Christianity is an Imaginary "Sin Insurance" Racket

reply to post by sir_chancealot


"Put another way: All the other "golden rules" tell you what you CANNOT do. Jesus' golden rule tells you what you MUST do. See the difference now?"

Where do it say you MUST do anything?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
...First, religion has been an impediment to the human race of much greater scale than it has been a benefit. ...

What schools were ever started by atheists? What hospitals were started by atheists? What hunger relief programs were started by atheists? What orphanages were started by atheists?

Tell me: Are the majority of countries where Christianity never took hold (or were not conquered by Christians) first world countries?

Name me a country where Christianity is in the majority and women are considered property.

You have made a statement, now let's see you back it up with FACTS.

reply to post by sir_chancealot


You seriously think religion is important in any of those endeavours? Try a deprogramming course if you do.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Where do it say you MUST do anything?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Is your reading comprehension off a little? Or do you just refuse to see what is written right before you? I think it is more the latter than the former.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by sir_chancealot

 

You seriously think religion is important in any of those endeavours? Try a deprogramming course if you do.

What's the matter? Can't find any FACTS to back up your assertion?

reply to post by sir_chancealot


You what a world-wide list of schools, hospitals, etc., that were started by atheists? Or would you just like a sweeping generalization like you've been providing? You haven't shown that all schools, hospitals, etc., were started by holy rollers. Back that up with some facts if you can.

reply to post by Dean Goldberry


Thanks for making the distinction between Jesus and those who do things in his name(Christians).

But Jesus isn't really as vague as one may think. I understand why it may seem that way, but that is simply because you do not understand some basic things.

Without those basic understandings, it's like trying to do algebra before you know math. It's not going to make much sense.

And those basic understandings aren't something a man can really give you. I can tell you them all day long, but it's just something you have to understand for yourself.

For me, that came in John 14:20, although I had no idea at the time it was that. It was just something I experienced and seen for myself.

John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Notice it says you will know, not that someone will tell you and so forth. Can't be told, must be experienced. Can't fake it, and you would only be fooling yourself to do so. It's followed by the holy spirit who gives understanding and so forth. This is why it is said that you can't really understand the bible without the holy spirit. It doesn't repeat bible verses to you or anything like that, doesn't sit around repeating 1+1=2 until you can magically know to add. It gives understanding, you can just suddenly add and completely understand it. And then you start to see what you learned expressed all over, 1+1=2 and 2+3=5 and so forth.

Then Jesus will not be vague at all, but then you will also already know these things and Jesus is just someone who is repeating what you learned. You can read a passage from Jesus before the experience and it's like "wtf?". After it's like "omg that is exactly right, I had no idea he was talking about that". Because until after, you don't really know what "that" is to be talked about.

But no doubt the christian religion as a whole is "sin insurance" for the blind(those who can't see "that"). The thing is though, Jesus actually warns of them. So I personally don't attribute or think of them as people who follow Jesus. They belong to the religion about Jesus, I am more about the religion of Jesus. If I couldn't seperate the 2, I'd not have a very good opinion of Jesus, but I'm not fool enough to let what they do in his name determine what Jesus says or is about.

All you have to do is look at the rich man who came to Jesus. Jesus tells him no, it's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven. The church says - oh sure, come on in and don't forget the donation bucket. I guess according to the church the joke was on the rich man, he didn't really have to get rid of his riches, he just needed to wait until after Jesus was dead and then "just believe in him". Wonder why Jesus just didn't tell him that?

And if Jesus didn't meet up with what I learned, I'd drop it in a heartbeat. But he does exactly, so what can I say?




[edit on 15-4-2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by redhead57
I am not one that goes for the whole "Original Sin" thing. How ludicrous does it sound that a god would create a people, set them up from the jump as sinful creatures separated from himself, simply by being born, his idea!

Then we add to it the need to kill, bleed, and cut up animals to gain forgiveness for these committed sins, but never be able to get the "sinful nature" out. So...along comes poor Jesus, and they claim that this is god in the flesh, his only begotten son that has to die and shed his blood so the people who were set up with this "original sin" can now come into relationship with their creator.

IT is a crock if you ask me. How does the shedding of the blood of an animal or of a person have anything to do with the "sins" of another????

Sin-missing the mark. That is what sin is in the original language. Not some overwhelming condition of man.

If people paid attention to the words of Jesus, the ones he condemned were the religious leaders....you know the ones that went around reminding the people of how sinful they were! Jesus said the kingdom of god is within and if you read the gnostic texts you will see how the orthodox/catholic church used only the writings that fit what they wanted.......control. red

Original sin is misunderstood. Original sin is just that you are ignorant. It is not really about "disobeying god" in the garden. You took from the "tree of knowledge". What does that mean exactly?

How do you know the difference between hot and cold temperatures? Only because you have experienced both of them. If you were always the same temperature, the concept of different temperatures would be beyond you. You could be told about them and so forth, but you can not truly understand until you have been both hot and cold. Then after experiencing both you will know and understand the difference. Thus, you have gained knowledge on it.

And so genesis says from the tree of knowledge, we will now learn both good and evil. To be like gods, with knowledge. How are we going to know them? Same way we know the difference between good and evil, by experiencing both.

And so we have this reality. Where we experience both good and evil, and as we are ignorant in the start we take to the "evil", and that is what is called original sin. But the entire point is to gain knowledge and understanding over time and then make the correct choice. This is to have wisdom. Those who are ignorant to the truth do bad/evil things, except for the "wicked" who know the truth but do bad things to keep people ignorant for their own gain. Love them, they are for your education and so that you can gain wisdom. In the hindu religon for example, at the end the demons and angels all hug. All just a school for you.

And the blood shed and such is a misunderstanding to keep ignorance going. It is more symbolic IMO. That has nothing to do with it. Fixing your mistakes is the point.

I think Buddha gave good advice in this regards.

Buddha said -- Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by DaMod

 

"As far as I know god is not a "sky fairy". "

Exactly, as far as you know. But fairies were supposed to be supernatural creatures, like "god", centaurs and minotaurs. So how do you know he's not a fairy. He could be Freddie Mercury for all you know. Imaginary friends are very flexible.

And this is exactly why you do not understand. If you think god is some sky fairy or that people think god is some invisible man in the sky, then you simply have no clue.

God is within a person. He is not some external deal in the clouds, he is within. So while you are looking "out there" for god, you are what is called "blind" because you do not look within.

psalm 82
5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Read the whole chapter, it's really short:

www.biblegateway.com...

All that Jesus says of himself is true of you, you just have to realize and see it.




[edit on 15-4-2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by Dean Goldberry

I've never been taught that it's a way of legitimizing sin, but rather because God is just, the only way for him to satisfy justice and remain true to his nature and at the same time redeem man is to punish something or someone in their place. That something cannot be non-man, seeing as humans are the fallen beings in question here, but at the same time cannot be a sinful being that is already worthy of punishment or something...don't ask me why for sure llol
This is why God came as a man (Jesus) and then was put to death here. Biblically, this was no mere death. The wrath of God concerning sin/darkness and the likes, for all men to be redeemed, was placed upon Jesus. Not just a brutal death. But a supernatural spiritual, mental, emotional revelation and torture of the guilt weighing on all men and sense of God's distress and fury over the matter; something beyond explanation, because nobody else has yet to experience it...at least so goes the theory. It wasn't a simple matter of Jesus, an eternal sinless being, was supernaturally allowed to die, and now we're saved!
The reason sin was allowed to come into existence was because there has to be free choice to chose going against the...I suppose "instructions" we were created to function optimally within, or rebel against the things we were created for. There has to be free choice of these matters otherwise there is no possible argument for the existence of love. What does love mean, if there is no opportunity to chose what you will do?
However, at the same time, there must be punishment and an end to sin because of its effects on beings that God loves. According to his nature, how can he let it continue?
That is why our current state on the earth, while allowed to continue a while, is finite. But it is also allowed so that we see the horrific effects of a world developing beneath the effects of sin (and no doubt for the rest of the universe to observe) and so that all may see clearly why God cannot allow it. Also as further proof that He is loving; because he's offered redemption to anyone that will accept it. Instead of eliminating us all from existence immediately..or whatever...

Anyhow, back to the suggestion that Christianity offers legitimization for sin....this is not biblical. Many argue "it's ALL grace!" and think that it means that you can go on sinning and living like hell and still go live eternally in paradise or whatever, and that the bible supports this. But to the contrary, it speaks extensively of a change of character, a changing back to the un-sin affected state of mind and being over time. It does not say that true Christians will not sin, slip up, but that they will give themselves over to this process and once out of the flesh, it will become permanent and a finished work. This can only make sense (at least according to what I have been taught) because after all of it, why would God chose to eternalize sin 'sickness'?
Yes, the vast majority of Christianity scarcely teaches a thing about this, most of it is terribly different. But the bible makes significant complaint of 'spiritual' groups altering Christianity and twisting meanings and placing wrong or false focus on certain elements while diminishing others, and the likes, and predicts that it continues til the end times basically. So I have a hard time arguing for "oh but it's been changed all through history!"
Yeah, no kidding, if we have the nature we are said to be born with, of course there will be twisting and lies, abundantly, if anything...among a great deal of confusion.

Anyway, I am not 'preaching' any of this; let me make it clear, that this is only what I was taught, and how it potentially may answer some of your questions or contain some points worth consideration. I am still exploring for myself. To say the least...

reply to post by phoebeflakes


"God is just,"

Just? Good, you can, perhaps, tell me why newborn and unborn children died in the so-called Great Flood Christian place so much store in? Or the people in Peru, who lived descent lives, but never heard of Jehovah? The whole planet had to die? That's a just god?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by sir_chancealot

 

You what a world-wide list of schools, hospitals, etc., that were started by atheists? Or would you just like a sweeping generalization like you've been providing? You haven't shown that all schools, hospitals, etc., were started by holy rollers. Back that up with some facts if you can.

You first stated:

First, religion has been an impediment to the human race of much greater scale than it has been a benefit.

I have asked you to show this is true with FACTS. When you have done so, THEN we can discuss my facts to back up my position. I merely provided several areas from which you could do that. You don't have to be limited to those; but it IS very telling that you couldn't even list a single example.

I have asked you first to back up your assertion with facts. If you cannot do so, then you cannot fault people for disbelieving you.

reply to post by sir_chancealot


You first claimed that religion was important to hospitals, universities, etc. Without support. That puts the onus on you.

)Edit: In reply to Gawdzilla)

I believe that is covered in the whole idea of the world being left in existence to demonstrate the effects of sin on life.

Anyway, don't ask me, I never said what I ultimately believe, I'm just saying what I was taught growing up and to this point in my church.
Go ask God.
lol

[edit on 15-4-2009 by phoebeflakes]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
I'm sorry but I would say that you had broken these other rules. Because the mere act of walking by me trapped in the pit is hurtful.

I don't see any distinction between these golden rules, but thank you for posting them :-)

You apparently are not familiar with what the words "do" and "to" mean. (And no, I'm not being facetious here).

Do: to bring to pass...perform, execute...

To: used as a function word to indicate movement or an action or condition suggestive of movement toward a place, person, or thing reached

While the "mere act of walking by me trapped in the pit" certainly WOULD be "hurtful", it does NOT break those other rules. I have DONE nothing TO you.

In the other golden rules, I have to ACTIVELY do some form of harm to you to be breaking the rule. Merely leaving you to your own devices is not harm. You would be in no worse shape when I passed by, as you would have been before I passed by.

How have I "done" anything "to" you by ignoring you? I haven't, by the very definition of the words.

This is NOT a mere symantical difference. There is a very profound (though, again, very SUBTLE) difference in the two.

reply to post by phoebeflakes


So, now that you're an adult, would you really teach the same stuff to a child? Mass murder, on more than one occasion. The most "honorable" man in Sodom offering his virgin daughters to the mob? Lot's wife killed because she looked back at her home, family, friends and entire history? The Jews ordered to kill everyone in a specific area that wasn't be used as a slave? The law that says disobedient teens should be stoned to death?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by sir_chancealot

 

You first claimed that religion was important to hospitals, universities, etc. Without support. That puts the onus on you.

That is NOT what I stated. You are either mistaken, or a liar. Which is it? And if that IS what I said, as you claim, please show the date and time stamp and the link to the post where I said that.

On 4/14/2009, at 11:35pm (board time), you stated

First, religion has been an impediment to the human race of much greater scale than it has been a benefit.

This was BEFORE my first response to this thread at all.

On 4/15/2009 at 7:29 am (board time) I asked you to back up your statement that "religion has been an impediment to the human race of much greater scale than it has been a benefit.".

So, let's look at the way things happened.
1) YOU made a statement.
2) *I* asked you to back up that statement with facts.

Until you do so, it is NOT my "onus" to support ONE SINGLE THING. You have not even defended your position yet.

Ball is in YOUR court. Please show us facts that back up your assertion that "religion has been an impediment to the human race of much greater scale than it has been a benefit."

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Please show us facts that back up your assertion that "religion has been an impediment to the human race of much greater scale than it has been a benefit."

OK, In my opinion, every single one of the examples below was a direct result of organized religion. I know Modern Christians don't like the crusades, but it was sure #1 on the hit parade with Christians when it was going on. I have spared you the obligatory Salem Witch Trials, because I know they are indefensible. In fact, all of these are indefensible, all created strife for mankind, all were caused by organized religion. Prove me wrong, or show me how any of these were a benefit.

Crusades
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy

French Wars Of Religion
wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants

Thirty Years War
Religious warfare between Roman Catholics and Calvinists

I have many, many more if you would care to open this can of worms further.

reply to post by sir_chancealot


"That is NOT what I stated. You are either mistaken, or a liar. Which is it? And if that IS what I said, as you claim, please show the date and time stamp and the link to the post where I said that."

Neither, as a matter of fact.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by phoebeflakes

 

So, now that you're an adult, would you really teach the same stuff to a child? Mass murder, on more than one occasion. The most "honorable" man in Sodom offering his virgin daughters to the mob? Lot's wife killed because she looked back at her home, family, friends and entire history? The Jews ordered to kill everyone in a specific area that wasn't be used as a slave? The law that says disobedient teens should be stoned to death?

Yes and no. I think it is cruel to expect a child (or even a full grown person, but it's scarier because children are impressionable) to learn all of these things and react to them as their adult teachers say they should.

On the one hand.... They should be given honest answers when they ask "What sorts of stories are in the Bible?" Not just one side of it all, or a simplified version or metaphor or whatever. Because then they will have much more valid questions a bit later in life, then a bit later in life after that, and so on, as they learn more. This goes for anything.
There are lots of dark realities to life. I am talking in a general sense, not religious. We don't tell our kids they can't watch the news. Maybe at a really young age yes. But eventually, if you keep doing it, it's just dumb and preventing them from seeing what is really there, and finding their own questions that are valuable to their own lives.

So in that sense, there is nothing wise about NOT teaching kids what exists in the Bible, (just like in the world, any book, any questions, whatever) if they ask the questions.
There is something wrong with pounding it into their heads and making them believe that they, there on the spot, MUST believe it, react to it in a certain way etc. It can be downright cruel.
Ultimately everyone has to look at what's out there and make their OWN decisions if something will have meaning to them, or become intelligently 'not-meaningful'; Trying to manipulate them with ANY material, religious or not, is absolutely useless and will only create problems and slow a person down far too often.

I am not a person that believes in Sunday school, if you haven't gathered that much yet lol