Posted: Jul 11, 2017 3:17 am
by crank
Skinny Puppy wrote:
crank wrote:For a christian, I'd go straight for the fundamentals of their dogmas, like what the fuck is this about dying for our sins, and atoned to who? And why, and for what? And what the fuck is original sin when Eden is a myth? These are utterly vacuous ideas and the twisted, pretzel logic they spew in defense is laughable. Plus, if he already died for our sins, when we weren't even born, why should we refrain from sinning now? ALL our sins have been pre-atoned for. It's baffling that anyone can buy this nonsense. I did somewhat for a long time, but mainly because I was too naive to question it seriously.

I have to tread carefully here because to give a complete and full explanation might contravene the FUA on preaching. Even though I’ve tossed Christianity aside, the FUA is clearly spelled out.

It doesn’t work that way. In a nutshell and to use an analogy.

If you win the lottery, but hold onto the ticket, you’ll never get your money. Yes all sins ‘can be’ forgiven (except for one), but it’s a gift that must be claimed. If you don’t claim it you simply don’t get it. If you do claim it, then no, you can’t go on sinning, at least not consistently and intentionally.

The key words above are ‘can be’.

How is breaking the FUA at risk? As to the issue at hand, what doesn't work what way? One of my points is the whole thing is completely without a rational thought involved. If our sins are atoned for, pre-atoned for, then they're already atoned for. I don't see the problem. I do see a problem with the idea that we can be born in sin. or that we should be required to atone to some asshole who made us broke to begin with. Etc etc, I wish I could channel Hitchens, he really expresses a lot of this superbly. Just because your idea of how it works leads you to say what you said, so what? Why is your version any better than mine, or someone else's? It's not like there's a god that could decide which is the correct version.