And if he isnt risen...

[wool]

[MENTION=2100]Ojian[/MENTION]
You're not a Christian are you?

 

[Ojian]

[MENTION=2100]Ojian[/MENTION]
You're not a Christian are you?

I do claim to be a Christian.

 

[wool]

I do claim to be a Christian.

But you don't believe Jesus was God? Okay.

 

[Mole]

This comment was basically irrelavent to my post. Though I'm not wanting to derail the thread anymore, what do you mean by the quoted above? Certainly you are not claiming we have DNA for life from the last 4 billion years, because we don't. And the fossil record does not support your statement either.

We are now sequencing the genome cheaply, easily, and quickly for any living thing. As well we can sequence the genome of any DNA that remains after death. And we have been able to locate all life within an evolving web of DNA. So we know with precision where we have come from. And we have not come from Eve and Adam as they didn't exist, and so didn't commit original sin, and so we have no need of a saviour.

The only way you can maintain your religious beliefs is to admit they are entirely imaginary. For instance, the basis of christianity is the trinity and there is no evidence whatsoever the trinity exists except in our imagination.

Continuing to claim your imagination is reality is risible.

 

[Mole]

But you don't believe Jesus was God? Okay.

So let's reasonably look at the evidence Jesus was and perhaps is God. He worked miracles and this shows he is God. Go to India today and we find God/men work miracles to show they are God in human form, but always their miracles turn out to to be clever tricks.

He rose from the dead. There is no corroboration of this anywhere. And there is no evidence anyone else has risen from the dead.

He showed God-like qualities. Again there is no corroboration of this.

He had a miraculous birth of a virgin. This is biologically impossible and most God/men claim virgin births.

The new christian movement was competing against the power of Rome and the Roman Emperor, who quite often became a God/man, so to compete with and in imitation of the Emperor, Jesus also became a God/man.

Jesus believe physical and mental illness was cause by demons, and so he cast out demons. He was spectacularly wrong on this as illness is cause by lesions or infection or genetics, illness is not caused by demons.

Jesus also believed the world would come to an end in his own lifetime or the lifetime of his followers, and here we are 2,000 years later, what a spectacular mistake for a God to make.

 

[wool]

So let's reasonably look at the evidence Jesus was and perhaps is God. He worked miracles and this shows he is God. Go to India today and we find God/men work miracles to show they are God in human form, but always their miracles turn out to to be clever tricks. He rose from the dead. There is no corroboration of this anywhere. And there is no evidence anyone else has risen from the dead. He showed God-like qualities. Again there is no corroboration of this. He had a miraculous birth of a virgin. This is biologically impossible and most God/men claim virgin births. The new christian movement was competing against the power of Rome and the Roman Emperor, who quite often became a God/man, so to compete with and in imitation of the Emperor, Jesus also became a God/man.

Stop quoting me. There is nothing I can do for you. I have to leave you in darkness now. Bye.

 

[Coriolis]

Talking religion with others, outside of your religious tradition is an experience akin to a famous quote attributed to Martin Mull "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture".

I find just the opposite. It is refreshing, and leads me to consider ideas that I would never have run across had I interacted only with those of my own faith. In that sense, it is more like studying the music or literature of a different culture and language.

No, I just think its a fundamentally awkward arrangement, like dancing about architecture.

I find it awkward only when either party comes to it with an agenda other than mutual learning and understanding. Sadly that happens too often. Otherwise it can be like travelling to a distant land and seeing how they eat, live, dress, and speak, and realizing for all the differences, how much we all have in common as humans.

Your welcome. Glad to help if I can. It is a subject that is often misunderstood, even by people claiming to be Christian. I've often caught myself asking "How can a guy's death that occurred some 2000 years ago have anything to do with people today?" But in reviewing what the scriptures say on the matter it helps me to answer that question and similar ones. And please realize that I'm only appealing to the Bible for any authority on this. If one doesn't have any respect or trust in the Bible, then these explanations won't mean much. Any scriptures I quote are being pulled from the American Standard Version on the biblegateway.com site.

Well, I don't believe in the Bible as Christians do, but I can still understand what is supposed to be happening in the key stories, and how it informs what Christians believe. Sort of like that quote from Aristotle about being able to entertain an idea even if you don't agree with it. For all the time I have spent among Christians, I don't think I ever realized that this is what they mean when they say Christ died for our sins. Do you think this interpretation is fairly standard and widespread among the various denominations? I notice that when Christians discuss faith, the conversation is filled with what seem to be buzzwords, jargon, euphemisms that are never spelled out for anyone explicitly. It is assumed that you "just know", perhaps having picked it up through osmosis. But then again my upbringing was Catholic, and the religious education was mediocre at best. I learned more about the Bible and the church at (very secular) university.

Adam was created as a perfect human (perfect meaning merely that there was no sin in him). If he had not sinned, he would have been able to live forever. He was warned about this with relation to eating of the fruit from the one tree: "16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." - Genesis 2:16,17. Adam did eat of the fruit, he sinned, and he was effectively sentenced to death. (This applies to Eve too)

Now as a sinner and an imperfect human, Adam had not had any children yet. So when he did have children, they 'inherited' sin from Adam. (See Romans 5:12). As an analogy, you can think of sin being like an inherited genetic defect, but don't mistakenly think that it IS genetic. So in a way, all humankind after Adam was screwed because of what Adam did in passing sin down to them. Based on the prior standard (sin -> death), all mankind is doomed to death because we have inherited sin from Adam.

No wonder that part never made sense. It's because, to me, it really doesn't make sense that the sins of the father would be held against the children. There is alot of that in this world; perhaps this is the root of it. It makes Adam seem more like Pandora. Once he opened the box of sin, there was no putting it back. Even Jesus' death didn't put it back, it just paid forever the collective human penalty for it.

Now here is where Jesus death comes in. As explained before, Jesus death has value. It is not because Jesus is God (which I do not believe anyways, but whether he is or isnt is not relevant in this context). It is that as one perfect human, Adam lost life for everyone, Jesus as a perfect human was able to buy back that life by the value of his sacrifice. That is why Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "last Adam"

But wouldn't the death of one sinless human simply pay for the sins of one sinful human, if we don't count Jesus' life of more value because he is God?

Think about this too. Jesus could have not died and (potentially) fathered perfect children, getting around the sin->death sentence for those kids and starting a new, fresh race of perfect humans that Adam didn't produce. But all of Adam's decedents would still be doomed. Instead, Jesus submitted to being killed and was then able to apply the value of his sacrifice toward all mankind.

An interesting idea. It seems to me instead that God could just forgive humanity and wipe away that penalty without going through the whole death and resurrection process. He's God after all, and he imposed the penalty to begin with. This is the sort of mental gymnastics that never made sense to me.

We are now sequencing the genome cheaply, easily, and quickly for any living thing. As well we can sequence the genome of any DNA that remains after death. And we have been able to locate all life within an evolving web of DNA. So we know with precision where we have come from. And we have not come from Eve and Adam as they didn't exist, and so didn't commit original sin, and so we have no need of a saviour.

The only way you can maintain your religious beliefs is to admit they are entirely imaginary. For instance, the basis of christianity is the trinity and there is no evidence whatsoever the trinity exists except in our imagination.

Continuing to claim your imagination is reality is risible.

I agree, and I cannot understand how widespread this claim is, since it is not necessary to derive benefit from the death and resurrection story. I am no expert on religion, but from what I have seen, Christians are the only ones who generally insist that their stories are literally and historically true. I suspect Muslims might also, but I'm not sure.

 

[Mole]

Stop quoting me. There is nothing I can do for you. I have to leave you in darkness now. Bye.

All great women have a flaw, and tragically it is the flaw which undoes them. So you ask, what is my flaw? Well, interestingly it is a spiritual flaw, a simple staightforward flaw, a flaw not so much difficult to remove, but that you don't want to remove it. It is part of you, it is part of your character. And it is that you want spiritual control, it is as though God can't look after himself and needs you take care of him. Of course this is a wonderful position of power for you, but power alas tends to corrupt, and control itself will whir you out of control.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I find just the opposite. It is refreshing, and leads me to consider ideas that I would never have run across had I interacted only with those of my own faith. In that sense, it is more like studying the music or literature of a different culture and language.


I find it awkward only when either party comes to it with an agenda other than mutual learning and understanding. Sadly that happens too often. Otherwise it can be like travelling to a distant land and seeing how they eat, live, dress, and speak, and realizing for all the differences, how much we all have in common as humans.

Speaking of religion I would recommend getting off the cross before you talk to others about it.

 

[Totenkindly]

I agree, and I cannot understand how widespread this claim is, since it is not necessary to derive benefit from the death and resurrection story. I am no expert on religion, but from what I have seen, Christians are the only ones who generally insist that their stories are literally and historically true. I suspect Muslims might also, but I'm not sure.

yeah, that was an eye opener for me when I branched outside Christianity. Like, even talking with Jewish people -- I was kind of shocked to realize that different rabbis might disagree on certain interpretations but they were still all held as credible teachers, and it was okay to look at something from different perspectives or have a different way of reading something. I was brought up to always view Bible interpretation as "there is one true right answer out there and the rest are wrong in some way." So it's a matter of being "most right" and NEEDING to have the "right" answer in very clear terms.

Not all of Christianity is like that, it's just those approaches are kind of overshadowed by the binary approach to the faith and individuals who hold a more open/multi-faceted view tend to be attacked / dismissed as infidels by those with more voice/power in the public sphere.

I also did note that Islam seemed to run in that direction too, with the right/wrong either/or approach. Other faiths, not as much. It took time for me to hear and then understand and then accept since I was raised in the other mindset; we are blind to our own frameworks until we step outside of them.


-----


Anyway, as can be expected, everyone here with one view is "This is what I believe from the Bible," so it's a theological approach... "I believe this because it is what I believe." if you don't view the Bible the same way, then there's not really a basis for a discussion -- aside from framing one's assumptions so they are at least clear.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

No wonder that part never made sense. It's because, to me, it really doesn't make sense that the sins of the father would be held against the children. There is alot of that in this world; perhaps this is the root of it. It makes Adam seem more like Pandora. Once he opened the box of sin, there was no putting it back. Even Jesus' death didn't put it back, it just paid forever the collective human penalty for it.

Another way to look at it is that Adam acted as a representative for all of humanity...I like this Pandora's box idea though. Never thought of it that way.

 

[wool]

I find just the opposite. It is refreshing, and leads me to consider ideas that I would never have run across had I interacted only with those of my own faith. In that sense, it is more like studying the music or literature of a different culture and language. I find it awkward only when either party comes to it with an agenda other than mutual learning and understanding. Sadly that happens too often. Otherwise it can be like travelling to a distant land and seeing how they eat, live, dress, and speak, and realizing for all the differences, how much we all have in common as humans. Well, I don't believe in the Bible as Christians do, but I can still understand what is supposed to be happening in the key stories, and how it informs what Christians believe. Sort of like that quote from Aristotle about being able to entertain an idea even if you don't agree with it. For all the time I have spent among Christians, I don't think I ever realized that this is what they mean when they say Christ died for our sins. Do you think this interpretation is fairly standard and widespread among the various denominations? I notice that when Christians discuss faith, the conversation is filled with what seem to be buzzwords, jargon, euphemisms that are never spelled out for anyone explicitly. It is assumed that you "just know", perhaps having picked it up through osmosis. But then again my upbringing was Catholic, and the religious education was mediocre at best. I learned more about the Bible and the church at (very secular) university. No wonder that part never made sense. It's because, to me, it really doesn't make sense that the sins of the father would be held against the children. There is alot of that in this world; perhaps this is the root of it. It makes Adam seem more like Pandora. Once he opened the box of sin, there was no putting it back. Even Jesus' death didn't put it back, it just paid forever the collective human penalty for it. But wouldn't the death of one sinless human simply pay for the sins of one sinful human, if we don't count Jesus' life of more value because he is God? An interesting idea. It seems to me instead that God could just forgive humanity and wipe away that penalty without going through the whole death and resurrection process. He's God after all, and he imposed the penalty to begin with. This is the sort of mental gymnastics that never made sense to me. I agree, and I cannot understand how widespread this claim is, since it is not necessary to derive benefit from the death and resurrection story. I am no expert on religion, but from what I have seen, Christians are the only ones who generally insist that their stories are literally and historically true. I suspect Muslims might also, but I'm not sure.

You should read the story of Cain and Abel. There is a lesson to be learned specifically for someone like you.

 

[wool]

Another way to look at it is that Adam acted as a representative for all of humanity...I like this Pandora's box idea though. Never thought of it that way.

We are all like Adam, in the sense that we all have the same choice to make; obedience or disobedience, life or death, light or darkness.

"There is nothing new under the sun".

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

Anyway, as can be expected, everyone here with one view is "This is what I believe from the Bible," so it's a theological approach... "I believe this because it is what I believe." if you don't view the Bible the same way, then there's not really a basis for a discussion -- aside from framing one's assumptions so they are at least clear.

To an extent, some things you just don't know until you do. Other things are more simple and people should be able to discuss them. I said something once about God performing anesthesia on Adam, and the interlocutor thought I was diminishing God by attributing such a human activity to him. Maybe it shows a lack of faith on his part, that we're not supposed to be comprehending things.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Talking religion with others, outside of your religious tradition is an experience akin to a famous quote attributed to Martin Mull "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture".

I've started taking dance lessons so I can choreograph the inner tensions and movement of tree growth. Some artists can absolutely dance about architecture. Seeing the underlying principles and patterns expressed in different contexts is the foundation of creative thinking.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

You should read the story of Cain and Abel. It is a lesson for someone like you.

How does this apply to Coriolis? This is in no way self-evident.

If God commanded me to give a sacrifice, I would not torture and murder an animal. I would put fruit on the alter just like Cain. If god supposedly preferred that I murdered an animal, that isn't on me, but on him. I wouldn't murder my brother for that any more than I'd murder an animal. I believe in compassion and not animal cruelty. If anyone tells me to commit harm, I'll tell them to fuck off. If there is a God of love, then there is no way that I am more compassionate than he is, therefore, if something is telling me to commit harm and my level of compassion rejects it, then logic dictates that there is no way that God said it. That's the lesson in it for me.

 

[wool]

How does this apply to Coriolis? This is in no way self-evident. If God commanded me to give a sacrifice, I would not torture and murder an animal. I would put fruit on the alter just like Cain. If god supposedly preferred that I murdered an animal, that isn't on me, but on him. I wouldn't murder my brother for that any more than I'd murder an animal. I believe in compassion and not animal cruelty. If anyone tells me to commit harm, I'll tell them to fuck off. If there is a God of love, then there is no way that I am more compassionate than he is, therefore, if something is telling me to commit harm and my level of compassion rejects it, then logic dictates that there is no way that God said it. That's the lesson in it for me.

The lamb is Christ.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The lamb is Christ.

I know that each sacrifice was supposed to make people realize the truth and severity of Christ's future death to save humanity, but does the ritualistic practice of killing animals actually have that affect on human psychology? Does each killing make it harder to do the next or does it desensitize people? Look at the way humanity relates to animals for food, for pleasure killing. This is not focused on religion alone, but that practice does not achieve the ideal proposed by it. It doesn't make people kinder.

Animals are sentient Beings whose wills are almost completely dismissed by humans as irrelevant. Other cultures and religions have animal cruelty practices and it is a primary reason I feel complete shame in being human. It is so beyond a lack of morality that I know there are instances that cross some kind of line in the universe, possibly a line directed by God, and there will be consequences for it in every context in which it has occurred.

 

[Totenkindly]

To an extent, some things you just don't know until you do. Other things are more simple and people should be able to discuss them. I said something once about God performing anesthesia on Adam, and the interlocutor thought I was diminishing God by attributing such a human activity to him. Maybe it shows a lack of faith on his part, that we're not supposed to be comprehending things.

I'm not sure why the interlocutor would think that. if God is "god" he can do whatever he wants.

I don't really like the pat answers of "some things you just don't know until you do." it's true that we don't know what we don't know, but usually it's just used as an easy answer for someone who believes something because they really believe it, and if others only experienced what they did, then they would have to believe it too. yeah, but... no.

I mean, I was a believer in that tradition while many others I knew fell away. I was serious about my faith, and I know my own motivations, and so I kept searching and digging and trying to understand... and that search led me out of the mindset I previously had so that by the end of my 30's I just didn't want to go to those kinds of churches anymore / hold that particular worldview. it cost me a lot to leave, but... the Search for Truth, you know? My road led me into a different place.

I could just say from MY perspective that "well, you guys who still believe what I used to believe? You just don't know what's right until you do, by stepping outside yourself!" And I could be right. But it doesn't really prove or show anything, it's just a possibility to keep in mind.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

I don't really like the pat answers of "some things you just don't know until you do."

I know you don't. Everything you're saying makes sense. I'm just admitting to being bad at discussing some aspects of faith.