Religion can make you a better person?

reply to post by logical7


That question I can answer.

Yes, many Protestant churches still practice infant baptism and believe in the doctrine of original sin.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So you're one of the other 40,000 denominations that came even later than the RCC. How is that any better exactly? You'd think the original would have the clearest message.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And as for your second comment, I'm not Roman Catholic.

So?
You still believe
1) that all men are sinners,
2) that Jesus is the only way,
3) that people who don't see things that way will burn in hell,
4)and that God is a person you can talk to. Right?

What the hell does that have to do with being Roman Catholic? At least the Roman Catholics have SOME modicum of mysticism behind their ideas. It's just that most people don't care enough to really "get it," so they go through the motions, accept some phrases at superficial levels, shrug, and go home...
or they listen to salesmen who.....

nevermind. :shk:

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So you're one of the other 40,000 denominations that came even later than the RCC. How is that any better exactly? You'd think the original would have the clearest message.

Actually, I'm completely against denominational Christianity.

And the original does have the clearest message, that's why I only go by Scripture no any church tradition or clergy member.

Scripture only.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by logical7

 

That question I can answer.

Yes, many Protestant churches still practice infant baptism and believe in the doctrine of original sin.

you missed the bigger ones, what about him being God incarnate dying for the sins including the Original sin?
You dont think thats an invention?

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And as for your second comment, I'm not Roman Catholic.

So?
You still believe
1) that all men are sinners,
2) that Jesus is the only way,
3) that people who don't see things that way will burn in hell,
4)and that God is a person you can talk to. Right?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes

Those things are all scriptural, not inventions by the church. Don't really see the correlation there.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Those things are all scriptural, not inventions by the church. Don't really see the correlation there.

Sigh.

You are separating scripture from inventions by the church? Really? The "scriptures" were translated, packaged, marketed, and thrust upon people...by church leaders. Period.

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by logical7

 

That question I can answer.

Yes, many Protestant churches still practice infant baptism and believe in the doctrine of original sin.

you missed the bigger ones, what about him being God incarnate dying for the sins including the Original sin?
You dont think thats an invention?

Those doctrines predate Catholicism, except Him dying for "original sin". The doctrine of original sin isn't biblical. Jesus said in regards to children that the Kingdom of Heaven is for such as them.

People are responsible for their own sin, not Adam's. Children who die do not go to hell.

reply to post by logical7

See his response.
Yes, he believes in original sin and believes that Jesus' death was payment....and that Jesus is the only way and grand salvation thing.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Those things are all scriptural, not inventions by the church. Don't really see the correlation there.

Sigh.

You are separating scripture from inventions by the church? Really? The "scriptures" were translated, packaged, marketed, and thrust upon people...by church leaders. Period.

No, it was written by Christ's apostles, save for a couple books, two of which were by Christ's half-brothers who became believers only after seeing their brother resurrected.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

See his response.
Yes, he believes in original sin and believes that Jesus' death was payment....and that Jesus is the only way and grand salvation thing.

No, I don't believe in Original Sin. Original Sin teaches that all men are accountable for Adam's sins. Original Sin teaches that children and mentally retarded people go to hell because of Adam's sin.

I believe none of that, all men are responsible and accountable for their own sins, not Adam's sin.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yeah, right, the Gospel were all written by people who knew Jesus personally...of that you are positive. The many discoveries of forgeries and borrowing and anonymity notwithstanding.
You're sure of that. Okay, then, what about the Nag Hammadi "scriptures"? They're cool? Or they aren't because they AREN'T INCLUDED IN THE BIBLE?

EDIT to respond to Original Sin post:
Fine. Thank you for clarifying, and you are correct about Original Sin. But you do believe that all men are sinners (except mentally handicapped and kids), then, right?

And that Jesus is "the only Way."
Have I got it now? And you believe that only what is in the Bible counts. Right?
Am I understanding you?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


ok, you dont believe in Original sin. Thats good. I can tell you that i read the 4 gospels and dint find anything that suggests the "only way" thing unless i consider how Christians interpret it and want all to interpret it. Reading it actually feels like i am reading islamic teachings.
The basics are all the same in most religions. It cant be exclusive as God is One and He cant be biased, that seems ungodly. Do you agree?

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

ok, you dont believe in Original sin. Thats good. I can tell you that i read the 4 gospels and dint find anything that suggests the "only way" thing unless i consider how Christians interpret it and want all to interpret it. Reading it actually feels like i am reading islamic teachings.
The basics are all the same in most religions. It cant be exclusive as God is One and He cant be biased, that seems ungodly. Do you agree?

When you read the 4 Gospels you didn't read the part where Jesus said He was the only way to the Father?

reply to post by wildtimes


As far as the Nag Hammandi (sp?) works go, I don't see why they should be included. They have pseudographical authorship. That's completely inconsistent with the contemporaneously written Scriptures of the apostles. Irenaeus discusses Gnostic books and gives the reasons why the early church rejected them. And specifically Thomas, there are 12 ancient references to the book. None of those say basically "There's a great book called Thomas that we need to get our hands on.", .. quite the contrary, all 12 references are something like, "There's this bogus book called Thomas floating around Alexandria, be careful of it, it's a forgery."


With that being said, what does ANY of this line of questioning i'm being subjected to have to do with the topic of whether or not religion makes a person moral?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Mark, Luke, and Paul never met Jesus. That's over half of the NT written by strangers to Jesus. You might want to brush up on your history a bit.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

With that being said, what does ANY of this line of questioning i'm being subjected to have to do with the topic of whether or not religion makes a person moral?

Good question. It has to do with people's interpretations of whatever 'religion' they adopt or are taught.
And, in my mind, one needs to be confident that whatever they were taught and/or have adopted are authentic, and not just constructs.

There are innumerable ways to become a 'better person'. Religion is only ONE OF MANY TOOLS of self-control and a means to self-awareness; it is not the ONLY tool. And it is particularly prone to make people "think" they are "better people" because they 'go to church', or pray or say certain words or wear symbols or memorize scripture....while they are still jerks. It's a copout for some. A get-out-of-jail free card.

It's "behavior modification" only, and not true enlightenment. One can decide to 'behave better' in the name of ANYTHING , but actually transforming into a 'better person' is not ONLY about religion. It's about introspection, going within and facing oneself head-on, with no out.

It (religion) makes some people (perhaps JUST AS MANY as it 'improves') into violent, arrogant, pushy, judgmental, snobbish, pompous, and -- worst of all -- ignorant know-it-alls.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

How Many books of the Bible are considered to be pseudographical?

A pseudographical book is a book written in the name of another person by an anonymous author. The Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as Acts, are not considered pseudographical because they were originally written anonymously and were only later attributed to the disciples whose names they now bear.

Similarly, Genesis is not pseudographical, even though it is commonly attributed to Moses but was clearly written some centuries later, because it is only tradition that attributes Genesis to Moses - there is not such claim in the book itself. The same applies to other books, such as Daniel, which most Christians believe to have been written by Daniel himself. To be classed as pseudographical, the original author needs to have identified himself as the alleged author, probably in the text itself.

Ecclesiastes could be considered pseudographical, since the author appears to identify as King Solomon, although the book was clearly written during the post-Exilic era.

A large part of Isaiah is pseudographical, since the author, now known as Second Isaiah, added to the original work of first Isaiah without identifying himself.

Some of the epistles attributed to Paul are considered pseudographical: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and possibly Philippians and 1 Thessalonians.
Most of the epistles attributed to other disciples are generally considered pseudographical.

Strictly speaking, Revelation is not pseudographical although it is attributed to an author named John. The author is clearly not the author of John's Gospel, but the author of Revelation does not actually claim to be the same John.[

So, some anonymous writings LATER attributed to 4 people (only one of whom actually knew Christ - and the rest of whom all borrowed from him - and with each other are NOT IN AGREEMENT anyway) are okay,
but the writings that are every bit as 'dubious' in their original authorship are not?

Thomas and Mary Magdelene knew Jesus. I think it's absurd to disallow those writings on the basis of a semantic argument that is nothing but a LOOPHOLE.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Mark, Luke, and Paul never met Jesus. That's over half of the NT written by strangers to Jesus. You might want to brush up on your history a bit.

edit on 7-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

John Mark wrote for Peter as his amanuensis. No different than a person dictating a letter to a secretary. It was a professional trade in that period of time. Luke never claimed to have met Jesus, but instead the account of Luke was taken from interviewing people who knew Him personally and as much is said in the first chapter. Paul didn't write a gospel account. Secondly, Paul most likely was present at His trial and execution. Paul was a disciple of Gamiliel who was president of the Sanhedrin. Gamiliel would have been present for both those events therefore so would have his disciples.

reply to post by wildtimes


You should go back to my original post. I'm quite critical of religion. It makes two sort of people, depressed ones and self-righteous jerks who think they're better than everyone else.