It is interesting that for a Christian to believe he is a sinner by right of birth he is actually declaring that the God he worships is imperfect. So why believe that we are born sinners if God is Perfect?
Why worship an imperfect God?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Precisely.
thanks for your agreement...
There for If I believe God to be perfect then I cannot be a sinner in his eyes, but only in mine....[conscience and ego] therefore the book of Genesis was inspired by Man and not God.....hmmmmmm
This doesn't really make any type of sense...Christians pray to God because they believe they will be saved and go to heaven....
Christians believe that because we are not with God we are sinners...
That is a logical question, YOU MUST KNOW BY NOW that you wont get a logical answer to such from a theist. A COMPLETE WASTE OF BREATH.
Last edited:
how would our imperfection reflect an imperfection of god if he created us with free will?
How does free will enter into the equation if we are BORN sinners? If sin is already a part of us before we even draw our first breath, how could this reflect positively on the one who is responsible for our existence? Does God want humanity to fail?
So you are saying that God made a mistake by granting us freewill? It isn't even free will that generates this notion of original sin as fathoms just said.
"......Nay!! I say to those who choose mediocracy. I shall worship a perfect God or none at all....no second class Gods for me....."
anon
It is unfortunate that to consider God to be perfect and then in the same breath consider that we are sinners in his eyes hopelessly paradoxes the Christian religion. Given also that probably ONE of the most important inspirations [That being JC] mankind has seen is like wise tarnished with such contradiction.
Maybe this is why so much effort is utilised in defending the undefendable...to keep the inspirations that JC put forth alive even if this means accepting and irrationally justifying that acceptance to do so.
Last edited:
it seems to indicate that we had some other state of existence before our corporeal existence
no
therefore it tends to indicaet we had some other state (that also innvolved free will) before our being born into the material atmosphere
sounds good
Even JC said there were manythings he could explain but that the people weren'tready for
Regardless of whatever JC left out in terms of delivering the whole picture before the clueless, there i still immense benefits in following his instructions, since they tend to grant the nature of acquiring a clue
To begin with I wished to say that I appreciate and respect your POV.
What I see as being the issue here is simply that in the usual orthadox sense Christianity requires or more importantly demands that one must accept the notion of original sin for Jesus Christ sacrifice and suffering to have meaning.
If one does not accept the notion of original sin then all we have is a man that was nailed to a cross and executed for no other crime other than telling all the religious bigots that they were fools. [ my opinon only ]
So to me the issue of original sin, that being perpetrated by Adam and Eve is the crux of granting value to Jesus Christs apparent sacrifice.
With out the notion of original sin The christ has died in vane.
It appears that Adam and Eve were granted freewill and chose to risk death and loose there immortal servitude rather than live a life with out it. [Self determination is considerably more dear to mankind than mere survival as shown by many examples over the millenia]
So any act of self determination is ultimately an act against Gods Influence.
Thus any act of self determination including the act of choosing to worship God is a sin. As self determination, acka Freewill is the product of that sin.
So Christianity and religions of similar basis generate a huge dilemma within people when they know that doing anything that is contra to Gods will or it's agents [ the Churches of various persuasions ] and use self determination or freewill is considered as sinning.
Now it seems obvious to me that if you wanted to control a population that this could be seen as a perfect set up. The Church being the only medium for which persons can find out what Gods will apparently is and there fore subject to the corruption that having such power tends to generate.
A perfect population control marketing scam if there ever was one.
However there is only one significant weakness to the scheme and that is one has to some how irratinally consider a new born baby as a sinner who will burn in hell unless christened or baptised and accepts the self disgust that accepting such a burden entails.
If one is prepared to deny assuming responibility for a perfect Gods actions sin is no longer available as a tool to market the sacrifice of JC.
To accept responsibiity for that which a perfect God has created is in itself a sin. For would this not make man diminish the author of that creation?
An important point that I want to make perfectly clear is that IMO people are not born intinctively or some how genetically Christian and that they must exercise self determination when choosing to worship and this is where the essence of the paradox exists. The use of free will thus self determination does not lead to sin simply because it IS the sin....and a sin of freedom supposely given by God.
Last edited:
So we're talking about rationalization here, aren't we LG? What difference does it make if humans had some other state of existence before this corporeal one? We still have the dillemma of newborn babies with the weight of their immortal souls on their shoulders simply because God doesn't know how to manage his omnipotence competently.
whats to say that a newborn baby is born with a clean slate (is it inconceivablt to receive a recation in this life for an activity performed in the last?)
One episode in particular from the healing miracles of Jesus seems to point to reincarnation:
"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)
The disciples ask the Lord if the man himself could have committed the sin causing him to be born blind. Given the fact the man has been blind from birth, we are confronted with an unusual question. When could the man have committed such sins as to make him blind at birth? The only conceivable answer is in some past life. The question assumes an ability for people to commit sins prior to birth which suggests a prior life.
http://bhagavata.net/avadhuta/files...carnation/Christian reincarnation complet.htm
Last? This is getting too much. Next lives, last lives.. How many do we have? Further than that I would ask for any evidence that supports the claim.
It doesn't even remotely point at reincarnation. What it does say is that god decided to make him blind, nothing else. god apparently does those kind of things to test people, but not once anywhere in that passage is there any indication that this person was alive before being born.
even in this life we experience changing body - like you are the same person (you have th esame sense of "I" or awareness) that you were 20 years ago, but your body has changed immensely - the idea i sthat this process continues after death - as for the evidence, you don't need me to direct you to the right thread to discuss this do you?
it says that the baby was born blind not because of the sins performed by the parents but because of the sins performed by the baby -= now there are two ways to take this - one is to say that god is irrational (or that the baby was empowered to commit sins in the womb - which is also irrational). The other is to say that the baby had another type of existence before taking birth.
You seem to prefer the former
b/c logic /reason doesnt exist in theists vocabulary.as all the replies from god believers prove!
I disagree that we have the same sense of "I". 20 years ago I was invicible, I was a woman eater, I was the bomb. 20 years on my entire identity and sense of "I" has changed.
I've read every thread on this forum. A while back this forum went down for a while and many of the regulars here spent the time on another forum. I popped over there too briefly and during one discussion one of the posters asked who SnakeLord was. Another poster informed him that SnakeLord, (me), was a person that was only found on the religious section. I confess it's true, but continue in saying that anyone here that knows anything about me will know that I have read every thread, (although I might not have contributed). Yes, after several years you sometimes realise the futility in replying to something you've already answered 1000 times. Out of all those threads I have yet to see anyone provide any actual evidence for gods, afterlives, reincarnations, souls and all the other mumbo-jumbo that resides on this forum subsection. By all means attempt it if you feel you can, but expect one of my "harsh" replies if you waste my time.
No it doesn't.
"Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'"
Where does that say the baby sinned? I'm sorry, but unless it's in invisible ink I just don't see it. Kindly point out exactly where it says the baby sinned - I have tried everything, yes - even using the 3rd letter of every word which only resulted in 'ssisinrsrte..."
Please, I'm intrigued now..
It seems the most logical answer is that it's 'God's intention for people to be born sinners. The stories in the Bible show that 'God' is a vengeful mofo who doesn't let things go and would therefore make every baby a sinner for the sheer satisfaction of sticking it to 'Lucifer', 'Adam', and 'Eve'. 'Perfect' vengeance IMO.
it certainly seems that way.......however me thinks it was more a very clever power grab for control over a roudy mob of 2000 years ago or so..An attempt to control a population that simply couldn't focus on building a civilisation [ for the benefit of the powers that be of course]
Perfect marketing requires the generation of a demand and then supplying the solution. Most mono theistic religions seem perform this function.
Vacuum cleaner salesman: "..your carpets are dirty"
House wife: "no they are not....."
"Yes they are...", as the salesman tips a container of dirt onto the floor.
House wife: "Oh shit I will never get that out.."
Sales man: "Oh yes you can, if you buy this super delux turbo drive sucker"
House wife: "Why would I buy that?"
Salesman: "Because your carpets are dirty and if you don't they will ruin and have insects and bacteria crawling around in them"
Or as in a Tom Cruise film Mission Impossible 2 I think...a deadly virus is created by the very same company that wishes to sell the vaccine.
Well yes. Taking the theistical interpretation hat and putting the reality hat on yields inishgt into a very powerful way of psychological manipulation.