If the god of your brain circuits were intelligent, loving, and emotionally more advanced than a Bosnian Serb, an OT prophet, or NT evangelist, then he should be able to forgive any offence.
which Scripture says He is, and does ... so I'm not sure of your point.
He should be magnanimous not vindictive and capricious.
Many people read Scripture looking only for the evidence of their presuppositions. (They also assume that they understand, or can interpret, what they read, both of which is scientifically demonstrable as a false premise.) If that's what you think Scripture says, then I can only put you in that category.
I do not believe that a man can forgive his own sins.
No, it's illogical to assume he can.
Forgiveness only can come from the one offended.
Yes.
That is why Atheists have such a surprising morality standard compared to those who either think sins do not count (Martin Luther ...
What?
D'you not understand Luther at all? Don't you realise that Luther's theology was founded on the idea that man is a creature of sin?
or those who think telling a Priest in Confessional convinced the Priest to forgive the sins. Both options are rubbish.
Yes they are, and so therefore is your argument, because that's not what the doctrines say.
Amergin — I can find people who have such a naive understanding of how science works that it frightens me, but I don't therefore make the illogiocal conclusion that their ideas define science and the worth and credibility of scientists.
In fact, as has been demonstrated here often, your own methods of presenting entrenched opinions as 'facts', and your continued presentation of them, even when it's been demonstrated that your facts are either false, errors of interpretation, or at the very least, questionable ... shows me that you are a fundamentalist of the very ilk you so rail against.
As the saying goes, 'physician, heal thyself.'
You are responsible for what you do. End of story.
Yep. And the forgiveness of God is a whole other chapter.
We agree on that. Unfortunately many Christians believe that either faith or a priest can absolve sins. That violates reason.
Well 'faith' doesn't, but assuming a priest can, does ... but then 'many Christians' does not determine what the facts say, in the same way that many people's opinions don't determine what scientific theory says.
I wouldn't get very far arguing that science is fairytales because of what people think.
Since I began to reject Christian Mythology and doctrine in grade 2 and unshackled the last oppressive Christian chains from my mind by grade 7, I was able to read the scripture out of academic style interest without the built-in bias of meme induction by priests and nuns in my formative years.
Actually, your interpretations of Scripture indicate another meme-set at play, and your very unscientific methodology puts you in the 'many people' bracket.
I studied them for literal content. That proved it to be jumbled bollocks.
See what I mean?
Then I tried metaphorical or allegorical viewing of the scriptures. I still could not find any meaning that justified the meme complexes that I was fed in school or my occasional visits to Sunday Church.
No, I doubt you would. It's not a case of the meaning not being there, it's rather a case of you're pre-disposition to it.
The sad part is that I do understand them while you put a false spin on them.
Ahh ... thank you ...
There is no way to justify the human sacrifice of Jesus for a sin committed by Adam and Eve, the sin of seeking knowledge.
Two points to consider:
One: The fruit of the tree, as Scripture says, is not just 'knowledge' but a certain order of knowledge which pre-supposes a certain metaphysical condition — and the root of the sin is not knowledge either, but pride and envy. So you didn't get the point of the text.
The sacrifice of Jesus was demanded by man, not God.
Maybe it is Nick and my application of universal intuitive morality to the scriptures, which you lack.
If your view of Scriptures showed any insight, then you might give me pause for thought, but as they don't, and are founded on polemics and opinion, it's no lack on my part, believe me.
On the other hand, the training in my degree that insisted that nothing could be presented without supporting evidence, and no conclusion drawn without a review of the materials, means I would have to abandon good practice to accept your views, which I'm not prepared to do.
Any meaningful discussion must include criticism, analysis, and scepticism rather than blind unthinking faith ...
Would you read that bit to yourself out loud, please?
When you argue with no reference to the historical timeline, and no reference to material evidence ... then it's a bit rich to criticise others.
So please don't lecture me on methodology or 'blind unthinking faith' when you clearly show your 'blind unthinking faith' in your own opinions are stalwart in the face of all and any evidence to the contrary.
God bless,
Thomas
