Understanding the religious mindset

[seeds]

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)

Immanuel Can, please explain to us how the children in the following image...



...have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God?
_______

[seeds]

So then, you apparently agree with me that the standard Christian story of Adam and Eve being the source of an "original sin" that affects their descendants is mythological nonsense.

Is that correct?

In other words, you apparently agree that no human should suffer any consequences (good or negative) for anything that the mythological (nonexistent) Adam and Eve may have done.

Is that also correct?

Neither. Even the people who take it as a mythos don't take it as "nonsense." You're missing the point....

...It's not "original sins," as if you inherit the penalty for all Adam's particular misdeeds; it's "sin," singular, meaning the propensity and inclination, the nature of sin. And it's manifestly inherent in all of us...

And here we go. You are doing exactly what I expected you would do by, once again, exhibiting the behavior that prompted me from the very start of this conversation to predict how I was going to regret asking you a question.

I said absolutely nothing about original "sins" (plural), so it is utterly disingenuous of you to imply that I did.

Is this some kind of experiment you are trying to pull off in which you demonstrate to us - in real-time - your own sinful nature by formulating specious (deceptive) arguments based on the twisting of your opponent's words?

(It's becoming clear to me now. Seeing how it is so viscerally present in your own way of conducting yourself, it's no wonder then why you believe that all humans have been imbued - at conception - with a sinful nature.)

Anyway, setting aside what I expected of you, please explain to us why the propensity for sin is "manifestly inherent" in all of us?

In other words, what is the historical source of this inherited curse?
_______

[RCSaunders]

Excellent. Thanks for that.

In a way, you've just troubled Lace's world, if she's 'listening' and thinking. I thought of mentioning that fact myself, because it leads to exactly the necessary question.

When Jesus promised "life" to people, one thing is very clear: He certainly knew that physical death wasn't disappearing in the immediate. He even told people like his disciples that they would die, despite being His disciples, and prophesied that many of his followers would be put to death. He, Himself foretold His own death, for that matter. And certainly, as the Hebrews passage pointed out, the Old Testament figures all died.

So what "life" and what "death" can He have thought He was talking about? It very clearly cannot have been what most people think of immediately when they hear the word "death," can it?

Well, what do you think?

I think it's a fudge of an obvious contradiction.

Well, let's see if that hypothesis makes sense.

You'd have to suppose that Jesus was either a) unaware death existed, b) deceived about his ability to do anything about it, c) deliberately misleading people, d) being purely metaphorical, or e) meant more than just the death we all have at the end of life.

Of course, a) and b) are pretty implausible, c) requires one to assume that Jesus was not at all the kind of moral exemplar most take Him to be, but the sort of person who might do that...very hard to sustain, d) is possible, but begs for a lot of elaboration if one opts for it...and if you aren't going to opt for one of those, or some other you want to suggest, we're left with e).

What do you think?

I have no idea what Jesus said or didn't say, or if he said anything. I only know some writer (attributed to John) said Jesus said anyone who believed, "would never die," and another writer (usually attributed to Luke) named a whole host of individuals that believed and said they all died. What that writer (if it was Luke) wrote seems most likely true, since everyone there has ever been up 'til now has died, but what the other writer (if it was John) wrote is doubtful, whoever was supposed to have said it, because no one yet has not died. In any case, they cannot both be true.

[Immanuel Can]

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)

Immanuel Can, please explain to us how the children in the following image...

I see you're not interested in reading my last message.

Okay.

[henry quirk]

All of the qualities that human beings are naturally born with and capable of are not dependent on whether or not a person ever hears of, or believes in, a god.

As I reckon it, this is the case. Every person is a free will with a conscience (a man knows right from wrong and he gets to *choose) and a person remains a free will with a conscience whether or not he believes.


Claims which cast non-theists as doomed for not subscribing to the belief of a god, seem obviously to be the work of humans who, themselves, cannot perceive or fathom perfect magnificence throughout all, greater than their own small thoughts and fears.

Some of that, as I say here viewtopic.php?p=511775#p511775 has to do with SOBs lookin' to profit by twistin' religious thinkin'. The obvious solution is -- if you really wanna know what, for example, Christianity is about -- stop listenin' to Christians and go get yourself a Bible and start readin'.




*choice is at the root of the whole will die/won't die thing...Mathew sez Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul....the rules of the game seem clear (even to a biblically illiterate deist): align with God and live (as spirit) long after your flesh passes, or, do as you will, like that that fat bastid Crowley recommended, and die completely (body and soul)

[Immanuel Can]

I said absolutely nothing about original "sins" (plural)

Fine.

But so far as I can see, you still don't show you know the difference between inheriting a sin nature and actually sinning. You can't inherit the latter, and "original sin" doesn't mean you can. So when Scripture says, "All have sinned," it's not referring to "original sin" inherited from Adam.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no idea what Jesus said or didn't say, or if he said anything.

Well, then, you can't suppose there's a contradiction between what Jesus said and what the author of Hebrew said, since you now say Jesus didn't say anything. If so, that kind of trashes your theory, it seems.

But that's not really the solution. The actual solution, you don't seem terribly interested in. You're ducking the dilemma your theory creates.

[seeds]

I said absolutely nothing about original "sins" (plural)

Fine.

But so far as I can see, you still don't show you know the difference between inheriting a sin nature and actually sinning.

And so far as I can see, you are incapable of understanding what people are saying to you.

Or worse yet, understanding it but absolutely refusing to entertain anything that might show problems with the belief system that you are so emotionally invested in.

And the emotion that I am mostly referring to is "fear."

For it is obvious...

(based on your online persona and what you have stated in many of your almost 12,000 posts)

...that you deeply fear that if you harbor or display any doubt in your belief in the tenets of Christianity, you will be punished by God.

To which I say, did it ever cross your mind that the Creator of a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets may not be as mean-spirited or as petty as the Bible makes him out to be?

Anyway, again I ask you, what is the historical source from which we have "inherited" a sinful nature?
_______

[Belinda]

As usual, Immanuel Can confuses the Jesus of history with the supernatural Christ of religion.

Jesus of history was a Jew who followed and advanced the Judaism of the prophets. Jesus of history was a teacher of Judaism and a great nuisance to the Roman admin who wanted Jews to be docile conquered people. It is entirely possible to worthship and try to follow the ethics of Jesus without also idolising him as God.

BTW Immanuel thinks God intervenes in history. There is no way we can definitely know that this does not happen. However it is an unsafe presumption, because it leads to tribal petitionary prayers and self -righteousness.

[Sculptor]

As usual, Immanuel Can confuses the Jesus of history with the supernatural Christ of religion.

Since the primary source of evidence for the historical Jesus seems to suggest that JC was supernatural, then where is the confusion?
It's like saying he's confusing Gandalf with the real Wizard of Middle Earth.

Jesus of history was a Jew who followed and advanced the Judaism of the prophets. Jesus of history was a teacher of Judaism and a great nuisance to the Roman admin who wanted Jews to be docile conquered people. It is entirely possible to worthship and try to follow the ethics of Jesus without also idolising him as God.

But that makes YOU the cherry-picker, not him.

BTW Immanuel thinks God intervenes in history. There is no way we can definitely know that this does not happen. However it is an unsafe presumption, because it leads to tribal petitionary prayers and self -righteousness.

There is a much better answer that makes much more sense.

[RCSaunders]

I have no idea what Jesus said or didn't say, or if he said anything.

Well, then, you can't suppose there's a contradiction between what Jesus said and what the author of Hebrew said, since you now say Jesus didn't say anything.

That is not what I said, and you know it. I make no claim about who said what, only that what the two verses state (whoever said or wrote them) contradict each other.

[Walker]

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

The informal, formal secular refutation …seems like forgiveness and redemption are not faith-bound, yet are crucial to Christianity.

Well, really, the question is not what the Catholics, or the Pentecostals think, or even what IC, in some view of his own, thinks. The question is only "what's true?"

What does God offer as the basis of forgiveness and redemption?

After that, the opinions of men are surely nothing...be they religious or secular.

The question is only "what's true?



Is peace of mind inherent, or a gift from God?

Faith says inherent is a gift from God.

However, peace of mind is a gift but likely not inherent, considering the survival mechanisms of anxiety and worry that cause one to wonder what’s making that noise outside the cave.

The basis provided by God is the natural way of things. For the forgiver, that basis results in the natural fruit of forgiveness, which is redemption from unending, present time torment caused by the poisonous totem of resentment.

However, the forgiven need to climb their own mountain of realization to reach the fruits of having been forgiven for their sins. The question is, are the realizations of forgiving and being forgiven inherent to all humans, and is faith required for their activation? If inherent as a God-given natural process then the fruits could be enjoyed by all, considering that all folks have a natural, albeit murky, concept of a higher power *. This is because all humans are aware of not being all powerful, which even the most delusional admit in their secret thoughts.


* Which is not to say that the forgiver is a higher power, but rather, the inherent and natural process of forgiving and being forgiven, which apparently is also crucial to Christianity and perhaps recognized rather than created by Christianity, that generates peace of mind, is a higher power than a wishin’ and a hopin’.

[Lacewing]

The obvious solution is -- if you really wanna know what, for example, Christianity is about -- stop listenin' to Christians and go get yourself a Bible and start readin'.

You realize there are many interpretations that are involved, yes? I read and studied and was taught about the Bible for 10 years. My conclusion: There are some good insights in it -- as there are good insights in all kinds of places. It is a collection of accounts and stories and imaginings, delivered through various interpretations, focused on a certain time in history, and selectively assembled by man for a certain purpose: to tell people what God is and what God wants. No thank you.

I have awareness and do not need to be told what I am or what will happen to me if I don't subscribe to someone else's religious beliefs. Those ideas/beliefs are the creations of man -- and do not make any sense of a vast creative source/energy. Human definitions, judgements, fears, and needs are clearly human-focused (therefore limited and skewed) within the much larger creative energy that we are a part of.

[Age]

The obvious solution is -- if you really wanna know what, for example, Christianity is about -- stop listenin' to Christians and go get yourself a Bible and start readin'.

You realize there are many interpretations that are involved, yes? I read and studied and was taught about the Bible for 10 years. My conclusion: There are some good insights in it -- as there are good insights in all kinds of places. It is a collection of accounts and stories and imaginings, delivered through various interpretations, focused on a certain time in history, and selectively assembled by man for a certain purpose: to tell people what God is and what God wants. No thank you.

IF the bible was for the CERTAIN PURPOSE; to tell people what God is, and what God wants, then what is God, and what does God want, to 'you', people?

From what I have observed, hitherto when this was written, 'you', people/human beings, STILL do NOT YET KNOW what God IS, nor what God wants.

I have awareness and do not need to be told what I am or what will happen to me if I don't subscribe to someone else's religious beliefs. Those ideas/beliefs are the creations of man -- and do not make any sense of a vast creative source/energy.

Are 'you' one of those 'man' things?

If yes, then are "those" ideas/beliefs the creation of 'you'?

Or, if you are not one of those 'man' things, then what are 'you'? And, how do 'you' separate 'you' from 'man'?

Human definitions, judgements, fears, and needs are clearly human-focused (therefore limited and skewed) within the much larger creative energy that we are a part of.

Are 'your' own definitions, judgments, fears, and needs also clearly human-focused, and therefore limited and skewed?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

[henry quirk]

You realize there are many interpretations that are involved, yes?

Yep. So find the cleanest of the bunch and read it...or not.


I have awareness and do not need to be told what I am or what will happen to me if I don't subscribe to someone else's religious beliefs.

Yeah, I get that. What I don't get is why you, and others, get your hackles up.

It's not like Mannie, or any theist for that matter, can make you do anything.

Where's the threat?

Me and Mannie disagree on the subject (he's a Christian theist, I'm a deist) but neither of us seem threatened by the other and neither of us seem all fired up to convert the other. I'm sure he'd like to see me in a Christian church come Sunday, but he doesn't beat me over the head about it, and I -- havin' no scripture to follow, no church to feed, no holy man to attend to -- feel no obligation to convert anyone.

Again: where's the threat that's got you up in arms?