![]() |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
The passage is here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...209&version=31 (it's Daniel 9) The 70 weeks interpretation of Daniel is pretty dang solid. I don't think that there are very many other interpretations that suit the passage well. Quote:
Not only that, but the whole message of the Gospel is very different from that of other world views and religions, that Jesus died and saved us, and we are no longer under obligation to follow the law. You see, I have learned that trying on my own to follow the law does not work, and if you get to the point where you are following the law, the you are just following a bunch of arbitrary rules. In my view, God is perfect, and so even if I got to the point where I was obeying "the law" I would be radically far from perfect, which is what is required by God. In fact, the reason for the law, in my view, is to lead us to Christ, not to be applied to your life, because even the Old Testament law before the 10 commandments (it had over 600 laws) was incomplete. "Sin" is not just disobeying the law. The whole nature of humans is sin, and as humans we are constantly sinning. So it's not just like I sin here and there, and if I just fix those few things, I'll be alright. My whole thought process is sinful, and I constantly sin in everyday life. In my opinion, people who are Christians that are "trying their hardest" to obey the law aren't looking at it the right way because that's a bit like saying "Jesus' death on the cross wasn't enough for me, I still need to work to earn my salvation." Instead, in my view, it has to be looked at like "I'm messed up, I can't possibly change myself, and I need God to save me and change me." When I look at it like that, then I am relying on God to change me, not my own works. Ephesians 2 talks all about this, as well as many other places in the New Testament, like for most of Galatians, and for alot of the gospels, and in fact for most of the New Testament, really. Wow. I got really sidetracked there. |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
I offer this question: why are we sinful? What makes our natural thought processes wrong? Why is our everyday life so terrible? It seems arbitrary to make human nature "sinful" when all that does is add fuel to stereotypical thinking such as hiding emotions and being above instinct. There is a reason why we have instincts and there is a reason why we feel these emotions, so why should it be considered wrong? Why, just because I am conscious and can consider these things are they somehow evil? Why ignore some instincts like basic sexual instincts but not others, like eating?
The whole concept of sin is arbitrary and in my opinion only was created to control people's morality. By making human nature "evil" you now have a society of people trying as hard as they can to be prim and proper while oh by the way it's sinful to not give money to your church haha now you can't afford food. |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
That, and most of that stuff follows basic archetypes. If someone says "one day there will be a tremendous battle on a hill and many will die", that could be any number of small skirmishes to full blown wars across all of human history. Take a look at some of the stuff Nostradamus "predicted"... many of his predictions can be applied to many separate situations, sometimes even providing conflicting world views. Quote:
And quick question, but how has "God... showed you throughout [your] life" that the story of Jesus rising from the dead is literally true? Forgive the pun, but you said it yourself- the resurrection is at the crux of Christian belief. If "God has showed you throughout your life" that the bible should be believed, then he must have personally relayed to you why Jesus's resurrection story should be believed literally. Can you please relay this to me in some way that makes logical sense? Quote:
They may even be set in a belief that they're going to Hell regardless of how they handle the rest of their lives. Morality need not be driven by dogmatic bull****. The idea of treating others as you would like to be treated is both the fundamental basis for morality AND a message taught by Jesus himself. Don't submit to the idea that you're a sinner and "beyond help" and you can't be "good" on your own and you need "God to change [you]". I assure you, no matter what you believe, God is not going to intervene in this world and help you in the slightest. He'll stand by and let freak accidents and diseases claim the lives of faithful servants just the same as asshole atheists or anyone else. Because that's what he does if he does exist; stand by and do nothing. |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Whoops, I wrote this post twice. Sorry, I'm really tired.
Quote:
My point was not to say that Christianity is speaking of repressing emotions and tendencies, but that that is what many people think it is. These "sins" that we do are what lead us away from God. But Christianity isn't about trying not to do these things. In fact, sin isn't even really certain "things" that we do. By sinful nature, I mean the desire we have for ourselves, putting our own needs above others, just the selfish way in which we live. Although people may do certain things for other people, when put in a pressure situation, like receiving a promotion, a person would be much more joyful if they got the promotion. The point is that our nature is to do things that benefit ourselves in some way: as humans we are contrary to doing things like afrobean said (er, quoted Jesus), loving our neighbor as ourselves. We want to love ourselves. Galatians 5:17 says "For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want". Our sinful or selfish nature is conflicting with God (the Spirit being the Holy Spirit). So since our nature (note that this is my view and I am not trying to force you to believe it) is conflicting with God's nature, we cannot conquer it without his help. So Christianity is about having a relationship with Christ and God, and through God I may be free from my sinful nature, so it's not me trying to be free from my nature to get to God. Please, again I would like to mention that I am not trying to force you to believe this, but that it is what the bible says and what I believe. Sorry if I sound at all dogmatic. Hold on, I'm going to make a response to afrobean, (actually, that name is pretty sweet. How did you come to think of it?) probably in an edit, but I have to do some stuff first. |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
How about this: Say your neighbor has a great lawn mower and you have none. You would like to mow your grass. If you take the mower without asking, you break the social contract and risk retribution not only from him personally (or indirectly via a tarnished reputation), but also from the law. But if you ask him to borrow it, he tells you "no" because you've never done anything nice for him. I guess the idea I'm getting at could be a more tangible form of karma. Treat others with respect and you will be respected. Love your neighbor as yourself and you'll find your neighbor loving you right back. It's not selfless at all and it never claims to be. I don't follow moral rules for your good, I follow them for my own good. But again, this is morality talk that would be better placed in the morality thread. Anyway, looking forward to dissecting another one of your posts, but I might miss it this morning. I'm about to finally check out Religulous... >:D |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
The benefits don't have to be direct. We know from experimentation that even in the presence of very indirect benefits, people will help...but if you take that away and increase the negative consequences of helping, people stop helping across the board. Sometimes the benefits are even hidden. For example, some very clever experimentation found that people will help almost solely to make themselves feel better. If you trick them into thinking that their mood is stable using a bogus placebo, they won't help in the same situation. If anything, to me it seems like this may be indicative that humans are innately wired to help other people, albeit for a selfish reason, but I don't think it matters. It's the way we are; if people did not look out for themselves, we wouldn't be here. Evolution ultimately, by consequence, selects those that look out for themselves. I certainly don't think it's sinful. I think people should put themselves first, and I find myself much more willing to help others when I am already doing well. |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
My point was not to say that Christianity is speaking of repressing emotions and tendencies, but that that is what many people think it is. These "sins" that we do are what lead us away from God. But Christianity isn't about trying not to do these things. In fact, sin isn't even really certain "things" that we do. By sinful nature, I mean the desire we have for ourselves, putting our own needs above others, just the selfish way in which we live. Although people may do certain things for other people, when put in a pressure situation, like receiving a promotion, a person would be much more joyful if they got the promotion. This is contrary to the Christian religion. The point is that our nature is to do things that benefit ourselves in some way: as humans we are contrary to doing things like afrobean said (er, quoted Jesus), loving our neighbor as ourselves. We want to love ourselves. Galatians 5:17 says "For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want". Our sinful or selfish nature is conflicting with God (the Spirit being the Holy Spirit). So since our nature (note that this is my view and I am not trying to force you to believe it) is conflicting with God's nature, we cannot conquer it without his help. Hold on, I'm going to make a response to afrobean, (actually, that name is pretty sweet. How did you come to think of it?) probably in an edit, but I have to do some stuff first. Okay. Here 'tis. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jesus' death was a historical event. Jesus was written of by a number of witnesses, and although you may say it was only four, Luke was not an eyewitness, but put together a history from eyewitnesses, who also proclaimed that they had seen Jesus live again. Jesus' death and resurrection has to have been literal, as it truly shows that he is the son of God, to have risen on his own. Like I said before, Christianity would fall apart if Jesus never died and rose again. 1 John 1 says (not John 1) "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." John was an eyewitness. He had seen these things himself, and was very strongly opinionated about it. In fact, Christian Nostics did arise in around 200 A.D. that said that Jesus never really died out of the belief that a God could not die, and churches had to combat that view. Quote:
I never said that this life doesn't matter (I also might be reading what you said wrong, so sorry if I am). In fact, I believe that this life matters a whole lot, and I have never heard Christians say that this life doesn't matter, and doing good things is very important. The point is that good things don't need to be done to achieve salvation. Is that what you mean? Or did you mean something else? Unless you mean being successful in this life is not important, in which case I don't think that it is. Quote:
Quote:
In my view, I am a sinner, I am beyond help, and I do need God to change me. Again, I'm not trying to force you to believe this, but it is my view that God [i]will[\I] help me throughout my life, and that I can pray to him and ask for his help. Jesus said to his disciples "Pray that you will not fall into temptation." Ephesians 6:18 says "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. Also, Jesus said "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." This seems to imply that Jesus will, in fact, help us in our lives. I gotta go, so I can't say much more, but it says in the bible that Christians will undergo suffering, and that it is part of the Christian life. And how do you know that God doesn't help people all the time, and that it would be much, much worse without his help? Anyway, I have to go to bed (I live in Taiwan). Talk later! |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
Okay, point made, now I'll make a more actual response. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If he had divine grace, never sinned, performed miracles at a whim and basically got to cheat to get into heaven, then his existance is useless for us as a guide. He needs to be a normal, fallible, prone to sins and greed and selfishness person just like us. As for his message, I think you'll find that he didn't "come up with" teachings that lasted thousands of years. The vast majority of his teachings are exactly the same as ones you'd find in a whole host of other religious and moral teachings predating him by many years. You think "If you're nice to people, they'll be nice to you" is a brand new idea that Jesus had? |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
I will link you to a wikipedia article. You will read that article. If you don't understand where the fallacy lies, then there is nothing more I can do. If you fail to understand it after reading in depth about the issue, then you are beyond help. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction Also worthy of notice because it details the logical fallacy specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias It would also probably be wise of you to chain off into the related articles such as the articles for "Confirmation bias" or "Shoehorning". Quote:
"Restarted"? Do you mean the Old Testament? What the Jews know as Tanakh? You know, that stuff was old even when Jesus got it. He had nothing to do with that stuff, and the stuff he did affect was only written long after he was already dead. Quote:
Quote:
In addition, while I am willing to accept eyewitness accounts of the man living when the source is the bible, I am not willing to accept eyewitness accounts of unbelievable feats. You're using the same argument that the Bible is true because it says it is. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
He'd be in a mental hospital, at least as long as he proclaimed some of the fantastic things the writings written long after he was dead claimed. Quote:
Quote:
Alternatively, he could have been "foretelling" of a resurrection his whole life, then when the first writings were made of the story of his death, the writer might have added the bit about resurrection to really sell the divinity angle. Remember, this was a book written by men a long time after he was dead. They could have and most likely did change and add or remove anything they felt like to make the story more interesting or more epic or more divine. Quote:
And what about free will? If you pray to overcome temptation and you believe God helped you in this, isn't that just admitting that you believe yourself to be God's puppet and have to bend to his will rather than being free? Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, man, let's just blow up the world then so we can all just be with God and everything can be amazing. Really, I don't understand it. If you truly believe in the afterlife as is defined by Christian dogma, why would you want to live? Why would you want anyone to live? We should all just kill each other right now and end the world. **** it, drop a couple nuclear bombs and kill everyone. If Heaven exists and it's so ****ing great, what the **** are we doing standing around here with our fingers up our butts? Let's get dead so we can have immortal life at God's side. ps hi dev there's probably some things id like to comment on in your post but i honestly dont feel like assing myself into putting anything together |
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Quote:
Also, I will post more responses, but at the moment i have less time and more content to reply to. I know this may end up in a bit of double posting, but putting down my reply to everything at the same time is starting to confuse me, because I keep switching subjects and not getting anywhere. As another side note, do you think that this discussion should be moved to a different post? Like, just arguments for/against Christianity? I kinda went off on a tangent, sorry. *EDIT* I didn't want to make a new post, so I just put my next argument here. Quote:
I am probably not going to ever be able to convince you that Daniel 9 is correct, and you aren't going to be able to convince me that it isn't, but I think that you should look up the passage and what is said about it before you accuse it of logical fallacy. If you have done this, then by all means, think what you want. But if you haven't, then you can't really make arguments against it. You can make arguments against prophesy in itself, but not specific prophesies. Obviously, though, there are less metaphorical proofs for the bible. First, I am going to use prophesy again, this time from Psalm 22. Bear with me here, I know you think I'm using logical fallacies, but I have more to it than just arbitrary verses that relate to other ones. Verse 1: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? … Verse 16: "Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet." … Verses 17-18: "I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." Psalm 22 says many other things, too, which are interpreted as being about Christ, because when Jesus was put to death on the cross, he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It was also reported in the gospels that people cast lots (bet) for his clothing and that not a single bone was broken (while the other two being crucified with him had their legs broken, because they needed to be dead by Sabbath, which was the next day - Jesus was reportedly already dead at the time). And the method or crucifixion ("piercing of the hands and feet" seems to be referential to crucifixion) was not even around at the time in which Psalms was written. Before you begin to argue with me, yes, logically this could be a misinterpretation, or set up to be this way. In fact, although Jesus had no control over people casting lots for his clothing, he could have said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" in quoting of the original text (which, even from the Christian viewpoint, he might have been). And yes, it could have been chance that Psalms sounds like it is speaking of crucifixion. But as more and more complications are put into the Christianity equation, it seems less and less likely that this stuff was just fabricated. Yes, the disciples of Jesus could have just put in a bunch of stuff that Jesus didn't say, and link it with many other prophetical passages in their own interpretation. But would it not be extremely hard to do this, in four different writing styles which seem to fairly well sync up with these and other passages from the old testament, even if they do so vaguely (in my opinion, the Psalm 22 passage is very clear, but some other passages such as Micah 5:1-2, which claims that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, are less clear)? And for the events to link up by chance would be very unlikely, especially with other Old Testament prophesy. Also, the people writing the gospels seem to believe firmly in what they are saying. They would all have to be crazy to believe stuff that they themselves made up, and their writings are very opinionated and well thought out. For Jesus' resurrection, I would like to provide you with some less biblical backup. The Jews and the Romans weren't very happy at the way Christianity arose, especially during the times of Nero. So here is my question: since Christianity relies on Christ's revival from the grave, then why didn't the Romans and Jews just show that Jesus' body was still inside the tomb in which he had been lain? There are arguments against this, like that the guards at the tomb stole the body, but why the heck would they? Also, that Jesus wasn't really dead and he tunneled out, but the workers at the crucifixion knew what they were doing, and probably wouldn't put a non-dead body in the tomb. And even if he wasn't dead, he was almost certainly very injured, and in no way could "dig out" or remove the heavy stone from in front of the tomb or fight off the guards outside of it. Another view is that the disciples stole the body, but I don't think if your life long mentor, the person who you loved most, died that you would want to steal his dead, limp body from the tomb. Also, there were tomb guards to pass. Well, that does it for tonight. I gotta go to bed (I do have school tomorrow). I'll try to reply to some of the other things you guys said later, but my schedule is tighter now that Christmas break ended. I look forward to hearing your replies! *SECOND EDIT* I gotta go soon, but I thought I'd clear some things up real quick. Quote:
But aside from that, no, I was never really reffering to the Old Testament, just parts in the New Testament written about times before Jesus' death. Not actually written before it. *THIRD EDIT* Again because I don't want to make a new post. Quote:
|
Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?
Alright hold up, ill continue reading the last page but before i do i want to address some of these issues before i forget when i get lost in the new discussion.
Quote:
Suppose there is no God, there is still problems and afflictions in this life that make us "suffer". What would logically, or rather genetically, be the best way to interpret this? To adapt and overcome, thus 'learning' correct? Applying this to a scenario in which God does exist it would be much like what parents go through when they see their child getting ready to make a mistake but let them do it anyway so that they LEARN. If God didnt allow suffering and decided that we would all live perfect lives then what would be the point? Love goes multiple ways, but more often if you truly love someone then you would want the best for them rather than having them get everything they ever wanted. Including this into the 'heaven vs. hell' concept it is the same idea. Even if you know that someone is making a mistake, and a serious one at that, where without a shadow of a doubt you know the consequences and outcome, would you stop them? Well that depends, for someone that believes in giving someone the ability to make their own decisions you would have to let them incur the consequences. Why do it then? So we can learn. As a quick side note, it has been said that Lucifer originally wanted to strip us of our free will and have us come to earth living perfect lives where we all knew of God's presence and glorified him for it. However he was rejected for this idea and because of his pride he left. On this subject, knowing that he would do this and continue on to tempt mankind to going away from God then why allow that? Well could you think of a better test of your character and moral fortitude than to have something so tempting pull at it? To put in my own opinion, i would say God knew it would happen and might have done it on purpose for the reason of our learning and worthiness. Quote:
As far as the whole 'sinning being human nature' and 'if its our nature then why is it wrong' conversation goes, then the whole point is to make yourself a BETTER person and have standards rising above our nature to do 'immoral' things. Instincts are different then the whole sinning aspect though. Survival is inbedded in all living organisms with the needs to reproduce, feed, and continue living. However, the reason sexual instincts are looked down upon is almost the same reason why killing is looked down upon. We have instincts to get angry when something upsets us and pride that makes us think of ourselves first which can in extreme cases turn to murder. We also have instincts to reproduce, however satisfying those urges beyond the necessity of the situation is considered wrong for the same reason getting excessively angry and prideful is wrong. It leads to things that, regardless of religious orientation, is wrong. Also along those lines, you can see that satisfying the need to eat is not inherently wrong, however satisfying the want to eat excessively IS. Same concept. How then is a better way to relay that idea than to urge others not to participate in things that are certain to lead to worse things to begin with? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution