My big problem with Christianity

[Mr. Harley]

Shi Huangdi, I had thought that was the difference between Church Law and Dogma. Vatican 1 "clarified" it, though I would argue that it was new Dogma, that the Pope by fiat can add to Dogma. I have a gay ex-Catholic minister friend who I'm going to be seeing in the near future, he knows Church history MUCH better than I do, I dragging things up from long ago. Church Councils had pretty much been required to make any changes to Dogma, and while Church Law was pretty high up on the hierarchy of "we're right, and don't you dare think otherwise" it at least was subject to change. Dogma isn't. It may take centuries to admit a Pope made a mistake, but has Dogma ever been subjected to "correction" ?

[Ben Kenobi]

UR:

I reject the notion of Original Sin. First of all, as I pointed out before, it seems highly unlikely that the big G is less enlightened than us, and we surely do not blame people for the crimes their ancestors commit. Secondly, again, as I pointed out before, how would anybody not figure out Adam and Eve had to eat from that tree? It was bound to happen. Supposedly YHWH is omniscient, surely he would have known beforehand.

Several questions bound up in this statement. Let's see if I have them all.

1. Why would an omniscient God not prevent man from sinning?

2. Why would the sin of Adam and Eve pass on to future generations?

3. Does God's omniscience erase free will?


Answer to one. God gave man free will, thus putting a voluntary restraint on his own power. Therefore, God would not prevent Adam and Eve from sinning should they want to.

Answer to two. This question is quite a bit more difficult to answer. Before we can answer this, we must first understand the sin of Adam and Eve. When you look at the lie of the serpent tempting Eve, he offers Eve the power to become like God. Eve's sin is not so much disobedience, but a rejection of humanity. By wanting to be like God, she succumbs to a dissatisfaction with being man.

With the entrance of sin into the world, this dissatisfaction with man cannot be seperated from humankind. No longer does man share such an intimate union with God, as before the fall, but the fall remains a barrier between God and man.

Now, you worry that God is not 'enlightened' in visiting the sin of Adam upon everyone else. It would be if he refused to offer redemption. Everyone has an opportunity to restore their proper relationship with God, as before the fall, in heaven, by believing in Christ.

Answer to three. Tough question. In my understanding, God sees things as we do them, not before we do them. It makes no sense to apply words of time to God because God is outside time.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Asher

The assumption that God is omnipotent is not safe to begin with, therefore there is no reason we should expect God to be omnipotent and all people on this earth to have native Christian morals (particularly when evidence is to the contrary).

QED.

You are every near to than truth of something.

Nobody know what religion God support, he might support all of then or none or anywhere in between.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are there any eyewitness of Christ's revival (not the fact he lived after, but the revival itself)

Spiffor:

They sealed the tomb under a heavy rock, and posted guards to make sure no one tampered with the grave. No one could be there to witness the first part of the resurrection, until Christ comes out of the tomb.

[Asher]

Originally posted by monkspider
The truth of the matter is that Jesus had lived the perfect life and thus became perfectly one with God. His purpose here was to set an example for the rest of us.

Jesus was not a communist. How dare you defy him?

[Ben Kenobi]

Again this makes absolutely no sense at all. First of all, we don't sentence people for crimes they didn't commit. Secondly, YHWH could just easily cleared us of our "sins."

Are you sinless UR? Then you are not being sentenced for your original sin, but rather for the sins you commit.

On a deeper theologial level, if we assume that YHWH is both omniscient and omnipotent, surely he could have chosen, among infinite possibities, the one world that we humans did not, do not, and will not commit any "sins."

Right, a world of automatons that always do the will of God. If we have freewill that has to allow us to commit sins.

[Asher]

I can safely say that I am sinless.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
I can safely say that I am sinless.

Liar. You committed the atrocious sin of rampaging the Mac forum!

[Ben Kenobi]

Um, the Ontological Argument is for the existence of the Judeo-Christianity god, not for whether he's omnipotent or not.

True, but a similar form of argument declares omnipotence, as an essential characteristic of God.

Any being that is not omnipotent could not be God, because we could conceive of a power higher than him.

Same argument as Anselm.

An omnipotent god could easily made us in such a way that we would be immune to them.

But he chose not to. We are made in the image of God, not his substance.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Liar. You committed the atrocious sin of rampaging the Mac forum!

God told me to do that. I am only serving His will.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
God told me to do that. I am only serving His will.

God would never want you to smite his faithful servants Agathon and Drake!

Oh wait...

[Ben Kenobi]

The big one is -- there is no mention of "cross" in the original text, or so claimed a former theologian. The original word in Greek means "a stake," not "a cross."

UR: Source please.

Furthermore, even the gospels mentioned that the Romans had no interest in killing of Jesus, only the Jews did. IIRC, only one of the synoptic gospels mentioned the Roman soldiers stabbed the body after it was removed from the "cross."

Ahh, I can quote scripture!

It's in John. 19:34

"Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Japher


Basis? What basis is there that Jesus DID die on the cross? It's a total he said, she said argument.



Muhammed didn't have any pyrotechnics thus he's not a prophet? How are we to know that Moses and Whalebow, I mean Elijah, really performed those miracles and just weren't legends added to a powerful prophet? Embelishments... Most of the bible is written centuries after the fact and on hersey.

But, I digress. Ffaith is something that cannot be tackled, it's like you saying this; "p", is the letter "p", and I say, "no it's not."

The founder of Islam didnot know how to read or write which isnot unused back them as 99% of the people didnot know how to read or write. The Koran was being written down while He live on earth. Ather every relevation he got from God where memoreise by some of his foolower and at the same time scribe wrote it down on bark, leaves, animal skins. The first Quran was printed 30 year after the founder die, compare that to the old textium and new textium. We donot know how long as the relevation the first jew prophet was wriiten down it might haven being a thousand year time different. The new textium wasnot written down untril about 400 year after Christ death.

[Ben Kenobi]

molly:

Glad you let the skeptics do your thinking for you.

Can you tell me what those terms mean? What time would each of these correspond to in our terms?

Secondly, can you tell me if the Jews reckon time in the same way as the Romans?

[Ben Kenobi]

The new textium wasnot written down untril about 400 year after Christ death.

No. Try 25-30 years for the synoptics, and 60 years for John.

Heck, the very first manuscript we have dates back to the 2nd Century.

http://www.bible.org/netbible/manuscr.htm