Is Christianity logical?

[Kemosloby]

I believe this works the same way it did for Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. His physical mind did not want to suffer and die but His spirit (The Spirit of God) was willing. For Paul his physical mind did not want to sin but his spirit wasn't cooperating. So after death and the spirit moves on, that same sinfulness goes with the spirit until the spirit learns to not sin.

I believe you should not go by feeling but by facts.

Those are facts?

 

[Muffled]

It can be logical in approach, but can it be illogically pursued as well?

Spock?

(Runs off to hear Supertramp because it was the logical thing to do.)

Of course. There is no good logic to the Roman Catholic concept that the Eucharist (usually wine or grape juice) turns to blood when taken. Can we say that Jesus is literally saying this is my blood? Did he open a vein and pour it into the cup? The text does not support that concept and Jesus didn't say "see I'm turning this wine into my blood." Neither is there a prediction that it would happen.

I take it you mean the song "logical" by Supertramp. I can't say I read the words of the prophets written on the subway walls as now sung in the song The Sounds of silence by Disturbed.

 

[sayak83]

No matter where you move the goal post, in Christianity people are still corrupted with sin. People go about sinning, even if they don't know it, even if they don't want to sin. "Sin dwells within me". What problem do you have with that? Do you disagree that you are not perfect?

Sin is one of the most illogical and harmful and false idea about human nature that has even been invented. It has caused and is still causing untold evil and suffering. The concept of imperfection has nothing to do with it. Like all skills (cooking, playing, painting, singing etc.) one needs proper training, effort and guidance for one's skills to be honed (including in the moral realm). When, through such proper effort and guidance, one has reached the maximal development of one's inborn abilities (which may be different for different individuals), one has attained perfection in that dimension of one's character. There is no external standard, rather one's own assessment and assessment of those who love you. And sin plays no part in this journey to betterment in whatever dimension of character/skill one chooses.

 

[sayak83]

Self help generally means working on character flaws. Working towards omnipotence or omniciensce is the task of education.

There is no difference. Ethics and empathy and care are also learned and honed through education and training in group interactions. They increase with greater knowledge about others and greater skills how to act in concert with them for common goals. Learn and practice. Same as math.

 

[Kemosloby]

Sin is one of the most illogical and harmful and false idea about human nature that has even been invented. It has caused and is still causing untold evil and suffering. The concept of imperfection has nothing to do with it. Like all skills (cooking, playing, painting, singing etc.) one needs proper training, effort and guidance for one's skills to be honed (including in the moral realm). When, through such proper effort and guidance, one has reached the maximal development of one's inborn abilities (which may be different for different individuals), one has attained perfection in that dimension of one's character. There is no external standard, rather one's own assessment and assessment of those who love you. And sin plays no part in this journey to betterment in whatever dimension of character/skill one chooses.

You think the idea of sin caused evil, rather than evil confirms the concept of sin?

 

[sayak83]

You think the idea of sin caused evil, rather than evil confirms the concept of sin?

In my book evil is defined as avoidable suffering. There are two types of avoidable suffering. Natural avoidable sufferings like disease, floods etc. which one tries to avert by greater knowledge of the science to control and tame them, and human induced avoidable suffering which simply comes from our as yet imperfect knowledge of how to best cooperate with each other so that everyone is satisfied with the outcome of the cooperative effort, be it in a family unit or in the world stage. All of this simply requires further research and application of the knowledge gleaned from such pursuits in psychology, sociology, economics etc. Religious and spiritual practices also has an important role to play in gaining such knowledge and skill through investigation, application and training of individuals and groups. At the end of the day eradicating the "evil" of selfish behavior that harms others is no different that eradicating malaria or pox or famine. Gain the requisite knowledge and train people in applying them fruitfully in their private and public lives.

The idea of sin created situations that increased avoidable suffering from human behavior. Its a false belief, just like the belief that sacrificing children will bring rains. It does not aid in the solution of the original problem (reducing avoidable suffering) but adds new suffering by convincing people to do things that add to it.

 

[Kemosloby]

In my book evil is defined as avoidable suffering. There are two types of avoidable suffering. Natural avoidable sufferings like disease, floods etc. which one tries to avert by greater knowledge of the science to control and tame them, and human induced avoidable suffering which simply comes from our as yet imperfect knowledge of how to best cooperate with each other so that everyone is satisfied with the outcome of the cooperative effort, be it in a family unit or in the world stage. All of this simply requires further research and application of the knowledge gleaned from such pursuits in psychology, sociology, economics etc. Religious and spiritual practices also has an important role to play in gaining such knowledge and skill through investigation, application and training of individuals and groups. At the end of the day eradicating the "evil" of selfish behavior that harms others is no different that eradicating malaria or pox or famine. Gain the requisite knowledge and train people in applying them fruitfully in their private and public lives.

The idea of sin created situations that increased avoidable suffering from human behavior. Its a false belief, just like the belief that sacrificing children will bring rains. It does not aid in the solution of the original problem (reducing avoidable suffering) but adds new suffering by convincing people to do things that add to it.

Hitlers tried your solution in concentration camps, taught this eradication of selfish behavior. People working like slaves and getting just enough to live on in return, or a little less. No where in Christianity did anyone sacrifice a son, except the Lord Jesus laid down his life to lead the way in resurrection, The cure for this sinful evil that plagues the earth..

 

[sayak83]

Hitlers tried your solution in concentration camps, taught this eradication of selfish behavior. People working like slaves and getting just enough to live on in return, or a little less. No where in Christianity did anyone sacrifice a son, except the Lord Jesus laid down his life to lead the way in resurrection, The cure for this sinful evil that plagues the earth..

No he did not. He was a deluded psycopath and con-man who imposed his irrational and hateful ideology on people, vastly increasing avoidable suffering in the world. Quite similar in kind (but not in intensity) to how the Abrahamic religions have gone about their own business, actually.

If that is all you have got in reply to my points then the fundamental irrationality of the Christianity you believe in has been sadly exposed.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe I have ever met a Christian who denies that tectonic plates exist.

Play on words here! It is not a matter of the existence of tectonic plates, but the geologic plate tectonic role in an earth billions of years old.

I believe evolution is not a fact except in the imaginations of those who wish it to be. Evolution has facts but the interpretation of those facts certainly can be questioned. It is illogical to assume that science automatically makes everything scientists say correct. The number of times they have had to admit they were wrong should relieve one of that delusion.

Misuse of the word 'fact.' Science does not automatically assume that what scientists say correct. Your understanding of the methods and philosophy of science is unbelievably self imposed ignorance. This is a teleological view of nature distorted based on a religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hitlers tried your solution in concentration camps, taught this eradication of selfish behavior. People working like slaves and getting just enough to live on in return, or a little less. No where in Christianity did anyone sacrifice a son, except the Lord Jesus laid down his life to lead the way in resurrection, The cure for this sinful evil that plagues the earth..

A terribly irrational illogical naive egocentric view of what you call the Hitlers(?) and not acknowledging the role of Christian belief in the ethnic cleansing and persecution of Jews in history.

 

[Seven headed beast]

SEEING THE CONSPIRACY

THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT INDIVIDUAL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS,

The synoptic Gospels of the bible are what christiandom has hung it's hat on. They are the passages that every one of the adherents of the Christian dogma has had to have faith about. They are the place were the councl of Nicea did extensive "creationism" as far as the way the stories all basically mesh into a perfectly fabricated falsehood.

In the New Testament all four gospels conclude with an extended narrative of Jesus's arrest, trial, crucifixion, burial, and his resurrection.

In each gospel these five events in the life of Jesus are treated with more intense detail than any other portion of that gospel's narrative. Scholars note that the reader receives an almost hour-by-hour account of what is happening.

The death and resurrection of Jesus are treated as the climax of the story, the point to which everything else has been moving all the while.

After his death by crucifixion, Jesus was placed in a new tomb which was discovered early Sunday morning to be empty. The New Testament does not include an account of the "moment of resurrection".

In the Eastern Church icons do not depict that moment, but show the myrrh bearers and depict scenes of salvation. The major resurrection appearances of Jesus in the canonical gospels (and to a lesser extent other books of the New Testament) are reported to have occurred after his death, burial and resurrection, but prior to his ascension.

These Gospels already have too many holes in them before you lay them side by side and compare them. Tn whn yu seethem side to side with all th the New
I found in the reading of the that John's gospelis largely in the third person and there is a boldface lie in there when whoever wrote johns Gospel, about John hearing the Old Man speaking to him, but I know that there was protocol shift between Moses and Noah. While old Moe did hear the burning bush speak to him, Noah did not hear Old Man's voice, just as I do not. The paradigm shift is due to modern mental health and"hearing voices".

The thing is, Noah couldn't hear or see any true creatue of Heaven. I cannot hear or see any true creature of heaven., Consequently, neither could any individual in between. John is within that window.

So, toss John's out because John did not write it.

Why is the second most important person in the new testament not named?

We know the name of every other person in the new testament. We know who washed his feet. We know who won his robe. We know who the centurions were. We know the names of Lazarus's sisters but we do not know who the second most important individual in the new testament. Why is that?

The second most important person in the new testament has to be the individual that supposedly saw jesus resurrected. Th text identifies him as "young boy", and that is all. Wikipedia states that there is no witness accounts about the moment of Resurrection, but there was.

When Mary and Mary return to claim Jesus' body, the boy says, "fear not, for he has risen". So, is this a lie or deception?

If not, why is he not named?

Then, in both Mark and Luke, both Gospels make reference to the "second deception" in regard to the the idea that jesus had been risen from the dead.

What was the first deception? That Jesus was crucified at all?

The validity of all four of the synoptic Gospels is called in to question by the omission of the Gospel of John, which is clearly not johns words.

Because John is invalidated does that make them all wrong?

Maybe not but i can tell you what does.

The council convened i AD325 and lasted three years.

The synoptic Gospels were supposedly written in separate locations at different times, how can they mesh so closely three hundred years later? The odds of this happening are astronomical.

Those that say "it was gods will" are mistaken. It was not gods will. God had the story of the christ why would he change what had already worked three times?

The truth is that karma is not transferable. No one can buy, sell or give or get karma from another person for any reason. So that rules out the Old Man. You must reconcile your own actions.

Then there is the parable of the assassin. Which is too short to make any sense of, but jesus was supposed to be a peacemaker, and I am the assassin with the most single handed kills of any human ever.

The reason that the parables are chopped to pieces is because the Council went through and purged the text of any notion of reincarnation, immortality, yin and yang, and the truth.

There is the fact that the Son of Man has a head like flint. Ezekiel chapter 1 tells us that. This passage is what sets me apart from jesus. Did jesus have an accident where his head was run over when he was a baby?

Did his mother deny him medical attention of any kind when it happened?

How do we know that his head was like flint? We don't. I'm bona fide in that regard.

Then there is the matter of the story of the council of Nicea changing he texts to reflect that "forgiveness" is the truth. That is lie that screwed every one of the adherents of christiandom.

Are you seeing it, too. Jesus was a patsy. He did never even know any of this happened to him. When his followers asserted that hewas the true. Son of God, he denied it. This is clear in the Islamic texts, as the ancient texts did not consider that jesus was even an anyone.

The fact that in Revelation, Jesus had to be shoehorned in to the texts. If you read Revelation, you will see that it's always "and jesus christ" after the fact.

There are too many holes when you look at the bible closely.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I consider traditional Christianity the most irrational and illogical than most religions, because it results in cultural meld of ancient mythical Babylonian/Canaanite/Ugarite Genesis, and Roman/Hellenist mythology to come up with the 'Fall,' 'Original Sin' as inherited sin, the necessity of the Noah Flood, and the purpose of Jesus as a sacrifice based on ancient mythical beliefs in the purpose of animal sacrifice, necessitates the sacrifice of Jesus to absolve the sins of humanity with this ultimate sacrifice to absolve the sins of humanity, though only those who sincerely believe. This results in a Resurrection Death cult, which results in contemporary Christianity.

This melding of ancient mythology with Roman/Hellenist mythology results in a non-rational and illogical religion, which results in an intense circular reasoning to justify its beliefs.

Logical ? How is everyone defining logical? Take members shunyadragon's assessment for example. He clumps an myriad of claims, not one is vetted or sourced, and hopes that word salad makes some semblance of sense. Even if his hyperbola was factual how would his claims show that Christianity is less logical than 'most other religions'? I could easily turn that around and say that Christianity is as logical as any other religion especially deity based religions.

; { >

 

[sayak83]

A terribly irrational illogical naive egocentric view of what you call the Hitlers(?) and not acknowledging the role of Christian belief in the ethnic cleansing and persecution of Jews in history.

And native Americans and native Australians and.....

 

[shunyadragon]

And native Americans and native Australians and.....

True

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

A terribly irrational illogical naive egocentric view of what you call the Hitlers(?) and not acknowledging the role of Christian belief in the ethnic cleansing and persecution of Jews in history.

Man you see irrational and logic shortcomings everywhere you turn eh? I use Websters what dictionary do you use? Ok, this thread is so gutterized' against Christianity its nearly not worth posting here. But I will make an attempt. I, and most of the educated world think the Germans had the upper hand in ethnic cleansing. I hope you are not a holocaust denier. Again consider the Christians belief in ethnic cleansing without sources I can not comment in a detailed manner. That said I cannot think of any recent ethnic cleansing that a central christian authority rubber stamped. How far back in history are you digging? I hope you aren't referencing ancient events of history! We can not go back in history a thousand two thousand three or five thousand years and apply our modern standards to judge. And today the Christians and the Jewish people are getting along splendidly, well unless the Neo Nazis or skin heads are asked. Lastly, lets touch on YOUR religion for a moment. You are of the Baha'i Faith? If so your religion allows that Jesus is a DIVINE messenger, correct? You bash the DIVINE Jesus Christ quite a bit to ask for the mantel of a Bahia faithful.

Divine; of, from, or like God or a god:
"heroes with divine powers" ·
godly · angelic · seraphic · saintly · beatific · heavenly ·

 

[DrTCH]

NOPE, Christianity is by NO MEANS logical. Now, this is not--in itself--a problem, as some mystical paths and traditions may have value, yet not fall in that "realm" of rationality and logic, but may comport more with a "right brain" (or "Dionysian") type of functioning. Yet, this tradition also has many disturbing aspects, such as its large component of shame-blame, its having decided that Jesus-Joshua is not just an important prophet, but an actual part of the "godhead, and the proposition that man may be cleansed from his supposed essential sinfulness and flaws (based on the OT fairy tale of the "Fall")--vicariously--by the death of JC at Golgotha. These--arguably--are very serious faults. Incidentally, much of this very worrisome content can be traced to historical figures such as Paul, Augustine and Aquinas, who--to my mind--were terribly neurotic individuals--and most especially in the realm of human sexuality.

We also have the problem of the many, many contradictions in scripture, the very arbitrary selection of books for the Christian "canon," and how this tradition has been used to justify many wars, pogroms and inquisitions, so Christianity has MUCH to answer to. I believe I have here, in the past, related how the Roman Emperor elected to embrace "Xity" as the official Imperial religion (with PLENTY of borrowing from Pagan traditions (such as Mithraism and Attis worship), and with the early church hierarchy based largely on the Roman Imperial Cult (corroborated by a conversation I had with a former RC priest about a year ago). What's more, Constantine never-personally-became a Christian, a fact I found most interesting when I first discovered this.

Then, there is the problem that the "Church" has, in a sense, turned away from the essential mystical path of "JC," toward a scheme of docrine-dogma, and toward the definition of a church as a building and organization, when the original concept ("ecclesia," from Medieval Latin and Greek ) signifies an assembly and spiritual tradition.

 

[DrTCH]

NOPE, Christianity is by NO MEANS logical. Now, this is not--in itself--a problem, as some mystical paths and traditions may have value, yet not fall in that "realm" of rationality and logic, but may comport more with a "right brain" (or "Dionysian") type of functioning. Yet, this tradition also has many disturbing aspects, such as its large component of shame-blame, its having decided that Jesus-Joshua is not just an important prophet, but an actual part of the "godhead, and the proposition that man may be cleansed from his supposed essential sinfulness and flaws (based on the OT fairy tale of the "Fall")--vicariously--by the death of JC at Golgotha. These--arguably--are very serious faults. Incidentally, much of this very worrisome content can be traced to historical figures such as Paul, Augustine and Aquinas, who--to my mind--were terribly neurotic individuals--and most especially in the realm of human sexuality.

We also have the problem of the many, many contradictions in scripture, the very arbitrary selection of books for the Christian "canon," and how this tradition has been used to justify many wars, pogroms and inquisitions, so Christianity has MUCH to answer to. I believe I have here, in the past, related how the Roman Emperor elected to embrace "Xity" as the official Imperial religion (with PLENTY of borrowing from Pagan traditions (such as Mithraism and Attis worship), and with the early church hierarchy based largely on the Roman Imperial Cult (corroborated by a conversation I had with a former RC priest about a year ago). What's more, Constantine never-personally-became a Christian, a fact I found most interesting when I first discovered this.

Then, there is the problem that the "Church" has, in a sense, turned away from the essential mystical path of "JC," toward a scheme of docrine-dogma, and toward the definition of a church as a building and organization, when the original concept ("ecclesia," from Medieval Latin and Greek ) signifies an assembly and spiritual tradition.

 

[DrTCH]

NOPE, Christianity is by NO MEANS logical. Now, this is not--in itself--a problem, as some mystical paths and traditions may have value, yet not fall in that "realm" of rationality and logic, but may comport more with a "right brain" (or "Dionysian") type of functioning. Yet, this tradition also has many disturbing aspects, such as its large component of shame-blame, its having decided that Jesus-Joshua is not just an important prophet, but an actual part of the "godhead, and the proposition that man may be cleansed from his supposed essential sinfulness and flaws (based on the OT fairy tale of the "Fall")--vicariously--by the death of JC at Golgotha. These--arguably--are very serious faults. Incidentally, much of this very worrisome content can be traced to historical figures such as Paul, Augustine and Aquinas, who--to my mind--were terribly neurotic individuals--and most especially in the realm of human sexuality.

We also have the problem of the many, many contradictions in scripture, the very arbitrary selection of books for the Christian "canon," and how this tradition has been used to justify many wars, pogroms and inquisitions, so Christianity has MUCH to answer to. I believe I have here, in the past, related how the Roman Emperor elected to embrace Christianity as the official Imperial religion (with PLENTY of borrowing from Pagan traditions (such as Mithraism and Attis worship), and with the early church hierarchy based largely on the Roman Imperial Cult (corroborated by a conversation I had with a former RC priest about a year ago). What's more, Constantine never-personally-became a Christian, a fact I found most interesting when I first discovered this.

Then, there is the problem that the "Church" has, in a sense, turned away from the essential mystical path of "JC," toward a scheme of docrine-dogma, and toward the definition of a church as a building and organization, when the original concept ("ecclesia," from Medieval Latin and Greek ) signifies an assembly and spiritual tradition.

 

[DrTCH]

NOPE, Christianity is by NO MEANS logical. Now, this is not--in itself--a problem, as some mystical paths and traditions may have value, yet not fall in that "realm" of rationality and logic, but may comport more with a "right brain" (or "Dionysian") type of functioning. Yet, this tradition also has many disturbing aspects, such as its large component of shame-blame, its having decided that Jesus-Joshua is not just an important prophet, but an actual part of the "godhead, and the proposition that man may be cleansed from his supposed essential sinfulness and flaws (based on the OT fairy tale of the "Fall")--vicariously--by the death of JC at Golgotha. These--arguably--are very serious faults. Incidentally, much of this very worrisome content can be traced to historical figures such as Paul, Augustine and Aquinas, who--to my mind--were terribly neurotic individuals--and most especially in the realm of human sexuality.

We also have the problem of the many, many contradictions in scripture, the very arbitrary selection of books for the Christian "canon," and how this tradition has been used to justify many wars, pogroms and inquisitions, so Christianity has MUCH to answer to. I believe I have here, in the past, related how the Roman Emperor elected to embrace Christianity as the official Imperial religion (with PLENTY of borrowing from Pagan traditions (such as Mithraism and Attis worship), and with the early church hierarchy based largely on the Roman Imperial Cult (corroborated by a conversation I had with a former RC priest about a year ago). What's more, Constantine never-personally-became a Christian, a fact I found most interesting when I first discovered this.

Then, there is the problem that the "Church" has, in a sense, turned away from the essential mystical path of "JC," toward a scheme of docrine-dogma, and toward the definition of a church as a building and organization, when the original concept ("ecclesia," from Medieval Latin and Greek ) signifies an assembly and spiritual tradition.

 

[DrTCH]

NOPE, Christianity is by NO MEANS logical. Now, this is not--in itself--a problem, as some mystical paths and traditions may have value, yet not fall in that "realm" of rationality and logic, but may comport more with a "right brain" (or "Dionysian") type of functioning. Yet, this tradition also has many disturbing aspects, such as its large component of shame-blame, its having decided that Jesus-Joshua is not just an important prophet, but an actual part of the "godhead, and the proposition that man may be cleansed from his supposed essential sinfulness and flaws (based on the OT fairy tale of the "Fall")--vicariously--by the death of JC at Golgotha. These--arguably--are very serious faults. Incidentally, much of this very worrisome content can be traced to historical figures such as Paul, Augustine and Aquinas, who--to my mind--were terribly neurotic individuals--and most especially in the realm of human sexuality.

We also have the problem of the many, many contradictions in scripture, the very arbitrary selection of books for the Christian "canon," and how this tradition has been used to justify many wars, pogroms and inquisitions, so Christianity has MUCH to answer to. I believe I have here, in the past, related how the Roman Emperor elected to embrace Christianity as the official Imperial religion (with PLENTY of borrowing from Pagan traditions (such as Mithraism and Attis worship), and with the early church hierarchy based largely on the Roman Imperial Cult (corroborated by a conversation I had with a former RC priest about a year ago). What's more, Constantine never-personally-became a Christian, a fact I found most interesting when I first discovered this.

Then, there is the problem that the "Church" has, in a sense, turned away from the essential mystical path of "JC," toward a scheme of doctrine-dogma, and toward the definition of a church as a building and organization, when the original concept ("ecclesia," from Medieval Latin and Greek ) signifies an assembly and spiritual tradition.