Why do some Christians act so hostile toward questions?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not a theologian, I am just a Christian. Original sin, in my conception of it, is that Adam and Eve rebelled against God by being disobedient to His word.

Yes indeed. And the point being brought up here, is that in christian philosophy, this sin is "inherited" by all humankind and thus by extension, we are all held accountable to it.

This is the same thing that all of is would do, we have a sin nature, a rebellious nature.

But the original sin thingy isn't talking about any "nature". It is talking about a specific act of disobedience, for which all humans are held accountable.

God said "Do not eat this fruit." It doesn't sound like a big deal, does it? Well, we would have all eaten it

Just like all fathers would go all medieval on the one who rapes their daughter?

, simply because it doesn't seem like a big deal or terrible thing- to eat a piece of delicious fruit.

Yes, you've said that already.
The question is, is it ethical to punish someone or hold someone accountable for an act that they didn't actually commit, but rather by assuming that they would do it under specific circumstances?

Kind of like we can assume that it won't end well for the rapist who is caught red-handed by the father of his victim...

This is exactly the point... Is it okay to hold people accountable and even punish them for hypothetical crimes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, it is. It is rather ridiculous to join a Christian site and be shocked when Christians actually try to witness to you

I just told you that I'm not at all shocked to see that.
Do you even read the posts you respond to?

No one can MAKE you believe anything

That is incorrect. You can easily convince me of pretty much anything - including your religion. All it would take is for you to make a rational argument supported by rational evidence.

You either choose to believe or choose to disbelieve.

No, I don't "choose" my beliefs.

For example, I am unable to simply "choose" right here, right now to "really believe" that I can jump from the Empire State building without a parachute and land on my feet, completely unharmed.

I am unable to simply "choose" right here, right now, that santa clause in fact really exists.

I believe whatever convinces me and I disbelieve what doesn't. And I don't "choose" what convinces me either.

Belief for me is a compulsion, not a decision.

Your reasons for believing or not believing something are immaterial.

Errr... no...
See, I actually care about being justified in my beliefs. I actually care about having accurate beliefs.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

No one can MAKE you believe anything. You either choose to believe or choose to disbelieve. It is a binary thing. Your reasons for believing or not believing something are immaterial.

I'm intrigued by this statement. Are you saying that believing something is a choice? We can choose to believe or disbelieve something? Does that apply to any belief? I'm hoping you can clarify this for me. Thanks!

 

[Cearbhall]

It seems like often when doubters/agnostics/atheists present questions or problems to Christians, some get hostile.

The following has happened to me multiple times on this site: I plainly ask a Christian for his or her sources. They flip out. I ask if I said something offensive. I look back over our exchange and don't see anything. I ask "You realize that me asking for your source wasn't an attack, right?" And they say "No, I didn't realize that."

It's baffling. This isn't unique to Christians by any means, but some people think they're entitled to have everyone else believe the same things as them, and without question. They think their own beliefs have unquestionable superiority and precedence. They can't handle any disagreement or dissent, and they don't hold themselves to any standards of evidence.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

The following has happened to me multiple times on this site: I plainly ask a Christian for his or her sources. They flip out. I ask if I said something offensive. I look back over our exchange and don't see anything. I ask "You realize that me asking for your source wasn't an attack, right?" And they say "No, I didn't realize that."

It's baffling. This isn't unique to Christians by any means, but some people think they're entitled to have everyone else believe the same things as them, and without question. They think their own beliefs have unquestionable priority and precedence. They can't handle any disagreement or dissent, and they don't hold themselves to any standards of evidence.

I feel like it is more likely to happen to people who aren't confident in their position. Naturally I've seen it of Christians and Atheists, but if your proposition is supernatural, it shouldn't be surprising to see reactions like what you described.

It's one thing that always drives me crazy about interviews with politicians. They are asked a question and they respond with something like, "THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MEDIA," and acting like a victim while avoiding the question. If you had a sound argument you would say, "thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify and defend my position."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

God said "Do not eat this fruit." It doesn't sound like a big deal, does it? Well, we would have all eaten it, simply because it doesn't seem like a big deal or terrible thing- to eat a piece of delicious fruit. After all, God gave them permission to eat of all other fruit. I bet in my mind, and others we would have even justified it "Father gave us fruit, He likes is to be happy and give us gifts. He must not REALLY not care if we eat it."

I wouldn't have eaten the fruit without getting confirmation that God really didn't want me to eat it, despite what a talking serpent said to me. Because I'm not stupid.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, you WERE pretty clear that the "reason" we are held accountable for it, is because we (apparantly) would have done the same in their place.

Hence my "father witnessing the rape of his daughter" analogy. I don't think I know a single father who would not go medieval on that rapist's bum if he catches him red-handed.

So it seems the same situation. According to your very own logic, we should therefor hold all fathers accountable for going medieval on a hypothetical rapist.



But yet, we are supposedly held accountable for it.
This is making less and less sense while you are digging yourself deeper.



That's not what "original sin" is all about though.
In Christian theology as it pertains to "original sin", you -as a human- could live a life free of all temptation and free of any sinfull act whatsoever, and yet you would still require "saving" for original sin.

Just a quick point - we are not actually held accountable for Adam's sin.

In a sense, you are right in your last paragraph. But it's not punishment or guilt we need saving from - it is death. Babies who die have never committed any sin. They are guilty of nothing. They aren't "punished" for their parent's sin, either. But they can still die, as do we all someday. Death of human beings is the result of Adam's sin, and Christ defeated death and made the way for reconciliation for all of creation to God in the process.

But even that death wasn't a punishment. It was a consequence, of Adam cutting himself off from the Source of Life (God).

Western theology introduced all kinds of punishment-based thinking - sometimes it seems it's ALL about crime and punishment. There is an aspect of that in there, but there is much more too that is true, and takes prescedence over the punishment models - without the more ancient Eastern understanding of the early Church, many parts of theology become a warped charicature. It's no wonder many people reject it out of hand.

Anyway ... just wanted to point that out.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

My personal problem isn't with original sin: I understand that clearly.

Adam and Eve were gods - whether they were ambivalent or innocent of their status - they were gods. Acthally, they knew very well they were gods because at that time God actually spoke to the., and walked in the garden with them - they literally knew Him.

If Adam and Eve had kids before the fall, then no of us would be having this discussion. Instead, they had kids after they lost their godly status, their white light covering dropped, and they realized they were naked.

This part of Genesis mirrors gnosticism: namely their nakedness, the fruit, and even the serpent. Adam and Eve were not stupid; they were disobedient in their godly form. They lost that godly status and became CARNAL (naked).

So, it is a clear consequence that none of us would be sons of gods, because our "patriarch and matriarch" decided to procreate after they became carnal (hu)man. This is why Christ would be so special, since He remained perfect even after being born as a son of man - which is statistically impossible (to stay perfect.) Only a few got to 80%+ righteouness, and that is basically the "top score of the class." And, those humans are usually "caught up." Everyone else is graded on a curve of mercy, grace and forgiveness.


I am just wondering why people decide to have children knowing that they will be born under a curse of carnality. That is my concern, personally.

 

[Cearbhall]

Why would we be punished for something two people did who had no knowledge of right and wrong?

I, too, am curious about how this works. I was taught that Adam and Eve didn't actually exist and that the story just communicates theological truths about free will and the nature of humanity. I'm not sure how it all fits together if a person thinks it literally happened that way.

 

[JD16]

I, too, am curious about how this works. I was taught that Adam and Eve didn't actually exist and that the story just communicates theological truths about free will and the nature of humanity. I'm not sure how it all fits together if a person thinks it literally happened that way.

It does not as you can see from the responses in this thread. The logical inconsistency is mind numbing. Makes no sense whatsoever,....and the level of dodging to straight up questions is the most telling.....

 

[Galatea]

I wouldn't have eaten the fruit without getting confirmation that God really didn't want me to eat it, despite what a talking serpent said to me. Because I'm not stupid.

Adam wasn't stupid. He knew what was going to happen. But he loved Eve, and didn't want to be separated from her, so he sinned to die with her. It's kind of a noble thing, actually. He'd rather die with her than to live without her. He blames God, too. "The woman thou gavest me..." He's blaming God for giving him his treasure.

 

[bhsmte]

Adam wasn't stupid. He knew what was going to happen. But he loved Eve, and didn't want to be separated from her, so he sinned to die with her. It's kind of a noble thing, actually. He'd rather die with her than to live without her. He blames God, too. "The woman thou gavest me..." He's blaming God for giving him his treasure.

Cool story.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Adam wasn't stupid. He knew what was going to happen. But he loved Eve, and didn't want to be separated from her, so he sinned to die with her. It's kind of a noble thing, actually. He'd rather die with her than to live without her. He blames God, too. "The woman thou gavest me..." He's blaming God for giving him his treasure.

Trying to follow your logic. Eve was stupid?

 

[Galatea]

Cool story.

It is a beautiful one. Mostly the part where God does not let them eat of the tree of life so they don't have to live forever in their sins. And then the part where God sacrifices animals and provides them with coverings. He tells them that one day, the Messiah will die for them and provide THE covering for sin. There's a lot of grace and mercy and love in this story. God is very good.

 

[Galatea]

Trying to follow your logic. Eve was stupid?

Eve was beguiled. God told Adam the rules. Eve was created after. It is thought that Adam fell down on the job and told Eve incorrectly, or that he should have been around to protect her.

 

[JD16]

Adam wasn't stupid. He knew what was going to happen. But he loved Eve, and didn't want to be separated from her, so he sinned to die with her. It's kind of a noble thing, actually. He'd rather die with her than to live without her. He blames God, too. "The woman thou gavest me..." He's blaming God for giving him his treasure.

By saying that Eve gave him the fruit, he is blaming God????

 

[Gene Parmesan]

It is a beautiful one. Mostly the part where God does not let them eat of the tree of life so they don't have to live forever in their sins. And then the part where God sacrifices animals and provides them with coverings. He tells them that one day, the Messiah will die for them and provide THE covering for sin. There's a lot of grace and mercy and love in this story. God is very good.

It is a beautiful story about God engineering the circumstances for "the fall" with the foreknowledge of the outcome and then acting surprised and punishing mankind for doing exactly what He knew would happen when He created them.

 

[Galatea]

By saying that Eve gave him the fruit, he is blaming God????

He said "The woman YOU gave me" to God- like "if you didn't give me this gorgeous woman I love, who is the very heart of me, I would not have loved her so much and I would not have sinned." Never mind that he was lonely for who knows how long before Eve appeared.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Adam wasn't stupid. He knew what was going to happen. But he loved Eve, and didn't want to be separated from her, so he sinned to die with her. It's kind of a noble thing, actually. He'd rather die with her than to live without her. He blames God, too. "The woman thou gavest me..." He's blaming God for giving him his treasure.

Well, then it's a good thing my wife isn't stupid either, because she would check with the god that she had evidence of before listening to serpents.

Too bad your god didn't start with us, huh?

 

[JD16]

It is a beautiful one. Mostly the part where God does not let them eat of the tree of life so they don't have to live forever in their sins.

should have not let them eat the knowledge fruit in the first place,...and the penalty for eating that is death apparently,.....if he let them eat from the tree of life that would have solve everything. Sin? He could just forgive, he choose not to, I fail to see any beauty in that

And then the part where God sacrifices animals and provides them with coverings.

More death to cover the sins which penalty is death,....

He tells them that one day, the Messiah will die for them and provide THE covering for sin. There's a lot of grace and mercy and love in this story. God is very good.

No need for any Messiah, he is God, he could forgive. Grace mercy and love? Just forgive them...