Religious inconsistency question

[bradly1101]

Left to his own devices man will sin. Sex before marriage, laying with another man, murder. They'll all get you to hell (if you believe that).

I believe the Bible was written to tell us how to behave with all these sinful impulses.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Left to his own devices man will sin.

Who decided what man's devices would be?

 

[Juddog]

Left to his own devices man will sin. Sex before marriage, laying with another man, murder. They'll all get you to hell (if you believe that).

I believe the Bible was written to tell us how to behave with all these sinful impulses.

Who created sin again?

 

[Moonbeam]

Who created sin again?

I believe that this is a profound question that neither the atheist nor the believer can logically answer or explain. We are created in the image of a perfect and omnipotent and omnipresent God or we are not. If we are God by reflection then we could never choose sin, why would we choose differently than He, or else there is no such thing a Truth or Morality and every action we take is equal to and not different than any other. There is no sin, say, in murder, and conscience has no place in anything.

The notion that evil is real is a thought held in common both by the religious and the atheist alike because the normal human mind experiences empathy. We feel real pain ourselves when we witness the pain of others.

And thus it is that sin exists when we deny ourselves the experience of pain, when we will not feel what we actually do. And thus it is the door to heaven is opened to those who can't avoid their own crucifixion, who re-experience the pain of the loss of the true self sufficiently that the need for denial and armor collapses. Grace comes best when we have surrendered, when the ego dies on the cross. I believe this is the allegorical truth and potential for awakening provided by the life of Christ for the broken hearted and what he went up on the cross to show us, that if we believed deeply enough in love that our hearts would heal because of the truth that love is all there really is.

 

[piasabird]

http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Pres.Clintons.Regret.text.html.htm

There is a good chance that Clinton did not directly compare himself to King David. However, I came accross a lot of comparisons to him and king david. There is a good chance that it was a minister who first brought this up. Many people have made excuses for him over the years. I looked at a collection of speeches of Clinton and did not see anything. Clinton did apologize at churches a few times so maybe it was a preacher that started all the talk.

Here is one site I looked at:

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches

 

[bradly1101]

I'm not a Buddhist, but my understanding is that their "or else" when you don't believe is that you just keep on suffering with the rest of humanity. Until you become "enlightened."

We suffer through life because suffering is a result of desire. It is possible to end suffering.

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

 

[bradly1101]

Your feelings do severely impact your thoughts. As a friend of mine stated "There is no intellectual motion, without e-motion."

I often find that my emotions hinder rational thought.

 

[Pulsar]

I often find that my emotions hinder rational thought.

QFT. Emotions almost always lead to non-rational decision making.

 

[Onceler]

reincarnation was once in the Christian bible
There is a passage that says: Why was this man born blind? He did not sin. Jesus replied "It is not in this life that he sinned but in his past life."
There are also the passages in which people thought that Jesus was Elijah returned.
There are a couple more but I have forgotten them.
The facts are this that the bible can not be trusted because it has been corrupted and was not perfect to begin with being written by human hands.
A big problem I have with the evangelicals is that they claim everything is in accordance with God's Will. This could not be further from the truth. In the book where king Ahab is going to go to war as an ally of Jordan, Elijah warns him that what he intends to do is against God's Will. Then he goes and does it anyway, he is killed by doing it but it is proof that we can and do do things that are not God's Will.

 

[Spyhawk]

After giving these questions significant thought throughout my life I have concluded that all religions are man made and most importantly that god/gods are also man made.

If you go back through time and study the different cultures up until now, you realize that gods and religions pushing them were constructs erected over time to help us cope with our frailties and insecurities and also to help us comprehend our surroundings.

For me religion was an essential part of humanity's evolution and as time goes by will less needed as our understanding continues to grow.

Having said all that my door will remain open to any new information that might change my mind.

 

[Onceler]

Who created sin again?

I think sin was (in the Christian religion)supposedly started when Lucifer corrupted a whole bunch of angels into following him (he wanted to be equal with God, the first argument for equality as well) into attacking God, it certainly wasn't when the serpent tricked Eve because the serpent was already evil.
And as to the if you believe argument,belief is not a requirement.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think sin was (in the Christian religion)supposedly started when Lucifer corrupted a whole bunch of angels into following him (he wanted to be equal with God, the first argument for equality as well) into attacking God, it certainly wasn't when the serpent tricked Eve because the serpent was already evil.
And as to the if you believe argument,belief is not a requirement.

You say it started with Lucifer and not the snake, because the snake was already evil, but how did Lucifer get corrupted? How did he get to be evil? You have explained nothing, really, in my opinion. In a perfect God created universe there can be no evil, no? And in a universe that just happened somehow or other or has always existed, it also can't exist. Is an amoeba or a duck evil?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I haven't found any inconsistencies so far in the true God, the Christian God. Reading the Bible with the Holy Spirit is necessary.

 

[Onceler]

You say it started with Lucifer and not the snake, because the snake was already evil, but how did Lucifer get corrupted? How did he get to be evil? You have explained nothing, really, in my opinion. In a perfect God created universe there can be no evil, no? And in a universe that just happened somehow or other or has always existed, it also can't exist. Is an amoeba or a duck evil?

Christians believe that Lucifer corrupted himself and became Satan. There are a few passages but I have forgotten where they are. There was war in Heaven long before the garden of Eden.
In my beliefs God created both good and evil. There are no fallen angels all is as He intended.

 

[Onceler]

The serpent was Lucifer after his fall.

 

[Moonbeam]

Christians believe that Lucifer corrupted himself and became Satan. There are a few passages but I have forgotten where they are. There was war in Heaven long before the garden of Eden.
In my beliefs God created both good and evil. There are no fallen angels all is as He intended.

There are no limitations on beliefs but it would seem to me that you can't create evil without being evil so I am forced to the conclusion that the god you believe in IS evil and can't really be God. Like evil, such a god can exist only in belief but not in reality. It would be logically inconsistent with the Biblical notion of God's perfection.

 

[Onceler]

My God is neither good nor evil, just exists and created everything and let each entity decide for itself which side to be on.

 

[Baasha]

You are all utterly ignorant of "religions" of the world so stop using "all religions" in your statements as if you have any iota of knowledge of paths outside of those worthless desert cults (judaism, christianity, islam).

An Abrahamic-free world is heaven - India was during the reign of Asoka the Great and before.

In fact, Dharmic "religions" are not "religion" in the conventional sense of the term. Hence, most of the loudmouthed atheists today target the Abrahamic cults.

Judaism is a tribal religion of slaves. Any psychoanalyst will tell you that they over-compensated for their slavery - "chosen people".

Christianity is a comfort religion for idiots and a cult of human sacrifice.

Islam is a desert-nomad religion that has a penchant for domination through military means.

Reconciling these three cults is impossible - hence the perennial bloodshed between them for millenia.

Read "Being Different" by Rajiv Malhotra - compares the fundamental foundations of the Abrahamic cults as opposed to Dharmic "religions" (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism).

Hinduism, for instance, is inherently secular - contains a vast spectrum of religious thought and non-theistic exegesis of scripture.

Buddhism, a "nastika" (heterodox) darSanA (school of thought) of Hinduism is primarily non-theistic. Jainism is extreme non-violence and is also a heterodox school of thought in Hinduism. Carvaka (pronounced: CHAR-VA-KAA) is the atheistic school of thought within Hinduism - also nastika.

If you want a good distillation of the damage that the Abrahamic cults have wrought on this planet, read Bertrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian". One of the books that will knock you on your ass. Another good read is Will Durant's "Our Oriental Heritage".

All the so-called "development" and "science" that sprung forth in Europe and then America is a direct rebellion against the corpse-worshiping cult known as Christianity. The west became scientifically advanced, in part, due to the distinct dichotomy between the so-called "sacred" (lol) and the profane.

The initial advancement in science, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, and a plethora of other "secular" subjects is a direct result of what is known as "adhyatma-vidya" or embodied knowing in the Dharmic traditions.

No surprise that India was at the zenith of civilization, economically, philosophically, and culturally, till the 1830s while Europe and America were cesspits of disease, filth, crime, and war. Once India was eviscerated by the British rats (GDP was 22% of the world's in 1750 and 2% of the world's in 1950), India moved away from its Dharmic roots and has blindly followed the "west" in most things - governance, economics, and even education. No wonder India is on the down-swing while once beggar-infested England thinks of itself as "rich" when all its "wealth" came from pillage and plunder of Asian and African countries. Must be those "Judeo-Christian values"!

When Christianity rose in Europe (after Constantine's colossal mistake in 345 CE), it entered the "Dark Ages". It only arose out of that ditch after plundering other nations, genocide of native populations ('merica) and a radical departure from the stifling control of The House of Zombie Worship, I mean, Church!

Henry David Thoreau said of the Veda,

"Whenever I have read any part of the Vedas, I have felt that some unearthly and unknown light illuminated me. In the great teaching of the Vedas, there is no touch of sectarianism. It is of all ages, climes and nationalities and is the royal road for the attainment of the Great Knowledge. When I am at it, I feel that I am under the spangled heavens of a summer night."

The Dharmic religions were never at war with each other. Diversity of thought has been a fundamental part of religious experience in India since time immemorial. That is why India was, is, and always will be the spiritual epicenter of this planet.

After all, there is a SlOkA in the Rig Veda that says:

ā no bhadrāḥ kratavo kṣyantu viśvato adabdhāso aparītāsa udbhidaḥ | Rg. Veda 1.89.1
"Let noble thoughts come from everywhere."

 

[kia75]

You are all utterly ignorant of "religions" of the world so stop using "all religions" in your statements as if you have any iota of knowledge of paths outside of those worthless desert cults (judaism, christianity, islam).

An Abrahamic-free world is heaven - India was during the reign of Asoka the Great and before.

Is this a parody post? Am I being subjected to Poe's law? Ashoka the Great (like Alexander the Great) was a warlord who conquered lots of land and killed lots of people. He conquered a good portion of South Asia and like Constantine replaced the Roman Religion with Christianity, Asoka replaced the local religions with Buddhism.

The popular legend is that after he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people in wars, or just for petty reasons (he killed 500 of his wives for saying he was "coarse), he converted to Buddhism and was a nice guy. Though, after his conversion he still ordered to have his children and wives killed if they displeased him. He tried to have one of his children killed and that child escaped and went on to become a famous poet. Again, this all happened after his "conversion".

Using Ashoka to prove Indian religions aren't violent is like arguing Pedophiles aren't bad people because they love children. Yeah, if you ignore the hundreds of thousands of people Ahoka killed then Ahoka didn't kill anybody.

In fact, Dharmic "religions" are not "religion" in the conventional sense of the term. Hence, most of the loudmouthed atheists today target the Abrahamic cults.

Judaism is a tribal religion of slaves. Any psychoanalyst will tell you that they over-compensated for their slavery - "chosen people".

Christianity is a comfort religion for idiots and a cult of human sacrifice.

Islam is a desert-nomad religion that has a penchant for domination through military means.

Reconciling these three cults is impossible - hence the perennial bloodshed between them for millenia.

You're forgetting the bloodshed between different Buddhist sects, the conflict between Buddhists and Hindus, and the conflict between Hindu's and Muslims.

Heck, ever heard of fighting monks? The fighting monks of China are all Buddhist monks and have warred with each other, different nations and basically everybody. Different Buhdist schools of thought have warred against each other. And that's just Buhdism.

Ignoring the Gypsies (who were thrown out of India due to losing a war) Indian history is the story of Indians discriminating against each other (the various castes), Sikhs fighting with Hindus, Hindu's fighting with Muslims, etc. It's one crappy war after another. In India's defense, most of history is one crappy war after another irregardless of which region you're studying.

Read "Being Different" by Rajiv Malhotra - compares the fundamental foundations of the Abrahamic cults as opposed to Dharmic "religions" (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism).

Hinduism, for instance, is inherently secular - contains a vast spectrum of religious thought and non-theistic exegesis of scripture.

Buddhism, a "nastika" (heterodox) darSanA (school of thought) of Hinduism is primarily non-theistic. Jainism is extreme non-violence and is also a heterodox school of thought in Hinduism. Carvaka (pronounced: CHAR-VA-KAA) is the atheistic school of thought within Hinduism - also nastika.

If you want a good distillation of the damage that the Abrahamic cults have wrought on this planet, read Bertrand Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian". One of the books that will knock you on your ass. Another good read is Will Durant's "Our Oriental Heritage".

Again? Is this a parody post? If you're saying Dharmic religions have good stuff in their beliefs, well, the bible has good stuff about helping our neighbor and turning the other cheek.

If you're saying Christians, Muslims and Jews have done bad stuff then you'll quickly realize that Buddhists, Sikhs, and Hindu's have done horrible stuff as well.

All the so-called "development" and "science" that sprung forth in Europe and then America is a direct rebellion against the corpse-worshiping cult known as Christianity. The west became scientifically advanced, in part, due to the distinct dichotomy between the so-called "sacred" (lol) and the profane.

The initial advancement in science, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, and a plethora of other "secular" subjects is a direct result of what is known as "adhyatma-vidya" or embodied knowing in the Dharmic traditions.

No surprise that India was at the zenith of civilization, economically, philosophically, and culturally, till the 1830s while Europe and America were cesspits of disease, filth, crime, and war. Once India was eviscerated by the British rats (GDP was 22% of the world's in 1750 and 2% of the world's in 1950), India moved away from its Dharmic roots and has blindly followed the "west" in most things - governance, economics, and even education. No wonder India is on the down-swing while once beggar-infested England thinks of itself as "rich" when all its "wealth" came from pillage and plunder of Asian and African countries. Must be those "Judeo-Christian values"!

Are you getting China confused with India? China was the most advanced nation up until the ~1400's when it became insular and stopped progressing. I might agree with you that India was the most advanced area of the earth around 0BCE but that's being very generous with your ramblings.

Again, I can't help but feel I'm being trolled, especially since currently India is in an upswing. It betted heavily on Technology during the past two decades and that bet is paying off handsomely at the moment as the quality of life in India is going up very quickly! I wouldn't be surprised if India becomes a world power within the next generation or so.

The ignorance you show of Indian history is just astounding for someone who claims to idolize it. Every bad thing you claim about an Abrahamic religion applies to the Dharmic religions. If this is a parody of a typical Abrahamic religious post then well done, it's been a while since I've seen a post so full of itself, so hypocritical, and so wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

My God is neither good nor evil, just exists and created everything and let each entity decide for itself which side to be on.

Hehe. In a thread on religious inconsistency, you have now claimed that God is neither good or evil but created angels intended to fall but by their own choice. That's fine by me that you believe this but it fails to impress me as a logical idea given that God created man in his own image. To my way of thinking you have side stepped an important and crucial religious philosophical issue by pretending to yourself that two mutually exclusive concepts can be true at the same time. You do not logically account for how a being created in the image of perfection by a perfect creator could turn around and do other than his creator.

In my opinion, it is this capacity to sweep things under the rug common to so many religious people that drives rational people away from religion.

And the problem is important, I believe also, because if you can't give a logical explanation for the fall of man that makes some kind of sense, you can't offer the fallen any redemption. They will simply see in the shallowness of your explanation a means to avoid the notion that they need it. If you can't offer some kind of account for the existence of sin, you will have nothing to offer by way of a God of salvation.

For that reason the ideas one can derive from an analysis of the notions presented in the story of the Garden of Eden are important. The notion of eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge indicates to me that those who created that story knew either intuitively or with direct insight that evil exists as an adjunct to the evolution of man's capacity to know. To know is to step into the world of ideas where things can be imagined that do not exist for other animals. Only man has the capacity to create his own suffering by believing in things that do not exist. Men discovered God when they were first taken in by and then escaped from that dream, when they discovered their own perfection. God is a lighthouse that proclaims there is a way back from delusion, a bridge to a different state of consciousness.

 

[v-600]

I haven't found any inconsistencies so far in the true God, the Christian God. Reading the Bible with the Holy Spirit is necessary.

This is interesting. I've not felt the holy spirit and would dispute its existence (but lets leave that for another time).

Perhaps you could shed light on this about the Jews time in captivity in Egypt.

Genesis 15:13
And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years.

Exodus 12:40
Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

To me that is inconsistent. From my limited view I can't see how it can not be, but I would love to learn.

 

[v-600]

You are all utterly ignorant of "religions" of the world so stop using "all religions" in your statements as if you have any iota of knowledge of paths outside of those worthless desert cults (judaism, christianity, islam).

Well thats just a bit unkind isn't it?

Also for someone who complaining about people using "all religions", you have neglected to talk about how Taoism, Odinani, Paganism, Shinto, Serer, Forn Siðr and Aboriginal beliefs differ from your afore mentioned cults.

And also if you read my opening post you'd have seen this

This topic is mainly aimed at Christianity for reasons I hope are obvious in the article below. It could apply just as well to many of the worlds religions.

which I think kind of explains why the thread is focussed on the abrahamic religions. Quite aside from the fact that those religions account for approx 50% of believers world wide. And this is hosted on a US site, a predominantly Christian country.

 

[Oyeve]

Thats why im Agnostic.

 

[Baasha]

Is this a parody post? Am I being subjected to Poe's law? Ashoka the Great (like Alexander the Great) was a warlord who conquered lots of land and killed lots of people. He conquered a good portion of South Asia and like Constantine replaced the Roman Religion with Christianity, Asoka replaced the local religions with Buddhism.

ASokA was a "warlord"? You've lost any credibility with that vapidly ignorant statement. Asoka, as HG Wells stated, is the greatest of kings in the history of the world; not because he conquered "lots of land killed lots of people" but because his contribution to the spread of Dharma to the far corners of the globe (sending emissaries to Rome etc.).

The popular legend is that after he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people in wars, or just for petty reasons (he killed 500 of his wives for saying he was "coarse), he converted to Buddhism and was a nice guy. Though, after his conversion he still ordered to have his children and wives killed if they displeased him. He tried to have one of his children killed and that child escaped and went on to become a famous poet. Again, this all happened after his "conversion".

We are not discussing "popular legends" here and fairy tales constructed by etic historians who neither have the perspective nor the acumen to write about the earth's foremost ruler.

Using Ashoka to prove Indian religions aren't violent is like arguing Pedophiles aren't bad people because they love children. Yeah, if you ignore the hundreds of thousands of people Ahoka killed then Ahoka didn't kill anybody.

Indian civilization didn't begin with ASokA. It began thousands of years prior to that and gave rise to innumerable advances in human development from science to statecraft among many other fields. ASokA is a paragon of monarchs.

You're forgetting the bloodshed between different Buddhist sects, the conflict between Buddhists and Hindus, and the conflict between Hindu's and Muslims.

Your ignorance is astounding; not really, actually. "Bloodshed between Buddhist sects"? Buddhism does not impel people to conquer others and convert them through force. ASokA sent Buddhist emissaries far and wide and they taught the people in those places about Buddhism (gnostics etc.).

Using religion as a tool of conquest is sole hallmark of Abrahamic vermin. Also, Did you say Hindus and Muslims? Are you seriously that daft? Islam is an Abrahamic religion - just like that slave religion Judaism and that corpse-worshiping cult Christianity.

Heck, ever heard of fighting monks? The fighting monks of China are all Buddhist monks and have warred with each other, different nations and basically everybody. Different Buhdist schools of thought have warred against each other. And that's just Buhdism.

It's BUDDHISM. Not "Buhdism". Further, what on earth do "fighting monks" have to do with Buddhism? Buddhist monks practicing martial arts was to help them make their bodies supple so that they can meditate for long hours at a stretch. You know, "yoga"?

You sound like a rambling Bible-thumping maniac who just can't understand how shallow the Abrahamic cults are compared to Dharmic religions. Never in the history of India (or even Asia in general) have people been fed to animals for sport! The dastardly Romans were considered "civilized"! LOL..

Ignoring the Gypsies (who were thrown out of India due to losing a war) Indian history is the story of Indians discriminating against each other (the various castes), Sikhs fighting with Hindus, Hindu's fighting with Muslims, etc. It's one crappy war after another. In India's defense, most of history is one crappy war after another irregardless of which region you're studying.

Gypsies fled India because of the Islamic invasion of India - another Abrahamic cult that invaded and not only thoroughly destroyed the Persian empire (in 23 years I might add), but almost consumed all of the Indian subcontinent. Thankfully, they will never succeed!

Again? Is this a parody post? If you're saying Dharmic religions have good stuff in their beliefs, well, the bible has good stuff about helping our neighbor and turning the other cheek.

If you're saying Christians, Muslims and Jews have done bad stuff then you'll quickly realize that Buddhists, Sikhs, and Hindu's have done horrible stuff as well.

You're way out of your league son. Abrahamic filth have invaded, pillaged, and genocided millions of people at the behest of their worthless cults. Dharmic religions have NEVER caused warfare. Yes, there have been wars in Asia. Yet, there was a term called Dharma Yuddha or Dharmic warfare which meant that no civilians were ever harmed; it was a war for suzerainty of a particular kingdom and the royals and their armies settled their scores.

Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and Hindus have NEVEr attacked people for their beliefs. Any violence perpetrated by them was only in retaliation to the relentless aggression by the Abrahamic asurAs. This is a fact even unto this day!

Nowhere except in India have so many people coexisted despite so many differences in language, culture, beliefs, and ways of life. It is a hallmark of Dharmic civilization whereas in Europe there was nothing but war - people butchering each other and raping each other until colonialism started when they decided to murder, rape, and loot other nations.

Read the economic history of the world by Angus Maddison - a European economist, who has clearly shown the economic structure of the world from 1 CE to 2003 CE. India was at the top until the 17th century when China overtook for one century. Then India again at the top till 1830. Europe and America together were less than 3% of the world's output till 1850.

Your lack of knowledge of history, both economically and socially, is quite telling.

Are you getting China confused with India? China was the most advanced nation up until the ~1400's when it became insular and stopped progressing. I might agree with you that India was the most advanced area of the earth around 0BCE but that's being very generous with your ramblings.

Again, I can't help but feel I'm being trolled, especially since currently India is in an upswing. It betted heavily on Technology during the past two decades and that bet is paying off handsomely at the moment as the quality of life in India is going up very quickly! I wouldn't be surprised if India becomes a world power within the next generation or so.

The ignorance you show of Indian history is just astounding for someone who claims to idolize it. Every bad thing you claim about an Abrahamic religion applies to the Dharmic religions. If this is a parody of a typical Abrahamic religious post then well done, it's been a while since I've seen a post so full of itself, so hypocritical, and so wrong.

There is simply no comparison between Dharmic religions and Abrahamic ones; the latter are desert cults that are a bane on civilized society. It is better for people like you to adopt atheism; it is an upswing away from those murderous desert cults.

 

[Juddog]

ASokA was a "warlord"? You've lost any credibility with that vapidly ignorant statement. Asoka, as HG Wells stated, is the greatest of kings in the history of the world; not because he conquered "lots of land killed lots of people" but because his contribution to the spread of Dharma to the far corners of the globe (sending emissaries to Rome etc.).

You think that this single warlord somehow upheld the laws of the universe, and that excuses his brutality? Laws existed in Rome long before this joker came along. The concept of Dharma is the Law that "upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe".

It is preposterous to think that one man's ego is responsible for something that exists all across the universe regardless of him or not. You don't apparently understand the spirit behind the ideas of Hinduism to say something like that, and are instead focused on the minutiae.