|
Post by phludowin on Feb 2, 2019 14:45:53 GMT
Edit:3) And your point is still fucking pointless as it's based solely on your dumbfuck version of Christianity. @ Thinking that Christians believe that their young children burn in Hell because they died young. In the past (even the not so distant one), there have been brands of Christianity who believed in the concept of "original sin", and who believed that children would go to Hell if they died unbaptized, because of "original sin". rationalwiki.org/wiki/Infant_damnationI don't know if there are still brands of Christianity who believe in "original sin", but if there are, then Rodney Farber has a point.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 2, 2019 14:55:58 GMT
Edit:3) And your point is still fucking pointless as it's based solely on your dumbfuck version of Christianity. @ Thinking that Christians believe that their young children burn in Hell because they died young. In the past (even the not so distant one), there have been brands of Christianity who believed in the concept of "original sin", and who believed that children would go to Hell if they died unbaptized, because of "original sin". rationalwiki.org/wiki/Infant_damnationI don't know if there are still brands of Christianity who believe in "original sin", but if there are, then Rodney Farber has a point. I know.. I know.. "MEDIEVAL PEOPLE WERE STUPID!!!.. AND THEY WERE MOSTLY CHRISTIAN!!.. CHRISTIANITY STUPID!!" The point is.. Take a poll today.. The vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssssssssttttttttt majority of Christians don't give two shits about the concept of Hell... and definitely not worrying about babies going there. From your cited article: "Many Christians just assume that innocent children go to Heaven when they die."
But, yes.. It was a thing... So... yeah... Kudos. Yes.. and I'm sure there are some uncle/father churches out there who probably still do think stupid shit like this..
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 2, 2019 20:03:50 GMT
why would an all-knowing, all-powerful god choose to NOT reveal himself from the beginning of mankind? Hinduism is over 5,000 years old, Judaism 3,000 years old, Christianity a mere 2,000 years old. It simply points to the possibility that all religions are man-made, to explain phenomenon they don't understand. Related to this is the purely local nature of Jesus's original ministry. Why just potter around a small portion of the middle east for a few years, then for a bit longer among some locals and friends when supposedly newly back from the dead? Why not appear alive for a couple of centuries say, before Caesar and also repeat the presence and message (which is after all, supposedly aimed at all mankind) and to the contemporary South American, Chinese and African kingdoms? Does one really grow a crop by only sewing, Lysenko-like, in one corner of a field? Why would an eternal God, outside of time, only be seen for a short human life span and then just bit longer? Did He have something better to be doing? Obviously I can't speak as someone with the same degree of credulity and yearning for spiritual reassurance and comfort shared by the faithful. But it always seems to me just arrogant solipsism to assume the most powerful force in the universe, the mover of galaxies etc would take time out to ensure one for instance finds a perfect mate - something I have seen claimed by a believer on this board - especially when the health and safety of thousands of others of the good typically suffer when unwarned of impending natural disasters.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 3, 2019 1:44:42 GMT
Double doo doo to you.... Finally!! A response that I can appreciate!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 6, 2019 19:43:12 GMT
Actually there is a good theological argument for being born into sin There is? Having once started a thread attacking the idea, I would be interested to know of it. Don't go to a lot of trouble about it. A brief explanation or a link to something would be most appreciated. The argument is that we by our very nature fall short of our potential, we fail to live up to what we could be. That is the sin. Sin is a really loaded word but its the one we have.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 6, 2019 19:56:32 GMT
There is? Having once started a thread attacking the idea, I would be interested to know of it. Don't go to a lot of trouble about it. A brief explanation or a link to something would be most appreciated. The argument is that we by our very nature fall short of our potential, we fail to live up to what we could be. That is the sin. Sin is a really loaded word but its the one we have. But Adam wasn't born with this imperfect "nature". Once he disobeyed, he became imperfect (or sinful), and we inherited that from birth. That's the sticking point. Why should God arrange for this failing to be passed down through the generations? Why shouldn't Adam's children have been given the same start and the same chance as Adam?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 6, 2019 19:59:34 GMT
The argument is that we by our very nature fall short of our potential, we fail to live up to what we could be. That is the sin. Sin is a really loaded word but its the one we have. But Adam wasn't born with this imperfect "nature". Once he disobeyed, he became imperfect (or sinful), and we inherited that from birth. That's the sticking point. Why should God arrange for this failing to be passed down through the generations? Why shouldn't Adam's children have been given the same start and the same chance as Adam?
The story of Adam is made up to explain what we see, we assume (as we think God is good) that God wants us to have perfect lives, so we come up with a story to explain it. it would be better to have said God is interested in our personal growth so makes us not perfect at birth. You could also go with Adam was born as we are, and fails to live up to his potential just as we do.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 6, 2019 20:09:38 GMT
But Adam wasn't born with this imperfect "nature". Once he disobeyed, he became imperfect (or sinful), and we inherited that from birth. That's the sticking point. Why should God arrange for this failing to be passed down through the generations? Why shouldn't Adam's children have been given the same start and the same chance as Adam?
The story of Adam is made up to explain what we see, we assume (as we think God is good) that God wants us to have perfect lives, so we come up with a story to explain it. it would be better to have said God is interested in our personal growth so makes us not perfect at birth. You could also go with Adam was born as we are, and fails to live up to his potential just as we do. Your alternate versions are OK with me. Their just not OK with Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 6, 2019 20:14:25 GMT
The story of Adam is made up to explain what we see, we assume (as we think God is good) that God wants us to have perfect lives, so we come up with a story to explain it. it would be better to have said God is interested in our personal growth so makes us not perfect at birth. You could also go with Adam was born as we are, and fails to live up to his potential just as we do. Your alternate versions are OK with me. Their just not OK with Christianity. They are not ok with non-progressive Christianity, they are fine with a Christianity that understands the bible was written by men, and that those men sometimes got it wrong and sometimes intentionally wrote rules to control other people. Having said that I do understand why many Christians would not accept that I am one of them.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 6, 2019 21:13:57 GMT
Your alternate versions are OK with me. Their just not OK with Christianity. They are not ok with non-progressive Christianity, they are fine with a Christianity that understands the bible was written by men, and that those men sometimes got it wrong and sometimes intentionally wrote rules to control other people. Having said that I do understand why many Christians would not accept that I am one of them. To be clear Christianity is not of the opinion that progress does not happen while being perfect. What was laid out for Adam and Eve was entirely about progress. So it’s a mistake to think that perfection is the same as completeness albeit you may not be saying that anyway. Just a clarification. There’s always things to learn.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2019 21:55:04 GMT
They are not ok with non-progressive Christianity, they are fine with a Christianity that understands the bible was written by men, and that those men sometimes got it wrong and sometimes intentionally wrote rules to control other people. Having said that I do understand why many Christians would not accept that I am one of them. To be clear Christianity is not of the opinion that progress does not happen while being perfect. What was laid out for Adam and Eve was entirely about progress. So it’s a mistake to think that perfection is the same as completeness albeit you may not be saying that anyway. Just a clarification. There’s always things to learn. I am interested in this concept of 'perfection' as mentioned above by gadreel and Isapop and taken up by you in this post. Perfection by whose standards? If God, why and how?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 7, 2019 0:18:22 GMT
They are not ok with non-progressive Christianity, they are fine with a Christianity that understands the bible was written by men, and that those men sometimes got it wrong and sometimes intentionally wrote rules to control other people. Having said that I do understand why many Christians would not accept that I am one of them. To be clear Christianity is not of the opinion that progress does not happen while being perfect. What was laid out for Adam and Eve was entirely about progress. So it’s a mistake to think that perfection is the same as completeness albeit you may not be saying that anyway. Just a clarification. There’s always things to learn. You can't be perfect and then change to remain perfect.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 7, 2019 0:44:22 GMT
To be clear Christianity is not of the opinion that progress does not happen while being perfect. What was laid out for Adam and Eve was entirely about progress. So it’s a mistake to think that perfection is the same as completeness albeit you may not be saying that anyway. Just a clarification. There’s always things to learn. You can't be perfect and then change to remain perfect. There's only one way to be perfect?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 7, 2019 1:12:57 GMT
You can't be perfect and then change to remain perfect. There's only one way to be perfect? Essentially yes. If you are perfect and you change, then since you were perfect you must have moved away from perfection.
Unless you posit two differing states, both of which are perfection, but that has it's own issues.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 7, 2019 1:28:53 GMT
There's only one way to be perfect? Essentially yes. If you are perfect and you change, then since you were perfect you must have moved away from perfection.
Unless you posit two differing states, both of which are perfection, but that has it's own issues.
I think the idea of even a single state of perfection has issues, but if one allows for one I don't see why considering multiple states of perfection would introduce additional difficulties.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 7, 2019 1:36:48 GMT
Essentially yes. If you are perfect and you change, then since you were perfect you must have moved away from perfection.
Unless you posit two differing states, both of which are perfection, but that has it's own issues.
I think the idea of even a single state of perfection has issues, but if one allows for one I don't see why considering multiple states of perfection would introduce additional difficulties. If there is more than one state of perfection and they differ, how do you define perfection? Take a perfect circle, it is a circle without flaws if you change it or you introduce a circle that is different to the perfect one, how can either result be perfect?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Feb 7, 2019 1:41:35 GMT
Please cite the bible verse where Jesus says that.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 7, 2019 1:53:58 GMT
I think the idea of even a single state of perfection has issues, but if one allows for one I don't see why considering multiple states of perfection would introduce additional difficulties. If there is more than one state of perfection and they differ, how do you define perfection? Take a perfect circle, it is a circle without flaws if you change it or you introduce a circle that is different to the perfect one, how can either result be perfect? I could scale it up or down, make it twice as big, but still a perfect circle. Or change into a perfect sphere. Or change from a perfect green circle to perfect red.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 7, 2019 2:04:54 GMT
If there is more than one state of perfection and they differ, how do you define perfection? Take a perfect circle, it is a circle without flaws if you change it or you introduce a circle that is different to the perfect one, how can either result be perfect? I could scale it up or down, make it twice as big, but still a perfect circle. Or change into a perfect sphere. Or change from a perfect green circle to perfect red. Then it was not perfect. unless you are saying it is perfectly circular but it's other elements are not perfect an so can be changed and maintain the stated perfection, but the statement in this context was that the circle was perfect, if is was perfect as a green circle, how can it be perfect as a red circle?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 7, 2019 6:57:20 GMT
I could scale it up or down, make it twice as big, but still a perfect circle. Or change into a perfect sphere. Or change from a perfect green circle to perfect red. Then it was not perfect. unless you are saying it is perfectly circular but it's other elements are not perfect an so can be changed and maintain the stated perfection, but the statement in this context was that the circle was perfect, if is was perfect as a green circle, how can it be perfect as a red circle? I looked up the definition of "perfect". The first two I found were "without flaws" and "satisfying all requirements". So if the requirements for a perfect circle were: "border without bumps" and "only one color", then both a smooth red circle of 2 cm diameter and a smooth green circle of 3 cm diameter would be perfect. If for the definition of a perfect circle there also was: Completely black, and exactly 1 cm diameter, then neither circle I described would be perfect. Basically, there is no absolute perfection. As people say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Same for perfection.
|
|