Is Christianity logical?

[Muffled]

The above is not a logical argument. It is a statement of belief. You believe God hates sin. You believe Jesus takes away sin. You believe God gets what he wants. This line of statements of belief does not represent a logical argument. If God hates sin, he does not get what he wants.

If God hates sin, and if God is an omnipotent, and all powerful God. why does God allow sin to exist?

He set Adam and Eve up in the garden as fallible humans with not ultimate result to succumb to temptation, Original sin, and the sinful nature of humanity forever, at least as long as humanity exists, or kills humanity off by their sinful nature.

I believe that shows how little you know about logic. a syllogism has (at least) two premises that lead to a conclusion. That is exactly what I provided.

I believe I have no problem stating my logic as a belief I can do that with one plus one equals two also.

I believe the premise is true. The evidence is in the Bible. We can argue whether the premises are logical as well.

I believe the premise is true. The evidence is in the Bible, in my life and in the life of many others as well.

I believe the conclusion is valid based on the premises being true.

I believe this is not a logical argument because it only has one premise.

I believe God hates sin because He loves people. He could eradicate sin by eradicating people but that would not be a loving act so He punishes the sinners in hopes they will repent their sin instead.

I believe there was never an innate infallibility in Adam and Eve since they were not the first man and woman created. The garden was protection from the rest of the world but Hel (The serpent) had his/her own idea about that.

I believe there never has been a source revealed for that. About the closest possibility would be a double entendre when God talks about the pride of Nebuchadnezzar.

I believe God will remove sin from the nature of man for those who desire that option to be removed.

 

[Muffled]

[QUOTE="sayak83, post: 5166800, member: 37415"]None of this has anything to do with sin. Only ethical conduct. The actions you mention are incorrect ethical conduct as it creates unwanted suffering in people who are the targets of such actions.[/QUOTE]

I believe sin is another term for unethical conduct.

 

[Muffled]

No logic here. You may have two doors in front of you, not a clue what is behind, not a clue about the consequences of your actions, yet you still have a free will to choose which one to open.

If sin eventually found it's way, then Man was not perfect. Perfection means bulletproof.

Yes. Since what other thing would perfection mean, if not being corruption-free? The claim he placed was not logical, unless he also intended to put it within quotes: Man was made "perfect".



Being perfect also includes the ability to sin. "Immune to free will" means lacking that ability. So we have a paradox in Christianity here, which is:
-one is not perfect if deprived the ability to freely sin >this means> free will is a part of perfection
-if one is so perfect that it is not possible ever to abuse free will, then one is not able to sin >this means> not possible for Adam to fall. Story says that Adam had free will and he was able to abuse it. So he was not perfect, instead he was just like us. Except in one thing, he was lacking the knowledge of sin, the concept of it, which now we have. Having knowledge is required to abuse free will. Otherwise, you are not abusing anything, you are innocent. There are only actions and choices; only knowledge can put labels "good", "neutral" and "bad" on these actions and choices. Adam had no knowledge before he tasted the fruit from the Tree of knowledge. So, he never abused his free will, nor God had any reason to punish him. Unless the punishment itself was the education: "Now you know it is a no-no."

What is perfection, being or not being able to sin? Being able to sin means free will present in full. Not being able to sin means to be situated at the absolute.

Seems like if sin is a relative category. It may not be the act itself that is sinful, but the attitude. Killing is a sin, but killing a terrorist to save a baby is a lesser evil. Sin is like beauty - it is in the eye of a beholder, depending on the paradigm. Only God is the Absolute, so being situated at this absolute platform is perfection of not being able to abuse free will. Situated at the absolute platform means to serve God. And naturally, it is dangerous if one thinks serving God is doing just anything in God's name. "Thy will be done" while being *genuinely* connected with God is perfection. So if we have no knowledge how to act properly, then we can escape into "Thy will be done". But this is what *we* can tell, after the Adam's tragic experience. Before he tasted the fruit, he could not know that it was not good to disobey God.

I believe having free will does not mean freedom to choose correctly. One may choose a door but not what is behind the door. In some cases there is no correct option only equally bad options. For instance in adultery the options usually are to divorce or forgive. Neither is a good option. The taint is on the marriage and can never be erased. Humpty Dumpty can't be put together again. It is broken and will remain so.

I don't believe so. I believe perfection means a finished work. I make a pottery bowl and it is perfect but it can be smashed.

 

[sayak83]

[QUOTE="sayak83, post: 5166800, member: 37415"]None of this has anything to do with sin. Only ethical conduct. The actions you mention are incorrect ethical conduct as it creates unwanted suffering in people who are the targets of such actions.

I believe sin is another term for unethical conduct.[/QUOTE]
We deal with it by having laws. Unethical conduct can be prevented and punished appropriately by the justice system. Nothing else is needed.

 

[Muffled]

I believe sin is another term for unethical conduct.

We deal with it by having laws. Unethical conduct can be prevented and punished appropriately by the justice system. Nothing else is needed.[/QUOTE]

I believe laws are made by unethical people and justice is carried out by unethical people. I don't believe it satisfies a need very much. Then there is a need for repentance or as some would call it correction and that doesn't happen very much either.

 

[sayak83]

We deal with it by having laws. Unethical conduct can be prevented and punished appropriately by the justice system. Nothing else is needed.

I believe laws are made by unethical people and justice is carried out by unethical people. I don't believe it satisfies a need very much. Then there is a need for repentance or as some would call it correction and that doesn't happen very much either.[/QUOTE]
What you believe is again, irrelevant. Societies governed by laws instituted by civic bodies appear sufficient to minimize and suitably deal with unethical action. Further ethical or unethical are properties of actions, not people. People are neither ethical or unethical, some of their actions are. For a flourishing society one needs to provide deterrents that cause people to minimize unethical actions. Laws are of such nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe that shows how little you know about logic. a syllogism has (at least) two premises that lead to a conclusion. That is exactly what I provided.

I believe I have no problem stating my logic as a belief I can do that with one plus one equals two also.

I believe the premise is true. The evidence is in the Bible. We can argue whether the premises are logical as well.

I believe the premise is true. The evidence is in the Bible, in my life and in the life of many others as well.

I believe the conclusion is valid based on the premises being true.

I believe this is not a logical argument because it only has one premise.

I believe God hates sin because He loves people. He could eradicate sin by eradicating people but that would not be a loving act so He punishes the sinners in hopes they will repent their sin instead.

I believe there was never an innate infallibility in Adam and Eve since they were not the first man and woman created. The garden was protection from the rest of the world but Hel (The serpent) had his/her own idea about that.

I believe there never has been a source revealed for that. About the closest possibility would be a double entendre when God talks about the pride of Nebuchadnezzar.

I believe God will remove sin from the nature of man for those who desire that option to be removed.

Again statements of what you believe do not represent a logical argument. You may construct a logical argument for the existence of God, but it is difficult doing this without 'begging the question.'

 

[Pudding]

Yes. Since what other thing would perfection mean, if not being corruption-free?

So you mean you do think Adam and Eve are perfect but they're not immune to sin.

Please elaborate what do you mean by "corruption-free".

The claim he placed was not logical,

Please cite which claim you're refering to which you say is illogical.

unless he also intended to put it within quotes: Man was made "perfect".

I don't understand how your statement connect to your previous statement and what message you wish to convey.

Being perfect also includes the ability to sin. "Immune to free will" means lacking that ability. So we have a paradox in Christianity here, which is:
-one is not perfect if deprived the ability to freely sin >this means> free will is a part of perfection
-if one is so perfect that it is not possible ever to abuse free will, then one is not able to sin >this means> not possible for Adam to fall. Story says that Adam had free will and he was able to abuse it. So he was not perfect, instead he was just like us.

I previously asked you: You mean Adam and Eve are perfect but they're not immune to sin?
You answered: Yes.

So you mean you think Adam and Eve are perfect, but now you say Adam was not perfect.

Do you think Adam is perfect or not?

Please elaborate your complete definition for your use of the term 'perfect'.

Except in one thing, he was lacking the knowledge of sin, the concept of it, which now we have. Having knowledge is required to abuse free will. Otherwise, you are not abusing anything, you are innocent.

You previously say "Story says that Adam had free will and he was able to abuse it". You then say Adam was lacking the knowledge of sin and also say that having knowledge is required to abuse free will.

Do you think Adam need to have knowledge in order to abuse free will or not?

There are only actions and choices; only knowledge can put labels "good", "neutral" and "bad" on these actions and choices. Adam had no knowledge before he tasted the fruit from the Tree of knowledge.

You previously say "Story says that Adam had free will and he was able to abuse it". Now you say he never abused his free will.

I don't understand the contradiction between your statements.

So, he never abused his free will, nor God had any reason to punish him. Unless the punishment itself was the education: "Now you know it is a no-no."

I can understand that is what you believe.

What is perfection, being or not being able to sin? Being able to sin means free will present in full. Not being able to sin means to be situated at the absolute.

You have explain "Situated at the absolute platform means to serve God".

So you mean if a person serve God then that person will not be able to sin.

You also previously say that "Being perfect also includes the ability to sin".

Since serving God must make a person not being able to sin, so you mean if a people serve God then that people is not perfect.

I cannot understand what message you wish to convey.

Seems like if sin is a relative category. It may not be the act itself that is sinful, but the attitude. Killing is a sin, but killing a terrorist to save a baby is a lesser evil. Sin is like beauty - it is in the eye of a beholder, depending on the paradigm.

I can comprehend that.

Only God is the Absolute,

I can understand that is what you believe.

Only God is the Absolute, so being situated at this absolute platform is perfection of not being able to abuse free will.

You previously say "if one is so perfect that it is not possible ever to abuse free will, then one is not able to sin >this means> not possible for Adam to fall. Story says that Adam had free will and he was able to abuse it. So he was not perfect."

You say Adam was not perfect because he was able to abuse his free will.

Now you say not being able to abuse free will is a perfection.

I don't understand the contradiction between your statements and what message you wish to convey with your statements.

And naturally, it is dangerous if one thinks serving God is doing just anything in God's name.

I can understand that is what you believe but i don't know what message you wish to convey.

"Thy will be done" while being *genuinely* connected with God is perfection.

Please explain what do you mean by "Thy will be done". Who's will? What and which will? The will done by who?

So if we have no knowledge how to act properly, then we can escape into "Thy will be done".

Please explain why do you think so.

But this is what *we* can tell, after the Adam's tragic experience.

I have no idea what *I* can tell when you say "what *we* can tell". I also don't know what message you wish to convey.

Before he tasted the fruit, he could not know that it was not good to disobey God.

I can comprehend that.

 

[Pudding]

Aging may be the result of shortened DNA ends according to biological studies.
Aging is a major cause of death.
When we figure out how to repair DNA ends there will be no more aging.
Therefore People will not die from old age.

Aging eventually cause death to people if they do not die from other reason.

So by 'eternal life is logical', you actually mean you believe eternal life is possible if we figure out how to stop our aging process.

I can agree about that if we figure out how to stop our aging process then eternal life might be possible to happen.

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens; and all their host have I commanded.

Please provide evidence to support the validity of your scripture if you wish to convince me to believe in your scripture.

Are you saying that you hate sin and love life?

No, i do not love sin, neither do i hate sin.
I cannot love or hate sin because i simply doesn't believe in Christianity's sin.

I do have my own moral system about what is wrong and what is good.

By 'life', you're referring to what kind of life? Please elaborate your complete context for your use of the term 'life' otherwise your statement is too vague.

Sometimes people do things because they work.

Okay.

For instance not every person who goes to the food bank believes in the Christianity that the church running the food bank believes in but that lack of belief does not stop the person from receiving the food.

Non-relevant to my post which you're quoting.

I believe it is evident in my daughter who loves her sin and won;t go near her church because she knows her sin will be condemned.

I haven't ask you to prove your daughter loves sin.

You previously said you believe Christianity is illogical for a person who loves sin and/or hates life.

It's not logical for me to follow Christianity because i don't have the belief that God exists.

Please provide evidence to support your claim if you believe i (a non-christian) loves sin and hates life and want to convince me your belief is correct.

I believe the Bible tells us what is sin and what is not and the Holy Spirit confirms the Bible.

I believe the sin is homosexuality. Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I do not believe in Bible and Holy Spirit. Please provide evidence to support your claim if you wish to convince me to believe in Bible and Holy Spirit.

 

[Muffled]

I believe laws are made by unethical people and justice is carried out by unethical people. I don't believe it satisfies a need very much. Then there is a need for repentance or as some would call it correction and that doesn't happen very much either.

What you believe is again, irrelevant. Societies governed by laws instituted by civic bodies appear sufficient to minimize and suitably deal with unethical action. Further ethical or unethical are properties of actions, not people. People are neither ethical or unethical, some of their actions are. For a flourishing society one needs to provide deterrents that cause people to minimize unethical actions. Laws are of such nature.[/QUOTE]

In the USA the law now supports and encourages unethical action.

 

[sayak83]

In the USA the law now supports and encourages unethical action.

Another claim made without justification. Just saying again, personal opinions propounded without justification is just "blah blah blah". That is all you have so far done.

 

[Muffled]

Again statements of what you believe do not represent a logical argument. You may construct a logical argument for the existence of God, but it is difficult doing this without 'begging the question.'

I believe that makes sense. Christianity would be illogical if there were no God.

I believe it is worth while making the attempt.

Existence is proven by evidence
Evidence exists in the Bible of God
Therefore God exists.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe it is worth while making the attempt.

Existence is proven by evidence
Evidence exists in the Bible of God
Therefore God exists.

You have taken the route here of 'begging the question' and creating a circular argument.

 

[Riders]

Man feels guilty for his wrong doings,is scared of dying and because hes afraid of a hell the Christian religion talks about even though he knows he doesn't believe in it.

Man goes to a church that has a ritual of responding to an alter call to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior then he responds to it does a little ritual called reciting the sinners prayer and asks for forgivness of his sin even though he doesn't believe in any of it.

But sense it helps him feel less guilty and less afraid of the everlasting hell he knows his society teaches him he goes through the dead ritual at church and joins the church so he can feel less guilty and can sleep at night.

It works for a few weeks till hes sinning again and feels guilty at which time he goes back to church and responds to the alter call again to reaccept Jesus even though he really isn't Christian and doesn't care about the church. Its his way of scamming his way to get into heaven.

This is my version of a lot of Christians who join the church.

 

[Muffled]

You have taken the route here of 'begging the question' and creating a circular argument.

I believe you don't have a clue what "begging the question" means. Why don't you try explaining why you think so. It ought to be amusing.

 

[Muffled]

Man feels guilty for his wrong doings,is scared of dying and because hes afraid of a hell the Christian religion talks about even though he knows he doesn't believe in it.

Man goes to a church that has a ritual of responding to an alter call to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior then he responds to it does a little ritual called reciting the sinners prayer and asks for forgivness of his sin even though he doesn't believe in any of it.

But sense it helps him feel less guilty and less afraid of the everlasting hell he knows his society teaches him he goes through the dead ritual at church and joins the church so he can feel less guilty and can sleep at night.

It works for a few weeks till hes sinning again and feels guilty at which time he goes back to church and responds to the alter call again to reaccept Jesus even though he really isn't Christian and doesn't care about the church. Its his way of scamming his way to get into heaven.

This is my version of a lot of Christians who join the church.

I believe that can happen but it is not what is supposed to happen.

I believe this is illogical. Jesus only has to be accepted once if the person is sincerely doing so. If the person is committing a ruse of course it won't work. Another piece of bad logic is believing that sin means Jesus isn't working. I find sometimes that He works in a progression building the person's faith over time.

I believe this is also a fallacy. God can't be scammed.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe you don't have a clue what "begging the question" means. Why don't you try explaining why you think so. It ought to be amusing.

Not amusing at all. The fallacy of 'Begging the Question' describes the following. The following statement is extremely circular in your claim that the Bible is the evidence that justifies the truth of the text of the Bible without outside evidence that would confirm the scriptures. To be objective and not circular you need to provide corroborating supporting actual evidence out side your claim.

Existence is proven by evidence
Evidence exists in the Bible of God
Therefore God exists.

The bottom line is you claim the Bible is the evidence that proves the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

Not amusing at all. The fallacy of 'Begging the Question' describes the following. The following statement is extremely circular in your claim that the Bible is the evidence that justifies the truth of the text of the Bible without outside evidence that would confirm the scriptures. To be objective and not circular you need to provide corroborating supporting actual evidence out side your claim.



The bottom line is you claim the Bible is the evidence that proves the Bible.

I believe your assessment is totally false. I did not do so. Go ahead; try to explicitly show where that happened. You can't do it.

I believe this is a straw man. It has nothing to do with the logic but only exhibits that you question at least one of the premises. I believe it is reasonable to do so but then you should do so logically.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe your assessment is totally false. I did not do so. Go ahead; try to explicitly show where that happened. You can't do it.

I believe this is a straw man. It has nothing to do with the logic but only exhibits that you question at least one of the premises. I believe it is reasonable to do so but then you should do so logically.

Yes you did in an exact quote.

Not amusing at all. The fallacy of 'Begging the Question' describes the following. The following statement is extremely circular in your claim that the Bible is the evidence that justifies the truth of the text of the Bible without outside evidence that would confirm the scriptures. To be objective and not circular you need to provide corroborating supporting actual evidence out side your claim.

Muffled said:
Existence is proven by evidence
Evidence exists in the Bible of God
Therefore God exists.
The bottom line is you claim the Bible is the evidence that proves the Bible.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

Is Christianity logical? A religion where god needs a human sacrifice, his son no less, that was created by impregnating a married woman without her prior consent, so that it could forgive humanity for being what it created us to be in the first place. No, Christianity is not logical.