I have made a thread in attempt to answer all of the above... http://www.dramasian.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16440
The murder scene example is universal method used by atheists and/or anti-Christians to refute the definition of “telling the truth”. You perceived analogy is different from what I know hear, but very interesting. First I would like to point out that the your choice of words are inaccurate. If a person stumble upon a crime scene, they are branch into form of witness. First account eye-witness and post-account eye-witness. The post-account eye-witness, in a court of law can be refute in agruement, since they were not present in the time of the action being taken place. However, a first account eye-witess testimony is more stable and secure. Since he/she was present when the action was taken place. Many of the books in the bible are written in a first account eye-witness point of view. Therefore, whom are we to question their legitimacy. In today’s society, the wrongs are consider right unless proven otherwise. Why can’t the bible be treated in the same way? You are correct to assume the error in a person’s perceived notion of truth. However, your statement only hold in a decimate amount of eye-witness accounts. The truth of Jesus Christ and his resurrection is behold, known, and see by thousands of eye witness at that time. Yes, there aren’t thousands of written documentation of the event. However, in ratio of the account written about Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection compare to documentation stating it never happened is ~27:~0. that is huge difference, therefore if no one at the time of Jesus Christ deny that he exist and he lived again after his death. Why are people so frustrated in believing the context of his disciples’ written documentation? This is an unfair usage of the Bible. Hopefully, you can see that too. Taking a context out of its original form is the lowest and more desperate attack a non-Christian can use against a believer of Christ. If you understood the full text of the passage, you can see that that quotation was Ezekiel symbolic method to display Samaria and Jerusalem roles in the world with their enemy countries and kings. Yes, I would consider this inspiration from God. Since it is stated in the context. However, the original reason for this passage was to show the wrongdoings of the Hebrew nation. No one wants to be a prostitute or use as a device for prostitution; therefore when Ezekiel used this analogy of Samaria and Jerusalem, it hit hard into the hearts of the Jewish ppl. I understand your concern on the origin of document written, that whether the authenticity of the written word was truly inspired by our God. However, if it was inspired by someone or something else, the evidence would be shown throughout the Bible. Therefore, making it inconsistent and fraudulent, but that isn’t the case. The readers by now, know that the Bible consists a combination of many book written by many authors over many, many, many years. And if it was made by someone’s imagination, the percentage of the each book in the bible commenting and supporting one another is a million of one percent. Yes, there is the “lost books of the bible”. However, if you did your homework and you would see that those books’ information were irrelevant to the Christian’s life and understanding of Jesus Christ. It is ironic that from what I perceived from your explanation. Buddhism takes a lot more faith than Christianity does. You have to have faith that the suffering and pain that you are received now are going to be justified and redeemed in the future or possible cancel the wrongs that are done in the past. What if they are not? Who decide how long you have to suffer? Obviously, it can’t be you. Since logically, you do not know the amount of bad karma you have done in past life and are going to do in the future. Oh no, there’s a hole in the wheel. I will not comment on the Reincarnation aspect of your explanation, simply b/c you have a separate thread for that and I will do my posting there. It did not bore me at all. I quite interested in the different religious faction of the world. Thank your for explanation, BabyRain. lol. Well spoken. I’ve listened and responded. Back to you, BabyRain. Rite you don’t believe in the cycle of “sin”, per se. however you do believe in the cycle of Karma. And if Buddhistic views are true – why are we essentially in this cycle? It is because an individual has done wrongs or “sin” in the past; therefore they given another chance to prove one’s ability to change their wrongs and make them right. Continue cycling through this wheel until one day they become enlighten. Don’t you see, it almost the same view that is being taken place upon ideals of suffering and pain. Sin is the fabric of wrongs and ill actions. Bad karma is the production of wrongs and ill actions as well. Therefore, the underlying foundations between the cycles are the same. So you cannot say that Buddhism’s cycle is completely different from the Christian version. I apologize for you misunderstood the question. But no means would I treat you or another as an “uninformed little twerp”, it wouldn't be very Christian of me, now would it? I just falsely assume that you were a skeptic like haike. However, thank you. For you shed light on your views of Buddhism that I did not know. Now you are asking a deep theological question and I will answer it to the best of my knowledge. Hear me out before you start commenting -- The purpose of Jesus Christ is to save us from our sins. Originally, when Adam and Eve was created, we were at union with God. Therefore all things were perfect and so were we. However, b/c of the entrance of sin … we were then separated physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually from God. Now, picture this. You are at a very large and deep canyon. On one side, it is God and on the other side it is us, humans. There is no way to get across this deep, deep canyon unless someone builds a bridge. Symbolically this canyon is a construction of sin and no human can conquer sin; therefore logically no human build this bridge. Now God must do the work. He builds the bridge by using Jesus Christ, whom is part of Him and in order for him to successfully and completely secure our salvation and abridge to God. He need to suffer and be hung with our sins upon the cross. Jesus Christ died like all human … however, he was able to defeat death -- not only for himself but for us too. Therefore, that bridge in the analogy was created and now we are able to cross it. However, there are some (non-believers) that don’t believe that this was done. Now, put yourself in God’s view. You sent part of yourself to save these ppl -- you suffered and hung on a cross and died and rose again for these people and at the end they are yelling back at you that you don’t exist. You didn’t create this bridge. You are fake … you are liar … you are nothing. Wouldn’t you be sad and hurt? Therefore, there is punishment for non-believing and unfortunately that punishment is dire. So, we, as Christians are desperate to try and get more and more people to come to Christ before that time eventually comes. Well, every non-believer be burn in Hell. I don’t know, that isn’t for me to decide. B/c that isn’t my job. My job as a Christian to preach the word of God and hopefully bring people back to Christ. I've explained from my Christian point of view on the usage of hell in my first post on this thread. Please do.
The conception of a religious faction being consider as a “knock-off” is unknown to me. I would think that for any religious faction be consider as a “knock-off”; it would simply be an alteration to the original religion. But if you think that is so … give me examples of Christianity being a so-called “knock-off” of another religion. I think Christianity and its beliefs are original and true. Original in the sense, that Christianity proclaims the glory of a God willing to belittle and sacrifice himself to save his creation. How can Sin be consider as something hypothetical? Sure, I can see that you may perceive and define actions that are “sinful” differently from me. However, ultimately everyone will agree that “evil and wrong doings” are part of this world and part of us. I agree on the conception of eternal damnation being a method to correct and motivate a group of believer to better themselves. However, it is not a debate to say whether “sin” exist. It is a known fact that is does. I love to get into the ideals of subjectivity vs Christianity. However, I don’t think this the thread to do it in. but, on a quick note – from one of my mentors Matt Slick’s opinion and view – There is no need to take it so personally. It was just an original question to ponder about. Again, I am judging and condemn BabyRain ... but simply interested in her opinion. You stated that life is tangible. How is it so? Can you capture life in a glass jar? Now, the fabric of life is simple the existence of choices and memories. << at least, imo. Therefore, life unlike tangible object has the possibility of existing for longer. With that deduction, it simply brings up the question of “will there be ‘life’ after death?”
Well, the term "knock-off" is a figure of speech in Christianity being so certain that it is the ONE TRUE PATH while other religions are fundamentally the same. Your argument of Christianity giving closure aka the resolution of sin makes it stands out and thus is the ONE TRUE PATH doesn't quite cut it for me. Well, now we head onto the difference between original and true. An idea that is original (at one point in time at least, e.g. when it was first "invented") does not necessary means it is true. Fiction is fiction no matter how original it is, but truth, that's an entirely different matter altogether. Hmmmm, there's WRONG and there's the concept of SIN. Sin, unlike crime, implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with the person committing it because sin is the perpetration of moral rules. Again, there's sin as defined by religion/beliefs, and there's sin as defined by common sense moral rules. Of course nowadays many of the two overlaps, but being proud or lustful does not necessary mean one is sinful in the moral sense (but surely does in the religious sense). So which sin are you referring to?
Well that particular quote of Matt Slick (I don't know the context in which the passage is extracted but yeah, just a note there) sums up my attitude with eloquence. It eventually boils down to personal "experience" and subjectivity and judgement, because no one else can experience one's "connection with God". And when things get problematic like that... I just cannot help but be skeptical about it. I don't think life has the possibility of existing any further than death, I've had the discussion before, and my beliefs in regards to death is the cesation of life. There's no afterlife, no nothing. The flesh just rots away and consciousness pops out of existence. Of course, I have no way in believing it is true, but it make more sense to me than the hypothetical afterlife of heaven and hell. But then who knows, to each their own, perhaps those who DO believe in heaven and hell do go there (be it heaven OR hell) and those who believe life ends at death will have their end exactly that way. And I am totally pissed that people cannot spell my nick properly, it's a 5-letter combination for God's sake.
rite, hiake. bottom-line -- can Christianity views of salvation be a 'knock-off' of another religion? from my research, no other religion has the same conception of a God sacrificing his own purity and godliness to hold onto his creation's sins and dispose of it himself. therefore, enabling his creation to be given the gift of salvation. lol. again a valid point, hiake. however, i have shown the "truthfulness" of the word of God and Christianity in my previous post. Therefore, in this post i only addressed the aspect of its originality. as a christian ... i have two views of sin; the Sin that we are born with and the "sinful" acts we particpate in doing. however, the one i'm addressing was the aspect of the root nature in "Sin" or as you put it "something fundamentally wrong with the person". for this "Sin" is what cause us to do "sinful" acts. therefore, with the elimation of this "Sin" -- the desire to do "sinful" acts will be gone. and Jesus Christ gives us that opening and chance. you say, that being prideful and lustful does not mean one is sinful in a "moral sense". what moral sense are you referring to? sorry. i spelled it correct in this post, at least. -cool hahaha .. it is ironic that in the same statement you do something i really really dislike. What does God's sake has to do with typing your name correctly?
WE'RE THE ONE TRUE FAITH! Join us... We won't ask anything of you... Just weekly donations and your childrens souls before they can even think for themselves... Anyway, how is anyone born with sin? How much sin can an unborn fetus commit? Let's be logical and straight to the point. Forget all that bible thumping brain washing crap and lets be logical here. Bible thumpers accuse a baby of having sin because the bible says so regaurdless of facts and logic? Sounds like a great cult I mean the one and only true and devine religion praise jesus!!
Now there are two forms of Sin (imo). i have made that statement in response to hiake's question on sin. however, i try to be clearer. there two forms of sin -- the "ultimate Sin" (my own words) or the Sin that one is embodied with and the acts of committing sin. the "ultimate Sin" in essence is conceptual and (i will further explain) linked to reason why we die. now before this ultimate Sin come into the world - life was sweet. there was no disorder, no dysfunction, no chaos, no suffrage, no pain, no death. however, after the fall of Man ... the substance of death is bought forth and lives today. now, death isn't just refer only to us and animal. no, it can be linked to everything. the 2nd law of thermodynamic is the law of entropy. and the law of entropy explains that all matters, in essence, are on the path to decay and disorder. therefore, when the ultimate Sin was release and bought forth by Man into this world - everything and everyone is paying for its price. so, to state that a child or "unborn fetus" has Sin is correct. but it is illogical to state that an "unborn fetus" can commit sin (in reference to my explanation would be in regard to the second form of sin). i can see that you have much to learn about christianity.
hypothetically speaking, say the ultimate sin never existed.. would that mean living beings would live forever? and also.. the ultimate sin was brought forth by man.... why must the animals and plants pay the price of man's mistake?
we die cus we are separated from God. the bible says creation has fallen into sin because of what happened. you could say this is a fallen universe though it looks so beautiful, its still fallen. when Jesus returns Heaven and earth will flee at his presence and it will be replaced with a new and better heaven and earth.
yes, becuase without sin we are connected physically and spiritually with God. master_g brings up that point. you see, with Sin we are not only separated from God physically (obvious), but spiritually as well. therefore in order to bridge that gap -- Jesus Christ comes into the picture. i see your point. it isn't fair. however, that is the way of life. God created the animals and plants; creations that we are given the ability to rule over. and in a larger picture, we are created in essence to be ruled and judge only by God.
hopefully that should answer your question on what i said dann. The only way to be connected with God is through the Holy Spirit, this is by God' mercy and power, not our own.
uhhh i dont see how Jesus has to come in the picture..... BUT ANYWAYS, disregard that last statement i made. now, obviously, we need to reconnect ourselves to God again currently. would that mean that Jesus has to come back to earth? in essence, everything must pay because of one individual's (or a group) mistake.... doesnt sound fair to me...
BUT, if the ultimate sin never existed, we'd have enough living beings to fill up this whole solar system lmao (exaggeration of course..)
sin..... i dont get it... i did go to a christian school, and they taught me that God/Jesus forgives.... in one post, master_g said those who arent following Jesus are not forgiven... but since you BOTH follow Jesus, AND you both have sins, shouldnt you both be forgiven, and live forever?
