Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

If God can't tolerate sin, why did he create it?  That's a strange thing to do.

Might you not say he permitted it because he did not create puppets and we were the ones who are responsible for the sin?  What do you think?

... Mountaineer

If God created us in His Image, does that mean that God Himself constantly struggles with sin, even though sin is something He created Himself?

If God doesn't struggle with sin, why would we?  Where would a creature that was 100% righteous get the idea to create an inferior race of beings that were 50% righteous and 50% evil so that he could sit in the sky and watch them endlessly strugggle with their own natures, sending a LOT of them to Hell for eternity?  That sounds sadistic.

What does "image" mean to you in this context?  Since God the Father and God the Spirit  are spiritual, and we are not, ???  Jesus took human form while he was here ... I don't know about.  And since God is perfect, without sin, why would he struggle with it unless you mean it troubles him that we humans sin, just like when your child does something bad, you probably struggle.  I know it troubled him greatly that we humans sinned because he sent Jesus to fix the problem.  And, I do not think God created sin, he permitted his creation to do it - even while knowing what would happen - even knowing what the solution would be (Jesus, cross, Satan defeated, death defeated).  Once again - God is not sending some of us to hell - we are are responsible.  But, having said all that, I really do not know the mind of God and whether you or I think a particular act of God is sadistic or otherwise does not matter one hoot - unless you want to be God, that is.  And things go mightly awry when we confuse who is Creator and who is creature.

.... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Seriously?  Wow!

Isn't that the whole premise of institutional Catholicism?  Sin, repent in the confession booth to a priest, and pay up while you're at it?

[Mountaineer]

What I'm trying to understand is why the Bible was every treated as truth in the first place?  It's a book written by a group of men who had a story to tell and an agenda to advance, which is true of countless other spiritual leaders through history.

It's weird to be put in a position of having to "disprove" the Bible when none of it was ever proven in the first place.

The Bible is similar to Jesus - Jesus is fully God and fully man.  The Bible was fully written by man in accordance with what God wanted written.  It is not either or, it is both and.

... Mountaineer

Isn't that like saying that a character in a book is similar to the book?  What you are actually saying is that the character is a feature of the book that stood out to you, right?

Supernatural Son of God Jesus doesn't appear anywhere except the Bible.

Your point?  Even assuming you are correct.  I'd say God (three persons - one essence) is everywhere and completely fills the universe as we know it.  Scripture says so. 

.... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

The Bible is similar to Jesus - Jesus is fully God and fully man.  The Bible was fully written by man in accordance with what God wanted written.  It is not either or, it is both and.

Are you implying the Apostles channeled God/Jesus to write The Holy Bible?!!

Well, the Gospel writers saw Jesus first hand but did not "get it" until after Jesus' resurrection; they all abandoned him at the end of Jesus' physical life.  Jesus spoke directly to Paul.  The prophets did as God told them to do.  Would you call that channeling?  I'd call it more direct or specific revelation since I'm not a new ager.

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

I'm in the process of writing my "personal belief statement," and my post is one section of that.  It's somewhat analogous to an investment policy statement, but far more important.  Our beliefs surrounding our origin spill over into the way we live our lives, so I consider it one of the foundational beliefs.

I sure hope it's not literal Creationism because that is about as bad as saying the Earth is only 2,000 years old.  But I suppose it is plausible we're all in an incubator Matrix and everything around us is completely artificial.  Unlikely, but plausible.

[MachineGhost]

What's so deeply unsettling about admitting that there may be contradictions or issues with your chosen belief system?

Doubt is the MOTHER of all f!ck ups!

[MediumTex]

The Bible is similar to Jesus - Jesus is fully God and fully man.  The Bible was fully written by man in accordance with what God wanted written.  It is not either or, it is both and.

... Mountaineer

Isn't that like saying that a character in a book is similar to the book?  What you are actually saying is that the character is a feature of the book that stood out to you, right?

Supernatural Son of God Jesus doesn't appear anywhere except the Bible.

Your point?  Even assuming you are correct.  I'd say God (three persons - one essence) is everywhere and completely fills the universe as we know it.  Scripture says so. 

.... Mountaineer

What you are describing is an interpretation of something you read in a book, and that book has never been validated in key respects by anything other than by other references in that book and to other books about that book.  That just means it was a powerful book that many people liked; it doesn't make it true.

[MachineGhost]

Well, the Gospel writers saw Jesus first hand but did not "get it" until after Jesus' resurrection; they all abandoned him at the end of Jesus' physical life.  Jesus spoke directly to Paul.  The prophets did as God told them to do.  Would you call that channeling?  I'd call it more direct or specific revelation since I'm not a new ager.

No, I wouldn't call that channeling.  I think you would have a much stronger case for Christianity if a disembodied Jesus had indeed channeled to the Apostles after his death and everything written down by the twelve was consistent.  With all the claims about God or Jesus allegedly talking to prophets all the time...  what would have been better and tangible proof?  But no, not even that claim is made.

Why would you not prefer Jesusism over Lutheranism?  Do you need the structure that Scriptures provide?

[Pointedstick]

What's so deeply unsettling about admitting that there may be contradictions or issues with your chosen belief system?

Doubt is the MOTHER of all f!ck ups!

I'd like to share something personal about certainty. My father is a very rigid man, an extreme Democrat for whom everything liberal is good and everything conservative is bad. To him, this is the most natural thing in the world; practically self-evident, and worthy of constantly remarking on. But to nearly everyone around him, his blind zealotry is awkward and off-putting. Yet he couldn't see it. Never could, never will. I remember as a teenager feeling so sad at how he would try to contort his brain to fit everything into a narrative of "Democrats=good, Republicans=evil." There was a desperation to it, as though a nagging voice of doubt inside was constantly threatening to unmask the whole thing, held in check by a herculean effort to lock it away deeper and deeper. As a young man, I rebelled by trying to engage him in politics (at the time I was a budding libertarian), and discovered that he actually secretly harbored many conservative views but didn't realize that they were conservative; the moment he realized that he was agreeing with something a Republican had said, it was like a light switch flicked off; he's become agitated and sometimes fly into a rage, trying to suppress the unclean thoughts.

It's left me with a lifelong distaste for rigidity and certainty. And I see some of that here, the way people defend their view rather than really questioning it and examining its precepts and assumptions.

In a way, I think that it betrays a lack of faith in the belief. If you really had absolute faith in its truth, wouldn't it be the most harmless thing in the world to poke at it from every angle? Wouldn't that actually make you feel better about it to see it withstand attack like a ten foot-thick wall, as opposed to cradling it tight, trying to protect it from hostile ideas, as thought it were a precious crystal that might shatter with the smallest impact?

[Mountaineer]

Well, the Gospel writers saw Jesus first hand but did not "get it" until after Jesus' resurrection; they all abandoned him at the end of Jesus' physical life.  Jesus spoke directly to Paul.  The prophets did as God told them to do.  Would you call that channeling?  I'd call it more direct or specific revelation since I'm not a new ager.

No, I wouldn't call that channeling.  I think you would have a much stronger case for Christianity if a disembodied Jesus had indeed channeled to the Apostles after his death and everything written down by the twelve was consistent.  With all the claims about God or Jesus allegedly talking to prophets all the time...  what would have been better and tangible proof?  But no, not even that claim is made.

Why would you not prefer Jesusism over Lutheranism?  Do you need the structure that Scriptures provide?

Because Lutheranism is Christianity as summarized in the ancient three creeds.  Although I never heard of Jesusism before tonight, I suspect it is one of those new-fangled gosh-durn inventions of some snake oil salesman like the Jesus project (or whatever it was called) where man's consensus decided what was correct.  If I wanted to have man as a god, I'd pick Paton or Napoleon in their prime and really kick some serious butt - but that would make it about my desires, not God's, so after having said all that - I'll just stick with Christianity and continue to be persecuted, as Jesus said his followers would be. 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Because Lutheranism is Christianity as summarized in the ancient three creeds.  Although I never heard of Jesusism before tonight, I suspect it is one of those new-fangled gosh-durn inventions of some snake oil salesman like the Jesus project (or whatever it was called) where man's consensus decided what was correct.  If I wanted to have man as a god, I'd pick Paton or Napoleon in their prime and really kick some serious butt - but that would make it about my desires, not God's, so after having said all that - I'll just stick with Christianity and continue to be persecuted, as Jesus said his followers would be. 

Are you admitting that God summarizes?  Wow!

You seem 100% sure you're worshipping God and not the men that wrote the Bible.  That's not a bet I'm willing to make, especially when the overwhelming majority of Christians are Pauline Christians.  Something's rotten in Denmark!

[Mountaineer]

What's so deeply unsettling about admitting that there may be contradictions or issues with your chosen belief system?

Doubt is the MOTHER of all f!ck ups!

I'd like to share something personal about certainty. My father is a very rigid man, an extreme Democrat for whom everything liberal is good and everything conservative is bad. To him, this is the most natural thing in the world; practically self-evident, and worthy of constantly remarking on. But to nearly everyone around him, his blind zealotry is awkward and off-putting. Yet he couldn't see it. Never could, never will. I remember as a teenager feeling so sad at how he would try to contort his brain to fit everything into a narrative of "Democrats=good, Republicans=evil." There was a desperation to it, as though a nagging voice of doubt inside was constantly threatening to unmask the whole thing, held in check by a herculean effort to lock it away deeper and deeper. As a young man, I rebelled by trying to engage him in politics (at the time I was a budding libertarian), and discovered that he actually secretly harbored many conservative views but didn't realize that they were conservative; the moment he realized that he was agreeing with something a Republican had said, it was like a light switch flicked off; he's become agitated and sometimes fly into a rage, trying to suppress the unclean thoughts.

It's left me with a lifelong distaste for rigidity and certainty. And I see some of that here, the way people defend their view rather than really questioning it and examining its precepts and assumptions.

In a way, I think that is betrays a lack of faith in the belief. If you really had absolute faith in its truth, wouldn't it be the most harmless thing in the world to poke at it from every angle? Wouldn't that actually make you feel better about it to see it withstand attack like a ten foot-thick wall, as opposed to cradling it tight, trying to protect it from hostile ideas, as thought it were a precious crystal that might shatter with the smallest impact?

Wow PS.  You have described the process I have gone through to a T - and oddly enough, this forum has helped me to do that.  I value those who see things differently than I do - It helps me discern what I really believe at the core and why.  Really.  I have poked at every angle I can think of and Christianity has stood the poking and came out stronger than I'd have ever thought.  And heck with a ten foot wall - I'm talking nuclear.  I don't need to protect it - someone way more powerful than I apparently had done it for me. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Because Lutheranism is Christianity as summarized in the ancient three creeds.  Although I never heard of Jesusism before tonight, I suspect it is one of those new-fangled gosh-durn inventions of some snake oil salesman like the Jesus project (or whatever it was called) where man's consensus decided what was correct.  If I wanted to have man as a god, I'd pick Paton or Napoleon in their prime and really kick some serious butt - but that would make it about my desires, not God's, so after having said all that - I'll just stick with Christianity and continue to be persecuted, as Jesus said his followers would be. 

Are you admitting that God summarizes?  Wow!

You seem 100% sure you're worshipping God and not the men that wrote the Bible.  That's not a bet I'm willing to make, especially when the overwhelming majority of Christians are Pauline Christians.  Something's rotten in Denmark!

Way more than Denmark my friend.  The whole world.  Can you smell the stench?  A strong smell of sulfur has been associated with more than a volcano. 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Wow PS.  You have described the process I have gone through to a T - and oddly enough, this forum has helped me to do that.  I value those who see things differently than I do - It helps me discern what I really believe at the core and why.  Really.  I have poked at every angle I can think of and Christianity has stood the poking and came out stronger than I'd have ever thought.  And heck with a ten foot wall - I'm talking nuclear.  I don't need to protect it - someone way more powerful than I apparently had done it for me. 

If your entire basis of belief rests upon that tautological hearsay aka "eyewitness testimonies" to the Resurrection, that is your weakest link.  I admit, I'm mystified how you can be an engineer and yet consider the weakest form of evidence as "beyond a reasonable doubt".  But maybe our "reasonable doubt" is much more skeptical than yours?

I'm all talked out now.

[Mountaineer]

It's interesting stuff, Desert. And for all I know, maybe there was an intelligent designer. Maybe aliens seeded the first life, or maybe God did. Maybe things started off being designed and then started evolving from there. Or maybe it really is all 100% evolution, right from primordial combinations of amino acids or something. I don't know. I'm open to any of those being true. However, what I am unwilling to do is assert with perfect certainty that one is true and all the other are false, especially given imperfect information about any of them, or even especially one of the mire implausible ones.

If I wanted to argue passionately and vociferously for the "aliens seeded Earth with life" hypothesis, people would probably regard me as a crank, even though it might be true, because there's just no evidence for it. It's a cool theory, a nice idea, and it may even be true, but that's a long way from it being a defensible and debate-worthy assertion.

I understand.  You're definitely not a blind follower of ideas.  Unfortunately, the school teachers educating our kids, the college profs, and the museum builders are doing exactly what you describe above in bold.

I'm in the process of writing my "personal belief statement," and my post is one section of that.  It's somewhat analogous to an investment policy statement, but far more important.  Our beliefs surrounding our origin spill over into the way we live our lives, so I consider it one of the foundational beliefs.

Desert,

It will be interresting, if you care to share your work, how it aligns with the Apostles, Nicene, or Anathasian creeds.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Wow PS.  You have described the process I have gone through to a T - and oddly enough, this forum has helped me to do that.  I value those who see things differently than I do - It helps me discern what I really believe at the core and why.  Really.  I have poked at every angle I can think of and Christianity has stood the poking and came out stronger than I'd have ever thought.  And heck with a ten foot wall - I'm talking nuclear.  I don't need to protect it - someone way more powerful than I apparently had done it for me. 

If your entire basis of belief rests upon that tautological hearsay aka "eyewitness testimonies" to the Resurrection, that is your weakest link.  I admit, I'm mystified how you can be an engineer and yet consider the weakest form of evidence as "beyond a reasonable doubt".  But maybe our "reasonable doubt" is much more skeptical than yours?

I'm all talked out now.

As you say, I am also exceeding mystified how I can believe so strongly.  It certainly must come from a source that is way beyond what I, the "brilliant" engineer, is capable of.  I am somewhat learning to just give thanks and accept it.  I don't need so much anymore to understand why - that would be my "old Adam" trying to exert itself in the final stages of its death throes.

... Mountaineer

[Greg]

Doubt is the MOTHER of all f!ck ups!

I'd like to share something personal about certainty. My father is a very rigid man, an extreme Democrat for whom everything liberal is good and everything conservative is bad. To him, this is the most natural thing in the world; practically self-evident, and worthy of constantly remarking on. But to nearly everyone around him, his blind zealotry is awkward and off-putting. Yet he couldn't see it. Never could, never will. I remember as a teenager feeling so sad at how he would try to contort his brain to fit everything into a narrative of "Democrats=good, Republicans=evil." There was a desperation to it, as though a nagging voice of doubt inside was constantly threatening to unmask the whole thing, held in check by a herculean effort to lock it away deeper and deeper. As a young man, I rebelled by trying to engage him in politics (at the time I was a budding libertarian), and discovered that he actually secretly harbored many conservative views but didn't realize that they were conservative; the moment he realized that he was agreeing with something a Republican had said, it was like a light switch flicked off; he's become agitated and sometimes fly into a rage, trying to suppress the unclean thoughts.

It's left me with a lifelong distaste for rigidity and certainty. And I see some of that here, the way people defend their view rather than really questioning it and examining its precepts and assumptions.

In a way, I think that is betrays a lack of faith in the belief. If you really had absolute faith in its truth, wouldn't it be the most harmless thing in the world to poke at it from every angle? Wouldn't that actually make you feel better about it to see it withstand attack like a ten foot-thick wall, as opposed to cradling it tight, trying to protect it from hostile ideas, as thought it were a precious crystal that might shatter with the smallest impact?

Wow PS.  You have described the process I have gone through to a T - and oddly enough, this forum has helped me to do that.  I value those who see things differently than I do - It helps me discern what I really believe at the core and why.  Really.  I have poked at every angle I can think of and Christianity has stood the poking and came out stronger than I'd have ever thought.  And heck with a ten foot wall - I'm talking nuclear.  I don't need to protect it - someone way more powerful than I apparently had done it for me. 

... Mountaineer

I wouldn't be in this discussion if I didn't want to become stronger in my faith. Just by repeated speaking in this civil conversation, I think it shows we are at least semi-open-minded towards what else is around in this universe.

[Mountaineer]

I understand.  You're definitely not a blind follower of ideas.  Unfortunately, the school teachers educating our kids, the college profs, and the museum builders are doing exactly what you describe above in bold.

I'm in the process of writing my "personal belief statement," and my post is one section of that.  It's somewhat analogous to an investment policy statement, but far more important.  Our beliefs surrounding our origin spill over into the way we live our lives, so I consider it one of the foundational beliefs.

Desert,

It will be interresting, if you care to share your work, how it aligns with the Apostles, Nicene, or Anathasian creeds.

... Mountaineer

Oh, one thing I thought about mentioning in my post, but did not: I'm finally beginning to understand the purpose/utility of the creeds. What I'm trying to write is my own understanding of the evidence for the Christian faith, focusing on the common objections I hear from unbelievers.  So basically I'm not trying to recreate a creed for myself (I'm not even close to qualified to do so), but to examine my own beliefs, and try to describe them as accurately as I can and gradually modify them as required to reflect ongoing learning.  My main purpose is self-examination, but I'd also like to share what I've learned with friends and family, including you. 

Oh, and I don't think I'm actually related to Mountaineer, but one can never be sure if one has met a brother from another mother. 

Cool. And, in some parts, they say our family tree does not branch, bro. 

... Mountaineer

[barrett]

I'm behind on all posts in the past few days, but this one leaped off the screen at me.  What you're both saying here is often completely true.  In my case, however, it was 180 degrees opposite.  I had no Christian friends or even acquaintances, lived in the second most secular state in the Union, and was still tracked down and saved.  It was highly inconvenient and even somewhat embarrassing.  I slowly broke it to three of my best friends.  Two of them took it pretty well, the third ended up never speaking to me again (not all his fault, I'm still working on my delivery; I'm very much a work in progress). 

Desert,

So my question is, why doesn't this happen to more people? There are people who have stuck with this thread for a long time who would love to have some kind of revelation. It just never happens to the great majority of people. Is there something special about you that you were chosen to be "tracked down and saved"? And isn't it possible that this is all in your head and not really real?

I ask because you yourself seem surprised at this unlikely development.

Barrett, sorry for my ridiculously late reply here.  As I've said multiple times, I really need to quit my job so I can focus on this forum full time. 

But seriously, to explain a bit further:  I didn't experience any vision, dream, or getting knocked off my ass on the road to Damascus.  I think the best way to describe my experience would be to say that my mind was opened.  I was very closed off to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular.  And then I experienced a very open mind and open eyes.  And during that time I read, a lot.  I actually started by reading a book by an atheist, who had referred to Pascal, and then I read Pensees and then a bunch of books by Tullian Tchvidjian, Tim Keller, Ravi Zacharias, and others.  I also watched many debates during that time. 

Anyway, no, I didn't have any special revelation that I can define.  I'm definitely not the second coming of the Apostle Paul.  I do joke that I'm like Abraham though, because I'm a very old father of one son.  But then I make sure to qualify that by saying I'm kinda like Abraham, but with much less faith, and probably a lot fewer descendants.  And then I admit I'm really not much like Abraham at all. 

Thanks for taking the time to answer that, Desert. I would over simplify what you have written and say that you did a lot of searching and thinking and came to a point where you believe you are closer to the truth. Is that a fair assessment? I respect your right to believe in something that you arrived at through your own journey.

In my travels I have been exposed to lots of Muslims, Orthodox (and other) Jews, Buddhists and Hindus. Even a few Baha'i and Mormons. Probably some others that I am forgetting at the moment. Many seem to have come to a similar point where their belief in their own religion is very strong. My journey has lead be to believe that there most likely is not a god.

I remember Mark Leavy (at least I think it was him) talking about things he had figured out, and that once he got to a certain point he would just sort of mentally check things off and move on to the next thing. That's where I am at with religion.

Where this gets some of us worked up is when we are told that we are going to suffer in hell for eternity because we came to the wrong conclusion (not saying that you are making that claim... I have only read maybe 20% of this thread).

[screwtape]

What is your explanation of the human condition if not original sin?  Pose something that is a better solution, please.

Sounds to me like you are asking how we got from point A to point B, presupposing that there ever was a point A to begin with. I see no evidence that there ever was a perfect creation from which to fall. So as far as I'm concerned the human condition simply is what it is.

[MediumTex]

What is your explanation of the human condition if not original sin?  Pose something that is a better solution, please.

Sounds to me like you are asking how we got from point A to point B, presupposing that there ever was a point A to begin with. I see no evidence that there ever was a perfect creation from which to fall. So as far as I'm concerned the human condition simply is what it is.

Yes.  We have noble desires and we have savage desires, and they often correspond with how hungry we are for something (food, power, sexy man/woman, etc.).

For example, it's hard for me to imagine a time when humans didn't start to act a little desperate when their stomachs got empty enough.  Can you imagine Adam standing next to a fruit stand starving to death because he had no money, but his perfect nature made it impossible for him to steal?

And as far as Eve goes, if she had it in her to run off with a snake, listen to his evil plan, and then act on it, then I suspect she was never perfect to begin with. 

[Mountaineer]

What is your explanation of the human condition if not original sin?  Pose something that is a better solution, please.

Sounds to me like you are asking how we got from point A to point B, presupposing that there ever was a point A to begin with. I see no evidence that there ever was a perfect creation from which to fall. So as far as I'm concerned the human condition simply is what it is.

Yes.  We have noble desires and we have savage desires, and they often correspond with how hungry we are for something (food, power, sexy man/woman, etc.).

For example, it's hard for me to imagine a time when humans didn't start to act a little desperate when their stomachs got empty enough.  Can you imagine Adam standing next to a fruit stand starving to death because he had no money, but his perfect nature made it impossible for him to steal?

And as far as Eve goes, if she had it in her to run off with a snake, listen to his evil plan, and then act on it, then I suspect she was never perfect to begin with.

I get what you are saying, but my question was how do you account for the human condition being what it is.  Why are we the way we are.  I agree we are all those nasty things ... but why nasty vs. kind and considerate of others, why nasty vs. anything else?  Why care if some one steals from you - why not want to share what you have?  Why don't we live in the StarTrek utopia instead of a place where work and effort are required? 

... Mountaineer

[screwtape]

I get what you are saying, but my question was how do you account for the human condition being what it is.  Why are we the way we are.  I agree we are all those nasty things ... but why nasty vs. kind and considerate of others, why nasty vs. anything else?  Why care if some one steals from you - why not want to share what you have?  Why don't we live in the StarTrek utopia instead of a place where work and effort are required? 

Again, you are assuming that the natural state of man ought to be some sort of utopia and then asking why that isn't so. And I say I don't accept your initial premise to begin with and therefore there is no answer to the question in the way that you have posed it.

You might as well ask why every kid in the world doesn't get a present from Santa Claus on Christmas morning.

[moda0306]

Desert,

Before you converted to Christianity, were you an agnostic or a hard-line atheist?

I ask because you say that you "opened your mind."  It seems to me that for most agnostics to become Christians, they have to significantly close their mind to a HUGE number of possibilities to have a very specific relationship with one sub-set of Christianity.

If you were hard-liner atheist, it seems to me you opened your mind to only one possibility, while closing it to others.

It seems to me agnostics are far-more "open-minded" than very devout Christians, if we're using the traditional meaning of the term.  Maybe you can shed some light on how I might be getting caught up in semantics or something.

[Mountaineer]

I get what you are saying, but my question was how do you account for the human condition being what it is.  Why are we the way we are.  I agree we are all those nasty things ... but why nasty vs. kind and considerate of others, why nasty vs. anything else?  Why care if some one steals from you - why not want to share what you have?  Why don't we live in the StarTrek utopia instead of a place where work and effort are required? 

Again, you are assuming that the natural state of man ought to be some sort of utopia and then asking why that isn't so. And I say I don't accept your initial premise to begin with and therefore there is no answer to the question in the way that you have posed it.

You might as well ask why every kid in the world doesn't get a present from Santa Claus on Christmas morning.

No.  I'm not being clear enough.  I'm not assuming anything (other than you can read what I'm writing and think somewhat in an unbiased manner).  Forget Christianity for a moment.  I'm asking if you don't want to believe in "original sin" as an explanation for why man is the way he is - what is your explanation - don't presume to read my mind and think I have a hidden agenda.  I'm saying if you don't like the "original sin" explanation, make a better case, don't just tear down what has come before - build up and make a better case.  That itself even raises the question of why do people try to tear down instead of build up so much?  Why do so many need someone they feel is lesser than them to feel good about themselves (i.e. tell racial jokes, ethnic jokes, etc.)?  Why do some think humans evolve to get better and better instead of following the physical law of entropy (feces run downhill) like the rest of the observable does?  Why do we die?  Why do we seem to be inherently mostly bad and not good?  Why do people cut others off in traffic instead of yielding?  Why do babies scream when they don't get their own way?  That kind of thing.  You can think of other situations and comment on them as you like - the above are only suggestions.  Why do we have storms vs. the earth just being a wonderful, ideal climate 24/7/365?  So, as I said, I'm not starting with any kind of presupposition.  I'm asking you to state why you think the way things are and not some other condition - make a better case than those you disagree with and let's all examine what we come up with to see if it holds water.  It's taken over a hundred pages to examine Christianity and its tenets, maybe alternate worldview won't take so long for a spirited feeding frenzy to become uninteresting.

... Mountaineer