Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Gary writes: I'm not sure I believe the original sin thing.

It would depend on what one understands by the phrase. Biblically, it just means that you have an inclination not to "love your neighbour" or do other such good things, and it's deep in one's very constitution. I don't think you and I are actually in doubt about that one. As you say, it's something we "need to work on more," but don't ever seem to do for very long.

Gary writes: I mean if creation is fictional, then I would think original sin probably is too.

Immanuel writes: You'd actually have to think ALL sin was "fictional," in that case. For if we are the accidental products of a merely-material universe, then such entities have no "sin." Whatever they do, whether we like or approve of it or not, is just what they do. It's not good, it's not bad, it's just how things are. Human nature is what it is, and no action is objectively good or evil, regardless of our feelings. It's just an action. And that's the end of it, then.

No, by no means would you have to think that *all sin is fictional*. You would only need a different, and even perhaps a fuller and more believable, definition of what sin is and what it is not.

The idea of Original Sin depends on the decision of god's two Edenic pets to do what they were not supposed to do. But what they did was really structured into the world in which they found themselves. The snake who tempted them was, on one reading, an aspect of god. How could it not be so unless one supposes a dualistic world?

In the story, in fact, there was never really any other possibility for them. In order for the story to move forward it required the disobedient act. But what happened to them -- to be cast out of transcendental deathless existence and thrust into human and worldly life -- is to imply to man that man is to blame for all that man suffers here. Original Sin is thus original guiltiness.

[Lacewing]

How about "love your neighbour"? Whose "control" is benefitted by that one?

As I' stated it's a good concept.

You shouldn't think so. If a quibble about Noah is enough to get you to write off the whole Bible, then you should throw that one out, too.

Such deceptive manipulation by I.C. in plain view... wow! Gary is answering in completely reasonable ways, yet I.C. tries to distort it and blow it up to draw attention away from the basis of I.C.'s nonsense. Good work, Gary!

[Lacewing]

I think Moses probably picked up some local lore and wrote it down.

Fine if you think so. As I say, I see no reason now to contest it with you, because I don't think it really determines anything for you. At least, I don't think it ought to.

But you certainly jumped to claim just that (in another post), didn't you? If Gary doesn't believe one thing in the Bible, then he can't believe any of it?

Is the reverse true for you, I.C.: If you CAN believe ONE thing, then you'll believe ALL of it?

Alexis has correctly pointed out that you cannot honestly acknowledge anything that might begin the great unravelling of your belief system/platform -- which leads you to continually improve/expand your mastery in distortion to preserve it and yourself at any cost. Yes, this is what many people see happening through Christianity. Rather than critically examining it along with the rest of us to see the true and the false, you wear it like some kind of righteous cloak.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel's only effort here, his entire purpose, is missionary and apologetic.

Look at the top of the thread, AJ. What's the headline?

We're here to talk about Christianity, apparently. Anybody who does so in a positive way is going to sound exactly the same.

As I say, I see no reason now to contest it with you, because I don't think it really determines anything for you.

It matters that the early Hebrews incorporated stories, myths and tales from other peoples and, often, altered them and retold them with different inflections.

I don't think that's the right assumption.

As C.S. Lewis pointed out, it's a mistake to think of traditions other than the Christian as having NOTHING of the truth in them, as if all ancient people were simply fools. Many of them knew the same sorts of stories, because the same thing had happened to them. For example, flood narratives are among the most common of ancient narratives...and one could suppose that all ancient traditions were borrowing from a single tradition that is now lost to us.

But there's a more obvious assumption: that there had, in fact, been a flood that covered at least the then-inhabited world, and lots of people had died. The reason all the diverse traditions knew about it, is that they had all had ancestors who had been in it. That would most easily explain the relations between traditions which, to our more recent knowledge, had no contact with each other, and the universality of the narrative.

There are some people -- take Atto as an example -- who have almost no grounding in the Bible or a foundation in orthodox Christianity who yet who have an active faith.

In what?

I'm not criticizing atto, at the moment. I'm just asking for more information.

"Faith" always takes an object. One has "faith IN" something. If one has "almost no grounding," then in what is one "having faith"?

It seems to me that atto's a gnostic and a reincarnationist. That much, we can glean from his own comments. But we'd have to ask him what "tradition" he's relying upon, or "having faith in" as he does so. Nobody just "has faith," blank afterward. And if we don't even know what the "faith" is in, what does it mean to call it "active"? What "acts" does it require? How do you know that atto performs those "acts"?

...their *faith* is not so much grounded in the Bible document as in something far more vague.

Then it's not "grounded" at all, by definition. It's left "vague," instead.

In fact, if Moses were to have misspoken on one occasion, does that remotely imply he could not speak truth on another?

You'd need to rewrite this sentence. It is not Moses who spoke or misspoke, it is the authors who wrote his part.

I don't need to rewrite it. I believe Moses wrote it, and I don't believe he "misspoke." I only believe that Gary may believe that, and if he does, it's still of no particular concern to the question of what else he may or may not believe, as a result.

That's obvious, if we give to the Bible at least the courtesy I (and C.S.) are giving to all other traditions. We cannot conclude from one thing we doubt that there is therefore nothing in the whole library of 66 books, or even in that narrative, that we can trust.

[Immanuel Can]

I think Moses probably picked up some local lore and wrote it down.

Fine if you think so. As I say, I see no reason now to contest it with you, because I don't think it really determines anything for you. At least, I don't think it ought to.

But you certainly jumped to claim just that (in another post), didn't you?

No.

If Gary doesn't believe one thing in the Bible, then he can't believe any of it?

Sorry...you made that up. Nothing about the truth or falsehood of the Bible depends on Gary's belief. And Gary's incredulity about one miracle or event will have nothing by way of impact on what else he can believe.

Alexis has correctly pointed out that you cannot honestly acknowledge anything that might begin the great unravelling of your belief system/platform

I find the suggestion funny, actually. i didn't even think it was worth a comment, because there's nothing to it.

Actually, faith and doubt are partners. One only needs faith when one has some doubts, some uncertainties, some things-not-fully-yet-known to deal with. Apart from such dubious circumstances, one would never need anything like "faith" at all.

But what secularists like yourself tend to grossly underestimate is the number of cases where you, yourself, exercise "faith" but are unaware of so doing. You're unaware that every time you trust an airplane or car to take you somewhere, you've used faith. Every time you put confidence in a person you love or respect, you've exercised faith. Every time you get out of bed in the morning and put your feet on the floor, expecting a firm surface to be beneath you, you've used faith.

There are only two kinds of people, in regard to this, then: those who exercise faith and know what their faith is in, and why, and those who exercise faith and have no clue they're even doing it.

Which are you?

[Immanuel Can]

Gary writes: I'm not sure I believe the original sin thing.

It would depend on what one understands by the phrase. Biblically, it just means that you have an inclination not to "love your neighbour" or do other such good things, and it's deep in one's very constitution. I don't think you and I are actually in doubt about that one. As you say, it's something we "need to work on more," but don't ever seem to do for very long.

Gary writes: I mean if creation is fictional, then I would think original sin probably is too.

Immanuel writes: You'd actually have to think ALL sin was "fictional," in that case. For if we are the accidental products of a merely-material universe, then such entities have no "sin." Whatever they do, whether we like or approve of it or not, is just what they do. It's not good, it's not bad, it's just how things are. Human nature is what it is, and no action is objectively good or evil, regardless of our feelings. It's just an action. And that's the end of it, then.

No, by no means would you have to think that *all sin is fictional*.

Yeah, you would.

You'd have to think it was a "social construct" (i.e. a fiction) and one that had no corresponding objective reality behind it. In such a world, murder is "bad" only in the sense that "some people don't like it," from that perspective. And if one likes it, and can get away with it, there's nothing further to speak against it. It's just another "action," and all "actions" have neutral moral status in themselves.

Nietzsche saw that. But few had the courage of that brave, bad man.

The idea of Original Sin depends on the decision of god's two Edenic pets to do what they were not supposed to do. But what they did was really structured into the world in which they found themselves. The snake who tempted them was, on one reading, an aspect of god. How could it not be so unless one supposes a dualistic world?

No, one does not need dualism...although, why not? If the world is dualist in some way, let's go with it.

But in fact, all one needs is the premise that the Supreme Being, among his other abilities, is capable of making free agents...sufficient to be good, but free not to be. And that's exactly how the Bible sets the scene.

But you almost say something important about original sin: that now it has become "structured into the world" as a result of man's rule over the material creation and his fall. That when man fell, so did his habitat. And it could not possibly be otherwise: for a fallen creature could no longer have freedom of choice in an environment inherently protected from evil. He could not choose right or wrong, if the environment itself adamantly resisted any attempt to inject an evil choice into it. Man would have been crippled morally and utterly constrained physically, had his environment not immediately become a mixed bag of good and evil possible actions. He would have had no place where he could, in a full human and volitional sense, "live."

That's original sin. It means mankind and his environment are now mixed bags of good and evil, and man is as instinctively prone to evil as to good. Empirically, we might even say a good deal more prone to the former than the latter. Hence his need of salvation. He's not going to fix that himself.

[Lacewing]

And how about, John 3:16...do you take that part seriously?

I don't know. Looking at the passage it doesn't look all that appealing to me. Looks more like an attempt to guilt trip a person into accepting Yahweh.

I don't get your response, Gary...did you read the verse? It says,

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life."

You see "guilt" in that? I see no indictment at all. It looks to me like a free promise that God loves us, and offers us eternal life, if we only trust Him to do it.

God doesn't need to say any of that unless it's to coerce us.

God (or anyone) could love any of us without killing someone and then telling us that's why that person was sacrificed. When the Bible was written, human sacrifice was (and had been) an acceptable offering to God. So, it makes sense that men of the time would claim that God had sacrificed someone for those who would believe in that God. The story was assembled from writings and beliefs in a way that those in power found effective and useful. And the intoxicating delivery of it is still used today.

(Which shows that 2,000 years isn't a very long time for the development of human consciousness.)

[seeds]

If your view has anything to it, let's see what it is. Cards on the table.

Again. We are supposedly being played with the same deck of cards, ergo, play your hand by the call u insist..that is where is YOUR evidence that all wo/men are here upon the Earth in their first and only incarnation to face judgement as if ALL had an equal affair in the matter?

EVERYBODY, cards on the table!!! Oh wait, we've already got all of our cards on the table in full view, don't we?! And there's NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

My "speculative" (cards on the table) claim is that...

(no matter who you are, or what you've done, or what beliefs you held while on earth)

...at the moment of death, the mind (inner soul) of every human who has ever awakened into life on this planet is going to be delivered (born) into a higher context of reality that makes our present context of reality seem like some kind of hell in comparison.

Furthermore, I also claim that not only will we find ourselves in a new and wondrous setting, but we will also discover that we are of the same species of being as the Creator of this universe.

In other words, we will discover that our true and eternal form is not only the same form as the Creator of this universe, but also that we have been imbued with the same abilities as this Creator, and that the higher context of reality that awaits us will be absolutely equal and perfect for all of us - (no ifs, ands, or buts).

Now, even though I may still have an ace up my sleeve, those are my cards.

In which case, what "PROOF" would you need to see in order to convince you of the veracity of those claims?
_______

[Lacewing]

Fine if you think so. As I say, I see no reason now to contest it with you, because I don't think it really determines anything for you. At least, I don't think it ought to.

But you certainly jumped to claim just that (in another post), didn't you?

No.

If Gary doesn't believe one thing in the Bible, then he can't believe any of it?

Sorry...you made that up. Nothing about the truth or falsehood of the Bible depends on Gary's belief.

That's NOT what I said. Your distortion again. (You really don't even notice you're doing it, do you!)

And Gary's incredulity about one miracle or event will have nothing by way of impact on what else he can believe.

Yet, here (below) is where you implied otherwise because it served you in that moment to do so (which IS what I was referring to):

As I' stated it's a good concept.

You shouldn't think so. If a quibble about Noah is enough to get you to write off the whole Bible, then you should throw that one out, too.

Such deceptive manipulation by I.C. in plain view... wow! Gary is answering in completely reasonable ways, yet I.C. tries to distort it and blow it up to draw attention away from the basis of I.C.'s nonsense. Good work, Gary!

Now, back to the current post...

But what secularists like yourself tend to grossly underestimate is the number of cases where you, yourself, exercise "faith" but are unaware of so doing. You're unaware that every time you trust an airplane or car to take you somewhere, you've used faith. Every time you put confidence in a person you love or respect, you've exercised faith. Every time you get out of bed in the morning and put your feet on the floor, expecting a firm surface to be beneath you, you've used faith.

I suppose you can call that "faith" -- but that seems kind of overblown. I am more inclined to call it expectation... based on many factors.

There are only two kinds of people, in regard to this, then: those who exercise faith and know what their faith is in, and why, and those who exercise faith and have no clue they're even doing it.

Which are you?

...according to your view that serves you. People can put faith in anything! Does the ferocity of the faith make it WISE? Or do we seek to discern the real sources and reasons for any of the beliefs we have come to hold -- and are we willing to adjust those beliefs honestly when we realize we have been wrong or mistaken in our previous beliefs?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know. Looking at the passage it doesn't look all that appealing to me. Looks more like an attempt to guilt trip a person into accepting Yahweh.

I don't get your response, Gary...did you read the verse? It says,

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life."

You see "guilt" in that? I see no indictment at all. It looks to me like a free promise that God loves us, and offers us eternal life, if we only trust Him to do it.

God doesn't need to say any of that unless it's to coerce us.

Really?

So for you, "God loves the world" actually means "God coerces the world"?

You must have an interesting love life.

But in point of fact, you've forgotten that God's nature isn't ONLY love, it's also justice. There can, in fact, be no love where justice is not also present. So there had to be an answer for sin. It could not be overlooked, or God is unjust.

Would you rather He paid the price of restoring justice on your behalf, or would you prefer to pay for yourself? (Sometimes you want to be careful what you wish for; sometimes, you get it.)

[Immanuel Can]

here (below) is where you implied otherwise because it served you in that moment to do so (which IS what I was referring to):

You shouldn't think so. If a quibble about Noah is enough to get you to write off the whole Bible, then you should throw that one out, too.

You misundertood. May I suggest you read carefully and slowly when you get to a portion in which I'm quoting somebody else or expositing somebody else's assumptions? This is your second big misreading in that regard. (The "rent" thing was the first: you mistook another person's words for my own.) Here, I was exposting Gary's view, not mine.

I was saying that, in rational consistency, if GARY believed that one thing he doubted could invalidate the whole Bible, then (again, in consistency with HIS beliefs) he would also have to throw out everything else the Bible also said.

I didn't say I believed Gary was right. I said he was being rationally-inconsistent. That's quite a different question.

I suppose you can call that "faith" -- but that seems kind of overblown. I am more inclined to call it expectation... based on many factors.

Ah. So you're the second type...the one who thinks "faith" is some sort of religious specialization to which they imagine they are personally immune.

It's not. It's something everybody does, and does regularly. In fact, one cannot live without it.

People can put faith in anything!

Now you're getting it. That's quite true. They can.

Does the ferocity of the faith make it WISE?

Nobody suggested that.

Or do we seek to discern the real sources and reasons for any of the beliefs we have come to hold -- and are we willing to adjust those beliefs honestly when we realize we have been wrong or mistaken in our previous beliefs?

But of course.

One can hardly do otherwise. If one cannot any longer believe something one has formerly believed, and no longer has faith in it, then one is going to have (at least secretly) given up the belief...and that remains true whether one says that aloud or not.

[Sculptor]

Capture.JPG

[Lacewing]

May I suggest you read carefully and slowly when you get to a portion in which I'm quoting somebody else or expositing somebody else's assumptions? This is your second big misreading in that regard. (The "rent" thing was the first: you mistook another person's words for my own.)

Where did I talk about "rent"?

I was saying that, in rational consistency, if GARY believed that one thing he doubted could invalidate the whole Bible, then (again, in consistency with HIS beliefs) he would also have to throw out everything else the Bible also said.

Where did Gary say that one thing he doubted invalidated the whole Bible? I saw him repeatedly point out that he saw value in some of the things said in the Bible. I have said the same thing. It appears that we are separating the wheat from the chaff, whereas you appear to gobble it all up like some sort of intoxicated, ravenous glutton.

I suppose you can call that "faith" -- but that seems kind of overblown. I am more inclined to call it expectation... based on many factors.

Ah. So you're the second type...the one who thinks "faith" is some sort of religious specialization to which they imagine they are personally immune.

Uh, no. You'd really be a lot more credible if you didn't distort everything that people say with your own wigged out imagination.

People can put faith in anything!

Now you're getting it. That's quite true. They can.

What do you mean NOW I'm getting it? Since the last sentence I wrote that you distorted?

It's as if you've got a whole world in your head where you speak for everybody else, and then tell them how wrong that it... BUT IT'S YOU!!

[Immanuel Can]

Where did Gary say that one thing he doubted invalidated the whole Bible?

You'll have to read back. If you can't track the conversation, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not overwhelmed with your powers of reading, to be honest.

People can put faith in anything!

Now you're getting it. That's quite true. They can.

What do you mean NOW I'm getting it?

You're showing some understanding of what "faith" is. It's not at all limited to religious matters. Anything can be an object of "faith."

[seeds]

_______



_______