"No one gets to the father accept through me..."

This phrase always pops up when I ask christians why they believe only they will get into heaven.

I've always said that I think what was meant here is, "if you want to have eternal life, do like I do." But noone seems to get it. What are all your thoughts on this frequently quoted Bible line?

[RandFan]

We'll, the mythology of a savior is strong in the Christian community though it is not unique.

Christians put up a philosophical paradox that Christ supposedly solves.

1.) Everyone is born into sin
(oh really, why?)

2.)Because of Adams fall.
(Riiiight. Punish me for what someone else has done.)

2.) Well, no one is perfect.
(Ok, I can accept that.)

3.) God is both all just and all merciful.
(is that even possible?)

4.) He can't let us into heaven because we have sinned.
(I thought he was all merciful)

5.) That is why he prepared a way for us. Christ, God's only begotten son, took on the sins of the world and died for us, he that believes and accepts this gift will be saved.
(Ooooohhhh.....yeah that makes so much sense.)

....and how does one take on the sins of everyone? It's a mystery.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Funkenstien
This phrase always pops up when I ask christians why they believe only they will get into heaven.

I've always said that I think what was meant here is, "if you want to have eternal life, do like I do." But noone seems to get it. What are all your thoughts on this frequently quoted Bible line?

Of course it has also been claimed that Christ is the Father. If so, it should also make it a lot easier to get to heaven shouldn't it?

[Cecil]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
We'll, the mythology of a savior is strong in the Christian community though it is not unique.

Christians put up a philosophical paradox that Christ supposedly solves.

1.) Everyone is born into sin
(oh really, why?)

2.)Because of Adams fall.
(Riiiight. Punish me for what someone else has done.)

2.) Well, no one is perfect.
(Ok, I can accept that.)

3.) God is both all just and all merciful.
(is that even possible?)

4.) He can't let us into heaven because we have sinned.
(I thought he was all merciful)

5.) That is why he prepared a way for us. Christ, God's only begotten son, took on the sins of the world and died for us, he that believes and accepts this gift will be saved.
(Ooooohhhh.....yeah that makes so much sense.)

....and how does one take on the sins of everyone? It's a mystery.

To play God's Advocate here, () let me just say that by ridiculing other's beliefs you are either implying that they are stupid for believing them or showing your lack of understanding of their reasons for belief. Either case does not make you look good.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

On the other hand, there just might be more important issues at stake than "looking good".

[Atlas]

Quote:

"No one gets to the father accept through me..."

Cecil reminds us that it's not polite to make fun of someone else's beliefs, but this line is often trotted out when the believer has gone into condescension mode.

When that happens then I feel a little freer to belittle my antagonist. I start by saying "yah, I know that but I'm not aiming for the Father God, I'm aiming much higher."

All of the gods in olden times were vengeful and jealous and very smallminded, smiting humans and playing with them like toys. The Christian god is no different than the Roman and Greek and Norse gods in that regard. He freaks out if you hug a golden calf. A dead statue. In creation, it's only the small minded little god who does such a thing. In fact, the Father God in a mere mask of the True God. All earthly gods are. My god has worn all these little masks.

Even if the True God in your philosophy is a figment of the imagination this argument can be used. It merely argues the point from the believer's frame of reference. He worships a god who does not like strange gods before him, so choose a god that contains his god. After all, God has to be the biggest thing that can be imagined. All we need to do is imagine one a little bigger than our antagonist's and we can be sure that we are closer to the truth than he is.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cecil
To play God's Advocate here, () let me just say that by ridiculing other's beliefs you are either implying that they are stupid for believing them or showing your lack of understanding of their reasons for belief. Either case does not make you look good.

When I wrote it I honestly wasn't trying to ridicule but show how a nonbeliever would see the idea. My apologies to anyone who was offended.

I still think the concept when viewed outside of faith is, at best, problematic and at worst it is illogical. IMHO.

RandFan

I'm catholic, and I wasn't offended. I know what you are trying to say. The biggest beef I have with the christian faith is the elite attitude it instills. "I'm better than you because I love Jesus" is not what the original purpose was of the statement, in my opinion.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Funkenstien
I'm catholic, and I wasn't offended. I know what you are trying to say. The biggest beef I have with the christian faith is the elite attitude it instills. "I'm better than you because I love Jesus" is not what the original purpose was of the statement, in my opinion.

I agree, as a Mormon who attempted every day to live his life by the precepts of Christ I was always offended by those who told me I was not a Christian.

The attitude struck me as not very Christian.

[justsaygnosis]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
When I wrote it I honestly wasn't trying to ridicule but show how a nonbeliever would see the idea. My apologies to anyone who was offended.

I still think the concept when viewed outside of faith is, at best, problematic and at worst it is illogical. IMHO.

RandFan

Agreed! It's far from rude to ridicule people who cling to the notion the earth is the center of the universe and is 5,000 years old. Don't forget that these same people are politely labeling you a 'sinner' who deserves eternal condemnation for the crime of disagreeing with their dogma.

[jimmygun]

Why is it that ridiculing someone's beliefs is considered offensive and must be redressed with apology and that a believer can with no clear reason can condem you and yours to an everlasting torture (with a smile on their faces) and that is not considered offensive?

[Blue Monk]

I always thought that phrase meant Jesus was trying to keep you out of heaven. You know, “To get to the father you have to go through me, buddy!”

Now I see I was wrong.

Whew, what a relief. I’ve seen his picture and it looks like he’s in pretty good shape.

[c4ts]

That quote was intended for Thomas the Apostle and no other. It's a response to when Thomas asks how he will be able to find Jesus once he's dead. Needless to say it is not about Christianity being the one, true religion. It just looks like that out of context.

[elliotfc]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
1.) Everyone is born into sin
(oh really, why?)

The reality above the reason. Sin is the reality of the situation, and Christianity makes absolutely no sense to someone who does not accept the concept of sin (behavior that does not correspond to objective moral standards).

Quote:

2.)Because of Adams fall.
(Riiiight. Punish me for what someone else has done.)

It's genetic. We're all in this together. My poor eyesight isn't punishment, but reality. To be born into sin does not mean God will eternally hate us and condemn us to hell; he gave us the way to overcome this reality.

Quote:

3.) God is both all just and all merciful.
(is that even possible?)

I think so.

He is just in that all evil deeds have to be addressed and rectified. He is merciful in that all sinners, no matter how evil, have the opportunity to repent. But that repentance does not mean that the sins no longer have meaning. The penitent has to admit the sin and understand just how the sin affected others and God. The mercy is given to a person who capitulates. You might not consider that mercy at all; those who "go to hell" refuse to capitulate and are allowed to eternally rebel against God. That is divine justice/mercy.

Quote:

[B}4.) He can't let us into heaven because we have sinned.
(I thought he was all merciful)[/b]

The sin has to be addressed and rectified. Once that has happened, we can enter into the fullness of his grace.

The mercy comes in because he makes it possible to overcome sin; we can't do it ourselves.

Quote:

5.) That is why he prepared a way for us. Christ, God's only begotten son, took on the sins of the world and died for us, he that believes and accepts this gift will be saved.
(Ooooohhhh.....yeah that makes so much sense.)

God had to conquer sin. This is how he chose to do it. Christians accept that. A divine plan is perfectly sensible; a human being is more than welcome to judge a divine plan (as you do) but a gift is to be accepted, and not scoffed at. If you scoff at the gift, surely you'd admit that it would be just for the gift to be rescinded, as to scoff at it is to reject it.

Quote:

]....and how does one take on the sins of everyone? It's a mystery.

Only God could take on the sins of everyone. Satan asks the same question in the Passion of the Christ Gibson movie thing.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

Elliot, for what it's worth. I was a missionary for two years. Granted, being a Mormon I wasn't a true Scotsman...er Christian. But I do understand the principles. I was trying to show what a non believer would think of such items. I'm glad that you had an opportunity to respond. I hope you understand that your explanations while interesting and might seem to answer the questions don't actually, unless of course you accept these things on faith. Let's look at a few.

Please don't take this as mocking. It is difficult to discuss these issues with out offending someone. I don't accept salvation or damnation so I'm not going to talk about them with reverence. I will however avoid gratuitous remarks.

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc
The reality above the reason. Sin is the reality of the situation, and Christianity makes absolutely no sense to someone who does not accept the concept of sin (behavior that does not correspond to objective moral standards).

To be born into sin is antithetical to any definition that I can find. On the other hand to dismiss the concept based simply on definition would be pedantic.

However, if you accept that sin is a deliberate act then one can't be born having done something deliberate that one did not do.

Sin = not sin. It just doesn't work.

If it is some ethereal concept that Christians accept without really understanding then that is another thing.

Quote:

It's genetic. We're all in this together. My poor eyesight isn't punishment, but reality. To be born into sin does not mean God will eternally hate us and condemn us to hell; he gave us the way to overcome this reality.

Again, the usage of the word sin, in this instance, must transcend the classical usage of the word since sin is a deliberate act and being born isn't, in and of itself sin.

Quote:

RandFan
Is god all just and all merciful?

I think so.

Not really. Such absolutes are not so easily reconciled. It is human nature to try and resolve such issues. In the past the Sun was carried across the sky by gods. Diseases were the product of sin and good will the product of good deeds. But then someone noticed that good things happened to wicked people and therefore it was decreed that god makes it to rain on the just and the unjust.

One way to avoid god's wrath was to transfer sin to a prized possession (usually an animal) and offer it as sacrifice.

Quote:

He is just in that all evil deeds have to be addressed and rectified. He is merciful in that all sinners, no matter how evil, have the opportunity to repent. But that repentance does not mean that the sins no longer have meaning. The penitent has to admit the sin and understand just how the sin affected others and God. The mercy is given to a person who capitulates. You might not consider that mercy at all; those who "go to hell" refuse to capitulate and are allowed to eternally rebel against God. That is divine justice/mercy.

So, all sin was transferred via a mysterious process to Christ some 2,000 + years ago. The process worked forward but not backward (depending on who you talk to) and Christ was sacrificed instead of animals. We don't really know how Christ took on the sins or what was really involved we just know it was painful and that he bled from every pore.

Quote:

The sin has to be addressed and rectified.

This is logical.

Quote:

Once that has happened, we can enter into the fullness of his grace.

Ok, if you accept that sort of thing.

Quote:

The mercy comes in because he makes it possible to overcome sin; we can't do it ourselves.

This really means nothing. It is simply saying "god did it". And that is fine but don't expect anyone to accept such a statement based solely on logic.

Quote:

God had to conquer sin. This is how he chose to do it.

A problematic and poorly designed plan. It doomed millions to hell without any option of even hearing of Christ.

Quote:

Christians accept that. A divine plan is perfectly sensible...

Sensible to whom? Not to all the people who lived before Christ and not to all of the people who lived in Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the Western Hemisphere before missionaries. I find that neither divine nor sensible.

Quote:

...a human being is more than welcome to judge a divine plan (as you do) but a gift is to be accepted, and not scoffed at.

{scoffing turned off temporarily}

Quote:

If you scoff at the gift, surely you'd admit that it would be just for the gift to be rescinded, as to scoff at it is to reject it.

If Christianity were the only faith or at least one that was head and shoulders above the rest I could be tempted to play a Pascal's wager, but then I'm sure god would not be impressed. I think he wants his believers to be true believers. So I don't really think cinching the deal is all that necessary on your part. And you can be certain that I am no more in fear of the Hebrew God as I am of The Norse Gods, the Muslim God, the Pagan Gods, Zeus or any of the many, many gods.

Quote:

Only God could take on the sins of everyone.

Yes, and at one time only God could move the Sun around the Earth and only God could create a carbon Molecule and only God could travel outside the regions of our planet.

God's realm shrinks daily.

Quote:

Satan asks the same question in the Passion of the Christ Gibson movie thing.

I'm a huge Gibson fan. He is great and I plan on seeing the movie. I love movie lines. I wish you could have quoted it. I have another.

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist”
--Verbal Kint AKA Keyser Soze (Usual Suspects)

I can think of a better trick.

[Kopji]

Quote:

John 14:4-6 "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

The circular logic of this idea is sometimes tough for believers to shake. In the linked sermon below, the final challenge posed to unbelievers is that they should really stand up and take notice because 'look what the Bible says right here'... But if not already a Christian, what was that reason again? It presumes belief.
The Way

I find it a little hard to read 'do as I do' in this, but then why not? The passage has the potential for many meanings. There are many perspectives to Jesus:

1. There is Jesus 'the historical guy with brothers and sisters' and 2. Jesus the 'Christ' (a kind of title or station). There is another 3. mystic sense that 'Christ lives in you'. So 'by me' can be a complex manner if complexity is needed to promote our cause.

What happens when someone comes along who claims to not be 'Jesus' the historic guy, but embodies the 'Spirit of Christ' or mantle of Christ? A new religion is born, but LUCKY! not a new religion at all, but the old time religion itself.

[ceo_esq]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
To be born into sin is antithetical to any definition that I can find. On the other hand to dismiss the concept based simply on definition would be pedantic.

...

Again, the usage of the word sin, in this instance, must transcend the classical usage of the word since sin is a deliberate act and being born isn't, in and of itself sin.

Doesn't sin already have at least two "classical usages" in a theological context, i.e. (1) actual sin - deliberate violations of the moral order - and (2) original sin - a weakened, fallen condition into which human beings (at least subsequent to Adam) are born, to which the name sin is applied only by loose analogy to sense #1?

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
A problematic and poorly designed plan. It doomed millions to hell without any option of even hearing of Christ.

...

Sensible to whom? Not to all the people who lived before Christ and not to all of the people who lived in Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the Western Hemisphere before missionaries.

This doesn't correspond to my (admittedly limited) understanding of how most Christians view the consequences that flowed from the implementation of their God's "plan". How do you reckon this?

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes, and at one time only God could move the Sun around the Earth and only God could create a carbon Molecule and only God could travel outside the regions of our planet.

Are you seriously proposing that one day human scientific endeavors might not only confirm the existence of sin in reality, but also devise an artificial means of sin transference? Probably not, but I'm left wondering about the relevance of this observation to the discussion of redemption from sin, which appears to me qualitatively different from, say, the manipulation of matter.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cecil
To play God's Advocate here, () let me just say that by ridiculing other's beliefs you are either implying that they are stupid for believing them or showing your lack of understanding of their reasons for belief. Either case does not make you look good.

Time to trot out:


" I'll stop laughing at your beliefs, when you stop believing in such silly things..."

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Doesn't sin already have at least two "classical usages" in a theological context, i.e. (1) actual sin - deliberate violations of the moral order - and (2) original sin - a weakened, fallen condition into which human beings (at least subsequent to Adam) are born, to which the name sin is applied only by loose analogy to sense #1?

Yes, you are correct. I alluded to this concept when I said "If it is some ethereal concept that Christians accept without really understanding then that is another thing." The notion of a weakened state really has nothing to do with sin. I wanted to separate the two. I don't think anyone can truthfully say that they comprehend the notion that someone is born into a state of "sin". I think it would have been better to say born into a state of imperfection.

Quote:

This doesn't correspond to my (admittedly limited) understanding of how most Christians view the consequences that flowed from the implementation of their God's "plan". How do you reckon this?
Are you seriously proposing that one day human scientific endeavors might not only confirm the existence of sin in reality, but also devise an artificial means of sin transference? Probably not, but I'm left wondering about the relevance of this observation to the discussion of redemption from sin, which appears to me qualitatively different from, say, the manipulation of matter.

My words were poorly chosen. No of course not. Simply to show the impotence of what "only God can do".

This is a buzz term by believers to encompass all of those things that are not understood and not really explainable. All one needs to do is insert "God did it" or "only God can do it" and one needn't think about it anymore. Thankfully there were people in history who were unsatisfied with this explanation and were willing to suppose that it wasn't God but a naturalistic explanation. Since sin is a human construct there is nothing to discover, except of course, perhaps, a biological and genetic component to morality. But that is really horse of a different color.

Good Questions. Thanks Ceo.

RandFan

[ceo_esq]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't think anyone can truthfully say that they comprehend the notion that someone is born into a state of "sin". I think it would have been better to say born into a state of imperfection.

Probably too late to get them to change the term now, unfortunately. I agree that the term "original sin" is highly misleading - especially, I suspect, to Christians.

[tdn]

I was thinking about this topic the other day. "Only through me are all things possible" is, I think, another Christian phrase. Or something like that.

On its face it sounds humbling, implies that we must turn to the infinite source of goodness if we want to find goodness. Innocent enough. But then I tried to think of it from God's point of view. A cynical interpretation might resemble a statement by an abusive husband -- "If it weren't for me, no one would love you. Without me, you'd be worthless." In this way God is a selfish, petty, abusive jerk that keeps the weak coming back for more.

A more charitable interpretation might resemble Becky the receptionist -- "Sir, if you want that parking ticket validated, I'm the person you want to see. No one else has the stamp." God as, in this case, information desk.

Which one is more correct? Dunno. As I am an atheist who believes that God is nothing more than the wishful thinking of His followers. So either may be (and probably has been) correct, depending on who you ask.

OK, it was little more than a random thought. But consider how easy it would be for Becky the receptionist to get all power trippy.

[Atlas]

Quote:

Originally posted by tdn
I was thinking about this topic the other day. "Only through me are all things possible" is, I think, another Christian phrase. Or something like that.

tdn was paraphrasing Jesus - Here are a few of the quotes by Jesus in context if anyone is interested...

Quote:

Matthew 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


Mark 9:20 And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21 And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.



Mark 14:32 And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray.
33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;
34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.
35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.
36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

[tdn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas
tdn was paraphrasing Jesus - Here are a few of the quotes by Jesus in context if anyone is interested...

No, those weren't what I was thinking of. I am no Bibliophile, and I may be conflating more than one phrase, but I'm pretty sure the gist of it is "You can't accomplish anything without my help." (Put an Elizabethan spin on that to make it sound more poetic.) And I definitely remember God saying it in the first person, not through His younguns.

Or maybe I'm just wrong.

[wolfgirl]

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmygun
Why is it that ridiculing someone's beliefs is considered offensive and must be redressed with apology and that a believer can with no clear reason can condem you and yours to an everlasting torture (with a smile on their faces) and that is not considered offensive?

We have a pair of religious fundamentalist friends. Every year they send us a super-religious card at xmas. A couple of years ago we decided to send out Happy Solstice cards. Suddenly we were rude! Our card offended them! Did it ever occur to them that their cards offended us?

To be honest, they didn't offend us; we're not that easily offended, but the point remains the same. It's okay for them to send us highly religious material when they know we're atheists, but it's not okay for us to send them secular material when we know they're xians.

What gives?

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by tdn
I was thinking about this topic the other day. "Only through me are all things possible" is, I think, another Christian phrase. Or something like that.

But when somebody suggests that a believer is not getting their share of ' things ', they quickly counter with: " God helps those who help themselves ... "

They don't like it ( or get it... ) when you point out that this is indistinguishable from : " Those who help themselves.. "

[c4ts]

Part of fundamentalist isolation is to consider all other religions offensive.

[elliotfc]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
To be born into sin is antithetical to any definition that I can find. On the other hand to dismiss the concept based simply on definition would be pedantic.

Not sure if I'm following. We are born into corrupted bodies. We are outside of the fullness of God's grace.

I think I know what you might mean. You may be suggesting that no Christian tenet states that a human being absoultely has to sin. But when I saw all humans are born into sin, I am not implying that. It might be better to say that all humans are born into the result of sin (corrupted bodies, separation from God) because that is what I mean. Sin is so intrinsically connected to the genetically defective body that in making that I know what I mean when I say what I saw; granted, it might not be obvious to someone outside the loop.

Quote:

However, if you accept that sin is a deliberate act then one can't be born having done something deliberate that one did not do.

Sin = not sin. It just doesn't work.

OK, now I know what you are saying.

Is there anything more prideful, more self-obsessed, and more "center of the universe-ish" than a baby? I'm not saying that I go around kicking babies because of their self-centeredness, nor am I hung up about the fact. Forget about blaming babies even. The fact is we are born into self-centeredness, and it continues throughout our lives. That's just the way it is.

Quote:

If it is some ethereal concept that Christians accept without really understanding then that is another thing.

Well they aren't material concepts...

We understand things as best as we can, and most of us believe that understanding improves from millenia to millenia.

Quote:

Not really. Such absolutes are not so easily reconciled. It is human nature to try and resolve such issues. In the past the Sun was carried across the sky by gods. Diseases were the product of sin and good will the product of good deeds. But then someone noticed that good things happened to wicked people and therefore it was decreed that god makes it to rain on the just and the unjust.

What? You mean nobody noticed that before the person who wrote the Book of Job? You may be right on the specific articulation, but I don't buy your faith that one day somebody "noticed" such an obvious thing.

Quote:

One way to avoid god's wrath was to transfer sin to a prized possession (usually an animal) and offer it as sacrifice.

Yes, and it is hardly a disordered concept, and it is obviously related to the sacrifice of Jesus. This is indicative (to me) of the truth of Jesus, but I suppose it's just the opposite for you.

Quote:

So, all sin was transferred via a mysterious process to Christ some 2,000 + years ago.

No. The potentail was created, but some people will hold onto their sins for eternity, they have that option.

Quote:

The process worked forward but not backward (depending on who you talk to) and Christ was sacrificed instead of animals.

No, the concept was made perfect. An imperfect idea, and an imperfect was of going about it (animal sacrifice) was transformed into a perfect sacrifice, which is why animal sacrifice is irrelevant now for Christians. God got it right, humans had been getting it wrong, but they were onto something.

Quote:

We don't really know how Christ took on the sins or what was really involved we just know it was painful and that he bled from every pore.

We accept the statements in the Bible that Jesus is the Lamb of God. It is a serviceabl analogy that takes into consideration the universal concept of sacrificing of life in order to address suffering and sin and reconciliation with God. You're right, the how is shady, but the crucifixion isn't.

Quote:

This really means nothing. It is simply saying "god did it". And that is fine but don't expect anyone to accept such a statement based solely on logic.

I don't, nor do I expect anyone to reject such statements based solely on logic. I never claimed that my statements were anything more than my personal beliefs based on faith. If I'm wrong it doesn't matter, objective reality is more important than anything we say, and what we say does not create objective reality. However, my beliefs suggest that God does care about whether or not people accept beliefs, and logic which is confined by personal intellect has to be thrown out the window when you are confronted by God.

Quote:

A problematic and poorly designed plan. It doomed millions to hell without any option of even hearing of Christ.

I lack the faith on this point that you possess.

I have no idea how many people are in hell.

More and more Christians (over time) believe that Jesus is universal salvation to all, even those who never heard the gospel in their temporal existence. This includes people like Pat Robertson; of course other Christians think differently.

Quote:

Sensible to whom? Not to all the people who lived before Christ and not to all of the people who lived in Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the Western Hemisphere before missionaries. I find that neither divine nor sensible.

We are talking from different assumptions. I believe in an understanding God who does not hold such incidental situations against the individuals placed within them.

Quote:

If Christianity were the only faith or at least one that was head and shoulders above the rest I could be tempted to play a Pascal's wager,

I would never be tempted by Pascal's wager personally. I do think, however, that if all my beliefs are absolutely wrong it makes no difference. In other words as a believer already I find the alternative to have no attraction at all...but Pascal's wager should not be an attraction to become a believer. That's just my opinion. Others think that any way of thinking that gets someone "in the door" is OK...or most ways of thinking. Pascal's wager is rather innocuous all in all. It does appeal to reward/punishment, but is there anything inherently wrong with such an appeal?

Quote:

but then I'm sure god would not be impressed.

It depends on the person. We're all different, we all have different intellects, level of sophistication, theology, maturity, etc. I teach music to kids...I don't appeal to the most technical and theoretical concepts to teach, but commonplace analogies get the job done just fine. You have to accept people at the point at which they are, and God does that I think. We may get an idea for a "bad reason" and eventually understand the idea for better reasons. There is nothing wrong with that. You have to be charitable, every person starts/is at a different place.

Quote:

I think he wants his believers to be true believers.

I don't know what that means to be honest. Every person of faith I've talked to knows about doubt. Belief is tempered by our sinful natures. I don't know if true belief is possible. Heck, Jesus has been accused of having less than true belief.

Quote:

So I don't really think cinching the deal is all that necessary on your part. And you can be certain that I am no more in fear of the Hebrew God as I am of The Norse Gods, the Muslim God, the Pagan Gods, Zeus or any of the many, many gods.

I don't think fear has anything to do with this. Fear really hasn't entered these equations for me in the past 10 years (I am a re-converted Christian after a few years of nonbelief). It's possible for a person to reach beliefs without fear; I suspect you are like me in this respect. If I implied you were motivated by fear I'm sorry. I tend (usually) to believe that people aren't motivated by fear, unless they beg to differ.

Quote:

Yes, and at one time only God could move the Sun around the Earth and only God could create a carbon Molecule and only God could travel outside the regions of our planet.

See, all knowledge (theology too) improves over time. I am not hung up about previous beliefs. I do not have the expectation that everything would have been known completely 5000 years ago. Heck, this is like me blaming doctors today because they used to use leeches and starve menstrating women.

Quote:

God's realm shrinks daily.

You probably mean this in a certain way that I'm not getting. I'll say that this is just the opposite for some people.

Quote:

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist”
--Verbal Kint AKA Keyser Soze (Usual Suspects)

I can think of a better trick.

My favorite is "He's only eating me...I shall be eaten by whomever I please", from Cemetery Man. That movie is chock full of arf arf lines.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

Hi Elliot,

May I complement you on your tone and willingness to discuss in a non belligerent manner. I respect that and will try to respond in kind.

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc
Not sure if I'm following. We are born into corrupted bodies. We are outside of the fullness of God's grace.

I think I know what you might mean. You may be suggesting that no Christian tenet states that a human being absoultely has to sin. But when I saw all humans are born into sin, I am not implying that. It might be better to say that all humans are born into the result of sin (corrupted bodies, separation from God) because that is what I mean. Sin is so intrinsically connected to the genetically defective body that in making that I know what I mean when I say what I saw; granted, it might not be obvious to someone outside the loop.

My problem is with the usage of the word "sin" hence my admission of pedantry.

I think it would have been easier to say that humans are imperfect instead of "original sin". I'm not sure how you see genetics in moral imperfection. Physical imperfection (mortality) is the result of moral imperfection. Since a new born baby has not done anything immoral it is hardly reason to punish the child.

This is a logically problematic area. I don't mind if you don't accept that. I hope you can respect that without faith there is no reason for anyone to accept that. It is not logical.

Quote:

Is there anything more prideful, more self-obsessed, and more "center of the universe-ish" than a baby? I'm not saying that I go around kicking babies because of their self-centeredness, nor am I hung up about the fact. Forget about blaming babies even. The fact is we are born into self-centeredness, and it continues throughout our lives. That's just the way it is.

We could argue the natural state of man and that a baby is born in this natural state. But to "sin" requires informed intent. The baby has no concept of anyone and therefore cannot be said to be self-centered. It is the only thing it knows to survive.

Quote:

Well they aren't material concepts...

The point is that the meaning transcends the definition. Instead of sin it would be more accurate to say that humans are imperfect.

Let me digress here for just a moment. Humans have by nature conflicting goals. When my wife asks "do these pants make me look fat?" she has just put me into a no-win situation morally.

What would Jesus do? I say that in all sincerity. Would he protect my wife's feelings or tell her the truth?

Quote:

We understand things as best as we can, and most of us believe that understanding improves from millenia to millenia.

Understanding of the natural world has come mostly in spite of and not because of religious belief.

Quote:

What? You mean nobody noticed that before the person who wrote the Book of Job? You may be right on the specific articulation, but I don't buy your faith that one day somebody "noticed" such an obvious thing.

Actually my point isn't about a moment in time. Though I know I wrote it that way. This concept is being discovered and re-discovered daily. Many people think that disease and hard times are a direct result of sin. This view is of course not consistent. If the Bishop or priest loses a child or his house is destroyed in a flood it is a test that god has given him. If the individual is unpopular and or does not hold office in the church then that individual is more likely to be viewed as having done something wrong.

Quote:

Yes, and it is hardly a disordered concept, and it is obviously related to the sacrifice of Jesus. This is indicative (to me) of the truth of Jesus, but I suppose it's just the opposite for you.

I'm not sure of the relevancy of order.

If one looks at the predictions in the old Testament and the story of Abraham and Isaac it would seem that there is a grand plan. The story of god asking Abraham to sacrifice his first born of his first love (Isaac was the second son), and instead ordered Abraham to offer up a scape goat that this foreshadowed the story of Christ who would be both sacrificed and a scape goat. In this light it is easy to see how it all fit together. Unfortunately the story in the Bible is explainable as oral history and mythology that was told and retold to "fit" together as a unifying whole.

In fact, many, many cultures including the Mayans and Hawaiians also practiced sacrifice. The history of sacrifice can be understood from a cultural perspective.

Quote:

No. The potentail was created, but some people will hold onto their sins for eternity, they have that option.

At best semantical. Christ took on all sin. The price has been paid. There is one caveat, one must accept the gift.

Quote:

No, the concept was made perfect. An imperfect idea, and an imperfect was of going about it (animal sacrifice) was transformed into a perfect sacrifice, which is why animal sacrifice is irrelevant now for Christians. God got it right, humans had been getting it wrong, but they were onto something.

Odd, the prescription for sacrifice is spelled out in a very rigid manner by god.

Quote:

We see the rite of sacrifice demonstrated in the beginning of the Bible with the sons of Adam. The practice was clearly approved by God. Later in the Bible we see that Noah offered sacrifices, and so did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Job and his friends also offered sacrifices. The concept of sacrifice was later a part of the Law given to Moses, and various types of sacrifices are detailed for us in the early chapters of Leviticus. Certainly, our fathers had one thing in common. They all built altars to God and they all made sacrifices.

Why did god give Moses an imperfect and impotent ritual?

Quote:

I lack the faith on this point that you possess.

I have no idea how many people are in hell.

More and more Christians (over time) believe that Jesus is universal salvation to all, even those who never heard the gospel in their temporal existence. This includes people like Pat Robertson; of course other Christians think differently.

We are talking from different assumptions. I believe in an understanding God who does not hold such incidental situations against the individuals placed within them.

That is fine. I accept that.

Quote:

I would never be tempted by Pascal's wager personally. I do think, however, that if all my beliefs are absolutely wrong it makes no difference. In other words as a believer already I find the alternative to have no attraction at all...but Pascal's wager should not be an attraction to become a believer. That's just my opinion. Others think that any way of thinking that gets someone "in the door" is OK...or most ways of thinking. Pascal's wager is rather innocuous all in all. It does appeal to reward/punishment, but is there anything inherently wrong with such an appeal?

I will leave that up to others to decide for themselves. For me it would be dishonest. I did not choose to stop believing in god for personal reasons. I could no longer accept that there was any reason to believe beyond my own intuition.

Quote:

It depends on the person. We're all different, we all have different intellects, level of sophistication, theology, maturity, etc. I teach music to kids...I don't appeal to the most technical and theoretical concepts to teach, but commonplace analogies get the job done just fine. You have to accept people at the point at which they are, and God does that I think. We may get an idea for a "bad reason" and eventually understand the idea for better reasons. There is nothing wrong with that. You have to be charitable, every person starts/is at a different place.

Bravo, very good. Again, I tip my hat to you. This is perhaps the most cognizant thing I have heard from a believer in a long time. I don't think it will float with other skeptics on this forum but it works for me.

Quote:

I don't know what that means to be honest. Every person of faith I've talked to knows about doubt. Belief is tempered by our sinful natures. I don't know if true belief is possible. Heck, Jesus has been accused of having less than true belief.

I have to live with my true feelings. Like it or not, spirituality is a very real and significant part of my life. Sadly, intellect trumps intuition. My commitment is to objectively find truth. That commitment did not come easily. I value it above all else outside of my family. I cannot reconcile a way to incorporate my fallible intuition with my deep and abiding commitment to seek truth through objective means.

Quote:

I don't think fear has anything to do with this. Fear really hasn't entered these equations for me in the past 10 years (I am a re-converted Christian after a few years of non-belief). It's possible for a person to reach beliefs without fear; I suspect you are like me in this respect. If I implied you were motivated by fear I'm sorry. I tend (usually) to believe that people aren't motivated by fear, unless they beg to differ.

Cool, just trying to head you off at the pass.

Quote:

See, all knowledge (theology too) improves over time. I am not hung up about previous beliefs. I do not have the expectation that everything would have been known completely 5000 years ago. Heck, this is like me blaming doctors today because they used to use leeches and starve menstrating women.

Yes, but with all due respect I have a real problem with this. If accept that theological knowledge improves with time then I must question god's interaction with man and the claims made in the bible. Such questions really present a credibility problem for theology.

Quote:

You probably mean this in a certain way that I'm not getting. I'll say that this is just the opposite for some people.

(please see my response to Ceo_esq.

Quote:

My favorite is "He's only eating me...I shall be eaten by whomever I please", from Cemetery Man. That movie is chock full of arf arf lines.

Sounds disturbing. My son would like it.

"That’s some catch, that Catch-22"
--Yosarian

Thanks,

RandFan.

[Atlas]

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc
We are born into corrupted bodies. We are outside of the fullness of God's grace.

I think I know what you might mean. You may be suggesting that no Christian tenet states that a human being absoultely has to sin. But when I saw all humans are born into sin, I am not implying that. It might be better to say that all humans are born into the result of sin (corrupted bodies, separation from God) because that is what I mean. Sin is so intrinsically connected to the genetically defective body that in making that I know what I mean when I say what I saw; granted, it might not be obvious to someone outside the loop.

Elliot,

This commentary with RandFan on the nature of sin interests me. Would you care to expand on it in terms of the plants and animals? They had no fall from grace. They were in the garden. Is the butterfly still perfect? I like buterflys.

Consider the lilies of the field - like the butterflys they exist in the realm of life and death. What is their sin?

When God saw that it was good - did it already exist with all the imperfections? Or was that original sin - the fall of man - something that reverberated around the planet. Did God take it out on the butterflys too?

If not, how do we assess whether man really started in an exalted state? God's perfect creation always included death. It was good according to Him. Man's fall just gave him this new gift of death.

Ok, I'm stretching things but I'd like you to comment.

[elliotfc]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes, you are correct. I alluded to this concept when I said "If it is some ethereal concept that Christians accept without really understanding then that is another thing." The notion of a weakened state really has nothing to do with sin. I wanted to separate the two. I don't think anyone can truthfully say that they comprehend the notion that someone is born into a state of "sin". I think it would have been better to say born into a state of imperfection.

But all creative beings are CREATED into a state of imperfection, as they are not God.

My way of seeing this is that humans are born to be self-centered due to (at the very least) a limited perspective. This only makes sense in relation to the Fall. Adam and Eve were "created" into a state of imperfection; but we don't have the tenet that they were created into a state of sin. The state of sin is a genetically acquired state of being and it includes the fact that the human body will eventually die.

Quote:

This is a buzz term by believers to encompass all of those things that are not understood and not really explainable. All one needs to do is insert "God did it" or "only God can do it" and one needn't think about it anymore.

It doesn't necessarily follow that one "needn't think" about such things anymore, even with the statement attached. Heck, Christians talk about "only Jesus" all the time, but you can't very well say that Christians don't think about Jesus or the meaning of Jesus. Also, if in fact God "did do it", is the above really problematic at all? Does thinking have anything to do with objective reality?

Quote:

Since sin is a human construct there is nothing to discover, except of course, perhaps, a biological and genetic component to morality. But that is really horse of a different color.

Well yeah, all words and ideas are human constructs. Sin is a word placed on an observed condition, compared to a moral standard. Since it has everything to do with humans, of course the idea is a human construct. What does that have to do with the reality that makes the construct necessary if not obvious?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes


But when somebody suggests that a believer is not getting their share of ' things ', they quickly counter with: " God helps those who help themselves ... "

They don't like it ( or get it... ) when you point out that this is indistinguishable from : " Those who help themselves.. "

Of course the phrase God helps those who help themselves has no biblical basis.

That doesn't mean there isn't something to that statement. And the statements are not indistinguishable. If they were, do you use that statement with "god" inserted into it as easily as you would use the statement minus "god"?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
Part of fundamentalist isolation is to consider all other religions offensive.

It isn't isolation to consider another position.

Theology is serious business; if it wasn't, nobody woud take anything personally about it.

Do you find fundmentalists offensive? Surely you understand how it is. Any statements that are opposed to what is held to be objective reality have to be offensive. If they aren't, you really don't have very strong convictions.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
Hi Elliot,

May I complement you on your tone and willingness to discuss in a non belligerent manner. I respect that and will try to respond in kind.

Cheers! Belligernence isn't very productive, is it?

Quote:

I think it would have been easier to say that humans are imperfect instead of "original sin". I'm not sure how you see genetics in moral imperfection. Physical imperfection (mortality) is the result of moral imperfection. Since a new born baby has not done anything immoral it is hardly reason to punish the child.

My problem with that is the lack of differentiation with all of creation. All creatures created by God are imperfect. Adam and Eve were imperfect. We are talking about something different; things changed after Adam and Eve.

As for genetics, since genetically we are unable to live as immortals, and since the result of the Fall was death, it is very obvious to me that it is related; of course I doubt you'd accept the same ingredients to all this that I do, but can you see the perspective that makes the linking of genetics and sin inevitable?

Moral imperfection DID lead to physical imperfection, but it also led to a disconnect with God. That is the dimension that is also behind the concept of original sin.

Look, it isn't punishment to be born! To be born is a gift and a miracle. Yes, the life will incorporate suffering, but the life is redeemable and has the potential to be remade. I don't accept that original sin means that all babies are punished. All acts of free will have results, and this is the result. It is the reality. It doesn't do any good to look at it as punishment. We are still made in God's image.

Quote:

[B}This is a logically problematic area. I don't mind if you don't accept that. I hope you can respect that without faith there is no reason for anyone to accept that. It is not logical.[/b]

It isn't logically problematic for me, nor others. Perhaps you have a better grasp of logic than I do. If you do, it really doesn't matter in the long run, we Christians reproduce just fine in spite of the purported logical deficiency.

No reason to really get into the faith bit, but without faith there is no anything. You have to have faith in yourself to make statements with conviction. Of course you're talking about a different kind of faith; some faiths are better than others, a point I would completely agree with.

Quote:

We could argue the natural state of man and that a baby is born in this natural state. But to "sin" requires informed intent. The baby has no concept of anyone and therefore cannot be said to be self-centered. It is the only thing it knows to survive.

I think just the opposite. If you have no concept of anyone else what could possibly be more self-centered than that? That is the ultimate in self-centeredness.

Quote:

The point is that the meaning transcends the definition. Instead of sin it would be more accurate to say that humans are imperfect.

I'm repeating myself here, but again, Adam and Eve were created imperfect, and we are trying to offer a distinction here.

Quote:

Let me digress here for just a moment. Humans have by nature conflicting goals. When my wife asks "do these pants make me look fat?" she has just put me into a no-win situation morally.

What would Jesus do? I say that in all sincerity. Would he protect my wife's feelings or tell her the truth?

I think he would say that pants have no power over her. She, in fact, looks beautiful, regardless of what she was (or wasn't) wearing. Fat is a judgment call, a relative standard. As such, it could be mentioned that another pair of slacks would make her look slimmer. If the wife is fixated on her appearance as the question implies, I think Jesus would approach the situation from that as a starting point. Why is the wife so worried about how clothes make her look? Difuse the idea, or reinforce the primacy of the person over the appearance.

Quote:

Understanding of the natural world has come mostly in spite of and not because of religious belief.

I don't know. Science often seems to be motivated in reaction to religious belief. The reality of religious belief seems to inspire many scientists. Also, many scientists are inspired by their own personal religious belief to understand creation.

It's tough to judge the magnitude of relgious belief. It is so pervasive that those things that it does not directly inspire, it may very well indirectly inspire.

Anyhow, understanding of the natural world is definitely driven by belief, belief in the ability and necessity and worth of the attempt to discover and understand. Religious people desire the same as you, they just do not exclude possibilities that you exclude.

Quote:

Many people think that disease and hard times are a direct result of sin. This view is of course not consistent. If the Bishop or priest loses a child or his house is destroyed in a flood it is a test that god has given him. If the individual is unpopular and or does not hold office in the church then that individual is more likely to be viewed as having done something wrong.

I can't help these perceptions, and alternate perceptions are had by others. Christians are not supposed to think as you describe above anyways, particularly the last sentence. I stick with the first sentence, and don't get to worried about the blame game.

Quote:

If one looks at the predictions in the old Testament and the story of Abraham and Isaac it would seem that there is a grand plan. The story of god asking Abraham to sacrifice his first born of his first love (Isaac was the second son), and instead ordered Abraham to offer up a scape goat that this foreshadowed the story of Christ who would be both sacrificed and a scape goat.

Yes, absolutely.

Quote:

this light it is easy to see how it all fit together. Unfortunately the story in the Bible is explainable as oral history and mythology that was told and retold to "fit" together as a unifying whole.

Yes that is one way to explain it. Anything can be explained in any number of ways. I reject the explanation you espouse, and you reject the explanation I espouse. Who is right? Of course I am right.

Quote:

any cultures including the Mayans and Hawaiians also practiced sacrifice. The history of sacrifice can be understood from a cultural perspective.

Humans understand the worth of sacrifice. Why shouldn't we? It is a divine idea. Humans also understand objective morality. Why shouldn't we? They are divine ideas.

Quote:

At best semantical. Christ took on all sin. The price has been paid. There is one caveat, one must accept the gift.

That's what I meant to say. We can't possibly pay the price, nor can we as sinners rectify sin.

Quote:

Odd, the prescription for sacrifice is spelled out in a very rigid manner by god. Why did god give Moses an imperfect and impotent ritual?

To lay a rudimentary foundation? I dunno to be honest. Within the perspective of the whole, the "imperfect" has meaning.

Quote:

I will leave that up to others to decide for themselves. For me it would be dishonest. I did not choose to stop believing in god for personal reasons. I could no longer accept that there was any reason to believe beyond my own intuition.

What's so bad about intuition? All choices are driven by personal reasons, how could they not be?

Quote:

I have to live with my true feelings. Like it or not, spirituality is a very real and significant part of my life. Sadly, intellect trumps intuition.

That's interesting. I've never thought of intellect/intuition as divorced, or separate mental processes. I'm got a holistic idea about the whole mental thing I guess. I look to be satisfied on ALL levels, so even if you're right, and intellect and intuition are distinct, I would wish to satisfy both, and not one over the other.

Intellect isn't an objective standard for every single person, and of course neither is intuition.

Quote:

My commitment is to objectively find truth. That commitment did not come easily. I value it above all else outside of my family. I cannot reconcile a way to incorporate my fallible intuition with my deep and abiding commitment to seek truth through objective means.

The key word is objectively. You would define objectively, I think, in either a materialistic way, or a way that is bounded by what can be understood materialistically? I'm just guessing here.

I don't have a problem with the notion of subjectively finding objective truth. Isn't contentment subjective?

Is your intellect fallible, or just your intuition?

Why do you value your family over your commitment?

You have determined that "objective means" are the key. Would you suggest that everyone follow that path as well? Is that the way to go, drop dead no doubt, or is it only the way for some?

I am not trying to sound condescending, but I won't try to water down words here out of the fear that I may get the wrong impression across. Your championing of "objective means" is a personal choice, subjectively made, and specifically defined (if you would care to share the definition of objective means). You can't possibly conclude by examing and observing the natural world that a human being must follow the "objective means" route. If it is the best route, that only makes sense in terms of individual gratification. A commitment is necessarily subjective, as it is a personal motivation. None of this is bad of course. I'm just saying that a whole mountain of subjectivity lies behind objective means, however you would define them. And even to champion objective means is to put a value on them, and that value would be a subjective value.

Quote:

Yes, but with all due respect I have a real problem with this. If accept that theological knowledge improves with time then I must question god's interaction with man and the claims made in the bible. Such questions really present a credibility problem for theology.

See, I start with man's understanding of God. The disconnect is real. God respects the disconnect as it is a result of free will. Life is a competition of ideas, and ideas are difficult to overcome, but God would have his ideas compete with others, and men must choose. Over time the "God" ideas will change, become more mature. We aren't talking about objective reality, but theology. Theology is man doing the best he can. Yes, question the claims in the Bible (particularly the O.T.). Make choices. Have standards. Say that some ideas are better than others. This is the key to evolution of theology.

I question man's interaction with God, or, how he articulates, more than the other way around.

I'm cranky at the moment, sorry. I'm cranky for 90% of the messages I post here. I need to work on that I suppose.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc
But all creative beings are CREATED into a state of imperfection, as they are not God.

I don't understand the point. I don't believe we were created. Why did a perfect being create an imperfect person.

Quote:

My way of seeing this is that humans are born to be self-centered due to (at the very least) a limited perspective. This only makes sense in relation to the Fall. Adam and Eve were "created" into a state of imperfection; but we don't have the tenet that they were created into a state of sin. The state of sin is a genetically acquired state of being and it includes the fact that the human body will eventually die.

I can think of no rationale for this. Furthermore the fall was the result of the choice of two individuals. I can't shoe horn "sin" into genetics. I can accept that humans are mortal and that is genetic. Sin, no, sorry.

Quote:

It doesn't necessarily follow that one "needn't think" about such things anymore, even with the statement attached. Heck, Christians talk about "only Jesus" all the time, but you can't very well say that Christians don't think about Jesus or the meaning of Jesus. Also, if in fact God "did do it", is the above really problematic at all? Does thinking have anything to do with objective reality?

I don't find that Christians want to discuss evolution or science. Their priority and main interest is salvation and accepting Christ. What difference does it make to most Christians anyway? Sorry, but again I don't buy it.

Quote:

Well yeah, all words and ideas are human constructs. Sin is a word placed on an observed condition, compared to a moral standard. Since it has everything to do with humans, of course the idea is a human construct. What does that have to do with the reality that makes the construct necessary if not obvious?

Again my words fail me.

First off I don't accept "sin" per se. By definition it is a deliberate transgression against theological law. It is not a word that is even in my vocabulary outside of philosophical discussions about religion. I believe that "sin" is primarily a group of human behaviors that are considered wrong based upon theological dogma. These rules are often arbitrary and are not at all consistent throughout Christianity. Furthermore "sin" requires a belief in god to accept many if not most of the tenants of theological law.

Simply put, sins are a body of human behaviors that are deemed wrong based upon theological law. Since sin is founded on theological dogma there is little to discover about it scientifically. What is deemed wrong is simply wrong. It is a human construct based on perceived societal needs and supported by theological law.

Now my point. Theological law does not easily allow for changes. Since sin is God's domain there is no room to allow for genetic or biological explanations.

On the other hand, morality, intent, wrong, crime, sociopath, psychosis, neurosis, paranoia, schizophrenia are in my vocabulary. It is true we give these behaviors and concepts labels and to that extent they are constructs.

But we can find a genetic component to some of these behaviors we can also understand socially wrong behavior.

We can't easily challenge church dogma using the scientific method since it is wholly a human construct. On the other hand human behavior and the way society deals with that behavior can be studied and rules of human behavior, law and the way we deal with these behaviors can be challenged because the underlying behavior is tied to genetic and environmental factors.

Bottom line, psychology, sociology, anthropology are based on science. What is "sin" is largely static, based on past societal norms and church dogma and are difficult to change when societal norms change.

I hope that I made that clear. I fear I haven't. I have re-written it several times.

RandFan

[elliotfc]

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas
Elliot,

This commentary with RandFan on the nature of sin interests me. Would you care to expand on it in terms of the plants and animals? They had no fall from grace. They were in the garden. Is the butterfly still perfect? I like buterflys.

The dogma is that all man has dominion over all things on earth. When man fell, so too did all that was around him A fallen man was to live in a fallen world. Both man and the world (universe) will be remade. We are material, material is good, and just like we are redeemable so too is material creation. We are all wrapped up together. We are necessarily attached to the universe, so much so that the Fall had material non-human repercussions. Earth/universe are not necessarily interchangeable, that's a whole other thing that can bring in "angels" and extraterrestrials, whether or not they had their own falls, etc.

Quote:

Consider the lilies of the field - like the butterflys they exist in the realm of life and death. What is their sin?

None, they just have a hierarchical place that is contingent on humanity.

Quote:

When God saw that it was good - did it already exist with all the imperfections? Or was that original sin - the fall of man - something that reverberated around the planet. Did God take it out on the butterflys too?

Everything that is created has imperfections, only God is perfect.

Yes, original sin reverberated around the planet, as you put it.

Sin has consequences, all serious things have consequences. Of course you are aware of this. You do something wrong and innocents can suffer, that's the way it is. That's why sin is so horrible, the suffering is not limited.

Quote:

If not, how do we assess whether man really started in an exalted state? God's perfect creation always included death. It was good according to Him. Man's fall just gave him this new gift of death.

Eek.

Anyhow. Man was created to eat living things, be they plants or animals.

Have you ever read the Diary of Adam and Eve by Mark Twain? You'd like it.

I'm not all that worried about butterflies to be honest.

-Elliot

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc


It isn't isolation to consider another position.

Theology is serious business; if it wasn't, nobody woud take anything personally about it.

Do you find fundmentalists offensive? Surely you understand how it is. Any statements that are opposed to what is held to be objective reality have to be offensive. If they aren't, you really don't have very strong convictions.

-Elliot

If you make enemies of everybody else you are isolating yourself. That doesn't mean I am offended by you. Fundamentalists I have seen and representations of such consider any other form of religion (including forms that are Christian, which they refuse to recognize) a personal threat. Non-fundamentalist organizations bear no initial ill will towards fundamentalists until they are attacked in some way, and their reaction to this appears to be unprovoked to the fundamentalists because they cannot for some reason recognize that they are offenders. Usually, as in the case of Rapture Ready, the fundamentalists are made unaware of their own intolerance because the only kind of tolerance they have, the kind for like minded members of their organization, seems to have become the only kind of tolerance they can concieve of. Because of this, they view all outsiders as enemies. Therefore they isolate themselves. Clearly, this is not a consideration of other positions, but the opposite.

It is the nature of fundamentalism to offend others. They enjoy the righteous pleasure of "injustice" done to them by the people they have upset, and the "persecution" they bring about themselves. I think the best way to go about fundamentalism is to deny them that pleasure and not be offended. Their views are shallow uneducated opinions which excite them, without value or any real meaning. Only their actions are able to offend me. For example, fundamentalists blowing up my house would definitely offend me.

As for being offended by views that are not my own, such as those that prefer a subjective universe to an objective one, I can't say that I really have been. They happen all the time on the boards, some of them sillier than others, but I've never actually been offended. I suppose I don't have the strong convictions you crave, but if I did, I would miss out on learning so much about philosophy and the nature of reality, things that interest me.

[elliotfc]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't understand the point. I don't believe we were created. Why did a perfect being create an imperfect person.

Because to be created is to be contingent, a result. A result is less than a cause. There can only be one perfect being.

I admit that is a rather negative view of course. It can also be said that all creatures are created to be as perfect as they possibly can. In others words, we can be perfect within our limitations.

Quote:

I can think of no rationale for this. Furthermore the fall was the result of the choice of two individuals. I can't shoe horn "sin" into genetics. I can accept that humans are mortal and that is genetic. Sin, no, sorry.

You forget that death was stated, by God, to be the result of the disobedience. How was this made manifest? Well genetically I guess. I'm not very much interested in arguing this point further. Since original sin is passed on, and genetics is passed on, it seems an obvious connection.

Quote:

I don't find that Christians want to discuss evolution or science. There priority and main interest is salvation and accepting Christ. What difference does it make to most Christians anyway? Sorry, but again I don't buy it.

What about all the Chrisitans who teach evolution and science? Everything makes a difference. Yes, evolution is not as important as salvation, but that doesn't mean it is not important.

Quote:

I believe that "sin" is primarily a group of human behaviors that are considered wrong based upon theological dogma. These rules are often arbitrary and are not at all consistent throughout Christianity. Furthermore "sin" requires a belief in god to accept many if not most of the tenants.

Fair enough. Sin is dependent upon the standard of God.

Quote:

Simply put, sins are a body of human behaviors that are deemed wrong based upon theological law. Since sin is founded on theological dogma there is little to discover about it scientifically. What is deemed wrong is simply wrong. It is a human construct based on perceived societal needs and supported by theological law.

How do you derive that conclusion? Surely not scientifically. By objective means? You're specualting sociologically on this one. All societies have needs. But I agree, sin only exists in comparison to a standard.

Quote:

Now my point. Theological law does not easily allow for changes. Since sin is God's domain there is no room to allow for genetic or biological explanations.

Why not? Why shouldn't sin be passed down genetically? I've thought this to be so for many years, and so have countless others. As for thelogical law not allowing for changes...theological laws do in fact change, so I don't know what you mean.

Quote:

Bottom line, psychology, sociology, anthropology are based on science. What is "sin" is largely static, based on past societal norms and church dogma and are difficult to change when societal norms change.

I hope that I made that clear. If fear I haven't. I have re-written it several times.

RandFan

Thanks Rand, you've spoken quite well, I follow you.

"Based on science"...that just doesn't mean all that much to me in the way that you say it. I could just as easily say "based on religion" for everything. Religion is based on science, isn't it? Religion talks about human beings, and human beings are material living objects. Science is based on religion, isn't it? Science is a methodology that seeks to make predictions and give explanations, and religion is all abot predictions and explanations.

Of course sin is static.

Is science static?

I'm done for a while I think, until the far side of Easter. I'm living in church basically til then, if you need to find me St. Lukes in Brentwood NY or Infant Jesus in Port Jeff.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

I just finished answering the other post and lost everything. Damn! I made some great points! Ahh the ego. Time for me to go to bed. I'll answer the post tommorow. I hope you will read it when you come back.

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc
Of course sin is static.

So eating pork is wrong regardless of new technology?

Quote:

Is science static?

Absolutely not!

Quote:

[i]James Randi]/i]
How often I hear that gleeful cry, "Science doesn't know everything!" or "Science isn't sure of anything!" thrown up to me as evidence of my abysmal naivety. The exultation and jeers increase when I freely admit that both those statements are very true, since that admission seems to establish the imperfection of science, while it does exactly the opposite. Science has never claimed to "know" everything, or for that matter, anything, to any absolute certainty. That is its glory, not its shame. It expresses statements, relationships, and measurements, it predicts outcomes of given circumstances, and it provides information — all of which are tentative though well-founded and dependable to definable degrees. We learn from what science reveals, how to handle and grow within the limitations of our world, how to survive, and how to convey to other generations what we have learned.

Galileo, Newton, Einstien. No Science is anything but static.

Better to know a little and know you know a little, than to know nothing and believe you know everything.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc


Of course the phrase God helps those who help themselves has no biblical basis.

That doesn't mean there isn't something to that statement. And the statements are not indistinguishable. If they were, do you use that statement with "god" inserted into it as easily as you would use the statement minus "god"?

-Elliot

I have a feeling you got my point, that the ' results ' and not the sentence structure, are indistinguishable... And my other point about not getting it... ( ... the point )