• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Christianity logical?

DrTCH

Member
Sorry for the multiple postings. Until I moved to a diff. browser, this site WOULD NOT allow me to post...and NOW, I see THREE identical postings. Then, I deleted TWO of them...and ALL then disappeared. Now, I see TWO!! (??!!!!). Should I now attempt to delete one of them? Nope...I tried this...and now we're back to TWO yet again!!! Egads!!
 
Last edited:

DrTCH

Member
NOPE, Christianity is by NO MEANS logical. Now, this is not--necessarily--a problem, as some mystical paths and traditions may have value, yet not fall in the "realm" of rationality and logic, but may comport more with a "right brain" (or “Dionysian”) type of thinking and functioning (which, naturally, must be considered on a metaphorical-allegorical, not literal, basis).

Yet, the Christian 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 "person" of the "godhead, and the proposition that man may be cleansed from a presupposed essential sinfulness and flaws (based on the OT fairy tale of the "Fall")--vicariously--by the death of Jesus at Golgotha. This idea is preposterous, and is very possibly a reflection of a scam, a "con-job." We also have the curious fact that the Church Fathers cannot seem to decide on the identity of their founder. Was he a prophet, the messiah (an essentially military savior of the Jewish nation), the "suffering servant," the "Son of Man,"the "Logos," or a unique offspring of the Jewish deity?

These--seems to me--are serious faults. Incidentally, much of this worrisome content can be traced to historical figures such as Paul (who, incidentally never met the historical Jesus), Augustine and Aquinas, who--I would maintain--were all seriously neurotic individuals--particularly related to human sexuality and their misogynistic treatment of the female sex..

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 for. I will add that we have witnessed a further example of official intransigence in that there has been a stalwart refusal to accept any of the "Gnostic gospels," even though some of them (such as the gospels of Thomas and Phillip) are of at least equal value to those in the N.T. I believe I have previously 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 the trinity, borrowed from the Hindu and Ancient Egyptian pantheons), and how the early church hierarchy was largely based 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 "Jesus, the Christ" (i.e., the annointed, not his first name!) toward a scheme of doctrine-dogma, authoritarian control, and toward the definition of a church as a building and organization, while the original concept ("ecclesia," from Medieval Latin and Greek ) signifies an assembly and spiritual tradition. We also have--at least in RC--a refusal to accept women into the priesthood. All of these suggest to me that Christianity is a somewhat dicey proposition (notwithstanding some pretty nifty "gems," e.g., among the Beatitudes)..
 
Last edited:

DrTCH

Member
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 the “trinity” from the Hindu and Ancient Egyptian pantheons), 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.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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 ·

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 ·

First, do not confuse my belief in the Baha'i Faith, and the belief that Jesus is a Divine Messenger from God, and my objections to the irrational and illogical beliefs of Traditional Christianity.

Second, the Baha'i Faith does not believe in the Trinitarian nature of God, Jesus Christ as an incarnate Son of God, nor the dogma and doctrine of the 'Fall nor 'Original Sin.' The Baha'i Faith believes in a pure apophatic Monotheism as doe Judaism and Islam. I will argue against these beliefs, doctrines and dogma that relate to these beliefs I consider irrational and illogical, and large originate through the melding Roman/Hellenist mythology with the more ancient mythology that evolved into Genesis.

Likewise I believe Muhammad is Messenger from God, but nonetheless I will argue against the contemporary beliefs and nature of Islam.

The outcome of the traditional Jewish, Christian and Islam doctrine, dogma, and related beliefs is believe in the exclusive belief of their belief system and all others are in one way or another fundamentally false and condemned in one way or another.
 
Last edited:

DrTCH

Member
Whew, what a "strawman" position!!

I've been trying to remember the title of a theology book of mine in a course in the mid-seventies. This volume contained an incredible article by commentator Jacqueline Strain, who outlined the difference in world-view and ramifications of the early Jewish-based Christianity v. that of the more Greek-oriented one.

In the former, the only "sin" was a matter of falling away from the all-important, central, relationship with God (as Judaism is very strongly relationship-based). In the latter (considering that the Greek tradition is much more about analysis and pieces of things (rather than "wholes" and relationships), sin is viewed in a much different way. In this approach to Christianity (which was Paul's, considering his being (despite his status as a Jew and a Roman citizen, very much possessing a Greek mind-set), sin is about individual, discrete acts (like the commission of crimes). ..and if one accepts this essentially negative stance, there is NO END to one's list of sins, and one's world may become a very dark one, indeed.

By comparison, in the more Jewish "tradition" when one seems to "fall away" from one's relationship with God, there is plenty of opportunity to "return to the fold," and there is little felt need to endlessly dwell (obsess) upon the subject of sin. Christianity, as we know it (markedly colored by St. Paul (with his characteristic Greek mentality, and plenty of neurosis, from a man wracked with guilt and shame, and considering sexuality and even just the human body to be seriously abhorrent!) is distinctly and dramatically depressing and negative in orientation. There is simply NO END to the problem of evil with Paul's giant "bushel-baskets of sin!!" Of course, some churches, like those based on the teachings of Zwingli and Calvin (and please recall some American "fundamentalist" ministers such as Jonathon Edwards (and his thundering sermons)) are even worse than the rest: Abysmal!! They represent man as dwelling dangerously close to eternal damnation, hanging by a thread, and only barely saved "by the grace of God!" And, they generally harangue their congregations by threats related to the "arch-enemy," (and major Bogeyman) Satan. In effect, the "beginning of this story" is the OT fairy tale of the "Fall," then compounded by a perpetual accumulation of other sins, during one's lifetime. Clearly, this is a very daunting game!!

Now, one aspect of this is--yes--Paul's admonition to strive to be 'perfect." Yet a more Jewish interpretation would be something like "Strive to be complete, mature, integrated, illuminated (or "spirit-filled") and perfected, even as God in heaven is!"..which removes the very impractical, unrealistic--indeed, impossible--goal of "perfection"..to which nothing comports, except maybe a dead image projected onto a wall..certainly not human beings. The second interpretation relates to being full of life and very involved in life..unlike the pessimistic, victimizing tendency of the first. One simply cannot win in this context. ...and this is the negative type of Christianity--in the Roman Catholic version--that I decided to thoroughly reject during my teens...and I've never looked back.

I might add that (at least much of) the idea of mankind's terrible "evil" can be adequately explained in psychological terms. People, like Joe Stalin and "old Adolf" (and some of the denizens of Washington, through the years) were probably terrorized and abused during childhood. They were sociopaths, very flawed warped individuals with severe character defects. Mankind is NOT inherently evil...and I--personally-- am not plagued by past sins. Some regrets and some losses, surely, but I do not identify as a sinner, nor am I lost in a "Hades" self-recrimination, shame and torment. You handle the "old (unconscious content) junk," find some work that is fulfilling (and ideally develop a "support system" of loving people)...and MOVE ON!!! As it happens, for many years, I was "victimized" by clinical depression, ADD (and a serious “dysfunctional family”), but eventually found (through various psych. means, bodywork, neurofeedback, better nutrition, AND, some spiritual practice, as well as professional training in the medical field) a reasonably satisfying life...quite apart from the nightmare of "fundamentalist" Christianity.
 
Last edited:

Pudding

Well-Known Member
This is a spinoff from the thread "Is Religion Logical."

I believe that I would prefer to address the central message of Christianity but I recognize that there are a lot of ancillary aspects of the religion as well.

I believe it is logical to seek a higher power to do what one can't do for oneself.
Your question is "Is Christianity logical?".

(1) Are you referring to traditional, or modern Christianity?
Are you referring to Christianity in 1st, 2nd, 3rd...16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st century? Christianity from and/or during which period are you referring to?

(2) Furthermore, there're many different Christian denominations in Christianity (List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia), which Christian denomination are you referring to?

(3) Furthermore, 'what aspect of Christianity' you want to know that whether or not they're logical? They're logical for what purpose? They're logical to whom?

'What aspect of Christianity': Eg. all/some of Christianity's morals and/or laws.

'Logical for what purpose': Eg. logical for all/some people to follow a specific aspect of Christianity; logical for making all/some people to become perfect humans; logical for making all/some people feels happy/calm; logical for helping all/some people to solve their problems.

'Logical to whom': Eg. logical to all/some christians and/or non-christians.

For example:
Is all/some of Christianity's morals and/or laws logical for all/some christians and/or non-christians to follow?
Is all/some of Christianity's beliefs and/or doctrines completely logical?
...etc.
 
Last edited:

DrTCH

Member
I fear that this site had been acting up for me. My second comment was in response to:

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?

No, sin DOES NOT dwell in me. And "Perfection" has very little to do with it!! That interpretation of Christianity is--for me--a decidedly warped one...and comprises a kind of TRAP..that you need not fall into. ; )

Incidentally...To my friends here, please accept a hearty wish for a happy Easter/Passover season!! ..full of life (and plenty of hugs and kisses)!! ; )
 
Last edited:

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I fear that this site had been acting up for me. My second comment was in response to:



No, sin DOES NOT dwell in me. And "Perfection" has very little to do with it!! That interpretation of Christianity is--for me--a decidedly warped one...and comprises a kind of TRAP..that you need not fall into. ; )

Incidentally...To my friends here, please accept a hearty wish for a happy Easter/Passover season!! ..full of life (and plenty of hugs and kisses)!! ; )

I guess that's you Jesus was talking about, "let him who has no sin cast the first stone", the man with no sin has arrived.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
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.

What I see in this forum, in this thread, are a cluster-ummm' bunch of unsubstantiated accusations, wishful thinking, assumptions and disconnect the dots mentality that results in word salad speeches. Try vetting those claims and providing sourcing information. I guarantee I can provide counter claims rendered by PhD enabled Christian apologists (and others).

Oh just to show that Christians really can forgive, here goes ; >>>>>>>>>> ((((((((((DrTCH,))))))))))).....<<<<<<

But no kisses, those are exclusively for my basset hound...

; {>
 
Last edited:

DrTCH

Member
(To Kemosloby)

Nope, you are missing the point, Even JC said that religious practice makes us, effectively, new beings...and the old orientation if sinfulness (and psych. junk) tends to drop away. Now, we are "sons of the living God," and no longer have to go through the rigamarole of handling sins. We are, in a sense, reborn. ...and no longer "sinners." This, is also, I'd suggest, what He meant when he said that he was offering a New Covenant..away from handling all this junk piecemeal....and, BTW, via an essentially mystical approach.

And, I have no interest in casting stones, but helping to clear away the error and the many misunderstandings.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
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.

I believe that is about as illogical as one may get. It is like saying that a stop sign is evil because people disobey it and end up in a car crash. If the stop sign were not there, then there would be more evil because there would be more car crashes.

I believe you are confusing the concept of being without sin with the concept of being very skillful.

If there were no external standard there would be no standard because everyone would have their own rules so it couldn't be considered a standard.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe that is about as illogical as one may get. It is like saying that a stop sign is evil because people disobey it and end up in a car crash. If the stop sign were not there, then there would be more evil because there would be more car crashes.

I believe you are confusing the concept of being without sin with the concept of being very skillful.

If there were no external standard there would be no standard because everyone would have their own rules so it couldn't be considered a standard.
No, it won't be arbitrary, as only some ways of living within a group (family, society etc) would cause the members of the group to flourish through joint cooperative effort, while other ways will fail. The results of cooking itself (food tasty or burnt) provides the feedback mechanism one needs to improve one's skill on it. No external standard is needed.
The rules of traffic are all internally generated by pooling of human experiences since the beginning of car travel in the 1910's. There was no external standard that was imposed from outside. Rather they came out as the most fruitful ways in which to go about the business of driving from the experiences of the car-users themselves.
In terms if ethics, one simply seeks to flourish in life within a social setting and the ways can happen are learnt from collective human experience and through trial and training. Once again no external standards are needed. Human experience is enough, just like in cooking or in driving.

But, I repeat, there is no such thing as sin. Like in all disciplines, human beings simply lack the complete knowledge of how to arrange their lives and society in particular to get to a flourishing life and that often creates sub-optimal actions and decisions. Greater efforts to understand how to flourish in life, and imparting such social and empathic skills to the young are the correct answer to the problem, not some metaphysical nonsense like sin.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
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.



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.

I believe I know there are some who have a young earth belief but I believe that is due to bad interpretation. However I believe time is a relative concept and can be warped.

I believe there is no agenda. I do believe that what God says is more authoritative because He wa there and knows everything which is something one may not say about scientists.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
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.

I believe you conclusion is false because your premises are false.

I believe there is no evidence to support those concepts.

I believe if you haven't inherited it, you invented it. Which is it?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I believe I know there are some who have a young earth belief but I believe that is due to bad interpretation. However I believe time is a relative concept and can be warped.

Please explain 'warped' in an intelligent coherent way.

I believe there is no agenda. I do believe that what God says is more authoritative because He was there and knows everything which is something one may not say about scientists.[/QUOTE]

I believe God knows, and is authoritative, but not human interpretation based a biased religious agenda rejecting the objective evidence. Without a coherent argument, I have no reason to believe your view is unbiased without an agenda.

God does not deceptively provide a complete Creation reflecting the vast amount of objective evidence that demonstrates an earth, solar system and universe billions of years old, and billions of years of the evolution of life to deceive scientists for hundreds if not thousands of years.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Whew, what a "strawman" position!!

I've been trying to remember the title of a theology book of mine in a course in the mid-seventies. This volume contained an incredible article by commentator Jacqueline Strain, who outlined the difference in world-view and ramifications of the early Jewish-based Christianity v. that of the more Greek-oriented one.

In the former, the only "sin" was a matter of falling away from the all-important, central, relationship with God (as Judaism is very strongly relationship-based). In the latter (considering that the Greek tradition is much more about analysis and pieces of things (rather than "wholes" and relationships), sin is viewed in a much different way. In this approach to Christianity (which was Paul's, considering his being (despite his status as a Jew and a Roman citizen, very much possessing a Greek mind-set), sin is about individual, discrete acts (like the commission of crimes). ..and if one accepts this essentially negative stance, there is NO END to one's list of sins, and one's world may become a very dark one, indeed.

By comparison, in the more Jewish "tradition" when one seems to "fall away" from one's relationship with God, there is plenty of opportunity to "return to the fold," and there is little felt need to endlessly dwell (obsess) upon the subject of sin. Christianity, as we know it (markedly colored by St. Paul (with his characteristic Greek mentality, and plenty of neurosis, from a man wracked with guilt and shame, and considering sexuality and even just the human body to be seriously abhorrent!) is distinctly and dramatically depressing and negative in orientation. There is simply NO END to the problem of evil with Paul's giant "bushel-baskets of sin!!" Of course, some churches, like those based on the teachings of Zwingli and Calvin (and please recall some American "fundamentalist" ministers such as Jonathon Edwards (and his thundering sermons)) are even worse than the rest: Abysmal!! They represent man as dwelling dangerously close to eternal damnation, hanging by a thread, and only barely saved "by the grace of God!" And, they generally harangue their congregations by threats related to the "arch-enemy," (and major Bogeyman) Satan. In effect, the "beginning of this story" is the OT fairy tale of the "Fall," then compounded by a perpetual accumulation of other sins, during one's lifetime. Clearly, this is a very daunting game!!

Now, one aspect of this is--yes--Paul's admonition to strive to be 'perfect." Yet a more Jewish interpretation would be something like "Strive to be complete, mature, integrated, illuminated (or "spirit-filled") and perfected, even as God in heaven is!"..which removes the very impractical, unrealistic--indeed, impossible--goal of "perfection"..to which nothing comports, except maybe a dead image projected onto a wall..certainly not human beings. The second interpretation relates to being full of life and very involved in life..unlike the pessimistic, victimizing tendency of the first. One simply cannot win in this context. ...and this is the negative type of Christianity--in the Roman Catholic version--that I decided to thoroughly reject during my teens...and I've never looked back.

I might add that (at least much of) the idea of mankind's terrible "evil" can be adequately explained in psychological terms. People, like Joe Stalin and "old Adolf" (and some of the denizens of Washington, through the years) were probably terrorized and abused during childhood. They were sociopaths, very flawed warped individuals with severe character defects. Mankind is NOT inherently evil...and I--personally-- am not plagued by past sins. Some regrets and some losses, surely, but I do not identify as a sinner, nor am I lost in a "Hades" self-recrimination, shame and torment. You handle the "old (unconscious content) junk," find some work that is fulfilling (and ideally develop a "support system" of loving people)...and MOVE ON!!! As it happens, for many years, I was "victimized" by clinical depression, ADD (and a serious “dysfunctional family”), but eventually found (through various psych. means, bodywork, neurofeedback, better nutrition, AND, some spiritual practice, as well as professional training in the medical field) a reasonably satisfying life...quite apart from the nightmare of "fundamentalist" Christianity.


Explain the 'strawman'?

I sounds like you have created your own version of Christianity after selectively rejecting other existing version. This a common route that creates many churches and divisions of Christianity.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
Please explain 'warped' in an intelligent coherent way.

I believe there is no agenda. I do believe that what God says is more authoritative because He was there and knows everything which is something one may not say about scientists.

I believe God knows, and is authoritative, but not human interpretation based a biased religious agenda rejecting the objective evidence. Without a coherent argument, I have no reason to believe your view is unbiased without an agenda.

God does not deceptively provide a complete Creation reflecting the vast amount of objective evidence that demonstrates an earth, solar system and universe billions of years old, and billions of years of the evolution of life to deceive scientists for hundreds if not thousands of years.[/QUOTE]

I believe I will do my best. God told me that time is circular. It has a beginning and an ending (alph and omega). We measure time by the turning of the earth on its axis in relation to the sun and its traverse around the sun. However there is a time cycle that everything goes through that does not fit into those measurements. So if Krakatoa erupted once in a cycle it will most likely erupt again at the same earth measured time but in a different universal time cycle. So we can view a rock as billions of years old and that would be true measuring from the first time cycle to the current one but it may only be 24,000 years old (a figure that is usually used but I wouldn't be able to validate) in earth rotation years.

I do not believe it is deception on His part but perception on our part.


I believe I am sure that it appears that way. However think of a white board. You can draw a picture of a man on it and then erase it. You can tell a person coming along that there was a picture of a man on the board but there will be no evidence to support you and the person can simply say there never was a man on it because he found no evidence of it.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
No, it won't be arbitrary, as only some ways of living within a group (family, society etc) would cause the members of the group to flourish through joint cooperative effort, while other ways will fail. The results of cooking itself (food tasty or burnt) provides the feedback mechanism one needs to improve one's skill on it. No external standard is needed.
The rules of traffic are all internally generated by pooling of human experiences since the beginning of car travel in the 1910's. There was no external standard that was imposed from outside. Rather they came out as the most fruitful ways in which to go about the business of driving from the experiences of the car-users themselves.
In terms if ethics, one simply seeks to flourish in life within a social setting and the ways can happen are learnt from collective human experience and through trial and training. Once again no external standards are needed. Human experience is enough, just like in cooking or in driving.

But, I repeat, there is no such thing as sin. Like in all disciplines, human beings simply lack the complete knowledge of how to arrange their lives and society in particular to get to a flourishing life and that often creates sub-optimal actions and decisions. Greater efforts to understand how to flourish in life, and imparting such social and empathic skills to the young are the correct answer to the problem, not some metaphysical nonsense like sin.

I believe people however keep doing things the other way and keep failing and not learning. That is why Paul said this:
Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I believe on the contrary the law was not developed by drivers but by government which in a democracy may seem like us but even in a democracy there is a minority that would prefer not to have a stop sign (Libertarians) because they know enough to stop. That does not help the poor thinker who thinks he will get away with going through the intersection or his victims.

I believe that is why God made the rules for those who did not know how to act and so there is no excuse for those who do and act badly anyway.


I believe sin is neither metaphysical nor nonsense.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Your question is "Is Christianity logical?".

(1) Are you referring to traditional, or modern Christianity?
Are you referring to Christianity in 1st, 2nd, 3rd...16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st century? Christianity from and/or during which period are you referring to?

(2) Furthermore, there're many different Christian denominations in Christianity (List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia), which Christian denomination are you referring to?

(3) Furthermore, 'what aspect of Christianity' you want to know that whether or not they're logical? They're logical for what purpose? They're logical to whom?

'What aspect of Christianity': Eg. all/some of Christianity's morals and/or laws.

'Logical for what purpose': Eg. logical for all/some people to follow a specific aspect of Christianity; logical for making all/some people to become perfect humans; logical for making all/some people feels happy/calm; logical for helping all/some people to solve their problems.

'Logical to whom': Eg. logical to all/some christians and/or non-christians.

For example:
Is all/some of Christianity's morals and/or laws logical for all/some christians and/or non-christians to follow?
Is all/some of Christianity's beliefs and/or doctrines completely logical?

...etc.

I like it all but maybe the amount of content is too much for one thread and you would like a spinoff thread. (This thread is a spinoff of "Is religion logical."

I believe logic is the same for everyone (like math). One must follow the rules of logic no matter what the view.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe people however keep doing things the other way and keep failing and not learning. That is why Paul said this:
Rom. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I believe on the contrary the law was not developed by drivers but by government which in a democracy may seem like us but even in a democracy there is a minority that would prefer not to have a stop sign (Libertarians) because they know enough to stop. That does not help the poor thinker who thinks he will get away with going through the intersection or his victims.

I believe that is why God made the rules for those who did not know how to act and so there is no excuse for those who do and act badly anyway.


I believe sin is neither metaphysical nor nonsense.
What you believe is not relevant at all. Saying I believe X,Y,Z does not make the beliefs either true or logical.

Whenever something new comes to the scene (like planes, cars or more recently internet), its the initial pool of users who, by collective experience, reach a consensus on the acceptable and unacceptable behaviors for this new activity which is then enforced by government also made by people. Further evolution of these acceptable and unacceptable behaviors continue through feedback of experience of the users. For example a large plane accident may trigger such a re-evaluation based on feedback etc. In all cases the, system of commonly agreed behavior comes out entirely from the inside, and it is enforced by the agreements made by the users. The feedback of experience ensures that overall people gravitate to the agreements that provides the best utility (say for driving or flying) making the system of agreements non-arbitrary and functional.

This can be shown for ethical systems as well. For example the political and ethical structure of some nations (like Syria, Afganistan etc.) are not optimal for the happiness of the people living there, so they tend to flee/migrate from such dysfunctional systems to better societies like the West. In this way, societies who ethical and political structure are not conducive to life in comparison to their neighbors collapse and the others flourish. Nothing external to human interactions and human experience is necessary.
 
Top