Understanding the religious mindset

[Walker]

Furthermore, I am especially interested in your explanation of why it's called "original" sin?
_______

What's important, your understanding or another's understanding?

If it's another's, wiki has a rather extensive entry by today’s standards. It begins with pithiness and then expands according to various interests, and I don’t lisp. Take ye exception with any or whole of the wiki entry?

[Belinda]

Death...in all its forms.

You will die, Immanuel Can, however much you pray or do good Christian works. It is unlikely any part of you will live forever. Your literal interpretation makes Christianity unsuited to post-enlightenment modernity, and at a time when we desperately need Christian ethics.

No, we do not need any christian ethics.
The ethics where beleiving what you like regardless of evidence and reason is okay?
A ethics that would tear families apart? Is that the ethics you are talking about.
Why take what you think we need ethically and call it "ethics".
The ethics of the common person predates Xity and is far better than Xity. Why confuse the issue?

Who, in your opinion, is "the common person" ?

Immanuel Can, Sculptor, I , and countless millions of others are all common persons. Each person has learned ethics from significant others in their lives and nobody, including the Jewish teacher Jesus of Nazareth, has invented ethics de novo.

Jesus propounded and lived ethics that he supposed to have been passed to men directly from God, that's to say deontological ethics. Safe to say most of us here , unlike Immanuel Can, trust to ethics founded on human trial and error. There is no need to abandon the ethics of Jesus of Nazareth because you do not believe in a supernatural deity.

[Walker]

Duplicate posting of the above. Carry on.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I'm waiting.

This is the first time you've asked...so I can only imagine the wait has not been long.

The term "original sin" is an invented label, really...it appears nowhere in the Bible. Not that that's wrong: we need some word to summarize an idea, but we can go wrong if we misapply the word "original," so the label isn't entirely clear. But here's what the Bible does actually say:

"The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt, nor will a father suffer the punishment for the son’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20)

[Immanuel Can]

According to... you? Can you show where else this interpretation exists?

Yes.

Try Romans 3.

Can you please show what you are specifically referring to?

A short quotation, then? I can do that.

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Rm. 3:23)

But I suggest you might want to see the rest of the passage if you want to understand the full context of that.

[Immanuel Can]

You will die, Immanuel Can, however much you pray or do good Christian works.

"Jesus said...'I am the resurrection and the life; the one who believes in Me will live, even if he dies...' " (John 11:25)

Your literal interpretation makes Christianity unsuited to post-enlightenment modernity, and at a time when we desperately need Christian ethics.

Has it not occurred to you that you cannot have a "Christian ethics" that is grounded, durable, defensible and rational, one that can even answer the simple questions of a child, like "Why?" unless you also have Christianity? This is the mistake the "modern world" made, long ago: they imagined they could have the goods of faith without any faith. They can't. And it's simply that all people aren't that persistently irrational. At some point, they ask, "Why?" If we have no answer...

And now we see where that goes. As you say, we "desperately need" those ethics, and can't any longer sustain them.

We're never going to have a viable Christian morality without faith in Christ.

[Lacewing]

A short quotation, then? I can do that.

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Rm. 3:23)

But I suggest you might want to see the rest of the passage if you want to understand the full context of that.

How does the quotation above, or anything in Romans 3, say that Jesus saves us from death... in all its forms, as you claimed?

[Sculptor]

You will die, Immanuel Can, however much you pray or do good Christian works. It is unlikely any part of you will live forever. Your literal interpretation makes Christianity unsuited to post-enlightenment modernity, and at a time when we desperately need Christian ethics.

No, we do not need any christian ethics.
The ethics where beleiving what you like regardless of evidence and reason is okay?
A ethics that would tear families apart? Is that the ethics you are talking about.
Why take what you think we need ethically and call it "ethics".
The ethics of the common person predates Xity and is far better than Xity. Why confuse the issue?

Who, in your opinion, is "the common person" ?

Pick anyone in the world, who has no grand office, no high position, and none times out of ten you will get a better sense of fairness and justice inspite of any religion.

Immanuel Can, Sculptor, I , and countless millions of others are all common persons.

IC has lost the plot. He is an ideologue. He is the 1 in ten.

Each person has learned ethics from significant others in their lives and nobody, including the Jewish teacher Jesus of Nazareth, has invented ethics de novo.

You are not paying attention. Read the fucking bible FFS

Jesus propounded and lived ethics that he supposed to have been passed to men directly from God, that's to say deontological ethics. Safe to say most of us here , unlike Immanuel Can, trust to ethics founded on human trial and error. There is no need to abandon the ethics of Jesus of Nazareth because you do not believe in a supernatural deity.

We got on pretty well for 100s of thousands of years before the Jews and we shall persist long after they have been forgotten.

[Immanuel Can]

A short quotation, then? I can do that.

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Rm. 3:23)

But I suggest you might want to see the rest of the passage if you want to understand the full context of that.

How does the quotation above, or anything in Romans 3, say that Jesus saves us from death... in all its forms, as you claimed?

Well, Romans 3 covers that, but if you don't have time to read any more, and yet want more...

Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

"...through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned..." (Romans 5:23)

"...as sin reigned in death, so also grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 5:21)

I could give dozens, but just use a concordance and you'll have all you ever want.

[RCSaunders]

We got on pretty well for 100s of thousands of years before the Jews and we shall persist long after they have been forgotten.

Since the entirety of recorded history is something less than 6000 years, and most of that is the record of constant famines, plagues, wars, oppression, slavery, and incredible human cruelty, what are you calling getting along, "pretty well," unless you equate the perpetuation of protoplasm with successful life. How do you know anything about life for, "100s of thousands of years?"

For most of recorded history there have been those who identified themselves as Semitic, (Arabs and Jews today). I don't think they will be going away any time soon. I would agree that those who, "identify themselves in terms of some category they belong to," (I'm a Greek, a Japanese, a Hindu, an American, a Christian, a Muslim, a Democrat, A Buddhist, a Jew, an African, a Communist, a feminist, etc. etc.) are all racists and always a source of problems.

[Lacewing]

A short quotation, then? I can do that.

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Rm. 3:23)

But I suggest you might want to see the rest of the passage if you want to understand the full context of that.

How does the quotation above, or anything in Romans 3, say that Jesus saves us from death... in all its forms, as you claimed?

Well, Romans 3 covers that, but if you don't have time to read any more, and yet want more...

Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

"...through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned..." (Romans 5:23)

"...as sin reigned in death, so also grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 5:21)

I could give dozens, but just use a concordance and you'll have all you ever want.

Well, none of those mean what you claimed, and those apparently are your best examples, so referring me to a concordance is nothing more than your way of side-stepping an explanation for what you said. It appears that you can just imagine and embellish whatever you want, to prop-up whatever claims you feel served to make, because it really is all about you and your beliefs... which you are apparently unable to explain for yourself.

[RCSaunders]

A short quotation, then? I can do that.

"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Rm. 3:23)

But I suggest you might want to see the rest of the passage if you want to understand the full context of that.

How does the quotation above, or anything in Romans 3, say that Jesus saves us from death... in all its forms, as you claimed?

Well, Romans 3 covers that, but if you don't have time to read any more, and yet want more...

Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

"...through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned..." (Romans 5:23)

"...as sin reigned in death, so also grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 5:21)

I could give dozens, but just use a concordance and you'll have all you ever want.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “... everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. ...”

Hebrews 11:12&13 "... so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith ...

[Sculptor]

We got on pretty well for 100s of thousands of years before the Jews and we shall persist long after they have been forgotten.

Since the entirety of recorded history is something less than 6000 years, and most of that is the record of constant famines, plagues, wars, oppression, slavery, and incredible human cruelty, what are you calling getting along, "pretty well," unless you equate the perpetuation of protoplasm with successful life. How do you know anything about life for, "100s of thousands of years?"

I'm not talking about economics. THough as you might have seen the contrinution of religon has not mitigated against any of these calumnies, and given the time line you suggest it co-incides pretty much exactly with the emergence of Judaism and their spawing religions Xity and Islam.
As for the rest of time We know about that throught archaeology and anthropology.

For most of recorded history there have been those who identified themselves as Semitic, (Arabs and Jews today). I don't think they will be going away any time soon. I would agree that those who, "identify themselves in terms of some category they belong to," (I'm a Greek, a Japanese, a Hindu, an American, a Christian, a Muslim, a Democrat, A Buddhist, a Jew, an African, a Communist, a feminist, etc. etc.) are all racists and always a source of problems.

I give racism as much credibility as religon. None.

The so-called "civilised" expansion into pre-agricultural societies has been a disaster for morality. From what little was left when the "civilised" people decided to record the diminishing cultures, we learn of peoples who were generally well behaved beyond the dreams of organised religion's so-called "Ethics".

[Lacewing]

...you cannot have a "Christian ethics" that is grounded, durable, defensible and rational, one that can even answer the simple questions of a child, like "Why?" unless you also have Christianity? This is the mistake the "modern world" made, long ago: they imagined they could have the goods of faith without any faith. They can't. And it's simply that all people aren't that persistently irrational. At some point, they ask, "Why?" If we have no answer...

And now we see where that goes. As you say, we "desperately need" those ethics, and can't any longer sustain them.

We're never going to have a viable Christian morality without faith in Christ.

Faith is needed because Christianity makes unsubstantiated claims that create more questions than it can reasonably or honestly answer – but the benefit of such beliefs may be perceived as worth the huge margin of error. Faith can ignore anything.

The problem, however, with any belief that is given so much power... on all levels... is that many humans cannot see or move beyond all of the human distortion that is actually in service to themselves. It is really creepy. Such people speak of Jesus, yet do not reflect his documented teachings in any way. Some people will even present themselves as the mouthpieces for a god... as if a god would be so limited as to only be seen and interpreted through limited human thoughts and writings... in certain places and at certain times.

When I was growing up immersed in Christianity, it seemed to me that people were embellishing a lot... and seeing themselves as separate from that which they worshipped. Yet they did not see that as worshipping false idols, as the Bible warned against. It seemed to me that any creative force would be so immense and unlimited that it could not be conceived of accurately by humans. Such a force that pulses and flows through all things... from the tiniest to the largest... could not be contained or represented through the stories I was being told. And, in fact, the static stories were being given way too much importance over the ever-unfolding awareness that could be tapped into every present moment. There is so much beyond religion. Do we want the perceived comfort and validation of a story... do we need the perceived control and "knowns" that gives us... or do we want to experience the ever-present connection and awareness of how much a part of everything we divinely are?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, none of those mean what you claimed...

Well, I pretty much knew you'd say that. But you're wrong, actually.

I could argue that with you, of course, and could show why that is. But I'm actually not convinced anything -- no matter how precise -- would convince you. So I think I'll just let you have your preference on that.

Jesus Himself said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Some people don't have ears ready to hear. And the One who opened the ears of the deaf is not me, so there's no more I can do about that.

You have His word. You may listen or ignore at your leisure. I have no power to compel a hearing. But Jesus also said, "Take care how you hear." We're responsible not just for what we heard, or what we admit we heard, but for the full weight of what we could have heard if we'd been listening. That's something to think about.