthew:

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]
Luke 3:23
[/font]
[sup]23[/sup] Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli,




[/quote]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]
Matthew 1:16
[/font]

[font="Charis SIL"][sup]16[/sup] and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.[/font]
[/quote]


Apparently, Joseph had two fathers. If God wanted this book to represent him as an absolute authority, why let such gross errors in?

I had the misfortune to study the bible for a decade, until someone helped open my eyes and see it for what it is. Apparently some people are even worse off.

And your eyes were opened by using "logic", is that what I'm understanding? What part of "logic != proof" is not clear? It used to be that it was "logical" that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. See how good using just "logic" is?

Are you seriously asking for logical proof that the cardinal sin doesn't exist? It's quite simple, really: we have extensive scientific evidence that women are not created from their husbands' ribs; that snakes don't talk; that knowledge-granting trees don't, in fact, exist; that Mesopotamia doesn't hold a paradise guarded by an angry angel; and that humans evolved from older primates (and in fact interbred with them). Hence the creation story is provably bollocks.

"probably". Meaning, you don't know. You do realize that "evidence" != "proof", right? Obviously women today aren't created from their husbands' ribs and snakes don't talk and so forth. That doesn't prove the Bible is false. It just proves that things doesn't exist now, not that they didn't then.

I read that page you linked and had to laugh at the source of the evidence for it - 3 bone fragments and couple of others from other areas? Seriously? The gene sequencing doesn't prove anything though. Also - "[color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Although they can't rule out the possibility that modern humans had already started diverging from Neanderthals before leaving Africa, the research team favors the idea of interbreeding" (emphasis mine). [/font]

If logic doesn't phase you then let me formulate this differently: *MY* God (with a capital G) is a jealous one and says that you are a sinner and will go to hell if you worthip in false idols. But if you turn to Him, He will instantly absolve you of sin and let you into Heaven, where you'll eat rice for the rest of your eternal life. I *KNOW* that's true because my holy text says so and that's all the proof I need. In other words, your god is a FALSE one and you should be very very careful, because judgment awaits.

What is the source of your holy text? What corroborates it?

Your turn now. Will you answer my question?

The evidence for sin existing is visible every second of every day. If you want to approach is logically, how logical is it for a race that one would think would be trying to ensure its survival to be killing itself off dozens or hundreds of times per second every day?

Proof, please. As far as I know, it's believed, although there's no positive proof, we are descended from primates, which cannot really be considered a higher state of being (seeing how they have almost all of our basic instincts and capabilities but lack intellect).

Fixed that for you.