|
Post by Isapop on Mar 9, 2018 14:52:29 GMT
I'd be a little leery of any answer to a question about Christianity that uses the word "karma" six times.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 9, 2018 15:03:27 GMT
I took and asked this question that was posed by Richard Dawkins "If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment ?" To a religious group and this is the reply i got
Forgiveness can mean going from a feeling of blame to a feeling of understanding and compassion. God already understands and has compassion, he doesn’t need to “forgive” in the emotional sense. So with this meaning it wouldn’t make any sense. When the Bible says “forgive”, it really means “pardon” or "not requiring a consequence" of people’s actions. However, the basic law of the physical universe is that for every action an equal and opposite reaction is required. This is the law of karma. For every deed, positive and negative, there is a corresponding consequence. This is what keeps creation in existence. Otherwise everyone would just merge back into God and creation would cease to exist. According to the yogic teachings, a fully realized Master can take on some of the karma of their disciples onto their own body, which makes it appear that the disciples are being “forgiven” or “pardoned", but really the consequence still has to happen, just to someone else. This helps the disciples to advance spiritually more quickly, which for Jesus would have helped his disciples to spread his teachings better. However to take on the bad karma of several people means that the Master must experience the same level of suffering as all those disciple’s karma put together. He didn’t really take on the karma of the whole world as most Christians believe, because obviously people still suffer on a daily basis, but he did take on at least some of his disciple’s karma, which resulted in a very effective spread of Christianity, so that Jesus’ message could be heard. His message, rather than his suffering, is what was meant by “and God so loved the world…” His death wasn’t what helped the world, it was what he came to tell us. Do you think this was a good or bad reply to the question asked by Richard Dawkins from The God DelusionThe answer is a legal one and I would just stick with that. Further he didn't have himself tortured. That wasn't a requirement for the ransom, just gravy added on by his killers.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 9, 2018 15:08:37 GMT
I'd be a little leery of any answer to a question about Christianity that uses the word "karma" six times. You do know that christianty is not the only religon in the world I asked the question to a hindu group Wait. Why would you ask a Hindu group to explain a Christian doctrine?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 9, 2018 15:11:10 GMT
Anyway, re the answer, the first big problem is this:
"However, the basic law of the physical universe is that for every action an equal and opposite reaction is required"
--Are they suggesting that God is not in control of the physical universe and that He couldn't make the physical universe however He'd like to make it?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 9, 2018 15:23:19 GMT
Anyway, re the answer, the first big problem is this: "However, the basic law of the physical universe is that for every action an equal and opposite reaction is required" --Are they suggesting that God is not in control of the physical universe and that He couldn't make the physical universe however He'd like to make it? I'm not sure why God would need to be in control of a universe he could create to be self-sufficient. However, that law isn't really what's applicable regarding sin which is more tied to something God cannot control which is the removal of himself from his own standards which is what would be required to simply ignore the requirements for perfection.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 9, 2018 15:27:52 GMT
Anyway, re the answer, the first big problem is this: "However, the basic law of the physical universe is that for every action an equal and opposite reaction is required" --Are they suggesting that God is not in control of the physical universe and that He couldn't make the physical universe however He'd like to make it? I'm not sure why God would need to be in control of a universe he could create to be self-sufficient. However, that law isn't really what's applicable regarding sin which is more tied to something God cannot control which is the removal of himself from his own standards which is what would be required to simply ignore the requirements for perfection. In other words it's the Euthyphro question in another guise. Did God create the universe? If He did, could He have created it however He liked, or not?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 9, 2018 15:36:17 GMT
I'm not sure why God would need to be in control of a universe he could create to be self-sufficient. However, that law isn't really what's applicable regarding sin which is more tied to something God cannot control which is the removal of himself from his own standards which is what would be required to simply ignore the requirements for perfection. Did God create the universe? If He did, could He have created it however He liked, or not? Your question doesn't answer my question- why wouldn't he create a universe that is self-sufficient as opposed to creating one that required him to micro-manage? Not sure how, but it is not necessary to explain either.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 9, 2018 15:40:31 GMT
Did God create the universe? If He did, could He have created it however He liked, or not? Your question doesn't answer my question- why wouldn't he create a universe that is self-sufficient as opposed to creating one that required him to micro-manage? Not sure how, but it is not necessary to explain either. I didn't answer your question because your response evidenced that you didn't understand my comment. I want you to understand my comment before we move on to something else that you'd rather talk about.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 9, 2018 15:42:33 GMT
Your question doesn't answer my question- why wouldn't he create a universe that is self-sufficient as opposed to creating one that required him to micro-manage? Not sure how, but it is not necessary to explain either. I didn't answer your question because your response evidenced that you didn't understand my comment. I want you to understand my comment before we move on to something else that you'd rather talk about. I understood your comment or else I wouldn't have commented.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 9, 2018 15:43:31 GMT
Did OP delete his post?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 9, 2018 15:44:51 GMT
I didn't answer your question because your response evidenced that you didn't understand my comment. I want you to understand my comment before we move on to something else that you'd rather talk about. I understood your comment or else I wouldn't have commented. And now you're not understanding my comment about not understanding my comment. I wasn't asking you if you believe that you understood it. That you feel you understood it isn't sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 9, 2018 15:45:40 GMT
Did OP delete his post? Yeah, apparently. Isn't he that guy who does that all the time?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 9, 2018 15:50:30 GMT
I understood your comment or else I wouldn't have commented. And now you're not understanding my comment about not understanding my comment. I wasn't asking you if you believe that you understood it. That you feel you understood it isn't sufficient. Again, I understood your comment fine: It's not pertinent to the answer they gave because the universe is as it is and that law works in harmony with it even if it doesn't correspond to the reason they gave for Dawkins' question. If you were asking a question different the the one posted, which happens all the time on this board among various people, the it's entirely possible I didn't understand it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 15:52:03 GMT
Did OP delete his post? Yeah, apparently. Isn't he that guy who does that all the time? I have made 540 topics and out of those 540 topics i have deleted like 5 of them. And i have written 4,617 post and i may have deleted like 10 of those i have written So no i don`t to it all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 9, 2018 15:56:08 GMT
Yeah, apparently. Isn't he that guy who does that all the time? I have made 540 topics and out of those 540 topics i have deleted like 5 of them. And i have written 4,617 post and i may have deleted like 10 of those i have written So no i don`t to it all the time. Who is the guy who deletes posts all the time? I forgot his name.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 9, 2018 15:57:13 GMT
Repeating that you understood it doesn't work. You're not asking because I suppose you're not curious, but what's required in addition to you feeling that you understood it is that I feel that what you wrote reflects an understanding of the comment.
You should be able to write my comment in different words so that I would agree that you're capturing just what I was getting at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 15:58:39 GMT
I have made 540 topics and out of those 540 topics i have deleted like 5 of them. And i have written 4,617 post and i may have deleted like 10 of those i have written So no i don`t to it all the time. Who is the guy who deletes posts all the time? I forgot his name. I don`t know
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 9, 2018 15:58:56 GMT
Again, I understood your comment fine: It's not pertinent to the answer they gave because the universe is as it is and that law works in harmony with it even if it doesn't correspond to the reason they gave for Dawkins' question. If you were asking a question different the the one posted, which happens all the time on this board among various people, the it's entirely possible I didn't understand it. Repeating that you understood it doesn't work. Then either help me understand or stop talking and move on to smarter people.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 9, 2018 16:03:23 GMT
Repeating that you understood it doesn't work. Then either help me understand or stop talking and move on to smarter people. I was trying to do that--help you understand, but you didn't bother with the question I asked. Are you familiar with the Euthyphro problem?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 9, 2018 16:17:22 GMT
Then either help me understand or stop talking and move on to smarter people. I was trying to do that--help you understand, but you didn't bother with the question I asked. Are you familiar with the Euthyphro problem? Somewhat
|
|