BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME.

"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Name:
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.

"DIFFICILE EST SATURAM NON SCRIBERE"

Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Monday, August 21, 2006

Original Sin And God's Plan

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting



Transcript from the video:

"First. A lot of christians have told me lately that something can't come from nothing. If that is true, then where did god come from? Also, how could god create the universe from scratch when there was just a void? You know. Nothing. It just doesn't make sense. It's like they're wrong on two points. But that's not really what I was going to talk about today. I was going to talk about something that really does confuse me.

I mean first of all, god is good, right? I mean, he loves us?
So let me see if I understand this correctly. God created this paradise. Plants, a garden called eden, stocked with animals, adam, eve, the whole shabang. Now adam and eve are total innocents. They have no idea of what right and wrong is. Mainly because they haven't eaten from the tree of good and evil. And god tells adam that he is going to surely die if he eats from the tree. So how can adam and eve even know what death is as they have never experienced it as no one has ever died before? More importantly, how can they know that it is wrong to disobey god when they don't even know right from wrong?

So, because two innocents disobeyed god, without even understanding the consequences of what they were doing; god punishes NOT just them, but all of their decendants for about four thousand years. How is this a forgiving, loving, benevolent being? For about four thousand years, humanity carried god's punishment, so called ORIGINAL SIN. Then, after several thousand years, god finally decides to forgive us. Ok great. I mean four thousand years is a long time to hold a grudge. And I am still pretty uneasy about being punished for something my ancestor did. But hey, at least god could finally let it go.

God just doesn't announce that everything is forgiven. God impregnates a young girl and she gives birth to his son, Jesus Christ. God's plan is to have a specially born son purposefully tortured and killed. And only THEN will he forgive us. Let me re-emphasize this.
God's plan to forgive us after punishing us for over four thousand years, for what our ancestors did, is to send his son down to earth and have us purposefully TORTURE AND KILL him. What kind of loving, benevolent being would want an innocent person, let alone his own son, tortured and killed in order to forgive someone else?

Can you imagine, I mean what it must feel like to have your dad send you down to be purposefully tortured and killed? I just can't even imagine what that would feel like. I mean it definitely doesn't sound like a loving father. People say that Jesus died for our sins. But I wonder why a kind, loving and forgiving god would require that?
So I guess what I am asking is this ~ Why couldn't god just forgive us? He was the one who cursed us and punished us in the first place. Why would he require a blood sacrifice so he could forgive us? I just think it sounds utterly insane."

LINKS:

Discover Your Sins - Click Here

Greed:Medium
Gluttony:Medium
Wrath:Medium
Sloth:Very High
Envy:Very Low
Lust:Low
Pride:Medium

Your sin has been measured. You have committed many sins, but Sloth is the mortal sin that has done you in. Just below, discover your full sinful breakdown and learn what it is about you that codemns you to hell.

Quote from The Devil's Dictionary

original sin : - the bitter and persistent aftertaste of knowledge.

Link

6 Comments:

Blogger Tim said...

hiya Beep

21/8/06 10:41 pm  
Blogger Tim said...

hiya beep.thanks for stoppin by my blog.

21/8/06 10:42 pm  
Blogger Jim Dollar said...

You pretty well have it, but you missed a good one about God getting it on with a virgin and having the audacity to imply that sin is original with human beings. But then, maybe he learned the trick from watching us all those years... You are quite right about nothing squaring up with anything else, and it all being so completely nuts that it is impossible to imagine how it has been passed along as Utterly Serious Business from parents, mind you, to children, for all of time.

23/8/06 5:15 am  
Blogger rebeleyeball said...

What the hell is this post all about? It's ... it's all ... all ... logical and rational. WTF? You can't expect anyone to agree with this essay. It makes way to much sense.

23/8/06 1:23 pm  
Anonymous Father Joe said...

I suppose the connection with the posted link at my Blog has to do with Mary’s singular preservation from original sin and by derivation, the consequences of sin in our lives and the need for a Savior.

The Church tells us that we can draw the conclusion of God’s existence from the use of proper reason. Something of this is currently being debated in discussions about evolution and intelligent design. The latter is something that Catholics tend to discuss from a philosophical perspective while Protestants often approach the question from purported loopholes or mysterious contradictions in contemporary science. It is a shift, somewhat for Protestants, who once largely condemned the Catholic emphasis upon natural reason arguing that belief in God and creation itself could only be understood from the biblical testimony (evidence) under the light of faith. Catholics tend to say that while God (and some of his attributes) can be known by reason, our relationship to him as a “personal” God as revealed in the Scriptures can only come through the gift of supernatural faith.

God is seen as the “uncaused cause” and as the architect of creation, of both the seen and unseen universe. An infinite regression of causes is considered impossible by most Theists, particularly Thomists, but such is not understood simply in crude temporal parameters. Matter and time are intricately connected. God as an infinitely perfect Spirit stands outside of time (and space).

Even modern physics is at odds to explain what was going on before the initial big bang, or perhaps more appropriately, the big hiccup. Certainly a great deal of energy is focused upon a single point and it expanded in a way that allowed the universe to become reasonably stable and to allow the various elements to develop what would form stars, planets and people. The Catholic Church has no serious problem about such a theory of creation. But, it is curious, that everything seems to start from something that would seem like nothing at all and then at the first moment, bang, “Let there be Light!”

Is it all a cosmic accident? Why do the laws of nature work the way they do? Why is there anything at all? Is creation just a cruel fluke of chaos theory and vibrating strings? Can everything be reduced to a handy equation? Do we have the cerebral (and spiritual?) makeup to appreciate the full mechanical dynamics of the created order? There is still a great deal of Mystery here, and as long as that is the case, there will be room for God.

If there was an alpha point, the big bang, will there be an omega as well? Will the universe continue to expand or is there enough dark matter to cause an eventual contraction? You say that the creation of everything by a God from nothing makes no sense. But, I would contend that you are too quick to judge. I am a man of faith. However, even those without this gift, should have the intellectual honesty to admit that there is still much we do not know. While I have some respect for agnostics, radical atheism often becomes its own religion and defines itself by its opposition to theistic faith. As a believer, I hold that God is a Creator who continues to sustain his creation. Everything is beheld in the mind of God. Everything will find consummation and judgment in God.

Before addressing briefly the question of Mary, the new Eve, you focus on the first parents and the story of creation in Genesis.

You make the argument that if God is good and loves us, then how could he punish Adam and Eve who were “total innocents” with “no idea of what [is] right and wrong”? You mock the Genesis narrative from the perspective of a biblical literalist or fundamentalist. I would contest the assertion that Adam and Eve did not appreciate the difference between right and wrong. Catechisms would also speak about preternatural gifts, particularly wisdom and grace. God would not give them a command that they were ill-equipped to observe.

Yours is essentially the argument that there can be no good God if he inflicts or even allows bad things to happen to good people. The Christian response is that sin and death are the consequences of human rebellion and sin. We bring these evils upon ourselves.

You ask an important question:

[In regard to the forbidden tree] “So how can Adam and Eve even know what death is as they have never experienced it as no one has ever died before?”

Taken literally, they could understand the concept of death through negation. Remember, their facility for reason was intact and not yet suffering from concupiscence. Eve’s temptation is to be as gods, much the same fault that corrupted the angelic Satan, himself. Adam takes the forbidden fruit from Eve, because she is a part of him and for good or ill he stands with her.

If we take the Genesis story figuratively, then we can surmise that they saw physical death around them all the time. Indeed, the first parents may have arisen directly from an evolutionary proto-human. However, with the infusion by God of an immortal soul, we now no longer have beasts, but human beings. The moment of decision may not have literally been a tree. Suddenly there is this new creature who is remarkably conscious of himself and his dignity among the rest of creation. And yet, at that very moment, called by God to a special stewardship of creation and friendship with God, he cowers back to the level of the beast– the route of seeming least resistance. Had the fall not happened, some theologians argue that men and women would still have died; however, it would have been like walking from one room into another. Men would constantly see and know God. Others contend that the natural world would have been immediately assumed into a glorified and lasting state. Because of the fall, we pass on a disorientation, much as a parent can pass a disease or drug addiction to a child in the womb. The will is afflicted and the passions are unrestrained. Reason remains, but sometimes as though looking dimly through a veil. Death becomes a tearing separation and we cannot see clearly to the other side.

You conclude that if God punishes these “two innocents” for doing something without even “understanding the consequences” and all of their descendents for the next four thousand years, how can this be “a forgiving, loving, benevolent being?”

If you are going to stick with the Genesis story, then you must respect all its literary elements. The text itself says that innocence was forfeited by their primordial rebellion. They even feel shame because they KNOW they have done wrong. God also explained the consequences to them, that if they eat of the forbidden tree, then assuredly they must die. Nothing here negates the attributes of God. As a child, my parents loved and forgave me my wrongs. However, they also spanked me as well. The terms are more serious with God, but the analogy is consistent. The fact that God promises a Savior and then delivers on that promise is ample evidence of his goodness. We did not deserve salvation. It is an unmerited gift.

No matter whether man dealt with the consequences of sin for four thousand or six thousand or two million years, in the eyes of God this expanse of time was just a moment. Even now, while faith and baptism remits original sin, restoring sanctifying grace, not all of the preternatural gifts are restored and we still must struggle with the consequences of original sin, notably concupiscence. We believe the war is won in Christ, but the devil and the flesh still give us battles to fight.

While certain modern Protestants speak of a privatized faith, something that your atheistic commentary presumes, true Catholic Christianity stresses the corporate understanding of the human family. What our first parents did or did not do has repercussions for us all because they are a part of us. Man is a social creature who is ultimately called to membership in the Kingdom of God. The ancient Jews were summoned into existence as a People by God. Abraham’s tribe became the nucleus for the Jewish nation and faith. The Church is the new People of God, the “breaking” of God’s kingdom into our world.

The decisions of our parents say much about who we are and where we find ourselves. They pass on their traditions and faith, as well as DNA. I know a baby born addicted to Heroin because his mother was an addict. If we can pass on things in the material and physical world, then why not the spiritual?

Finally, you make a quick and jagged reference to Mary:

“God impregnates a young girl and she gives birth to his son, Jesus Christ. God’s plan is to have a specially born son purposefully tortured and killed. And only THEN will he forgive us. . . . What kind of loving, benevolent being would want an innocent person, let alone his own son, tortured and killed in order to forgive someone else? Can you imagine, I mean what it must feel like to have your dad send you down to be purposefully tortured and killed? . . . People say that Jesus died for our sins. So I guess what I am asking is this ~ Why couldn’t God just forgive us? He was the one who cursed us and punished us in the first place. Why would he require a blood sacrifice so he could forgive us? I just think it sounds utterly insane.”

We cursed ourselves with our rebellion. Our punishment was the direct consequence of sin.

Why is a blood sacrifice so insane? People have always associated blood with life. It is a hallmark of ancient covenants and Jesus makes his flesh and blood the signs of the new covenant. Again, there is a parallel between the natural and supernatural. One person might donate blood for a person in need of a transfusion. Another might donate a kidney, at great personal loss and pain, so that another could live. Jesus sacrifices himself and gives up his body and blood that we might have a share in him and in eternal life. The Eucharist is an unbloody re-presentation of this one-time death of Christ on Calvary. Holy Communion is a sharing in the living body and blood of Christ, Jesus whole and complete, body and soul, humanity and divinity.

What father would sacrifice his son? I feel sorry for you because there are few martyrs at the altar of atheism, and few patriots either. I know a lot of fathers who have shaken the hands of their sons and have kissed them as they have gone into harm’s way in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. We do it all the time. Not all of our boys (and girls) come home.

The Holy Spirit overshadows the young Virgin Mary and she conceives the child of promise. The commentator makes it sound like rape, and yet the angel of the Annunciation brought forth the good news and Mary consented, declaring herself the “handmaid of the Lord”.

The debt against God was of our own making and we were the ones who had to make reparation for the offense against the dignity of the Almighty. Unfortunately, we were unable, left to ourselves, to make such amends given that we were finite creatures and the wrong of the offense was immeasurable. Jesus was God and so he could make infinite restitution and as a man he was able to do so from our side of the equation. The heavenly Father did not directly desire for his Son to suffer and die, all he required was fidelity. As with Jesus, sometimes our faithfulness will also take us to the cross. I had a missionary friend who worked as a medic in his assignment. All he wanted was to bring healing to others. He found himself in the middle of a tribal war. He refused to take sides and took care of anyone who came to him. Opportunities for his evacuation came up again and again. He refused, saying they needed him, especially the children. Militants chopped off his head. If there is no God and no heaven, then such noble sacrifice is stripped of meaning.

You also fail to appreciate the full definition of the Trinity. Nothing is being imposed upon Christ that he does not embrace. His angst in the Garden is the natural expression of his human condition. Christ is no sadist. No one in his right mind wants to suffer and die, but sometimes there is nothing for it. In lesser ways we see it again and again, that the redemption of a people always demands a sacrifice of some sort. Jesus is God and he is one with the Father. God comes down from heaven to save us. God intervenes in human history. Time has gone by so as to form a people, the nucleus for his Church. Time goes by, not to amplify the pain, but for our spiritual formation and growth. Similarly, between the Ascension and the Second Coming, many others have entered the world to know and to love God. History serves a purpose, but despite the presence of the demonic, God is present and divine providence will not be circumvented.

PEACE

25/8/06 2:43 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: " The Church tells us that we can draw the conclusion of God’s existence from the use of proper reason. Something of this is currently being debated in discussions about evolution and intelligent design."

Intelligent design pressuposes a designer. Science cannot presuppose god. If religion is allowed to presuppose a designer, I am alowed to presuppose evolution without a designer.

RE: "God is seen as the “uncaused cause” and as the architect of creation, of both the seen and unseen universe."

There is no evidence to suggest that an "uncaused cause" is required. The "uncaused cause" argument is another attempt to insert god belief into scientific methodology.

How convenient that everything else requires a cause except your particular god concept.

RE: "God as an infinitely perfect Spirit stands outside of time (and space)."

Nice claim, now prove it. You can't.
1, Prove the existence of god.
2, Prove your god did it.

Sorry, the only thing outside time and space are invisible yellow teapots. I can't prove to you that they are there, you just have to believe me or you are going to "teapot hell."


RE: " Even modern physics is at odds to explain what was going on before the initial big bang, or perhaps more appropriately, the big hiccup."

Even if all of astro-physics is incorrect or all of the fossil or scientific record, it still does not make your god claim or ANY god claim more plausible. The burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of your god.

Your argument is not won by playing the game of "we don't know therefore god." Unles you enjoy logical fallacies and the false dichotomy.

I am not a great fan of "god of the gaps" myself. but you appear to be.

RE: "There is still a great deal of Mystery here, and as long as that is the case, there will be room for God."

This is the most accurate thing you have said so far. While we don't have answers, people will suppose a god. It isn't logical, but I expect no better. You might as well have said, " I demand the right to say that magic is real."

RE: " Everything is beheld in the mind of God. Everything will find consummation and judgment in God."

Now we are getting to the nitty gritty. What you have is a belief. None of it can be proved or disproved. (This has been particularly advantageous to religions for centuries.)

I don't believe in the existence of gods. To me it makes as much sense as believing in fairies, pixies, gnomes, the easter bunny, santa or werewolves. You could say I have forsaken all the superstitions of my forefathers and I feel much better for it. :)

I do NOT, however, claim that all the gods do not exist. I will claim, when intellectually appropriate, that certain gods have less chance of existence because of internal inconsistences in their described characteristics.

For example: Those who claim that their god is all-loving. The god of the old testament just can't logically be described as an all loving god. Not after you have read all the murdering and mayhem.

So it is rational to say that if a christian (yes, you have to accept the old testament god as well to be a christian), says that their god is all-loving, I will assume they haven't read the bible very well.

Epicurus handled this pretty well humdreds of years ago.

'If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent; if he is able but not willing, he is not benevolent; if he is both able and willing, whence come evil?'

POOF!! One more god up in smoke...


I gave up reading the rest of your post as I know that basically you are just telling me what you believe and scolding me for not believing as you do.

Sorry, I don't believe. It doesn't make sense. It never will.
I don't believe in an after life. (What a strange concept.... a life after you are dead.)

If someone tried to sell me an insurance policy that I personally collect when I am dead, I would be a bit suspicious, but I know the majority of people wouldn't...

If there is really is a god out there and I find out after I am dead, he/she/it will understand my reticence to believe.

If he/she/it doesn't, he/she/it doesn't deserve to be called god.

Also, if god exists and doesn't have a sense of humour, I am so totally screwed. But a humourless god would be such a pain in the ass anyway.

25/8/06 4:29 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home