It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Good question from a muslim: Why did god need Jesus to die?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
I've bookmarked your blog after looking over a couple of articles, looks like a lot of good material, thanks for the link.

Thanks! Hope it helps in some way.


Personally, I've always viewed "original sin" as being an explanation for human nature, or perhaps human nature being the manifestation of the Fall. Either way, it points to the root of evil being self centeredness, and that is pervasive and seemingly inherently us. It doesn't cause us to sin, it just means that doing what we want, as opposed to what would be good for others, is inevitable.


I agree that it boils down to self-centeredness. But I don't view that as sin unless the person is old enough to comprehend the concept of clashes of wills. A baby is very self-centered but not sinning, because they don't have the ability to grasp "otherness". What Adam and Eve did is defy the will of God, and we all have done the same at one time or another. So while this may be too picayune a distinction for some, I think it's important to distinguish an act of will from an inherited trait, because of the implications this has for God being responsible for our sin.




posted on May, 20 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


The condemnation of infants can mostly be placed at the feet of St. Augustine, who utilized the argument of Original Sin and condemnation without baptism in his arguments against Donatism around 400AD. It is particularly unfortunate, in that it has no doubt caused significant mental anguish over the centuries for grieving parents, and it's inclusion in Augustine's argument probably wasn't necessary.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


The condemnation of infants can mostly be placed at the feet of St. Augustine, who utilized the argument of Original Sin and condemnation without baptism in his arguments against Donatism around 400AD. It is particularly unfortunate, in that it has no doubt caused significant mental anguish over the centuries for grieving parents, and it's inclusion in Augustine's argument probably wasn't necessary.


Yes, Augustine... the father of both Roman Catholic and Reformed theology... a fact I find most ironic.

Have you ever read "The Reformers And Their Stepchildren" by Leonard Verduin? I have a chapter-by-chapter summary and comment here: link. It's a real eye-opener, especially since the research was commissioned by Calvinists... another irony.
edit on 20-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: keyboard dyslexia... again



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


No, I haven't read that -- I'll check out your link, thanks.

Augustine is one of the Church Fathers that I would say was an absolute genius, and really had a handle on the logic of Christianity (aside to Awake_and_Aware and Madness -- I know, Christianity isn't logical
) and showed that, beginning with the scripture and thinking through what was going on, one could reason their way through the different aspects of the faith. For me, he was the first reasonable theologian.

Bear in mind that Augustine was a proponent of predestination, but not double predestination, which is where most people (including myself) run into problems with Calvin. As I said earlier, predestination answers a lot of questions, but double predestination is what makes it seem so unjust.

Wow, we've really wandered off topic. Though the OP seems to have dropped the thread (who can blame him, lol), I apologize for the drift.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Except that it isn't. Granted, I don't expect someone who doesn't realize the Euthyphro dilemma to know much of moral philosophy.

Plato:


"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"


Sure, you can just ignore it and go for the simple-minded "Divine Command" idea, in which you simply have a system where morality is based on the power of the individual making the command, which isn't really a moral system.


Wow, you're actually arguing in favor of Relativism? That's an absurdly moronic position. (And you cannot deny that it is because that statement is true for me)


Refuting Relativism

Good luck with that.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I've never claimed to be a relativist.


Thank God. There's a fallacy named specifically for Relativism, the "Relativist Fallacy".


Thanks for being a pleasant (loving thy enemy) "Christian" again, dude.


Stating that Relativism is a self-refuting fallacy of logic has nothing to do with Christianity.

*facepalm*



22:26pm here in the U.K - Rapture's nearly here; Harold Camping's predictions look pretty legit; he's an "expert" in the bible, afterall.


Sorry, Harold Camping was proved to be a false prophet 17 years ago.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


another good article on the Euthyphro dilemma

And here's one of my own: Which came first, the laws of physics or the matter they act upon?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



And here's one of my own: Which came first, the laws of physics or the matter they act upon?


I see that and I'll raise you a: Which came first the protein or the DNA?




posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Now the dilemma is whether anti-Christians will concede that Christianity is not internally contradictory, or that their own beliefs are as well. In either case they have no grounds for claiming intellectual or logical superiority.

Rock, meet hard place.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


I personally love the fact that Naturalists have to stand upon Biblical presuppositions to argue against God and or Christianity.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Wow, you're actually arguing in favor of Relativism? That's an absurdly moronic position. (And you cannot deny that it is because that statement is true for me)


I'm not arguing in favor of relativism, I'm saying it's not self-refuting. In fact, if you had bothered to actually read my next post in this same thread, you'd have noticed that I took the same position as awake_and_aware. There is an objective, though not absolute morality.

Of course, you still haven't bothered to defend your position in face of a dilemma that's been smacking it in the face since before the religion even existed.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Originally posted by adjensen
Nope, because there are lots of crimes you can commit against a king (kind or otherwise,) but there's only one thing that you can do against God -- ignore his commandments and live a life contrary to the law. There is no degree of sin (unless you're Catholic) so the result of your actions is ultimately just (in God's eyes, and that's all that matters.)


Ah, so we live in a thuggish dictatorship where there is only a system of laws that are arbitrarily assigned and absolute punishment is handed out for refusing to acknowledge baseless concepts because the one who set up the system of laws is merely more powerful than us.

Now I understand.





No, it's not a simple assertion, it's just the observation that we are at the core of all our actions. You help people because you want to.


No, I help people because they need to be helped. I don't tend to like doing it.



I give away a lot of money because I like thinking that I'm making other people's lives easier. No one can honestly say that their own desires, expectations and motivations play no role in why they do what they do.


I never said that they play no role, but they also don't absolutely taint everything.



Total depravity doesn't mean that we're terrible people (that would be "absolute depravity", a different concept)


I think you have those backwards. Either that or you started using the terms incorrectly in your last few posts.



but that human nature is such that, if everything was laid bare, even the good things we do aren't done for good reasons.


Except the idea that 'because it makes me feel good' isn't a good reason to do something that doesn't hurt someone else. I mean, the reason I don't smash nails into my forehead is because it feels good not to, or at least good in relation to the act itself.

The idea of a 'good reason' isn't even adequately defended in this system because there can be no such thing as a good reason in the system itself.



It also doesn't mean that you shouldn't still do them, because even though your good deeds do YOU no good, they still result in good for others.


And it also ignores the fact that doing good for others should result in doing good for you.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I'm sorry, but Jesus was proven to be a false prophet ~1900 years ago.

You see, your cognitive dissonance about Jesus is pretty bad and yet you're tossing out that someone else is a false prophet.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



Originally posted by SaberTruth
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Now the dilemma is whether anti-Christians will concede that Christianity is not internally contradictory, or that their own beliefs are as well.


No, Christianity is internally contradictory and a basis of morality in suffering is not.

Nobody has addressed the dilemma properly and to state that things are good because they are internal to the character of a deity is to merely create a false option.

Why? Because it's merely to create an unfounded description as a solution to a problem. There is no reason to claim that goodness is intimate to the nature of God, it's only being done so to get out of a moral problem.

Oh, and that article is incredibly stupid as it argues from moral intuition. Moral intuition is not universal and is highly colored by cultural context. The argument from moral intuition is to argue for relativism.



In either case they have no grounds for claiming intellectual or logical superiority.

Rock, meet hard place.


Arrogant statement, meet ignorance.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
adj


when the Pope decreed that, in order to be Catholic (and thus, in order to be saved) you had to believe in the Immaculate Conception, doesn't that say that everyone who was Catholic prior to the 1800s wouldn't be saved, because they didn't know that they had to believe that?

Mmm, no.

In order to be Catholic, you need to be baptized, and not necessarily in a Catholic context. That's it. Not even that if there are exigent circumstances, or a suitable substitute for baptism occurred.

Further, like all Nicene Christians, Catholics believe that Jesus will judge. There may be "no salvation outside the Church," but the Church is Jesus' mystical body. Guess who has the final say about who's in and who's out?

The effect of the ex cathedra announcement is that the Church teaches this, so if you present a contrary view, then you cannot say that you are presenting the Roman Catholic view. And orthodox Catholics believe that you would be in error about a question of fact. Whether Jesus takes your presentation as an insult to him or his Mom, we'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, says the Bishop of Rome, you've been warned.

We can see the answer to your retroactivity question directly. Like the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics recognize saints, people whom those churches believe are now with Jesus in heaven. Many of those saints were churchmen. If you pull the records of a few of them, you'll see that it is very common that they are criticized for some aspect of their writings by living churchmen.

In a later post, you mentioned Saint Augustine. He was "saved," then, despite holding some wrong beliefs, by RCC reckoning.

Beyond that simple exercise, come on, adj, do the math. Catholics aren't Protestants. Catholics don't think that correct propositional belief will save you anyway.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I think that the story of Jesus and him having to die was a way of saying that Jesus was portrayed god and man and this says that the man has to die before he can live with god.
The 'man' in us is the beast or satan. The 'man' in us uses this moment as a stepping stone to something better.
There is always intent, purpose, manipulation, something to get. The 'what's in it for me?' attitude, that is seen as totally normal in this society. In fact it is encouraged, admired.
This 'me' is the 'man'. There are all these many 'mes' trying to get something better, all standing on each other using each other and each 'now' as a stepping stone. The 'I' lives now and sees now and hears now and tastes now. Now is enough.
There is nothing to get that is worth more than living with god, knowing god.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I'm not arguing in favor of relativism, I'm saying it's not self-refuting. In fact, if you had bothered to actually read my next post in this same thread, you'd have noticed that I took the same position as awake_and_aware. There is an objective, though not absolute morality.


Yes, it is self-refuting. If Relativism were "true", then it wouldn't be true for everyone. Thus would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.

That's elementary.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Arrogant statement, meet ignorance.


Yes, we've heard your rants before, we get it. Anyone who disagrees with you is "arrogant" and "ignorant".

You're the most enlightened and learned one to grace the horizon of ATS.

*Bows*

P.S. Don't tell me "learned" isn't a word, I'll show you the dictionary defi...

nevermind, I forgot you're superior to dictionaries too.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I said it in passing because I didn't want to get in to this. That's ontological and epistemological relativism, I'm talking about moral relativism, which is to say that morality itself has relative standards rather than one.

Since we weren't talking about either ontology or epistemology, I assumed you wouldn't get into that.

I'd also assume that you'd bother addressing my actual assertions instead of the positions I'm not in favor of.
edit on 21/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I'm sorry, but Jesus was proven to be a false prophet ~1900 years ago.

You see, your cognitive dissonance about Jesus is pretty bad and yet you're tossing out that someone else is a false prophet.


Jesus has never proved to be a false prophet. In fact, the Christians who listened to Jesus escaped the Roman's siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Harold Camping wrote a book titled "1994" in 1992 that said Jesus would return in 1994. Harold Camping was proved a false prophet 17 years ago.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join