Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Quackenbush's' started by libertytxn, Jul 3, 2012.
Christianity does explain why a person needs their sin cleansed in order to enter heaven. It is centered on the nature and character of God. God is perfectly holy and as such can not and will not accept sin unpunished. He is so sensitive to sin that He does not associate with those that have committed any sin. At the same time He does desire a relationship with people, so He has provided a way to both judge all sin and be at peace with sinners. It is through the substitutionary atonement of Jesus on behalf of men. By faith in Jesus you are found in Christ and your sin is paid for and you can now be at peace with God and enjoy a friendship with Him forever.
Oh, and I agree with your statement on original sin. That is the correct understanding. And I think georgecostanza's point stands, children (any of us) would not have the moral failings they do without os, at least according to the Bible. Therefore, observable sin is an expression of original sin. In other words, we are sinners by nature from conception and as a result we commit sin.
Well, you can completely ignore what I wrote, but I did give the reason.
A supreme god would not necessarily need to cleanse sin from humans. However, a Holy God that wants a relationship with a sinful human does.
Yes, God can interact with us, but is it a full and complete relationship?
How is sin a sin if it is imputed rather than committed?
My great-grandfather was a slaveowner. Am I also guilty of slavery? I hope not because I would hate to carry that moral burden and still have to do all this ******* yard work for myself.
Pehrham1, so how would a Holy God go about having friendship with a sinner?
mona, for you to even ask that question displays that anthropomorphism that is inherent in all religion, especially Christianity.
Assuming that you are an Christian adherent, how do you expect me to speak for a holy god? Wouldn't that be presumptuous, even blasphemous? A god, holy or not, can act however she wishes. My ability, or inability, to recount how such a god would act is irrelevant. But there is certainly no "requirement" for any god to interact with his creations through a son/savior element.
Something occurred to me last night as I was thinking about this.
I wondered how people could become convinced that they are guilty of something they didn’t do, as this is the essence of original sin. Inherited guilt.
Two things became clear to me about this absurd teaching:
1. It feeds a certain sentiment, very popular with many, of self-loathing.
There are social and cultural factors that contribute to this as well, but the resulting psychology is: you are not good enough. Not kind / successful / worthy / attractive / smart / generous / loving enough, etc. Christianity is, at its core, anti-human.
2. It provides the ultimate cop-out. Of course you’re wicked and sinful, but it’s not really your fault.
The suffering and death of a sinless emancipator just reinforces the profound guilt and indignity of it all — only through an act as barbaric as human sacrifice could you be vicariously “cleansed” of your shame.
So we are offered a myth that (1) validates what many already believe about themselves, and (2) offers liberation via the slaughter of a scapegoat.
Perham1, taking the Bible as a reliable account of who God is, we can understand some things about Him and what constitutes Holiness. The issue is not that I or Christianity puts limitations on God. It is that possessing the trait of Holiness means something and it speaks of how God would relate to His creation.
Dion, though the Bible does teach original sin that does not mean we have an excuse. No one is judged for the sin that is imputed. There is no indication of that in the Bible. However, the imputed sin does have consequences and we with a sinful nature, commit sin. It is the sin we commit that results in judgment.
Well, that was anticlimactic.
The requirement is following the 10 Commandments. Since we cannot fulfill those commands, are requirement is to acknowledge God for who He is- The one true God, Creator of the universe, Savior of our souls, etc. The reward is heaven.
From the US motto to original sin to Geraldo. This thread shines so bright.
O Quacks, how I love thee.
If the topic is the ultimate believability of the Christian message or that of any "other" God's message, why are Perham's personal beliefs relevant to that discussion?
Many have commented on this thread without disclosing their own beliefs.
vy exhibits his typical muddled confusion, but at least he seems to be happy that he can use the word "coward".
This topic is not a relative comparison of one's religion, for I hold that all religions are man-made and thus prone to error and anthropomorphistic tendencies. I, like many, do not "believe" in the three Xtian gods, or even one of them. This does not mean that I have my own religion or creeds, as much as you would like to think.
Riddle you a truer belief than faith in Christ? What does that mean? Your fervid belief does not equate to true belief. We can look at the devout Muslim, Scientologist, Baptist, etc. and find all sorts of "true belief". The Xtian belief is neither more, nor less, "true" than any of the others.
You also make the common Xtian mistake of attributing a "moral basis" to your gods. Moral bases exist outside of Xtianity. Likewise, there can be meaning and purpose for those who are not Xtians and for those who are atheists. That you cannot find such meaning only says something about you, not others.
You seem fearful and intimidated by those who think, those who use reason, those who exercise their minds independently. Perhaps that explains your childish name-calling?
You can believe in your gods as much or as little as you like. You can think that your gods are the "three true gods" for all I care. The devout of other religions no doubt think the same of their deities.
If you require, absolutely require, your religion to impute purpose and meaning to your life, then good for you. Everybody needs some sort of crutch and there are far worse ones than Xtianity.
I don't agree with pretty much anything you just said, but I do want your answer to this question: Why is it so important for you to prove us wrong? Is it just your purpose in life?
What makes you think that I can prove you wrong?
There is no proof here: only reason and common sense and critical thinking.
If the Xtian won't even accept the evidence behind evolution as proof, then why would they accept the above?
Xtianity is a perfect example of early indoctrination, akin to brain washing. They must grab (most) their adherents young before they develop the critical thinking skills by which the religion can be easily rejected.
Take your number of gods. You have three but insiste that three = one.
Jean-Luc withstood the pressure.