• 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

Audie

Veteran Member
Your "anything that criticizes" is off topic
and of course, not true.

Now, if a person buys into the bible
as being the real thing, it may make
internal sense to give away everything
you have, and think nothing of tomorrow.

It is bad financial advice, and I doubt you
or anyone you ever met, perhaos even heard
of, takes the advice
 
Take another read, what's true for Mr X may be true for him, but it doesn't make it true for everybody. Telling people its true for everybody just because it's true for him is nonsense and insults peoples intelligence

Even though its true for me, i realize its not true for you because you dont believe its true.

But, at the same time, truth is truth, whether i or you believe it or not.
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Even though its true for me, i realize its not true for you because you dont believe its true.

But, at the same time, truth is truth, whether i or you believe it or not.

If your happy to believe that then I'm happy for you. Could you please define TRUTH for us? That way it will help everybody know what it is their supposed to believe in
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
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.
Yes. The Christian view of God and reality requires original sin but, as you note, this idea makes no sense whatsoever.

But I wonder: how is it possible to have a God who is good and beautiful, and yet we have a world of pain and suffering?
 
If your happy to believe that then I'm happy for you. Could you please define TRUTH for us? That way it will help everybody know what it is their supposed to believe in

Are you truely happy that i believe adam/eve wer literal?

I define truth as that which is reality. Not myth, not false.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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...........

Pretty much all the traditional Christian Protestant and the Roman Church at minimum believe in the Fall, Original Sin, and the basics of Genesis. Most consider it literal.
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Are you truely happy that i believe adam/eve wer literal?

I define truth as that which is reality. Not myth, not false.

yes I am because I dont care what you believe. I dont say that to sound smug, but its your business NOT mine.

I'm OK with absolute truth when it relates to the natural physical world, but spiritual truth, nooooooooooo
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Yes. The Christian view of God and reality requires original sin but, as you note, this idea makes no sense whatsoever.

But I wonder: how is it possible to have a God who is good and beautiful, and yet we have a world of pain and suffering?

Good point. My best guess is we'll be told is because people have free will and God wont over ride peoples choices.
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Your "anything that criticizes" is off topic
and of course, not true.

Now, if a person buys into the bible
as being the real thing, it may make
internal sense to give away everything
you have, and think nothing of tomorrow.

It is bad financial advice, and I doubt you
or anyone you ever met, perhaos even heard
of, takes the advice

I showed that Thornton was using the wrong definition of Mammon. It is not merely money. And the argument, as least as it presented in the article, is self-contradictory. It says that money is a bad master, just like Jesus said. This is not at all off topic. You brought the subject up in the first place. If you did not want to discuss the subject, you should not have done that.

BTW I do not buy into the Bible as being the real thing. I am not religious at all. But I have studied what the Bible really says as opposed to what many on both sides think it says or want it to say. (I have studied many subjects in great depth. I am not just some kind of Bible fanatic.)

Case in point: Jesus never said that everyone should give everything away. The rich guy asked how to get eternal life. Jesus said to follow the commandments, several very specific action-oriented ones. The guy said he had done that all his life and wanted to do more. Jesus invited him to join his band of followers on the road. Someone so devoted to righteousness would be a fine addition. The big rule about that was that you had to give up your old life completely and devote yourself entirely to spreading the word on the road with no distractions. (Luke even has a passage where Jesus tells the crowds to stop following him because they are not willing to make that commitment.) In order to follow Jesus, the rich guy had to sell what he had and give it to the poor. That was too much for him. But if he continued to follow the commandments as he said he did, he would presumably get eternal life since that is what Jesus said was required.

Here is the passage in question.

One of the commandments Jesus included in his list was ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’. The Sheep and the Goats story in Matthew makes it clear just what ‘love your neighbor’ means, and that is serious commitment to charitable acts. This is why, back in the ‘rich guy’ story, it is hard for rich people to enter the kingdom of heaven. Getting all wrapped up with Mammon can blind one to the needs of others. In fact the thinking at the time was that material wealth was a sign of approval from God and that the unfortunate deserve their fate. In the ‘rich guy’ passage, Jesus debunks that. We might presume the rich guy avoided that trap, since he said he had always followed those commandments. BTW ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ is a commandment from Leviticus.

Despite what people on both sides love to do, taking bits and pieces out of context does not give an accurate picture of what is being said. The Bible is not a box of fortune cookie one-liners and will never be understood if it is treated that way. Read it in context and without preconceptions of what it is supposed to say or what somebody else claims it says, and you may be quite surprised.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I showed that Thornton was using the wrong definition of Mammon. It is not merely money. And the argument, as least as it presented in the article, is self-contradictory. It says that money is a bad master, just like Jesus said. This is not at all off topic. You brought the subject up in the first place. If you did not want to discuss the subject, you should not have done that.

BTW I do not buy into the Bible as being the real thing. I am not religious at all. But I have studied what the Bible really says as opposed to what many on both sides think it says or want it to say. (I have studied many subjects in great depth. I am not just some kind of Bible fanatic.)

Case in point: Jesus never said that everyone should give everything away. The rich guy asked how to get eternal life. Jesus said to follow the commandments, several very specific action-oriented ones. The guy said he had done that all his life and wanted to do more. Jesus invited him to join his band of followers on the road. Someone so devoted to righteousness would be a fine addition. The big rule about that was that you had to give up your old life completely and devote yourself entirely to spreading the word on the road with no distractions. (Luke even has a passage where Jesus tells the crowds to stop following him because they are not willing to make that commitment.) In order to follow Jesus, the rich guy had to sell what he had and give it to the poor. That was too much for him. But if he continued to follow the commandments as he said he did, he would presumably get eternal life since that is what Jesus said was required.

Here is the passage in question.

One of the commandments Jesus included in his list was ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’. The Sheep and the Goats story in Matthew makes it clear just what ‘love your neighbor’ means, and that is serious commitment to charitable acts. This is why, back in the ‘rich guy’ story, it is hard for rich people to enter the kingdom of heaven. Getting all wrapped up with Mammon can blind one to the needs of others. In fact the thinking at the time was that material wealth was a sign of approval from God and that the unfortunate deserve their fate. In the ‘rich guy’ passage, Jesus debunks that. We might presume the rich guy avoided that trap, since he said he had always followed those commandments. BTW ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ is a commandment from Leviticus.

Despite what people on both sides love to do, taking bits and pieces out of context does not give an accurate picture of what is being said. The Bible is not a box of fortune cookie one-liners and will never be understood if it is treated that way. Read it in context and without preconceptions of what it is supposed to say or what somebody else claims it says, and you may be quite surprised.

Interesting post, thanks.
Probably few non religious people
have found it worth the effort you've
made.

But I dont think anyone but the non believer
really has a chance to understand it.

Thanks again for taking your time responding.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
But I wonder: how is it possible to have a God who is good and beautiful, and yet we have a world of pain and suffering?

Good point. My best guess is we'll be told is because people have free will and God wont over ride peoples choices.

I could explain it to you, but I'd be surprised if you really want to learn the answer.

(And no, it doesn't involve free will--free will is just an illusion anyway.)
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium 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.
Well since all you understand on the topic is what you reject as being valid i would say you have brilliantly laid out you are an insult to your own intellectual nonsense.

On that point i agree with you totally!
 

masonlandry

Member
The evolution of morality part, yes. But the part about not believing in God, as Christians define Him, and yet defining yourself as a Christian, remains shrouded in mystery.

Because it's my culture for one thing, and because I think it's pragmatically useful. Perhaps it's not necessary, but putting the abstract ideas into the form of a mythological image makes it something I can actually get a grip on. A lot of morality has been figured out through trial and error over generations, and I can't analyze the consequences of every complex set of actions anyone might make. So I can turn to the story and see if I think it tells me something true about the world. You know, "what would Jesus do". Because he's the archetypal perfect being, chances are if I act like Jesus, it will turn out well for me. So in my estimation, if you follow Jesus, you're a Christian.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Yes. The Christian view of God and reality requires original sin but, as you note, this idea makes no sense whatsoever.

But I wonder: how is it possible to have a God who is good and beautiful, and yet we have a world of pain and suffering?

Original sin is connected to knowledge of good and evil, which is law. Humans have free will and can make choices. We have the choice to find our inner voice and learn to act with natural instinct. Or we can do it the easier way and listen to the external voices of the mass mind. The mass mind or the external voice is usually the source of most problems since it seeks a one size fits all solution for beings with free choice; law and regulations. Mass free choice is better tailored internally, since instinct will also integrate one with nature as free choices are made.

A good analogy is say God created a large buffet/store with all the things humans could ever want based on free choice and will. The natural man would have an internal affinity for healthy things due to natural instinct. He may try other things, but in moderation.The man who uses the mass mind, to think for him, will be more subject to the excesses of fad and compulsions, requiring an escalation in law to help protect from him from the unnatural and unhealthy living that, the choice of others, to make money or power, may induce.

Is it wrong for a host or hostess to have such a good spread for the party, or is it wrong for the guests to make pigs of themselves and then go home sick?
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
Because it's my culture for one thing, and because I think it's pragmatically useful. Perhaps it's not necessary, but putting the abstract ideas into the form of a mythological image makes it something I can actually get a grip on. A lot of morality has been figured out through trial and error over generations, and I can't analyze the consequences of every complex set of actions anyone might make. So I can turn to the story and see if I think it tells me something true about the world. You know, "what would Jesus do". Because he's the archetypal perfect being, chances are if I act like Jesus, it will turn out well for me. So in my estimation, if you follow Jesus, you're a Christian.

But "following Jesus" means following a real person, not an archetype of perfect goodness. The way you believe, you're basically an atheist--you don't believe God/Jesus exists--but you're following an ideal morality that you have labeled "Jesus." If you followed perfect seflishness instead, and called THAT "Jesus," you wouldn't be a Christian either. You can't just label whatever it is YOU value "Jesus" and then say you're a Christian because you're following "Jesus"--you have to actually follow the real, live, son of the real, live, God. You can't be a Christian if you don't believe God and Christ actually exist. That's not me being a snob, that's a matter of definition. A circle doesn't have four sides just because it calls itself a square.
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Interesting post, thanks.
Probably few non religious people
have found it worth the effort you've
made.

But I dont think anyone but the non believer
really has a chance to understand it.

Thanks again for taking your time responding.

Thank you.
 
Top