• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Logic & Faith

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Once you reject the myth of original sin, then things start to get interesting.

If we didn’t fall into “original sin” as an act of wilful disobedience, there was no need to be baptized “for the remission of sins”. The idea that unbaptized babies were bound for hell is ludicrous. There was also no need for us to be “saved”, rescued, or redeemed” from a fall that never happened.

Once you reject the concept of original sin the whole package falls apart. This meant that the story of God sending Jesus or incarnating the divine person in the human Jesus to overcome “the fall” or to “die for our sins” is reduced to a little more than at best a pious nonsense and at worst a massive deception.

In the end God cannot logically rescue us from a fall that never happened, nor can God restore us to a status we never possessed.

If you choose to believe this, it’s totally cool with me as long those who believe don’t insult my intelligence by tell me it’s true.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Lets say that Jesus was here on earth 2000 years ago, i would think he was teaching that one should not sin, But in my research i have not found that he took away all sins for every human being for the rest of history. What i found is that the teaching from long time ago (not later translations) that one must do the harship of becomming better one self. What the line of Jesus saved human beings the way i understand it means. The teaching he gave could save those who follow the teaching and understood it, then they fixed their morality and virtue to go along the teachings instead of changing the teachings to fit the humans.
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Lets say that Jesus was here on earth 2000 years ago, i would think he was teaching that one should not sin, But in my research i have not found that he took away all sins for every human being for the rest of history. What i found is that the teaching from long time ago (not later translations) that one must do the harship of becomming better one self. What the line of Jesus saved human beings the way i understand it means. The teaching he gave could save those who follow the teaching and understood it, then they fixed their morality and virtue to go along the teachings instead of changing the teachings to fit the humans.

Yes, I agree, Jesus was an amazing teacher and there is no question that following his teaching is sound advice and would certainly as you say safe many of us from the consequences of our stupidity
 

spirit_of_dawn

Active Member
Once you reject the myth of original sin, then things start to get interesting.

If we didn’t fall into “original sin” as an act of wilful disobedience, there was no need to be baptized “for the remission of sins”. The idea that unbaptized babies were bound for hell is ludicrous. There was also no need for us to be “saved”, rescued, or redeemed” from a fall that never happened.

Once you reject the concept of original sin the whole package falls apart. This meant that the story of God sending Jesus or incarnating the divine person in the human Jesus to overcome “the fall” or to “die for our sins” is reduced to a little more than at best a pious nonsense and at worst a massive deception.

In the end God cannot logically rescue us from a fall that never happened, nor can God restore us to a status we never possessed.

If you choose to believe this, it’s totally cool with me as long those who believe don’t insult my intelligence by tell me it’s true.

One the most important attributes of God is his Justness. The God I worship is not an unjust Deity that punishes for crimes that have not committed.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Once you reject the myth of original sin, then things start to get interesting.
I've found that once we reimagine the myth of the original sin as symbolic, and not literal, then things really do get considerably even more interesting! We find hidden truths in it. :)

If we didn’t fall into “original sin” as an act of wilful disobedience, there was no need to be baptized “for the remission of sins”.
However, if one reimagines the myths as symbolic of something sensed within the authors experience of life, of being a human and wondering about the origins of himself and his reality he found himself within, looking to mythic symbolisms to express his deeper questions of life, then this has actually quite some significance anyone can relate to on one level or another.

For instance, one take is to say the myth of the fall was symbolic of that sense of loss and disconnect we feel as we grow up into the world, from the innocent conscious of the child, living in a world of magic and myth, and eating of that apple of culture, of ideas, of the programming of our languages, and so forth which leads us to disconnect with that original source, then what is captured is a truth that we all feel in ourselves. "Where is God"? Where is that innocence of the child again?

Now then, take the baptism you mentioned in this context. The baptism becomes symbolic of ones commitment to reconnect with the divine, with the Source, with that wonder and beauty and joy which enveloped our realities as the innocent child. It represents one's intention to become more than this lost, disconnected human in this garden called reality. That in and of itself enacts upon the whole person, and a transformation ensues.

There are other ways to read this too, without needing to say if it's not literally true, it means nothing. You can see how that is not true. Right?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Yes, I agree, Jesus was an amazing teacher and there is no question that following his teaching is sound advice and would certainly as you say safe many of us from the consequences of our stupidity

Just maybe not the economic advice?
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
I've found that once we reimagine the myth of the original sin as symbolic, and not literal, then things really do get considerably even more interesting! We find hidden truths in it. :)


However, if one reimagines the myths as symbolic of something sensed within the authors experience of life, of being a human and wondering about the origins of himself and his reality he found himself within, looking to mythic symbolisms to express his deeper questions of life, then this has actually quite some significance anyone can relate to on one level or another.

For instance, one take is to say the myth of the fall was symbolic of that sense of loss and disconnect we feel as we grow up into the world, from the innocent conscious of the child, living in a world of magic and myth, and eating of that apple of culture, of ideas, of the programming of our languages, and so forth which leads us to disconnect with that original source, then what is captured is a truth that we all feel in ourselves. "Where is God"? Where is that innocence of the child again?

Now then, take the baptism you mentioned in this context. The baptism becomes symbolic of ones commitment to reconnect with the divine, with the Source, with that wonder and beauty and joy which enveloped our realities as the innocent child. It represents one's intention to become more than this lost, disconnected human in this garden called reality. That in and of itself enacts upon the whole person, and a transformation ensues.

There are other ways to read this too, without needing to say if it's not literally true, it means nothing. You can see how that is not true. Right?

I have no problem with the "original sin" concept/myth being symbolic, but there are people out there who actually believe it was literal.... The mind boggles...........
 

spirit_of_dawn

Active Member
But isn't that the same god as the god of Abraham? The god who made the world in six days; created the Flood; sent prophets such Abraham, David, and Moses; and was the father of Jesus?

.

There is only one God, but according to Shia theology He isn't what you described.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
There is only one God, but according to Shia theology He isn't what you described.
Not at all familiar with the Islamic faith and where Shia theology fits into it, but I did just come across this in "Who is Allah? Understanding God in Islam"

"According to the Islamic statement of witness, or shahada, “There is no god but Allah”. Muslims believe he created the world in six days and sent prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and lastly Muhammad, who called people to worship only him, rejecting idolatry and polytheism.

Allah is usually thought to mean “the god” (al-ilah) in Arabic and is probably cognate with rather than derived from the Aramaic Alaha. All Muslims and most Christians acknowledge that they believe in the same god even though their understandings differ."

source

So, do you subscribe to what is said here, that the god of the Bible and Allah are one in the same god? If not, how does your version of this god differ from the Biblical god?

.
 

spirit_of_dawn

Active Member
Not at all familiar with the Islamic faith and where Shia theology fits into it, but I did just come across this in "Who is Allah? Understanding God in Islam"

"According to the Islamic statement of witness, or shahada, “There is no god but Allah”. Muslims believe he created the world in six days and sent prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and lastly Muhammad, who called people to worship only him, rejecting idolatry and polytheism.

Allah is usually thought to mean “the god” (al-ilah) in Arabic and is probably cognate with rather than derived from the Aramaic Alaha. All Muslims and most Christians acknowledge that they believe in the same god even though their understandings differ."

source

So, do you subscribe to what is said here, that the god of the Bible and Allah are one in the same god? If not, how does your version of this god differ from the Biblical god?

.

For one thing the claim that Muslims believe God created the world in six days is not correct. In Arabic 'day' means a period of time, with the most common usage being the 24 hour period day. We believe the world evolved into what we see it now during 6 periods. The same probably applies to the statement in the book of Genesis. You can even see similar meanings in the english language. The Concise Oxofrd English dictionary has 2 meanings for day, the second is this: "a particular period of the past."

Yes we believe in the previous Prophets but not in the same manner that they have been described in the old and new testaments.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
So you're saying that if you don't believe the Bible, then suddenly the Bible stops being believable?

There's a newsflash...

If you choose to believe this, it’s totally cool with me as long those who believe don’t insult my intelligence by tell me it’s true.

And if you choose not to believe this, it's totally cool with me, as long as you don't insult my intelligence by telling me it's not true.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
For one thing the claim that Muslims believe God created the world in six days is not correct. In Arabic 'day' means a period of time, with the most common usage being the 24 hour period day. We believe the world evolved into what we see it now during 6 periods. The same probably applies to the statement in the book of Genesis. You can even see similar meanings in the english language. The Concise Oxofrd English dictionary has 2 meanings for day, the second is this: "a particular period of the past."

Yes we believe in the previous Prophets but not in the same manner that they have been described in the old and new testaments.
Interesting. So where do you get your information about the Flood, the prophets, and Jesus from?

.
 

Katja

Member
Once you reject the concept of original sin the whole package falls apart. This meant that the story of God sending Jesus or incarnating the divine person in the human Jesus to overcome “the fall” or to “die for our sins” is reduced to a little more than at best a pious nonsense and at worst a massive deception.


My understanding about Jesus "dying for our sins" is that it refers not to "original sin" but to sins we ourselves commit...
 

masonlandry

Member
I don't literally believe in original sin or that Adam and Eve were real people. A lot of Christians seem to be on board with this being symbolic. Where I differ is that I believe the whole lot of it is symbolic, or at least most of it. The whole salvation because of the sacrifice of the innocent firstborn son I believe is symbolic too. And I think people have it wrong (wrong maybe isn't the correct word choice, but incorrect insofar as it accurately describes reality) that literally just believing it happens saves you from going to a literal hell and sends you to a literal heaven.

Here's the gist of what I think the basic story of the Bible means: Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a reflection on the emergence of consciousness of mankind, and the "punishment" they receive is a reflection on the hardships that come along with being able to imagine the future (including the fact that childbirth hurts like hell because of the big skulls that we need to hold our big brains, and the max hip size women reached because if they got much bigger women wouldn't be able to run, and that wouldn't turn out well from an evolutionary standpoint.) We didn't start out perfect and then fall willingly, we never were perfect and never will be most likely. The rest of the Old Testament is largely fables about morality, which are very primitive in my estimation. They are discovering what must be done to have a functional society, but they're really bad at it so far and only have the most fundamental aspects down. The wars between tribes that have different gods who have different ethics is largely a battle of those very ethics rather than of actual gods. It works a lot like natural selection in biology. The ethic that is most "fit" for the environment is the one that persists, and many meld over the years.

When we get to the new testament, the idea of God has changed significantly. So much that it seems on the surface to be an entirely different god with a different nature. I don't think that's the case. I think the reason the old testament view of god stuck around is that it encompasses the tyrannical order that results when you don't have an operational mediator between order and chaos. That's what Jesus does. Jesus is what humanity, in the first century onward as it was updated and translated and edited into a workable form that seemed to satisfy the early church, was able to come up with as a representative of what a human being who was maximally perfect would look like. He was archetypal in the sense that he represents the best of the heroes of mankind. He undid the idea of pure order that had become tyrannical and outdated - the totalitarian, jealous god of the ancient Semites - and updated it with conscious, active engagement. He was the one who allowed the freedom of thought to begin to understand why the rules are what they are, rather than blindly following them. You know, the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. And the moral that follows his whole life is that the best way to live in the world is to focus your aim directly on the greatest good (God the Father; the structure of highest order), mediate between chaos and order through paying attention and telling the truth about what you see (this is why he is the "logos", the word), and bearing the responsibility of the suffering inherent in life. He took on the worst form of suffering, the suffering of the world, and the reason I think he represents the worst kind of suffering is that he was tortured and punished in the worst of ways they knew how for doing everything right. That shows us that doing everything right will not remove suffering from your life, but by taking responsibility (bearing your cross) and accepting it, you make life worth living. The idea of salvation is not from a literal afterlife (who the hell knows if there even is one) but from the hell that your life becomes if you don't live this way. And the heaven that following Jesus affords you is one that you build for yourself and those around you by living this way.

This is why it confounds me when fundamentalist continually wonder why I bother with Christianity at all. They think that, because I don't believe it literally, it must have no value. They see al the value in the historical accuracy of it all. I don't. I think the opposite. This story, wherever it came from and however these ancient people understood these things even subconsciously, it works when you live it out. There's the value. If you only believe in it literally and don't bother to see all the symbolism and allegory underneath it, I truly think you don't get anywhere near the whole benefit of it. I think that is the difference illustrated between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees. They know the law, but they don't know what it means, and so all they get from it is feeling high and mighty, but they don't understand. I think you can understand it symbolically as well as believeing it literally, but if all you get from the Bible is a history of life on earth, I think you are sorely missing the point.
 
Top