|
That's funny. If I weren't an agnostic/atheist that I'd probably be Catholic. :DI can and do. If you can not take a minimum amount of time to at least look at the major religions you should not take the time to dismiss them. I may not agree with Muslims but the basic tenants of their faith I can hardly fault. Factually if I were not Catholic I would most likely be Buddhist.<SNIP> I don't see any difference between having faith and being intellectually lazy. Neither is a global attribute, of course. Christians hardly have faith in Mohammad. One can be intellectually lazy about science or math and deeply engaged in something else.Ouch. Can't say I disagree, though. :(
Sad thing is I think that atheist is a valid choice. I just feel it is the wrong one. For many reasons.
|
Sad thing is I think that atheist is a valid choice. I just feel it is the wrong one. For many reasons.That's funny. If I weren't an agnostic/atheist that I'd probably be Catholic. :DI can and do. If you can not take a minimum amount of time to at least look at the major religions you should not take the time to dismiss them. I may not agree with Muslims but the basic tenants of their faith I can hardly fault. Factually if I were not Catholic I would most likely be Buddhist.<SNIP> I don't see any difference between having faith and being intellectually lazy. Neither is a global attribute, of course. Christians hardly have faith in Mohammad. One can be intellectually lazy about science or math and deeply engaged in something else.Ouch. Can't say I disagree, though. :(
I don't know if choice is how I'd describe it, so much as how I naturally feel about the situation. It's not a good idea to try and be something you're not. :\
|
|
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. emphasis mineSad thing is I think that atheist is a valid choice. I just feel it is the wrong one. For many reasons.That's funny. If I weren't an agnostic/atheist that I'd probably be Catholic. :DI can and do. If you can not take a minimum amount of time to at least look at the major religions you should not take the time to dismiss them. I may not agree with Muslims but the basic tenants of their faith I can hardly fault. Factually if I were not Catholic I would most likely be Buddhist.<SNIP> I don't see any difference between having faith and being intellectually lazy. Neither is a global attribute, of course. Christians hardly have faith in Mohammad. One can be intellectually lazy about science or math and deeply engaged in something else.Ouch. Can't say I disagree, though. :(
Being that you are a christian, I believe it is safe to assume that you disbelieve other religions' god(s). (What with the whole jealous god thing and all.) That being said, all christians are atheists, it's just that those who are typically thought of as atheists believe in one less god than christians.
|
|
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. emphasis mineSad thing is I think that atheist is a valid choice. I just feel it is the wrong one. For many reasons.That's funny. If I weren't an agnostic/atheist that I'd probably be Catholic. :DI can and do. If you can not take a minimum amount of time to at least look at the major religions you should not take the time to dismiss them. I may not agree with Muslims but the basic tenants of their faith I can hardly fault. Factually if I were not Catholic I would most likely be Buddhist.<SNIP> I don't see any difference between having faith and being intellectually lazy. Neither is a global attribute, of course. Christians hardly have faith in Mohammad. One can be intellectually lazy about science or math and deeply engaged in something else.Ouch. Can't say I disagree, though. :(Being that you are a christian, I believe it is safe to assume that you disbelieve other religions' god(s). (What with the whole jealous god thing and all.) That being said, all christians are atheists, it's just that those who are typically thought of as atheists believe in one less god than christians.
yeah I have read that silly quote before and though it simplifies things, simplicity is not always the correct answer.
|
|
yeah I have read that silly quote before and though it simplifies things, simplicity is not always the correct answer.
Sad thing is I think that atheist is a valid choice. I just feel it is the wrong one. For many reasons.
Funny thing is, people who do not believe in the christian god surely feel the same way in regards to christianity. This staunch view of "I'm right you're wrong" that religion espouses is one of the many things that i abhor about religion. According to the christian faith, a person is (more often than not) saved or not saved based solely on birthplace and belief structure of the family they are born into. People rarely stray too far from what their parents and culture teach them, yet christianity condemns groups of people to an eternity of suffering because they weren't born into the right region or belief structure?
Unless there's some "born in the wrong place/culture" clause that comes along with the requirement to accept jesus as your savior, it seems pretty douchey of a loving god to condemn so many people just because of circumstances of birth.
|
|
yeah I have read that silly quote before and though it simplifies things, simplicity is not always the correct answer.Sad thing is I think that atheist is a valid choice. I just feel it is the wrong one. For many reasons.Funny thing is, people who do not believe in the christian god surely feel the same way in regards to christianity. This staunch view of "I'm right you're wrong" that religion espouses is one of the many things that i abhor about religion. According to the christian faith, a person is (more often than not) saved or not saved based solely on birthplace and belief structure of the family they are born into. People rarely stray too far from what their parents and culture teach them, yet christianity condemns groups of people to an eternity of suffering because they weren't born into the right region or belief structure?
Unless there's some "born in the wrong place/culture" clause that comes along with the requirement to accept jesus as your savior, it seems pretty douchey of a loving god to condemn so many people just because of circumstances of birth.
Really because that is not the Christianity I know.
I can and do. If you can not take a minimum amount of time to at least look at the major religions you should not take the time to dismiss them. I may not agree with Muslims but the basic tenants of their faith I can hardly fault. Factually if I were not Catholic I would most likely be Buddhist.
I think you might be mistaking me. My intent in bringing up that Christians lack faith in Mohammed was to show that having faith in one thing does not entail having faith in everything that comes by. Hence having faith (which, as I noted, I see as synonymous with intellectual laziness) isn't a global attribute that applies to everything in any given person.
One can be lazy in some areas and well-exercised in others. For example, Francis Collins is certainly an able administrator and probably was a decent MD. But his reasons for converting to Christianity is the kind of thing you'd expect of a really slow child.
|
|
I can and do. If you can not take a minimum amount of time to at least look at the major religions you should not take the time to dismiss them. I may not agree with Muslims but the basic tenants of their faith I can hardly fault. Factually if I were not Catholic I would most likely be Buddhist.I think you might be mistaking me. My intent in bringing up that Christians lack faith in Mohammed was to show that having faith in one thing does not entail having faith in everything that comes by. Hence having faith (which, as I noted, I see as synonymous with intellectual laziness) isn't a global attribute that applies to everything in any given person.
One can be lazy in some areas and well-exercised in others. For example, Francis Collins is certainly an able administrator and probably was a decent MD. But his reasons for converting to Christianity is the kind of thing you'd expect of a really slow child.
And my intent was to let you know that you are in fact, wrong. That is not the thing one would expect from a slow child. That is the kind of thing one would expect from someone who take a reasoned and thorough approach to all matters rather then, say compartmentalizing oneself and only approaching things from one perspective.
|
|
Really because that is not the Christianity I know.yeah I have read that silly quote before and though it simplifies things, simplicity is not always the correct answer.Sad thing is I think that atheist is a valid choice. I just feel it is the wrong one. For many reasons.Funny thing is, people who do not believe in the christian god surely feel the same way in regards to christianity. This staunch view of "I'm right you're wrong" that religion espouses is one of the many things that i abhor about religion. According to the christian faith, a person is (more often than not) saved or not saved based solely on birthplace and belief structure of the family they are born into. People rarely stray too far from what their parents and culture teach them, yet christianity condemns groups of people to an eternity of suffering because they weren't born into the right region or belief structure?
Unless there's some "born in the wrong place/culture" clause that comes along with the requirement to accept jesus as your savior, it seems pretty douchey of a loving god to condemn so many people just because of circumstances of birth.
Then please enlighten me as to what sect of christianity you follow because every one that I've seen requires a belief in jesus and in god to be saved.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So when you suggest the Book of Mormon is a fairy tale made up by men, it seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me. Why is your made up fairy tale any more valid than someone else's?
What you might be missing here, but I may be wrong is that the bible is a book about God's interaction with mortals here on Earth. But the bible is also written down by mortals from limited perspectives, and therefore put into story form things (i.e. scientific things) that man at that time and to many degrees now do not fully understand.
The big disconnect here is the fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is a cancer in Christianity and in many faiths and needs to be excised. Christianity, or any other faith is what it is "faith", True Christians should not and must not try to prove God by the bible. It cannot be done.
God cannot be proved, because if he could we would be God! His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. He reveals himself solely through prayer and believing faith, and the bible is an aid to those who believe. It can only be read with the guidance of God's Holy Spirit. If you do not believe then the whole bible is meaningless, and indeed contradictory. But there are historical portions that can be borne out by contemporary non biblical texts and are verifiable.
Christ came to show man a new way to live, and prophecies of his coming are there in the text, though the words probably meant little to the prophets of the time.
Fundamentalists on the other hand believe that the bible can be forced to prove God, and they use all kinds of disingenuous methods to do this. Creation Science is perhaps the most pernicious. Fundamentalists appear to be unwilling to accept that there are large sections of Scripture that they can verify either scientifically or by individual wording. They spend their lives poring over every phrase to fit the world, and rather than accept there are some things too big for them to understand invent numerous kooky theories to prove their positions. Unfortunately all they manage to do is alienate people who might have potentially found faith. No-one knows the mind of God, and any attempt to codify Him via the bible is heretical and pointless.
Only God brings men and women to knowledge of him, and Christians only hinder this work by squashing God into the realms of their understanding. It cannot be done.
True scientists pursue truth, and as the entirety of creation is based on Truth, then honest science will produce honest results.
Evolution is a good working theory and I stand by it as a scientist. The world was not created in seven 24-hour periods. The original Hebrew doesn't even say this either, it refers only to the vague notion of seven 'time periods'. But it doesn't matter how things came about. I am sure that the science is correct to the best of our current understanding. What science continues to reveal to us is that the complexity of everything we study increases the more we study. I am sure we derived from some line of primates (we come from the dust of the earth, we were not just put there!)
John Calvin once remarked that there were two phases of God's hand in Creation: The creation of life and the creation of the human soul.
|
|
Then please enlighten me as to what sect of Christianity you follow because every one that I've seen requires a belief in Jesus and in god to be saved.Really because that is not the Christianity I know.yeah I have read that silly quote before and though it simplifies things, simplicity is not always the correct answer.Sad thing is I think that atheist is a valid choice. I just feel it is the wrong one. For many reasons.Funny thing is, people who do not believe in the christian god surely feel the same way in regards to Christianity. This staunch view of "I'm right you're wrong" that religion espouses is one of the many things that i abhor about religion. According to the christian faith, a person is (more often than not) saved or not saved based solely on birthplace and belief structure of the family they are born into. People rarely stray too far from what their parents and culture teach them, yet Christianity condemns groups of people to an eternity of suffering because they weren't born into the right region or belief structure?
Unless there's some "born in the wrong place/culture" clause that comes along with the requirement to accept Jesus as your savior, it seems pretty douche of a loving god to condemn so many people just because of circumstances of birth.
You seem to be miss reading me.
Not every Christian believes in a "I am right and you are wrong." World view. More like I have important information you could make use of.
Yes many people do not stray far from what they are born into. Which is sad since learning from others could in fact help one to be more solid in their understanding of their faith.
No where in the Bible, as far as I know, does it say you are condemned because of the accident of your birth.
Only idiots such as Fred Phelps believe such.
|
|
You seem to be miss reading me.Not every Christian believes in a "I am right and you are wrong." World view. More like I have important information you could make use of.
Yes many people do not stray far from what they are born into. Which is sad since learning from others could in fact help one to be more solid in their understanding of their faith.
No where in the Bible, as far as I know, does it say you are condemned because of the accident of your birth.
Only idiots such as Fred Phelps believe such.
Doesn't the bible explicitly state that you must accept jc as your lord and savior, etc. in order to be saved and be granted entrance to heaven? If so, how do people who are born into an area where christianity is unheard of become saved?
And as far as the "i'm right you're wrong" view, this is a problem with all organized religions, not just christianity; evangelicals are "better" at this and, given that they are christians, "impart" this annoying trait to all of christianity.
|
|
Doesn't the bible explicitly state that you must accept JC as your lord and savior, etc. in order to be saved and be granted entrance to heaven? If so, how do people who are born into an area where Christianity is unheard of become saved?
Roman Catholics believe "Man stands in need of salvation from God," and "Divine help comes to him in Christ through the law that guides him and the grace that sustains him." It was for our salvation that "God loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins; the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world, and he was revealed to take away sins." "By his death (Jesus, the Son of God) has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men."
You can research for yourself here
And as far as the "I'm right you're wrong" view, this is a problem with all organized religions, not just Christianity; evangelicals are "better" at this and, given that they are Christians, "impart" this annoying trait to all of Christianity.
I believe, that this is an American issue. With the separation of Church and State, and with some interesting groups we have spawned has cause a sometimes warranted distrust of religion in general and certain groups in specific. Ok let me rephrase, a many times warranted distrust. In some ways with some of the preachers gaining ground I feel we may even have more reasons to distrust some of these organizations.
And my intent was to let you know that you are in fact, wrong. That is not the thing one would expect from a slow child.
Collin's argument for the truth of Christianity is as follows:
"I was out hiking in the Cascades and I saw a waterfall frozen in three streams. Therefore Jesus is Lord!"
That's what I'm talking about and it's classic slow child stuff and not a second of thought went into it. He's since shown that not much has gone into it after the fact either.
That is the kind of thing one would expect from someone who take a reasoned and thorough approach to all matters rather then, say compartmentalizing oneself and only approaching things from one perspective.
You do know that you just contradicted yourself in the course of a single sentence, I hope. I suppose I should be happy though, since it tacitly admits my point about faith.
|
|
And my intent was to let you know that you are in fact, wrong. That is not the thing one would expect from a slow child.Collin's argument for the truth of Christianity is as follows:
"I was out hiking in the Cascades and I saw a waterfall frozen in three streams. Therefore Jesus is Lord!"
That's what I'm talking about and it's classic slow child stuff and not a second of thought went into it. He's since shown that not much has gone into it after the fact either.
You do know that you just contradicted yourself in the course of a single sentence, I hope. I suppose I should be happy though, since it tacitly admits my point about faith.
That is the kind of thing one would expect from someone who take a reasoned and thorough approach to all matters rather then, say compartmentalizing oneself and only approaching things from one perspective.
Its funny but your response seems to me to be the exact opposite. Its cold out but the water did not freeze therefore Christianity is wrong.
I did not contradict myself you misunderstood me and any point I was trying to make.
|
|
Doesn't the bible explicitly state that you must accept JC as your lord and savior, etc. in order to be saved and be granted entrance to heaven? If so, how do people who are born into an area where Christianity is unheard of become saved?
Roman Catholics believe "Man stands in need of salvation from God," and "Divine help comes to him in Christ through the law that guides him and the grace that sustains him." It was for our salvation that "God loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins; the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world, and he was revealed to take away sins." "By his death (Jesus, the Son of God) has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men."
You can research for yourself here
And as far as the "I'm right you're wrong" view, this is a problem with all organized religions, not just Christianity; evangelicals are "better" at this and, given that they are Christians, "impart" this annoying trait to all of Christianity.I believe, that this is an American issue. With the separation of Church and State, and with some interesting groups we have spawned has cause a sometimes warranted distrust of religion in general and certain groups in specific. Ok let me rephrase, a many times warranted distrust. In some ways with some of the preachers gaining ground I feel we may even have more reasons to distrust some of these organizations.
So you're saying that, regardless of your beliefs, you are still saved because jesus died? If that is the case, then what is the point in belief and church?
If religion in general didn't have an inherent belief of "im right you're wrong" then why all the different brands of christianity (or religion in general)? Do you really believe that it is necessary to have 1,000 different sects which all essentially believe the same thing...that theirs is the only way to get to heaven?
Its funny but your response seems to me to be the exact opposite. Its cold out but the water did not freeze therefore Christianity is wrong.
No, my position is there being no good evidence in favor of any form of supernatural entity or force existing, all supernaturalisms are to be treated as false. I did not come to this position idly, but rather examined various miracle stories, apologetic arguments, and the like. Has Collins' three streams been frozen or thawed would make no difference. Water freezes and thaws without Jesus making it happen.
You know what would be really convincing? The discovery of human beings identical to us in every way living happily on the surface of the sun or in the void of outer space, without any technological assistance, genetic tampering, or any of that. We could science at them all day long and they never show any hidden implants or alterations. They're normal people like you and me. They just don't ever need to breathe or do any of the stuff we do. I'd rate their survival pretty miraculous.
I did not contradict myself you misunderstood me and any point I was trying to make.
Then I misunderstood you. Could you explain it differently for my edification?
Its funny but your response seems to me to be the exact opposite. Its cold out but the water did not freeze therefore Christianity is wrong.No, my position is there being no good evidence in favor of any form of supernatural entity or force existing, all supernaturalisms are to be treated as false. I did not come to this position idly, but rather examined various miracle stories, apologetic arguments, and the like. Has Collins' three streams been frozen or thawed would make no difference. Water freezes and thaws without Jesus making it happen.
You know what would be really convincing? The discovery of human beings identical to us in every way living happily on the surface of the sun or in the void of outer space, without any technological assistance, genetic tampering, or any of that. We could science at them all day long and they never show any hidden implants or alterations. They're normal people like you and me. They just don't ever need to breathe or do any of the stuff we do. I'd rate their survival pretty miraculous.
Then I misunderstood you. Could you explain it differently for my edification?
I did not contradict myself you misunderstood me and any point I was trying to make.
Do not fall into the trap of trying to "disprove" God. I'd say it's a moving target, but that implies it is at least possible to hit...
:P
The infamy of blasphemy laws in Poland.
It is clear that Doda thinks that the Bible was written by drunkards and junkies. I believe that she committed a crime and offended the religious feelings of both Christians and Jews.
Shame she didn't draw a picture of Mohammed. Then I bet the nutjob in question would be her best friend.
What you might be missing here, but I may be wrong is that the bible is a book about God's interaction with mortals here on Earth. But the bible is also written down by mortals from limited perspectives, and therefore put into story form things (i.e. scientific things) that man at that time and to many degrees now do not fully understand.
No, I did not miss it. What I am saying is that the same argument could be made for the Book of Mormon. I believe this boils down to the Bible is more believable for you. For me, they are both equally unbelievable.
Furthermore, I find it hypocritical that some would show such disrespect for the Book of Mormon or even the Koran while at the same time expecting me to show reverence for the Bible.
|
|
What you might be missing here, but I may be wrong is that the bible is a book about God's interaction with mortals here on Earth. But the bible is also written down by mortals from limited perspectives, and therefore put into story form things (i.e. scientific things) that man at that time and to many degrees now do not fully understand.No, I did not miss it. What I am saying is that the same argument could be made for the Book of Mormon. I believe this boils down to the Bible is more believable for you. For me, they are both equally unbelievable.
Furthermore, I find it hypocritical that some would show such disrespect for the Book of Mormon or even the Koran while at the same time expecting me to show reverence for the Bible.
Actually I don't remember dissing the Book of Mormon or the Koran. Neither do I expect everyone to show reverence for the Bible. I revere God the Father, Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I view the bible as a guide but it is too complex to be taken completely literally. I'm not sure it ever was meant to be taken completely literally. How many Christians do you see walking around without eyes and hands? "If thy eye offends against thee cut it out ..." You get the message. Faith is personal and it requires belief before seeing. Some people are unwilling to do that, I respect that stand even if I do not personally agree with it. I respect other people's right to believe what they wish and make their own choices. It's called free will, and I'm not God and I do not convert people, He does, and therefore I will witness my faith to those who show interest in it. But I will not shove it down the throats of those who don't want to hear it.
|
|
What you might be missing here, but I may be wrong is that the bible is a book about God's interaction with mortals here on Earth. But the bible is also written down by mortals from limited perspectives, and therefore put into story form things (i.e. scientific things) that man at that time and to many degrees now do not fully understand.No, I did not miss it. What I am saying is that the same argument could be made for the Book of Mormon. I believe this boils down to the Bible is more believable for you. For me, they are both equally unbelievable.
Furthermore, I find it hypocritical that some would show such disrespect for the Book of Mormon or even the Koran while at the same time expecting me to show reverence for the Bible.
I feel the same argument has been made for the book of Mormon. Unlike the Books of the Bible it does not hold up. Which has been the statement made time and again. Not to your satisfaction of course. It yet, has been made. The Bible is a group of books. Some historical, some mythological, some poetry, not all of which are really meant to be taken as anything other then allegorical. Though many make this mistake, and it is an easy one to make, the two books should not be confused as being similar for this reason amongst others.
Now with the book of Mormon it is but one book. A single story in fact. With a dubious introduction at best, not to mention the fact that it was much the product of its time, with sometimes overt racism and incorrect facts. Now apologist will now and again try to make out that it is an allegorical book, it was historically never meant to be one. The tale it tells is one that was meant from its beginning to have been an exact and detailed description of events that took place within the new world. Events that has no basis in any sort of truth that is capable of having happened on this world; events that various church sponsored organizations have attempted time and again to find verifiable proof of, facts to support this belief. This has not happened.
So we come to your ascertation that this is quite the same for the books of the Bible or even for the Koran. While some fundamentalists may still be looking for Noah’s Ark on the mountain, most of us can view this as an allegory based on an older tale which scientists and scholars maintain it is. I feel it looses nothing, by this view. Many others believe the same.
Not so for the book of Mormon. It is held up as the final proof and as such is stated as any discrepancy is the folly of mankind. In fact it was said that if the Bible did not match up with what the Book of Mormon said you must have a poor copy of the Bible and Joseph Smith needed to re-translate the passage for you, even though the text has not changed in centuries.
Please excuse my long winded reply and the fact that my thoughts are all over the place here. I am sure Moffrimmer would have spoken more eloquently.
I find I dislike the Koran simply for the small facts that as a simple man with limited ability to read or write he has authored a text with both advanced poetry as well as inconsistencies that show multiple authors. It too is said to be the work of one man at one time.
I feel the same argument has been made for the book of Mormon. Unlike the Books of the Bible it does not hold up.
Again, the Bible is more believable for you. And that is fine. The Bible is not believable for me. And for many Mormons, the Book of Mormon is believable. So how, exactly, do we determine whose beliefs are more valid?
Some historical, some mythological, some poetry, not all of which are really meant to be taken as anything other then allegorical.
This was not how the Bible was presented to me. Is original sin allegorical?
|
|
I feel the same argument has been made for the book of Mormon. Unlike the Books of the Bible it does not hold up.Again, the Bible is more believable for you. And that is fine. The Bible is not believable for me. And for many Mormons, the Book of Mormon is believable. So how, exactly, do we determine whose beliefs are more valid?
Some historical, some mythological, some poetry, not all of which are really meant to be taken as anything other then allegorical.This was not how the Bible was presented to me. Is original sin allegorical?
Common Sense, combined with research. As JP2 once said “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”
Well as we have seen from these posts what is in the Bible and how people live and what some people want to be in the Bible are not always the same. If you want to research the idea of Original Sin and Allegory I suggest C.S. Lewis as a starting point.
I see nothing common sense about an all powerful and loving god needing to make some sacrifice to forgive me for a sin I did not commit. It seems to me, an all powerful and loving god just simply forgives. Compound this with the fact that the same god knew the sin would be committed before the one responsible was even created. Or that everyone is blamed for the actions of two people.
God creates Lucifer and then gets mad when Lucifer tries to overthrow him. That is just as absurd as god forgetting to punch air holes in his airtight box.
It seems to me that original sin is not meant as allegory. Otherwise, why do we need saving from it? Is Jesus then just an allegory as well? I am inclined to think the entire Bible was meant to be taken literally. Now that there appears to be evidence to the contrary, the allegory argument is used as a rationalization.
I started reading 1 Clement last week (he is a bit long winded), and it seems to me that he took the early stories literally.
|
|
I see nothing common sense about an all powerful and loving god needing to make some sacrifice to forgive me for a sin I did not commit. It seems to me, an all powerful and loving god just simply forgives. Compound this with the fact that the same god knew the sin would be committed before the one responsible was even created. Or that everyone is blamed for the actions of two people.
God creates Lucifer and then gets mad when Lucifer tries to overthrow him. That is just as absurd as god forgetting to punch air holes in his airtight box.
It seems to me that original sin is not meant as allegory. Otherwise, why do we need saving from it? Is Jesus then just an allegory as well? I am inclined to think the entire Bible was meant to be taken literally. Now that there appears to be evidence to the contrary, the allegory argument is used as a rationalization.
I started reading 1 Clement last week (he is a bit long winded), and it seems to me that he took the early stories literally.
I am sure he did. I am sorry that I am not making my points easier for you to understand, or rather am sounding as Samnell put it as a slow child. Nor did I mean to compound it as I did by making it seem like it was all allegorical. Not my intent. Please understand I believe that questioning is the first and proper response, I also feel we should stop when we have answers.
...I also feel we should stop when we have answers.
I can not agree with you there. That does smell of intellectual laziness.
|
I see nothing common sense about an all powerful and loving god needing to make some sacrifice to forgive me for a sin I did not commit. It seems to me, an all powerful and loving god just simply forgives. Compound this with the fact that the same god knew the sin would be committed before the one responsible was even created. Or that everyone is blamed for the actions of two people.
I think I'm starting to see where you are coming from. Is this really what Catholics think?
|
Please understand I believe that questioning is the first and proper response, I also feel we should stop when we have answers.
This struck me as a bit odd. I'm disinclined to think anybody "has the answers" to anything so profound as religion. People can have faith, but even that faith is full of questions and mysteries.
I've always believed that the search for answers, truth, and meaning is a part of life, and if we were to actually be in possession of those answers, there would be no reason for us to be here.
I think I'm starting to see where you are coming from. Is this really what Catholics think?
It certainly was my understanding. It also seems to be the thinking of the Lutheran church I occasionally attend. Is there some other meaning behind Jesus and his death on the cross?
|
|
I think I'm starting to see where you are coming from. Is this really what Catholics think?It certainly was my understanding. It also seems to be the thinking of the Lutheran church I occasionally attend. Is there some other meaning behind Jesus and his death on the cross?
I'm a little confused then on what you believe Jesus did by dying. (Or at least your teachings have taught you.) Do you (they) think that Jesus died to wipe out the "original sin"? What exactly about "original sin" do you (they) think is allegorical or literal?
There's very little written about this. Where is it written that God was emotional (at all in any way) about this event?
He casts him out of Heaven. I suppose he could have not been emotional about it. It is a punishment, yes? And one is not punished unless one did something wrong. God created him with the capacity of doing wrong and knowing he would do wrong and then punishes him for it. Why bother creating him at all? Why give him the capacity for wrong?
And this goes to one of the fundamental problems I have with the concept of a Judeo-Christian god. Why does god get all the credit for good and none of the responsibility for evil? That just seems like crazy wishful thinking.
I'm a little confused then on what you believe Jesus did by dying. (Or at least your teachings have taught you.) Do you (they) think that Jesus died to wipe out the "original sin"? What exactly about "original sin" do you (they) think is allegorical or literal?
Jesus died so that we could be forgiven all sins, including original sin. Not really sure why you still need baptism (some sects) then, but that is just one more thing to heap on the pile.
I am pretty sure the Christians I have known believed original sin to be very literal. I believe it is just the use of the guilt technique.
Why? You no longer look for your car keys after you have found them do you?
If the keys I found do not look like my car keys or fail to open my car door, I do.
|
|
There's very little written about this. Where is it written that God was emotional (at all in any way) about this event?He casts him out of Heaven. I suppose he could have not been emotional about it. It is a punishment, yes? And one is not punished unless one did something wrong. God created him with the capacity of doing wrong and knowing he would do wrong and then punishes him for it. Why bother creating him at all? Why give him the capacity for wrong?
And this goes to one of the fundamental problems I have with the concept of a Judeo-Christian god. Why does god get all the credit for good and none of the responsibility for evil? That just seems like crazy wishful thinking.
A lot of this goes back to the "free will" discussion which I'm done with. There are (quite a) number of people who feel that it would still be free will if you CANNOT choose poorly. That doesn't make sense to me.
However, I will try and put a different spin on some of what you wrote here...
"Punishment" -- Are you being "punished" if you cannot afford the super big-screen tv that you want? Heaven or where ever God resides cannot have evil. When Satan did whatever he did, he no longer could reside there. He no longer had the "admission fee" to gain access. Is that "punishment"? I guess maybe.
"Responsibility for evil" -- I don't really have an answer for that. I understand what you are saying and I feel that it's a good question.
God = "good" -- I really don't see that. We often think like that, but I feel that the Bible talks about God being "right" or "righteous" rather than "good". You may have a different idea as to what "right" should be -- but I don't have all the information or facts about it.
God = "good" -- I really don't see that. We often think like that, but I feel that the Bible talks about God being "right" or "righteous" rather than "good". You may have a different idea as to what "right" should be -- but I don't have all the information or facts about it.
That would make a lot more sense to me. But just like you can not be a Cleric of a god two steps removed from your alignment, I am not going to worship a god who does not fit my definition of 'good'. I realize god does not have to answer to me, but would you worship Zeus if he were real?
|
|
I'm a little confused then on what you believe Jesus did by dying. (Or at least your teachings have taught you.) Do you (they) think that Jesus died to wipe out the "original sin"? What exactly about "original sin" do you (they) think is allegorical or literal?Jesus died so that we could be forgiven all sins, including original sin. Not really sure why you still need baptism (some sects) then, but that is just one more thing to heap on the pile.
I am pretty sure the Christians I have known believed original sin to be very literal. I believe it is just the use of the guilt technique.
Here's my take on it and I think that most Christians I know are pretty close to this.
"Original Sin" -- I really feel that the point of the story is (for better or worse) to explain why people feel the need to be crappy to each other. Or to explain "human nature". Basically an attempt as to where "sin" came from. Now assuming that Adam literally existed, then (in theory) Jesus died for his sin(s) (that started the whole mess) as well as mine. But I don't feel that I am responsible for what Adam did or didn't do.
As for "why", it's similar to what I wrote above. "Sin" or "Bad" has no place in Heaven. At all. I generally try to be pretty good or "righteous" if you prefer, but I'm certainly a long way from "perfect". So technically I would have no place in Heaven or with God. Again, in theory, Jesus at least makes it possible for me to get there.
"Baptism" -- I don't feel that it is necessary. I feel that the point is a public affirmation of what you believe. Certainly not necessary. But I also know a number of people who believe/feel differently.
"Literal" original sin? -- What's "literal"? That Eve was talking to a serpent? That the "sin" was eating some fruit? Or that Mankind turned their back on God?
"Sin" or "Bad" has no place in Heaven. At all.
But god is not confined to the laws of nature. He snaps his fingers and there is no sin. He does not even have to snap his fingers. Requiring some kind of sacrifice sounds too much like going back to Paganism to me. This just reinforces my belief that it is a human construct.
If you do not want to go into it again about free will, I understand. However, if everyone has free will, why do people pray to god for things that are in the sphere of another human's influence? And then give thanks to god if some other person, acting on their own free will, does something? Free will just sounds like another needlessly complex rationalization (like the Trinity) to explain an obvious flaw. You can call them my car keys, but they certainly do not look like my car keys.
I realize god does not have to answer to me, but would you worship Zeus if he were real?No, but then I don't feel that Zeus has my (or the world's) interests or well-being in mind.
That is how I feel about the god I read about in the Bible.
|
|
But god is not confined to the laws of nature. He snaps his fingers and there is no sin. He does not even have to snap his fingers.
Possibly. Would that then mean something special to you -- if he just "snapped his fingers"?
If you do not want to go into it again about free will, I understand. However, if everyone has free will, why do people pray to god for things that are in the sphere of another human's influence? And then give thanks to god if some other person, acting on their own free will, does something?
Because people don't know how to pray.
It would make more sense to me for a loving, all powerful being to just forgive me for being the me he/she/it created. Also, why put Jesus' family and friends through all of that?
Would it mean something special to you if, in the Book of Mormon, god punched the holes in the air tight boat without it needing to be pointed out?
|
|
It would make more sense to me for a loving, all powerful being to just forgive me for being the me he/she/it created. Also, why put Jesus' family and friends through all of that?
Would it mean something special to you if, in the Book of Mormon, god punched the holes in the air tight boat without it needing to be pointed out?
That's not my point. My point was -- would you believe more if it was something as simple as him snapping his fingers? As opposed to a long drawn-out display that many people witnessed.
With regard to the Book of Mormon -- whether or not there was an air-tight boat has nothing to do with me. It doesn't forgive my sins. It doesn't get me to heaven. It really isn't a good example with regard to the question at hand.