The Adam Complex

[SirDice]

If I'm not mistaken Catholics believe that because Adam took the fruit all of mankind is inherently bad (the original sin). Kinda funny if you consider all those anti-terrorist measures. They too believe everyone is guilty, even before you've done anything.

[|The|Specialist]

Use the apple as a sexual epithet for vagina.

[DaFoxx]

Use the apple as a sexual epithet for vagina.

so Adam got shafted for EATING the 'Apple'
dude shoud have just fucked it
said he was coring it

[SirDice]

Another nice misconception. There's no mention of an apple in Genesis. Only a fruit, it doesn't specify which.
The second misconception is the notion that the snake is Satan or the devil. There's never any mention of either.

[Egaladeist]

Another nice misconception. There's no mention of an apple in Genesis. Only a fruit, it doesn't specify which.
The second misconception is the notion that the snake is Satan or the devil. There's never any mention of either.

True...both are assumptions based upon traditional concepts/interpretations.

But that goes for a lot of Christianity. Like every single image of Jesus is actually blasphemous...Jesus looked nothing like the image that portrays him...three prominent clues to this...

1. there were no images of Jesus prior to the First Bishops Council in the 3rd Century when they commissioned artists to render images of him to promote the faith ( many people still needed ' graven images ' to pray to )...so these artists portrayed him as a practicing Christian of their day...
2. Paul specifically looked like a Buddhist Monk and said ' long hair on a man is a ' disgrace ' '...something he would not have said if Jesus himself had long hair...
3. When the guards came to arrest Jesus they couldn't recognize which one he was, and he had to be pointed out to them...so...he looked like a normal Jew or Rabbi of his day...nothing made him stand out...which means he had very short hair and a beard...

there are many instances in Christianity that are taken as truth that are in opposition to the Bible simply because of traditional thinking.

[SirDice]

there are many instances in Christianity that are taken as truth that are in opposition to the Bible simply because of traditional thinking.

Yep, like the three kings or wise men that came to Jesus' birth. Never any mention of them. Shepherds aren't very likely either, in December at least. But even if it was during a different time of year they'd never be allowed anywhere near a woman in labor. No men allowed, at least for two weeks after giving birth. Not even Joseph. The whole scene, as has been told and re-enacted every year, is a complete farce, it's nowhere near anything that's written in the Bible. For such a 'monumental' happening it's barely mentioned at all.

I'll take the commercial, dreamed up by coca cola, fat, bearded guy in the red suit. Both are fictional but at least I know I'm being screwed by commerce. Food, booze and presents, what more would you need for a celebration

[Panama Red]

3. When the guards came to arrest Jesus they couldn't recognize which one he was, and he had to be pointed out to them...so...he looked like a normal Jew or Rabbi of his day...nothing made him stand out...which means he had very short hair and a beard...

And that is why Brian got crucified instead...

[Aspman]

Like every single image of Jesus is actually blasphemous

I think it's actually idolatry in general that is blasphemous because people can start to worship objects rather than the deity in question, and the church don't like that. Holy Stone of Clonrickert anyone?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/fath ... od#3168446

The other thing about Jesus is that he would have spent a lot of time outside in a bloody hot country. He isn't going to look all snowy white like most pictures of him. Go find a picture of an Israeli or Arab farmer, that's what he'll have looked like.

[SirDice]

Like every single image of Jesus is actually blasphemous

I think it's actually idolatry in general that is blasphemous because people can start to worship objects rather than the deity in question, and the church don't like that.

Try telling that to the Greek orthodox. I think they have more icons than anyone else

[|The|Specialist]

Another nice misconception.

Its only a misconception if you go for a word-for-word dry run of it... and actually take it as factual.

People go to church out of peer pressure. Its an imaginary book completely open to interpretation.

There is only the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Egaladeist]

I think it's actually idolatry in general that is blasphemous

True, which is why I said ' many people still needed ' graven images ' to pray to '...the Church adopted many icons of ' pagan faiths ' in order to convert the masses...

however, I was specifically referring to it being blasphemous in respect to, and in the context of, Paul calling it ( the portrayal of Jesus looking like a 300AD artisan, or a 1960's hippie ) disgraceful.

In those days among the Jews there was no ' individual expressionism ' ...they all wore the same type of clothes, same hairstyle, etc...the only Jews that stood out were people like John the Baptist who wore sackcloth and looked like a Buddhist Monk...like Paul did...Jesus, for the reasons stated above, looked like a normal Jew, so normal that he blended in, and had to be pointed out. There was nothing extraordinary about how he looked, nothing about him that made him stand out in a crowd.