sin and forgiveness

cornnifer · November 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

As for sin, that is to me one of the most poisonous concepts ever invented, not to mention the concept of original sin which is even worse. The definition of sin seems to be anything we naturally do and wish for. Making for an eternal guilt trip on each of us, which also have a nice side-effect in making us more accepting to authority and punishment. (Since we know we deep down deserve it)

Anyway, I wanted to hear how you can justify God's bloodlust, but I'm not expecting an answer I'll accept. It's defintiely a matter of belief and leap of faith to accept that inconsistency. I prefer not to be shackled with old inconsistencies that have accumulated over the milennia from an inferior starting point, compared to where we find ourselves now. The leap of faith should be about acknowledging the divine, not in brushing glaring old logical inconsistencies under the carpet for fear of evolving from the stagnant old dogmas and ideas. (like 3=1 for instance, or god giving orders in violation of his own commandments)

Peace
Dan

It isn't bloodlust. In fact, its quite the opposite. If it we're bloodlust, we would all be gone. The bible states that the wages of sin is death. Not a death from old age and natural causes, but immediate death not in just the physical sense but the spiritual sense as well. This was the ultimate mission of Christ coming to earth. This is from a Christian vantage point, of course, which i realize, understand and respect that you reject. i'm in no way pushing beliefs here, but rather attempting to explain them as i don't think you quite understand them. It is not bloodlust at all, but grace! Undeserved and unconditional grace. The polar opposite of bloodlust. We as humans are fallible and imperfect. Period. No one is righteous or "good enough" to achieve Godly standards. Because of this we would be doomed to physical and spiritual death. God, according to Christian belief, took on human flesh, came to earth to, first of all, take part in the human experience. Pain, suffering, anger, rejection, temptation,betrayal and yes, of course, death. Brutal torturous death. All of the things we as humans experience, Christ experienced as well, yet led a virtually blameless life. The idea of Christ as "sacrificial lamb" is of course, metaphor. Christ suffered and died in our place. He took the weight and punishment of our shortcomings upon himself. That's called grace. It isn't called "bloodlust". It's a gift that we ,according to Christian belief, simply need to accept. It isn't a loophole to excuse despicable behavior. It is a recognition and understanding that we has humans with wonderfully and brilliantly God given free-will, are going to fuck up from time to time, regardless of how hard we try not to.

As far as the original question regarding sin and forgiveness, just because we as humans are inclined to mess up occasionally, doesn't mean forgiveness isn't required. It doesn't mean we need not sincerely seek it for ourselves and, perhaps more importantly, offer it to others who wrong us. Christ instructed his followers to pray for God to "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us". That doesn't say forgive us BECAUSE we forgive others. It is basically asking God to forgive us IN THE SAME MANNER as we forgive others. In other words, if we choose not to forgive those that wrong us, but rather hold grudges and harbor feelings of resentment and contempt, we should only expect God to treat us in the same fashion. That's serious food for contemplation.

i rarely ever contribute to these types of threads anymore. In fact, i haven't posted in this forum, at all, for months. Today i needed to keep my mind busy a little.

OutOfBreath · November 2008

iamica wrote:

When God told Adam and Eve that the day that they ate of the fruit, they would die; he was laying out the penalty for sin. He told them in no uncertain terms what would happen. God created the universe and humans, and he made the rules. Sin brings death. No, they did not die immediately after eating the fruit, but their actions brought death into the world, not only of themselves but of every human being that would come after them.
It is interesting that within moments of of Adam and Eve tasting the fruit, God already decided that he would have mercy and provide a sinless sacrifice to atone for them. Some call it substitution. It doesn't mean that God is bloodthirsty, wanting to kill people. He is a God of holiness and justice, and so he could not just let the sin go, since he had already determined beforehand that the punishment for sin was death. What is amazing is that he took that punishment - the punishment he himself had created and demanded - on himself, since he is also a God of love who desires to have mercy on those he has created. People die anyway because even though our sins are ultimately atoned for, we don't necessarily escape their consequences. Jesus forgave the criminal crucified next to him who repented, but he didn't take him down off the cross.
Since God created life, only God has the right to take life. That's why he forbade humans from killing each other. They did not have the right to take another human life, because only God has that right.
As for the Bible being a historically reliable text, that's a completely different topic, but I will say this. When one really begins to read and study the Bible, it becomes clear that God is not any different from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Even though the Bible is really 66 individual books, written on two (or possibly three) continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more than 40 authors (who came from many walks of life), it remains one unified book from beginning to end. In it we see how a loving, merciful, and just God deals with sinful people in all kinds of situations. God’s love for His creation, especially for humanity, is evident all through the Bible. Throughout the Bible we see God lovingly and mercifully calling people into a special relationship with Himself, not because they deserve it but because He is a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth. Yet we also see a holy and righteous God Who is the judge of all those who disobey. You can see that in both the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament describes God punishing people for sin, but also having mercy on people. The New Testament describes God's boundless love, but also his judgment. His characteristics are revealed in both Testaments.

See, my faith evaporates the moment he must create sin, and a punishment for it. God made everything, supposedly, then God made sin, and knew it would happen. So why he is seemingly surprised of events unfolding seems weird to me, not to mention his penchant for live sacrifice. (which makes him suspiciously alike other tribal gods of the era, mind you)

You argue well enough, but to me it fails already on the first premise. God is not amazing and all-good for inventing sin, punishing us for doing it (as he would know we would since he created us) and having an itch for a sacrifice to atone for the inevitable. Just that removes any chance that he would be my god. To see god as a force of love and harmony makes much more sense, without having to drag on old biblical and church dogma. A jealous, vengeful, sacrifice-craving god is something very different from my perception of god and the divine. I know christians interpret that differently, but I can't get around the demand of sacrifice from the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god. That he makes arrangements is not good enough an excuse.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath · November 2008

cornnifer wrote:

It isn't bloodlust. In fact, its quite the opposite. If it we're bloodlust, we would all be gone. The bible states that the wages of sin is death. Not a death from old age and natural causes, but immediate death not in just the physical sense but the spiritual sense as well. This was the ultimate mission of Christ coming to earth. This is from a Christian vantage point, of course, which i realize, understand and respect that you reject. i'm in no way pushing beliefs here, but rather attempting to explain them as i don't think you quite understand them. It is not bloodlust at all, but grace! Undeserved and unconditional grace. The polar opposite of bloodlust. We as humans are fallible and imperfect. Period. No one is righteous or "good enough" to achieve Godly standards. Because of this we would be doomed to physical and spiritual death. God, according to Christian belief, took on human flesh, came to earth to, first of all, take part in the human experience. Pain, suffering, anger, rejection, temptation,betrayal and yes, of course, death. Brutal torturous death. All of the things we as humans experience, Christ experienced as well, yet led a virtually blameless life. The idea of Christ as "sacrificial lamb" is of course, metaphor. Christ suffered and died in our place. He took the weight and punishment of our shortcomings upon himself. That's called grace. It isn't called "bloodlust". It's a gift that we ,according to Christian belief, simply need to accept. It isn't a loophole to excuse despicable behavior. It is a recognition and understanding that we has humans with wonderfully and brilliantly God given free-will, are going to fuck up from time to time, regardless of how hard we try not to.

I am sensationalizing a bit with the bloodlust, I'll admit, but the whole concept of live sacrifice to me doesnt sound like an omnipotent creator of the universe. Why did someone have to die in our place? Why MUST god have a live innocent sacrifice? That doesnt at all add up with the rest of it, without accepting a leap or two of faith.

As far as the original question regarding sin and forgiveness, just because we as humans are inclined to mess up occasionally, doesn't mean forgiveness isn't required. It doesn't mean we need not sincerely seek it for ourselves and, perhaps more importantly, offer it to others who wrong us. Christ instructed his followers to pray for God to "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us". That doesn't say forgive us BECAUSE we forgive others. It is basically asking God to forgive us IN THE SAME MANNER as we forgive others. In other words, if we choose not to forgive those that wrong us, but rather hold grudges and harbor feelings of resentment and contempt, we should only expect God to treat us in the same fashion. That's serious food for contemplation.

Forgiveness is another matter. We must try to forgive eachother for what we do to eachother, but not because we are fundamentally "sinful" of nature. Just because it's the polite and best thing to do. The combo of "you are full of filthy sin" and "you must beg forgiveness for your despicable self always" has been used for central control since at least the first pope. That combo to me is pure poison in what it does to people and how they think, and what they accept doing and have done to them because of it.

i rarely ever contribute to these types of threads anymore. In fact, i haven't posted in this forum, at all, for months. Today i needed to keep my mind busy a little.

I value your contribution, truly. I wanted to hear what some would say to go against the glaring inconsistency (in my view) at the base of the whole premise of faith and the nature of God. Thing is, I dont see any need for christian trappings in acknowledging god and the divine. Major religions are all about controlling and directing how we think about that feeling and connecting to the divine. Thus the focus on sin, which is as fine a controlling tool as is ever invented.

For me, I acknowledge the divine when I touch it and feel it. But I never do in any religious setting, much more often when I'm out in nature, on top of a mountain, or when listening to music. I believe in that force of love and harmony, and that we should strive to make society based on those. The moment someone come along with a definite book on how we are allowed to think about those subjects, and how we can't think of them on threat of hell, that's it, really. From there on, it's just about power and control. And I have no faith in an afterlife, and dont even think it sounds that great. It sounds much better to me to disintegrate into the earth, and be eternally re-cycled into other life-forms or even rock. The circle of life.

Cheesy, I know, but that's where my faith's at. I dont want to have to jump through several difficult hoops to justify it, just because someone a long time ago said something about it that was written down. Instead of playing long mindgames on why live innocent sacrifice is really grace and so on, I rather just ignore that old book as a source of truth, and see it for what it is: A historical record how people have thought of this subject before.

But I value both your input, even if it seems I'm trying to demolish you.

But I dont expect you to win me over on the christian side anytime soon. 18 years of baptist upbringing and influence couldn't do it, so...

Peace
Dan

cornnifer · November 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

I am sensationalizing a bit with the bloodlust, I'll admit, but the whole concept of live sacrifice to me doesnt sound like an omnipotent creator of the universe. Why did someone have to die in our place? Why MUST god have a live innocent sacrifice? That doesnt at all add up with the rest of it, without accepting a leap or two of faith.

I value your contribution, truly. I wanted to hear what some would say to go against the glaring inconsistency (in my view) at the base of the whole premise of faith and the nature of God. Thing is, I dont see any need for christian trappings in acknowledging god and the divine. Major religions are all about controlling and directing how we think about that feeling and connecting to the divine. Thus the focus on sin, which is as fine a controlling tool as is ever invented.

For me, I acknowledge the divine when I touch it and feel it. But I never do in any religious setting, much more often when I'm out in nature, on top of a mountain, or when listening to music. I believe in that force of love and harmony, and that we should strive to make society based on those. The moment someone come along with a definite book on how we are allowed to think about those subjects, and how we can't think of them on threat of hell, that's it, really. From there on, it's just about power and control. And I have no faith in an afterlife, and dont even think it sounds that great. It sounds much better to me to disintegrate into the earth, and be eternally re-cycled into other life-forms or even rock. The circle of life. Cheesy, I know, but that's where my faith's at. I dont want to have to jump through several difficult hoops to justify it, just because someone a long time ago said something about it that was written down. Instead of playing long mindgames on why live innocent sacrifice is really grace and so on, I rather just ignore that old book as a source of truth, and see it for what it is: A historical record how people have thought of this subject before.

But I value both your input, even if it seems I'm trying to demolish you.
But I dont expect you to win me over on the christian side anytime soon. 18 years of baptist upbringing and influence couldn't do it, so...

Peace
Dan

Why must someone die in our place? It is so we don't have to. Again its called grace. Furthermore, according to Christian faith, Christ is a bit more than Human sacrifice. Christ is, in essence, God in Human flesh sent to earth for that specific purpose and not some randomly selected civilian. That's a bit different than just Human sacrifice.
Also, Your idea of God "creating sin and then punishing us for it", i believe, is a bit off the mark as well. God didn't create sin per se, but rather free will which, admittedly, enables the potential for sin. In my opinion, and it may seem strange, it is necessary. What meaning would righteousness have if there were no potential for wickedness? None. What would be the meaning and value of love, if hatred were not an option. Again, absolutely none. We could not experience love if there was no potential for its opposite. We would not appreciate it. In fact, we would have no knowledge of it. We wouldn't even feel it. How can i appreciate happiness, if i were to never know sadness? What meaning would it have for me to do right, if i couldn't just as easily do wrong? Am i making sense? To me it all lends itself to the idea of God's divine wisdom. In a strange sort of way, i am thankful for sadness, hatred, transgression and pain for without them i would not know, joy, love, good, or pleasure.

i don't expect to win you over to the Christian side any time soon either. In fact, i'll not even try. i don't see that as my job and it certainly isn't my intention. Again, unless it were a conscious choice of your own, it would be meaningless anyway.

OutOfBreath · November 2008

cornnifer wrote:

Why must someone die in our place? It is so we don't have to. Again its called grace. Furthermore, according to Christian faith, Christ is a bit more than Human sacrifice. Christ is, in essence, God in Human flesh sent to earth for that specific purpose and not some randomly selected civilian. That's a bit different than just Human sacrifice.

But why must there be sacrifice? You justify that he really sacrificed himself etc, but why did there have to be a sacrifice? It sounds as if god has made restrictions even he himself can't break, but can go around in this manner.

Also, Your idea of God "creating sin and then punishing us for it", i believe, is a bit off the mark as well. God didn't create sin per se, but rather free will which, admittedly, enables the potential for sin. In my opinion, and it may seem strange, it is necessary. What meaning would righteousness have if there were no potential for wickedness? None. What would be the meaning and value of love, if hatred were not an option. Again, absolutely none. We could not experience love if there was no potential for its opposite. We would not appreciate it. In fact, we would have no knowledge of it. We wouldn't even feel it. How can i appreciate happiness, if i were to never know sadness? What meaning would it have for me to do right, if i couldn't just as easily do wrong? Am i making sense? To me it all lends itself to the idea of God's divine wisdom. In a strange sort of way, i am thankful for sadness, hatred, transgression and pain for without them i would not know, joy, love, good, or pleasure.

I understand the need for opposites, etc. But I dont understand god's seeming incredulity at what he (allknowing and all) had made and what we'd do. It's free will, BUT you will go to HELL eternally if you dont behave this way here. Fair enough he created good and evil, but what's with that punishment of minute "evil" in the individuals. Whole cities must be eradicated to please him at times, not to mention the big flood. He doesn't sound all-knowing, and not really all-powerful either. He sounds suspiciously like a king+1 with the same vanities as kings are known to have (in other words, a god thought up by humans), and not like the omnipotent creator of the universe.

This is mostly OT stuff, and mostly in connection with jewish national mythical history. Which I deem as useless baggage in this time and age, although it probably served a purpose back in the day.

i don't expect to win you over to the Christian side any time soon either. In fact, i'll not even try. i don't see that as my job and it certainly isn't my intention. Again, unless it were a conscious choice of your own, it would be meaningless anyway.

You're one of the good christians, I'll give you that.

But I still feel no need to appease millennia-old dogmas of often questionable origin when dealking with the awesome divine. That's my main point I guess.

Peace
Dan

sponger · November 2008

I remember a while back I was listening to Dr. Laura, who is an ultra-conservative god-pushing version of Dr. Phil.

So, this caller calls in and starts to talk about the urge to commit adultery, and how he refrains because it's wrong per the bible. But, he added that he still wants to commits adultery--hence the phone call.

So, Dr. Laura goes, "Tell me why adultery is wrong."

The caller goes, "Because the bible says it's wrong."

Dr. Laura says, "But, give me the secular reason. Other than what the bible says, why is adultery wrong?"

The caller responds, "Ugghh, hmmmm."

This caller seriously couldn't figure out what was wrong with adultery other than that it defies the word of god.

Obviously, adultery violates the trust that one's partner has so heavily invested into the marriage. If children are involved, adultery risks the dissolution of the family unit, which can have serious emotional consequences on impressionable victims.

But, I think for many people in this world, that kind of intuitive grasp on the difference between right and wrong is far beyond their capabilities. So, they turn to religion to explain to them why society is the way it is -- because god says it's that way.

cornnifer · November 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

But why must there be sacrifice? You justify that he really sacrificed himself etc, but why did there have to be a sacrifice? It sounds as if god has made restrictions even he himself can't break, but can go around in this manner.

I understand the need for opposites, etc. But I dont understand god's seeming incredulity at what he (allknowing and all) had made and what we'd do. It's free will, BUT you will go to HELL eternally if you dont behave this way here. Fair enough he created good and evil, but what's with that punishment of minute "evil" in the individuals. Whole cities must be eradicated to please him at times, not to mention the big flood. He doesn't sound all-knowing, and not really all-powerful either. He sounds suspiciously like a king+1 with the same vanities as kings are known to have (in other words, a god thought up by humans), and not like the omnipotent creator of the universe.

This is mostly OT stuff, and mostly in connection with jewish national mythical history. Which I deem as useless baggage in this time and age, although it probably served a purpose back in the day.

You're one of the good christians, I'll give you that.
But I still feel no need to appease millennia-old dogmas of often questionable origin when dealking with the awesome divine. That's my main point I guess.

Peace
Dan

The sacrifice was to save US. Furthermore, our, at times, bad behavior does not earn us a reservation in hell. If so, i'd be screwed.

THAT is the core of Christian belief. All of that OT stuff you reference was changed by the new covenant. Because of Christ, there is no more need for the destruction of cities, great floods or pillars of salt. Our debts have been pre-paid so to speak. Our behavior neither damns nor saves us. THAT is Christianity in a nutshell. Christianity, truly, is not a religion. It is a faith. When religion is injected into that faith, it poisons it.
These conversations become circular which is the main reason i stay out of them anymore. You have, at least, been respectful. You are, apparently, one of the good heathens.

cornnifer · November 2008

sponger wrote:

I remember a while back I was listening to Dr. Laura, who is an ultra-conservative god-pushing version of Dr. Phil.

So, this caller calls in and starts to talk about the urge to commit adultery, and how he refrains because it's wrong per the bible. But, he added that he still wants to commits adultery--hence the phone call.

So, Dr. Laura goes, "Tell me why adultery is wrong."

The caller goes, "Because the bible says it's wrong."

Dr. Laura says, "But, give me the secular reason. Other than what the bible says, why is adultery wrong?"

The caller responds, "Ugghh, hmmmm."

This caller seriously couldn't figure out what was wrong with adultery other than that it defies the word of god.

Obviously, adultery violates the trust that one's partner has so heavily invested into the marriage. If children are involved, adultery risks the dissolution of the family unit, which can have serious emotional consequences on impressionable victims.

But, I think for many people in this world, that kind of intuitive grasp on the difference between right and wrong is far beyond their capabilities. So, they turn to religion to explain to them why society is the way it is -- because god says it's that way.

In all due respect, if you get your perceptions of people of faith through a caller on the DR. Laura, show, it says alot.

Smellyman2 · November 2008

cornnifer wrote:

In all due respect, if you get your perceptions of people of faith through a caller on the DR. Laura, show, it says alot.

Dr. Laura show is as legit as the bible.

angelica · November 2008

sponger wrote:

I remember a while back I was listening to Dr. Laura, who is an ultra-conservative god-pushing version of Dr. Phil.

So, this caller calls in and starts to talk about the urge to commit adultery, and how he refrains because it's wrong per the bible. But, he added that he still wants to commits adultery--hence the phone call.

So, Dr. Laura goes, "Tell me why adultery is wrong."

The caller goes, "Because the bible says it's wrong."

Dr. Laura says, "But, give me the secular reason. Other than what the bible says, why is adultery wrong?"

The caller responds, "Ugghh, hmmmm."

This caller seriously couldn't figure out what was wrong with adultery other than that it defies the word of god.

Obviously, adultery violates the trust that one's partner has so heavily invested into the marriage. If children are involved, adultery risks the dissolution of the family unit, which can have serious emotional consequences on impressionable victims.

But, I think for many people in this world, that kind of intuitive grasp on the difference between right and wrong is far beyond their capabilities. So, they turn to religion to explain to them why society is the way it is -- because god says it's that way.

I'm going to actually agree with you here. We all use one map or another to understand reality...some use logic, others use intuitive or emotional types of maps, that don't translate logically.

The key issue on ALL of it, is when people think their map is right and the next guy's is wrong....it's like when someone points to the moon, and we are entranced by the finger doing the pointing. People arguing about why their map is superior is like arguing about the traits of the finger pointing at the moon. All the while the moon shines brightly, independant of the views that stop short of perceiving it, while mesmerized by their own egos.

sponger · November 2008

angelica wrote:

I'm going to actually agree with you here. We all use one map or another to understand reality...some use logic, others use intuitive or emotional types of maps, that don't translate logically.

The key issue on ALL of it, is when people think their map is right and the next guy's is wrong....it's like when someone points to the moon, and we are entranced by the finger doing the pointing. People arguing about why their map is superior is like arguing about the traits of the finger pointing at the moon. All the while the moon shines brightly, independant of the views that stop short of perceiving it, while mesmerized by their own egos.

That's a great way of saying that people shouldn't compare and contrast each other's viewpoints and hopefully reach a consensus at some point.

There is nothing egotistical about a person verbalizing his/her own viewpoint in the face of an opposing viewpoint.

And when it comes to the subject of human morality, appeals to emotion do in fact play a role in logic. This is because we as human beings are balanced by our own emotions. Without emotions, we cease to be a race of living things.

It is how we interpret those emotions and logically apply them to our day-to-day existence that balances out the spectrum of our existential intricacies.

angelica · November 2008

sponger wrote:

That's a great way of saying that people shouldn't compare and contrast each other's viewpoints and hopefully reach a consensus at some point.

There is nothing egotistical about a person verbalizing his/her own viewpoint in the face of an opposing viewpoint.

It's great to acknowledge and assess all kinds of views! The ego part I refer to comes in when someone degrades another viewpoint, rather than in understanding the validity in it. I'm all for comparing and contrasting!

And when it comes to the subject of human morality, appeals to emotion do in fact play a role in logic. This is because we as human beings are balanced by our own emotions. Without emotions, we cease to be a race of living things.

It is how we interpret those emotions and logically apply them to our day-to-day existence that balances out the spectrum of our existential intricacies.

I always support integrated intelligences! And yet, most people operate from one natural preference or another, short of that integration. When people compare these "apples" and "oranges", and point disdainfully at the other person who sees differently than they do, again, we're not seeing intelligence integration (ie: emotional integration), we're seeing a lack of it.

catefrances · November 2008

angelica wrote:

It's great to acknowledge and assess all kinds of views! The ego part I refer to comes in when someone degrades another viewpoint, rather than in understanding the validity in it. I'm all for comparing and contrasting!

...

and is it also great to dismiss anothers view once you have acknowledged that they have one and youve assessed it as being ridiculous and having no value to you whatsoever? or must we just simply accept the fantastic in order not to upset someone else?

angelica · November 2008

catefrances wrote:

and is it also great to dismiss anothers view once you have acknowledged that they have one and youve assessed it as being ridiculous and having no value to you whatsoever? or must we just simply accept the fantastic in order not to upset someone else?

It's your choice, obviously. It's always valid for someone to see something from their perspective. And for many, they'll see how others are "wrong". That's fair enough...we're always entitled to our perspective.

I'm just saying if we're overly caught up in our own view, and are intolerant of views we don't appreciate, we're not going to see much beyond our limited selves. Which is what I refer to in terms of ego. We'll stay ego-centred. (edit: not that there's anything wrong with that...)

And still, the moon shines on....

catefrances · November 2008

angelica wrote:

It's your choice, obviously. It's always valid for someone to see something from their perspective. And for many, they'll see how others are "wrong". That's fair enough...we're always entitled to our perspective.

I'm just saying if we're overly caught up in our own view, and are intolerant of views we don't appreciate, we're not going to see much beyond our limited selves. Which is what I refer to in terms of ego. We'll stay ego-centred. (edit: not that there's anything wrong with that...)

And still, the moon shines on....

you say there is nothing wrong with being ego centred, but you say we remain so because we are intolerant of views we dont appreciate. why must we be tolerant of views we have already assessed and deemed, as ive said before, as being too ridiculous for us to contemplate them being absorbed into our views? why must i tolerate views i clearly see as being nonsensical when i clearly understand the WHY but see no value in the WHAT that they are? just because i am intolerant of a view doesnt mean i dont appreciate its reason for existing.

callen · November 2008

Sweet Emotion wrote:

You don't need to be forgiven for anything by anyone, especially by some group. Just be yourself. Enjoy life. Don't be a dick. Ok, you're good to go.

pretty much covers it 'Don't b a dick' everything then falls in line.....yet so many try to make it so complicated.....rules, holy books......silly humans.

angelica · November 2008

catefrances wrote:

you say there is nothing wrong with being ego centred, but you say we remain so because we are intolerant of views we dont appreciate. why must we be tolerant of views we have already assessed and deemed, as ive said before, as being too ridiculous for us to contemplate them being absorbed into our views? why must i tolerate views i clearly see as being nonsensical when i clearly understand the WHY but see no value in the WHAT that they are? just because i am intolerant of a view doesnt mean i dont appreciate its reason for existing.

In this regard, the term ego-centred literally refers to when one is centred purely in their ego. In their view. In their personal story. In their separation from others. Many people live this way. It's the common way at this time. To go beyond ego requires something different. There is a reason the vast majority does not do so at this time. Going beyond ego is about stepping beyond attachment to that story. It's our personal story that keeps us seeing the separation and difference.

OutOfBreath · November 2008

cornnifer wrote:

The sacrifice was to save US. Furthermore, our, at times, bad behavior does not earn us a reservation in hell. If so, i'd be screwed. THAT is the core of Christian belief. All of that OT stuff you reference was changed by the new covenant. Because of Christ, there is no more need for the destruction of cities, great floods or pillars of salt. Our debts have been pre-paid so to speak. Our behavior neither damns nor saves us. THAT is Christianity in a nutshell. Christianity, truly, is not a religion. It is a faith. When religion is injected into that faith, it poisons it.
These conversations become circular which is the main reason i stay out of them anymore. You have, at least, been respectful. You are, apparently, one of the good heathens.

This is the talk of real christians in my view.

But sadly, that does not go for all. The bible is a problematic piece of writing, and fundamentalist interpretations are very troubling in my view.

I'm still not convinced, of course, but I didn't expect to be. I have a lot of problems with the biblical presentation of God, OT specifically. The acts and words of Jesus is often a lot more in line with my humanistically motivated socialism. Buit we go for heaven here, not in a theoretical afterlife.

Peace
Dan

catefrances · November 2008

angelica wrote:

In this regard, the term ego-centred literally refers to when one is centred purely in their ego. In their view. In their personal story. In their separation from others. Many people live this way. It's the common way at this time. To go beyond ego requires something different. There is a reason the vast majority does not do so at this time. Going beyond ego is about stepping beyond attachment to that story. It's our personal story that keeps us seeing the separation and difference.

you didnt answer my questions. maybe you find me antagonistic and am just goading you into a confrontation. it wouldnt surprise me. but its not what i am doing. well... maybe just a little.

i ask the questions i do in order to understand.

catefrances · November 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

This is the talk of real christians in my view. But sadly, that does not go for all. The bible is a problematic piece of writing, and fundamentalist interpretations are very troubling in my view.

I'm still not convinced, of course, but I didn't expect to be. I have a lot of problems with the biblical presentation of God, OT specifically. The acts and words of Jesus is often a lot more in line with my humanistically motivated socialism. Buit we go for heaven here, not in a theoretical afterlife.

Peace
Dan

i always believed jesus was a socialist. ive always believed he was an historically real person. ive NEVER believed he was divine, in that he was the son of God. he was antiestablishment and therefore had to be gotten rid of. and in doing so he was martyred. if history had been written differently and he was recognised as a philosopher only, that would have been a great thing imo. it would certainly be less divisive thats for sure.

sin and forgiveness

Comments

Categories