Christianity's Immoral Foundation

[-1-]

I don't see a difference. Potentiality = eventuality.

There is a difference between potentiality and eventuality. If you can't see that, then you are logically blind, so to speak.

If potentiality IS INDEED EQUAL to eventuality, then we are, each of us individually and not collectively, all murderers, fathers, mothers, gays, straights, doctors, janitors, stonemasons, weightlifters, patients lying in coma, dying of malnutrition, romancing all blondes that come our way, like Hugh Heffner.

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Even the minutest transgression labels you a lawbreaker, so you may as well murder as tell a white lie.

Potentiality does indeed translate into eventuality because if you are capable of sinning, then you will sin. No child of Adam can withstand the temptation and deception.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Here you are yoking a donkey to the cart that should be pulled by a horse.

Your explanation of why potentiality = eventuality is not logical; you are relying on bible quotes to show how your claim is true.

Your claim is based on faulty logic, and it is only true to a bible-believer. Because bible-believers have a special capacity to glide over self-contradictions, as long as it is stated in the bible. Those who don't believe in the bible, will not find your explanation convincing at all, because it involves a step in the logic that only christians will accept as true: that step is that every sin is equal to every other sin:

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Even the minutest transgression labels you a lawbreaker, so you may as well murder as tell a white lie.

[-1-]

Serendipper, please be careful, with inconsistencies; they are easy to spot, and some other debating opponents of yours may even mine it for more than you can bear:

Serendipper wrote:
I don't see a difference. Potentiality = eventuality.

(-1- subsequently showed that the above results necessarily from other tenets of Christianity.)

Serendipper wrote:
It's not my opinion herr genius; it's the perspective of Christianity. Do you want to understand christianity or to you want to continue flattering your prowess of logic?

If it's not your opinion... then how come it's your opinion?

When you embrace an opinion, and make it your own, it is yours, even if you are not the originator of it.

[Serendipper]

There is a difference between potentiality and eventuality. If you can't see that, then you are logically blind, so to speak.

If potentiality IS INDEED EQUAL to eventuality, then we are, each of us individually and not collectively, all murderers, fathers, mothers, gays, straights, doctors, janitors, stonemasons, weightlifters, patients lying in coma, dying of malnutrition, romancing all blondes that come our way, like Hugh Heffner.

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Even the minutest transgression labels you a lawbreaker, so you may as well murder as tell a white lie.

Potentiality does indeed translate into eventuality because if you are capable of sinning, then you will sin. No child of Adam can withstand the temptation and deception.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Here you are yoking a donkey to the cart that should be pulled by a horse.

Your explanation of why potentiality = eventuality is not logical; you are relying on bible quotes to show how your claim is true.

I am addressing the OP's desire to gain understanding of the perspective of christianity per, "My challenge for Christians is to explain how it is moral to hold people responsible for acts that occurred before they were even born."

Objective morality does not exist; therefore any moral perspective is a subjective perspective from a certain point of view; in this case: that of christianity.

Your claim is based on faulty logic, and it is only true to a bible-believer.

Not really. The christian perspective is that death is the result of sin; therefore there is no death until one sins; therefore any potentiality is realized within infinite time and therefore potentiality = eventuality. However, it never takes more than 20 years for one to fulfill his destiny.

Because bible-believers have a special capacity to glide over self-contradictions, as long as it is stated in the bible.

That's generally true.

Those who don't believe in the bible, will not find your explanation convincing at all,

Mainly because they're determined not to; biblical logical inconsistencies are just the icing on the cake.

because it involves a step in the logic that only christians will accept as true: that step is that every sin is equal to every other sin:

Why would one sin not be equal to another? That question is especially begged if there is no such thing as sin.

[Serendipper]

Serendipper, please be careful, with inconsistencies; they are easy to spot, and some other debating opponents of yours may even mine it for more than you can bear:

Serendipper wrote:
I don't see a difference. Potentiality = eventuality.

(-1- subsequently showed that the above results necessarily from other tenets of Christianity.)

Serendipper wrote:
It's not my opinion herr genius; it's the perspective of Christianity. Do you want to understand christianity or to you want to continue flattering your prowess of logic?

If it's not your opinion... then how come it's your opinion?

When you embrace an opinion, and make it your own, it is yours, even if you are not the originator of it.

I'm sorry, I misspoke in haste. What I should have said is "I don't see a difference from the perspective of christianity." Maybe I figured that went without saying because, obviously, from a logical objective perspective there are differences in potentiality and eventuality, but not from the perspective of christianity regarding this particular topic.

[-1-]

Serendipper, you brilliantly showed by claiming that all sins are equal to each other, and by claiming that the bible is illogical, but believable, that you have a comprehension capacity of believing the logically impossible.

I can't argue against that. If someone falls off a cliff, and the bible said, hypothetically, that he feel up the cliff, then you assert that you would find it reasonable to believe the bible. Of the same situation I say that it's not possible to believe that, because the event itself is not possible.

Or this may have been an ill example. Let's say the bible said the person fell off a cliff and fell up the same cliff in the same respect and at the same time, and you assert that it is possible to believe that.

I shan't go on with analyzing your hypothetical but already stated (by the illustration of other examples) belief, that the impossible is possible to believe, lest I appear again as a logic-monster who condescends to you.

You and Skip decry logic, tried to ridicule me for using logic, and you both apparently value faith over logic. Again, I shan't voice opinion or judgment over that. I am just stating the status quo for the record.

[gaffo]

All women and children who died before Baptism went to hell, according to Christian mysticism, no matter how good, sinless lives they lived.

um, no.


sadly i was born after Christ - so that leaves me out of Salvation

per Christian dogma, Christ went to hell (refer to 2nd Peter (I think?) during the 2 days He was "dead" - and freed those in Sheol to be re-born to/toward Heaven.

sadly Christ's "get out of Hell" card only works for those born before Christ.

a limitation of Christian Dogman/YHWH's mercy.............or due to exclusion of Apocolypse of Peter (take your pick).

I point no finder - least of all to any "god" i deny exists.

i await my death and then finding myself still "alive" then may point my finger.

until then i do not worry and place myself in fate's hands.

[gaffo]

Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines.

You may want to read this: Above Genetics: How your behaviour can affect your DNA

And:

Direct comparisons of identical twins constitute an optimal model for interrogating environmental epigenetics. In the case of humans with different environmental exposures, monozygotic (identical) twins were epigenetically indistinguishable during their early years, while older twins had remarkable differences in the overall content and genomic distribution of 5-methylcytosine DNA and histone acetylation.[8] The twin pairs who had spent less of their lifetime together and/or had greater differences in their medical histories were those who showed the largest differences in their levels of 5-methylcytosine DNA and acetylation of histones H3 and H4.[117] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Twins

So, yep, next question

Your entire thesis rests on sin potentiality, not actual sin.

Adam and Eve ate the apple. That was the original sin. If you call it apple, or fruit of the forbidden tree.

Who else ate apples after Adam and Eve? Who else ate the fruit of the forbidden tree? Nobody.

So the sin might be genetically programmed, but it never again was actually committed.

This is worse than what Christianity says: you are condemning people on the grounds of Christianity because they have the genetic potential to commit the original sin.

This is not good, Serendipper. You are inadvertently and viciously supporting the argument of the Original Poster in logical terms, while you decry his or her argument in emotional terms.

In effect you are now saying that people go to hell not because they sin, but because they have the potential to sin.

FYI the conventional concept these last 2000 yrs WRT to original sin is not correct WRT to the original work.

said "sin" was actually a "rise" - from ignorant beast to demigod.......................there was a reason YHWH removed the OTHER tree (the one of immortality) - had Adma/eve eaten from that second one they would have become God's equal!

Genesis is summarian, if you read that work with summarian eyes (instead of Christian/Jewish eyes) - you have a better understanding.

there was no "fall". just a semi-rise and a fearfull God that his creation might userp Him, and so banish Adam/eve from the garden to prevent them from eating of the OTHER tree, and overthrow their creator.

[gaffo]

Does God have potential to sin?

I assume it depends upon the god.

here are many.

Why not? Does he have freewill? If so, why can't he sin?

refer to the many gods on the matter,

zeus, shiva, indra, etc.

Did Jesus have potential to sin?

per john - where He IS God - no.

per Matt/Luke - not clear on that particular - nor is He God (but the Son of - literally).

per Mark - yes Jesus was fully man and sinned - and become God's Son around the age of 30 when he was baptized (adopted by YHWH) by the Essene (Jesus was prob an Essene too BTW) John the Baptist on the River Jordan. We can assume he was sinless after that adoption (maybe).


pick your poison the gospels are not in accord WRT to the Dogma nature of your Christ.

I pick mark myself because in mark Jesus seems to be the most human and fears nor understands why he must die for his god. (its also the earliest surviving work and so for me that means the most accurate WRT to the nature of the man Jesus and his nature/ideas/mission).

I do value the other Synoptics to a degree,

i utterly ignore John as too "new" to be accurate WRT to Jesus the man or his actions. John is more intent upon claiming Jesus as God and makes him a robot.

leaves me cold.

[gaffo]

BTW its fairly clear that Jesus was married to Mary Magelane,

the church fathers did what that could to remove the gnostic works, but we now have some surviving works which show mary as front and center.

the "water to wine" narative in mark? is an oblique reference to Jesus' own wedding to Mary BTW...............

it was "almost" written out............but not quite, if one is willing to ingnore "sola scripture" and willing to read each work as separate honestly.

[gaffo]

The relevance of this educational exercise was to show you how you erroneously rejected the actually true argument, which said, "Yet, the entire premise upon which Christianity depends upon is the barbaric idea that sin travels through blood lines."

The premise of Christianity is that the sacrifice of Jesus cleanses of sin those who believe on him, accept him as their saviour and renounce Satan and all his works.
This is a barbaric idea, but the blood in question is that of sacrificial victim.

this christian concept is affirmed by Saul and John (and their derivatives)

not so much (or at all?) by James, Luke/etc.

If sin is said to "travel" at all, or to reside in blood, cite the biblical verse in which such a statement is made.

Sin is in the world; daemons, pleasures, craven images and strangers lurk everywhere to snare the unwary. Yet a number of Old Testament personalities were able to evade and overcome these temptations; to remain faithful to their god. The same blood was in Moses, Abraham, Sarah, Job, Esther, Noah, Ruth Joseph, Daniel and many others, including Jesus, yet God did not forsake or reject them because of Eve's and Adam's transgression.

clearly jews and muslim deny Christ as God and so the whole sacrifice thing.

for them salvation is the beleivers own hands, no need for Christ to save them.

Man is born in sin, not because of moral knowledge, but because he is conceived through carnal knowledge.
This is why Jesus had to be got upon a virgin. Same blood; no sex.

author of Mark and Saul did not believe Jesus was born of a virgin.

It only seems complicated because all religious belief is full of BS and self-contradiction.

it only becomes complicated when you force fit different theoligies into one whole one.

for anyone able to read each work as its own theology - not compatable with other works - it is simple.

not complicated at all

[gaffo]

The christian perspective is that death is the result of sin; therefore there is no death until one sins

clear and concise!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and YES that is the Christian Dogma (Saul said such to BTW).

.............

sadly if fails reason (even setting aside the proper understanding of original sin as a summarian work - genesis - fall as a "semi-rise" instead).

setting that aside the convention Christian Dogma FAILS the "death - sin/vise verse" test.............because.......................................................................................................................................................................................wait for it..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

the beasts of the field (animals) NEVER sinned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and yet DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why - because Christians are WRONG and Summarians are RIGHT!!!!!!!!!! the 'beasts of the field" never eat from the 2nd tree either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.....................

conclusion - Christian dogma that sin results in death is "all wet".............animals are sinless and yet also die?

why? because death is not linked to sin an any way.

it just IS eventual fate for all living things - including the sinless plants and animals.

= i thank you for noting this central Christian Dogmatic point (which of course is wrong - per my reasons above), it is central to Christianity.

how it is affirmed as a theology when animals are to date not immortal, is beyond me, but whatever.

[gaffo]

Serendipper, you brilliantly showed by claiming that all sins are equal to each other, and by claiming that the bible is illogical, but believable, that you have a comprehension capacity of believing the logically impossible.

I can't argue against that. If someone falls off a cliff, and the bible said, hypothetically, that he feel up the cliff, then you assert that you would find it reasonable to believe the bible. Of the same situation I say that it's not possible to believe that, because the event itself is not possible.

Or this may have been an ill example. Let's say the bible said the person fell off a cliff and fell up the same cliff in the same respect and at the same time, and you assert that it is possible to believe that.

I shan't go on with analyzing your hypothetical but already stated (by the illustration of other examples) belief, that the impossible is possible to believe, lest I appear again as a logic-monster who condescends to you.

You and Skip decry logic, tried to ridicule me for using logic, and you both apparently value faith over logic. Again, I shan't voice opinion or judgment over that. I am just stating the status quo for the record.

I"m sorry, but there is no "the bible" there are 40 or so bibles.

some comport yet differ in small areas (i.e. Matt and Luke comport on nature of Jesus - but Matt agrees with Mark about the need for Jesus to die - Luke does not, and instead sees Satan as killing Christ on the cross (so per Luke we can assume christ need never have been killed by Romans). Luke only come back into conforming with Matt/Mark with the Resurection of christ (which for author of Luke shows the power of YHWH over Satan - for Matt/Mark the whole "Death on the cross was the work of GOD - not Satan - so his latter Resurection has nothing to do with any power over Satan).

its all there for anyone with an interest.

BTW I like Zachariah, he thought Zarababbel would restore the Kingship (and independance) of Israel...............he did not (we can assume he died young - likely killed by Darius...........yes latter Zachariah works replace Zarabbel's name with "the branch" - how convenent.

[Walker]

The KJV is the Authorized Version (AV).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

[gaffo]

The KJV is the Authorized Version (AV).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

that is my prefered version personally.

"authorized" by King James 2, not by "God"

same as the Vugate was authorized by Constitine(sp) - which has works KJV removed BTW.

same with Eithipion, Arminian, Serbian and Croatian "bibles" (all of which have "Canonanical" works each of the others do not - and none of which the KJV "bible" includes.

if you have not read such works your KJ bible left out, you are missing out.

[-1-]

Guffo, your knowledge of Christian literature, dogma, and faith is paralleled on this site only by Serendipper's. AT LEAST AS FAR AS I CAN SEE. AND I DON'T SEE TOO FAR IN THIS MATTER, SO PLEASE NOBODY GET INSULTED, IT IS MY IGNORANCE SPEAKING, NOT GOD IN HIS INFINITE WISDOM.

But I am not a judge of that, as I haven't read even one version of the Bible in its entirety.

I resort to one observation, two questions and a request.

You, Gaffo, and Serendipper, both authoratively deny some statements, and counter it with well-researched ideas.

But you are able to counter your own retort as well.

So which is right?

You say, neither is right, because there are so many verisons of the bible that it's impossible to separate the chaff from the wheat, so to speak.

I am just marvelling that while you deny certain aspects of the bible as non-truth, you accept versions of the bible that are maverick, such as Jesus' marriage to Maria Magda-Lene.

If you deny some aspects, and accept some other aspects, I ask you what is your guiding principle in your decision to believe or not to believe? This is question 1.

Question two is, if there are 40 versions of the bible that are not identical, do you, personally, and it is an opinion I seek, not truth; do you personally believe Christianity exists? I mean, if the bulk of their teaching is manifold, then why accept the entire religion as one?

------------

I read with great interest where you wrote, that Jesus hauled up all the deserving souls from hell. Yet in Dante's "Divina Comedia" the souls of Plato, Socrates, and everyone else's who had been born before Jesus, were in the front yard of hell, not going in, but not able to proceed to anywhere else either.

So there is a discrepancy... why did Dante not notice the passage in Peter 2 which you noticed and claimed is a description of Jesus etc.

I know you can't get into Dante's head, that is clear. But you probably could tell me why the zeitgeist of Dante denied this fact? If it is a fact. This was question numero 2.

An exact line quotation of Peter 2, that you referred to, would be very, very helpful, thank you very much. This is a request.