The Whole Jesus Thing

According to Catholic teachings, the sacrifice was ritualized and symbolic as a atonement for sin; to do away with once and for all the need for blood sacrifices as in the old testiment. Jesus who was according to the bible without sin was sacrificed in order to remove the stain of sin from mankind. Rather than resorting to blood sacrifice hence forth sin will be obtained and forgiven though the acceptance of Jesus. According to the teachings Jesus took on all the sin of man upon himself. He was God but he was also a man. God became a man and experienced what it was to be human and what it was to suffer as a human. Blood sacrifice as described in the old testiment and Judiac law was applied in the spirit and flesh of Jesus. It is through transubstantiation that wine and bread become the flesh and blood of the Christ, by confession, contrition and receiving this sacrament one is forgiven ones sins.My question is: Why was sin ever even a issue? The whole concept of a redeemer hinges on this concept of original sin. It all hinges on what happened in the Garden of Eden. The temptation of Eve from Satan. If God created these creatures with free will and they made a descision to disobey why punish them? And if the stain of original sin is what followed then God became flesh to wash away the sin he allowed into the world? I dont get it.

Yaro, I am surprised at you. I never heard you talk like this before. It is apparent that you do not believe that God exist at all, so questioning the methods of a diety you do not believe in is superfulous. IMO. These stories are traditions based on a collection of books assembled over centuries. A entire religion is based on them. Saying the tenets of the faith are stupid is very well your right but it could be taken as offensive to those who subscribe to that religion. It is one thing to question the logic of something illogical. It is quite another to criticize and degrade.
You are a very intelligent woman with good questions.

-1+-1=-2

How about.........
1. Allosaurus is extinct.
2. One can not make a cold fusion machine.
3. Nothing moves faster than speed c.
all points 1,2,,3 are considered scientific facts.
and are trustworthy statements but logically assuming that they are true statements requires proving a negative. Like point 1. Allosaurus is extinct. Has the Earth has been completely surveyed simultaneously and no living allosaurus observed?
No? But science concludes that Allosaurus is extinct. We do not lay awake at night worrying about it.
I heard this argument before and it did make a point about proving a negative. At least I thought so.

I hope you realize I am playing the devils advocate Yaro.
Premise : Dinos are extinct.Observation 1. There are dino bones
Observation 2. dead dinos leave dino bones
Observation 3. No live Dinos have been observed
Conclusion: Dinos must be extinct.
Refutation: Since the Earth has not been simultaneously explored nor completely explored.
Observation 3 is inconclusive. Premise is based on a negative.
I did not say your premise was incorrect, I am saying it is based on a negative that you begin your premise with inconclusive evidence. Making the assumption that since no dinos are observed they are extinct. My whole point being that Science as well makes premises based on a negative, regardless of how accepted the premise may be. example:Premise: fish need male and female genetic material to reproduce.Observation 1. male and female genetic material makes for biodiversity
Observation 2. No fish has been observed that does not need a male and female to reproduce
Observation 3. Many fish that mate are male and female.
Conclusion: fish must need male and female genetic material to reproduce.
Refutation: Since every taxa of fish mating has not been observed premise is inconclusive.
(* as a side note. Observation 2 is incorrect. a species of self fertilizing hermphorditic fish does indeed exist.
who would of thunk it.

Off topic admin!!!! But since you responded. Hermaphodism may be common in the animal world, but true parthenogenesis is not.
At least to my knowlege only one fish is, some of the fish in the Poecillia are parthenogenic but still need male sperm agitation to cause the zygote to cleave.