If Christianity does turn out to be the right religion...

reply to post by bogomil

Mankind has to find meaning and reality outside self-proclaimed 'truths' from myths.

Do you have a thread that you explain how to do that? Sounds interesting and I would like to see where you think you can take it. It seems like the accepted way of thinking about human nature is that they are hard wired for mythology. So what you propose would be going against the normal.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

. . .christianities on the imperfection to be pure guesses/speculations.

I was not necessarily trying to contradict you, so much as to prod you to build a better case.
To me, the strict original sin concept could not be correct because you would be making Jesus a sinner, which I refuse to accept. I would not say being sinless is impossible so much as highly improbable.
Regardless of that, I suppose I do go along with Medieval doctrine in that I believe without the intervention of the Son of God, we would be libel for penalty regardless of how good we may be.

And how would that "make Christ a sinner"? Isn't that one of the two purposes of the virgin birth?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

Mankind has to find meaning and reality outside self-proclaimed 'truths' from myths.

Do you have a thread that you explain how to do that? Sounds interesting and I would like to see where you think you can take it. It seems like the accepted way of thinking about human nature is that they are hard wired for mythology. So what you propose would be going against the normal.

I have been thinking about creating such a thread for a long time. And with no intentions of claiming 'authority' (byt maybe experience), it would be the result of 45 years of existential experiments, 'research', academic study and practical participation, when such has been possible.

Impossible to compress into a few topic-relevant sentences: But .....'local truths in relative realities'. Ultimately ending in epistemology, where optional choices eventually are made on pragmatic grounds.

Translated to normalese: On their own premises e.g. science/logic and theism are closed systems with each their own systematic methodologies. Mankind will choose between such options from how these options function on their own ground (if the choice is without interference).

Sad to say, but such far-reaching existential 'searches' aren't popular with theists: "Why bother, we already have the answer", so few christians would be interested in if christianity IS the right religion (and if religion has any 'truth' in it). They have already decided, and stick with this decission come rain or snow.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

. . .christianities on the imperfection to be pure guesses/speculations.

I was not necessarily trying to contradict you, so much as to prod you to build a better case.
To me, the strict original sin concept could not be correct because you would be making Jesus a sinner, which I refuse to accept. I would not say being sinless is impossible so much as highly improbable.
Regardless of that, I suppose I do go along with Medieval doctrine in that I believe without the intervention of the Son of God, we would be libel for penalty regardless of how good we may be.

And how would that "make Christ a sinner"? Isn't that one of the two purposes of the virgin birth?

The virgin birth being one of the many, many assumptions which together make christianity an elaborate chain of smaller circle-arguments inside bigger circle-arguments.

The only gnostic 'answer' (to IS christianity etc) will be to die and stand in the next alleged "reality-level', and maybe even that will be insufficient, as the co-creator model says that we even create our own (possible) after-life also.

reply to post by BlackStar99


Sorry, it's the Mormons.

Just trying to help.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by BEAST1E
Isn't it said in the bible that admittance to heaven isn't based on whether your faith is Christianity but just that you have faith?

Correct, "Religion" doesn't save anyone. Christ mocked the religious people the most when He was here. Jesus is the way, not religion.

So 10 billion Buddhists&muslims are just doomed? Because they aren't: "in the club"?


No response is necessary....

reply to post by BlackStar99


How dare you?Can i ask you politely where did u get that from Jesus and His Father?You are so arrogant and self centered,i ask myself can you really feel real love?
Someone dies for you and you are still so egocentric that you think world revolves around you...Go on,refuse salvation,nobody is forcing you,but to Him your soul is still worthy.
If you ever need comfort and love He will wait for you.I pray that you see what you are missing,and how serious it is.
Just look at this world...everything that could go wrong has gone wrong...but there is time.

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Matthew 24:22

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Revelation 3:20

I love you all my brothers and sisters

reply to post by Lionhearte


BRAVO!! Well said.God wants us to come to him on our own FREE WILL.If he just said "ok,everybody goes to heavan...cmon...get in there."then those that are questioning now wold be the ones complaining that they did not get a choice from the start.its simple..He gave us free will for a reason.

Originally posted by BlackStar99
Why would you want to worship and spend eternity in heaven with a god who's sending billions of good people to be tortured for all eternity on the sole basis that they didn't pick the right religion? Does god not understand the basic human psychology that a child will follow the religion of their parents almost all the time? When god's distributing out souls, how exactly does he decide which soul to give an edge to by putting them in a Christian family or Christain predominant country?

ETA: If a mod could fix the title, it would be much appreciated.

edit on 23-6-2011 by BlackStar99 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2011 by BlackStar99 because: (no reason given)

It is clear to me that God loves us, each and everyone of us. He tries to reach out to each of this so that we accept him but ignorance/deception/choices etc. prevents us from accepting Him into our lives. However, it is our choice... this choice is available to you right now, so it is you rejecting it if you don't believe it. This is true regardless of which family you are in. Plus the way your family thinks is from generations of man made beliefs, etc. It isn't God who chooses which family you are in, it seems... its just luck. If your family doesn't believe in God then that is Man's fault, not God's I think.
Also I don't think that when you don't accept God, he is really "condemning" you to eternal torture. You see, it is a choice that you make, and it only makes sense that God would cast you off if you don't want to be with him. The main aspect of Hell seems to be not torture, pain, etc. but the absence of God. Whether you wanted to be with God or not was your choice... and if not, you get Hell, which is primarily the absence of God. I think the fire/brimstone/torture is reflective of your personality partially... your sins, your selfishness, etc... Sort of like Dante's Inferno where each person is sorted into their respected place based on their personality. and maybe if you aren't sinful or selfish but you still won't accept God so you won't be with Him.

reply to post by LicentiaEstVox


Death is nothing, do really think the 4 hours or however long he supposedly spent on the cross, is really that much of a sacrifice, when him and god both knew there's no such thing as death?

Big sacrifice alright.... Not

reply to post by bogomil

'Penalty' .....? So we ARE back to the assumption of 'original sin'.

Right, well it comes from Genesis where the Lord told Adam, "From dust you came and to dust you will go."
Most people since then have had that fate, so you can't hardly just discount that.
My point is that no matter how good your life may be, you would still end the same way.
If I am wrong about that, let me know.
The Book of Hebrews says that Jesus' purpose was to take away our fear of death, so there is this change in how we look at death, and that is a result of the promise of the Christ, which is the hope of a future resurrection. Jesus, one who knew no sin and was never rightly deserving of the penalty, took upon himself the penalty so we do not have to suffer the permanent death of the soul.
My point earlier was that if a priest class sets themselves up as the institution one must go to in order to have dispensed the benefits of the sacrifice of Jesus, in my opinion are committing fraud because it is something that was done once, for all time. So the legitimate use of the concept of original sin is to explain the significance of work of Christ and not so much for making individual people feel bad about themselves.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And how would that "make Christ a sinner"? Isn't that one of the two purposes of the virgin birth?

Seems like you have a particular formula in mind.
Not one I am a proponent of and have to admit to not having such a formula myself.
Maybe you can enlighten me on that.
The embryonic future Jesus was said of by the dream to Joseph, was "a holy thing".
That is a term which can be applied different ways and I think the point was that it was good, as opposed to being bad.
If you have a doctrine built around this, that somehow gives Jesus a special dispensation and exemption from the things every other human being on this planet are under, I would say it is at least a slightly flimsy construct.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Jesus, one who knew no sin and was never rightly deserving of the penalty, took upon himself the penalty so we do not have to suffer the permanent death of the soul.

How exactly did he take the penalty? By being punished because of what he preached? How exactly did he take upon the sins of the world? All they did was crucify him to a cross. There were two thieves up there too, did they take everyone's sin also? I mean, how exactly did Jesus take upon himself the sins of the world? Also, why does he get to go to heaven if he has taken all sins upon himself? Shouldn't he spend eternity in hell?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Let me try this from another approach and please forgive my flippancy..

Romans 5:12 is still in my KJB, is it removed from your version?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . .Romans 5:12. . .

And your point is . . what?
I can figure this has to do with my earlier post about original sin.
Yes it is in "my" Bible, which is the internet version.
I think that verse backs up what I said, that the important thing to take away is that it appears we all die at some point.

reply to post by Hydroman

How exactly did he take upon the sins of the world?

I think that phrase is a compilation of different themes in the New Testament, but I don't think there is a verse that spells it out that way.
The way I look at it is that Jesus could have been directly translated into heaven, being such a good person, as in what happened with Elijah, and possibly Enoch. He did not have to die since God may have accepted his life as sufficient. But there is this technicality where anyone born of this lineage from Adam, were to "return to dust", or die, because of the general sinfulness of the human race.
We could accept the convention, for the purpose of this illustration, that the conditions I just mentioned are "the sins of the world". Though he never actually participated in those "sins of the world" he decided that it would only be right, if he did not claim an exemption, or somehow circumvented the path that "all flesh" had to go. He was not going to make an appeal to Heaven to plead his case for not having to die. He would have said, "If it is the law, and it was established justly and based on actual events and rightfully applied, then it is only right that I subject myself to it since after all, I am a human being born on this planet, and there has been an awful lot of evil perpetrated over the ages, enough to have accumulated enough evidence to condemn the entire race to annihilation."
So Jesus took upon himself "the sins of the world" and allowed himself to be murdered, by of course, if you were to watch, The Passion of the Christ, this skulking character, watching and working in secret, Satan himself.
God looking on would have said, "Well enough and I think you prove your point but let's not get carried away with all this righteousness business. I do have a stake in this matter and I am not willing to go without my son longer than necessary. Jesus, arise from the dead!" Then Jesus heard the voice and brought himself to life which of course he would have been able to do anyway but did in compliance of the command which he could not resist.
The point of the story; that like the disciples declared after his refutation of the Pharisees over the grain on the Sabbath controversy, "The lord is also Lord of the Sabbath!" we can now say that the lord is also now, "The Lord over Death!"

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . .Romans 5:12. . .

And your point is . . what?

I think that verse backs up what I said, that the important thing to take away is that it appears we all die at some point.

My point is that Paul disagrees with your previous claims about original sin.

Err, check that, the Holy Spirit through the pen of Paul disagrees with your previous claim about original sin.

To me, the strict original sin concept could not be correct...

Praise the Lord we don't get Christian Theology from Jmdewey60. By Adam sin passes to all men.

Btw, I don't think we need a verse from Romans to determine that we die.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Hydroman

 

How exactly did he take upon the sins of the world?

I think that phrase is a compilation of different themes in the New Testament, but I don't think there is a verse that spells it out that way.
The way I look at it is that Jesus could have been directly translated into heaven, being such a good person, as in what happened with Elijah, and possibly Enoch. He did not have to die since God may have accepted his life as sufficient. But there is this technicality where anyone born of this lineage from Adam, were to "return to dust", or die, because of the general sinfulness of the human race.
We could accept the convention, for the purpose of this illustration, that the conditions I just mentioned are "the sins of the world". Though he never actually participated in those "sins of the world" he decided that it would only be right, if he did not claim an exemption, or somehow circumvented the path that "all flesh" had to go. He was not going to make an appeal to Heaven to plead his case for not having to die. He would have said, "If it is the law, and it was established justly and based on actual events and rightfully applied, then it is only right that I subject myself to it since after all, I am a human being born on this planet, and there has been an awful lot of evil perpetrated over the ages, enough to have accumulated enough evidence to condemn the entire race to annihilation."
So Jesus took upon himself "the sins of the world" and allowed himself to be murdered, by of course, if you were to watch, The Passion of the Christ, this skulking character, watching and working in secret, Satan himself.
God looking on would have said, "Well enough and I think you prove your point but let's not get carried away with all this righteousness business. I do have a stake in this matter and I am not willing to go without my son longer than necessary. Jesus, arise from the dead!" Then Jesus heard the voice and brought himself to life which of course he would have been able to do anyway but did in compliance of the command which he could not resist.
The point of the story; that like the disciples declared after his refutation of the Pharisees over the grain on the Sabbath controversy, "The lord is also Lord of the Sabbath!" we can now say that the lord is also now, "The Lord over Death!"

That's a whoooooooooole lot of personal conjecture.

Here is a more simple answer:

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. ~ Isaiah 53:6

The Father placed all the sin of the world on His Son.

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." ~ 2 Corinthians 5:21

He became sin, some way the father made the Son sin. A mystery we can get resolution for in the afterlife. I can only go by what the Holy Spirit says.

Jesus became sin, and the Father's wrath was poured out once and for all on sin.

That's why:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." ~ Romans 8:1

There is only one thing, actually two, that is free in this life, air and God's grace.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You wrote:

["Right, well it comes from Genesis where the Lord told Adam, "From dust you came and to dust you will go."]

What makes genesis (1 & 2) into a reliable and validated source?

Quote: [" Most people since then have had that fate, so you can't hardly just discount that."]

If there's safety (or 'truth') in numbers, the falling order of validity amongst religions/semi-religions would be: Islam, catholicism, hinduism, protestantism and buddhism being somewhat on par, and finally the smaller religions like Jain, Wicca etc.

In an order of philosophical/existential insight and reality-orientation Jain and buddhism would be at the top.

But that's only indirectly related to OP. Shall we find our way back.

Quote: ["My point is that no matter how good your life may be, you would still end the same way.
If I am wrong about that, let me know."]

Not having any 'absolutes' about what's beyond cosmic existence I can only make guesses. But the idea of predetermination or even predestination is increasingly more difficult to justify in the light of scientific knowledge.

Quote: ["The Book of Hebrews says that Jesus' purpose was to take away our fear of death, so there is this change in how we look at death, and that is a result of the promise of the Christ, which is the hope of a future resurrection."]

Most religions/semi-religions concern themselves with such and offer different contextual scenarios on it. The christian bid on 'ultimate reality' (and what that implies) needs a regressive unravelling of assumptions several steps backwards, and even then the basic assumptions are mainly unvalidated speculations.

I would here like to re-create a connection to topic. In the alleged situation, that christianity (or one of its versions) turns out to be at least partly right, both science and actually also some of the christianities give me the option of making choices. The scientific version is called 'self-organizing' complexity (the theist one: Free will), where I'm not bound completely by 'order', rules, authority etc.

And in the case of alleged after-life existence, I'm less concerned about what I will meet, but rather more about still having the option of being able to choose. So as said before, I would naturally side with the liberal Lucifer and oppose the authoritative Jahveh.

And taking such speculations to their conclusive positions, the real question isn't whether a reasoning (or assumption) chain leads to christianity, but to the VERY peculiar 'divine psychology' Jahveh has been 'explained' and 'excused' with.

"What's not compulsary is forbidden"

To fill the gaps of inconsistency in the bible and christianity, 'divine psychology', self-proving argumentation and 'mysterious ways' have been used.

Nonetheless the fact is, that I as a person am able to say: "I reject it all here, and if possible I will reject it in the next life also."

Quote: [" Jesus, one who knew no sin and was never rightly deserving of the penalty, took upon himself the penalty so we do not have to suffer the permanent death of the soul."]

This is just preaching of your own assumptions. It has no evidential or validating value to repeat doctrines. I have already told you, that I am familiar with christian doctrines. You don't need to tell them over and over again.

Quote: ["My point earlier was that if a priest class sets themselves up as the institution one must go to in order to have dispensed the benefits of the sacrifice of Jesus, in my opinion are committing fraud because it is something that was done once, for all time."]

I can only agree, that a group of middle-men makes the situation worse.

Quote: ["So the legitimate use of the concept of original sin is to explain the significance of work of Christ and not so much for making individual people feel bad about themselves."]

Similarly the concepts from many other ideologies can offer a contextual 'explanation' of this or that. In the case of theistic ideology, these concepts are mainly subjective, and the important thing for theists to remember is NOT to claim objectivity of their concepts and not push, but only OFFER them.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

By Adam sin passes to all men.

So are you claiming that Jesus sinned, because that would be the contradictory argument to what I said?