this post was submitted on
16 points (73% like it)
25 up votes 9 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 4 comments

[–]thenaterator 0 points1 point ago

A sin can NOT be inherited.

It can if you're a Christian.

A blood sacrafice can NOT 'pay' for a person's sin.

It can if you're a Christian (or a part of many other types of religious organizations)

Even though I agree with the text in these sections, these are ridiculous titles.

These are properties of Christian sin by definition.

It seems like a better tactic, which the text did on large, to simply state that the idea of inherited misdeeds is disgusting, and that blood sacrifice seems a ridiculous way to cleanse yourself of said misdeeds.

The titles come off as saying "Look, here's a term which has a specific definition within a specific context. I say NO to that specific definition in that specific context!"

[–]mxms87 -1 points0 points ago

This is really old and gets posted (or at least was posted) quite a bit. It's not very factually accurate and I wouldn't show it to a theist because a lot of it can be countered (quite successfully might I add).

The stuff about Mithra is just pure fiction.

[–]mycatiskai -2 points-1 points ago

Infographic usually means there are graphs charts and visuals. Not a brick wall of text.

[–]KeithJenkins -2 points-1 points ago

"A sin can NOT be inherited."

I actually just read an article today that postulates that when the bible refers to the "sins of a father being visited upon his children and his children's children" etc. that it might have been referring to congenital syphilis. It was an interesting read which also suggested, among other things, that Job and King David may have had syphilis.

Source: Goldman L. Syphilis in the Bible. Archives of Dermatology. 1971;103(5):535-6. PubMed ID: 4931649