Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

No problem discussing it as just a story. But I think you have picked up your interpretation of the story from the worst possible source - the religious.

I happen to agree with you on the redemption thing. In the sense that most Christians believe in, it is preposterous. Jesus might have been 'the Way' but any 'magical' properties of his blood has nothing to do with it. But I think his willingness to spill it all did. That is not to say we are incapable of both good and evil. But yeah, 'magic blood' would not be the solution.

Bloody shame that sometimes we have to go back four years to find a worthwhile thread.

Gotta admit Frank, for someone who rejects it, you have a great grasp of it.

Gotta admit Frank, for someone who rejects it, you have a great grasp of it.

Many critics of religious belief, be they atheists, agnostics, or heretics, have a very good understanding of it.

You can't completely understand something that someone else truly believes in unless you are able to also experience true belief in it too.

The story...the myth...is preposterous. The "John 3:13" is an abomination. Imagine a god saying, "I will forgive you for offending me, but first you have to torture and kill my son."

First thing, it's not necessary to completely understand what someone else truly believes in order to criticize aspects of that belief, such as the practical ramifications of rejecting vaccination for religious reasons.

Secondly, many non-believers did believe at one time and eventually were able to see their former beliefs from a different perspective and came to reject a supernatural interpretation of their religious experience.

Quote:

The story...the myth...is preposterous. The "John 3:13" is an abomination. Imagine a god saying, "I will forgive you for offending me, but first you have to torture and kill my son."

Don’t want to question your qualifications but how did you get that from these only two possibilities? Or was there a typo?

John 3:13 KJV
[13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

1 John 3:13 KJV
[13] Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

You have a point on 'blood sacrifice'. I get that, but the idea behind it looks like a practice allowing man to show, in physical form, his recognition of God.
The story says that Jesus (and some kind of rebirth) changed the way Man and God were to interact. The sacrifice custom was in practice for a long time and there were prophecies of him spilling his blood so - for the story to be consistent, it kind of had to happen. I don’t see a problem, as far as it being a rational story. Thus far, it is not preposterous.

I’m not telling you anything new, I just don’t see what convinces you it is preposterous. But the modern Christian interpretation certainly is.

So glad to see you back.

Sin...essentially is anything a human does that offends his/her GOD.

So then it's not necessary to completely understand pro-life abortion views and/or the experience of a pregnant woman seeking abortion in order to criticize/prohibit the use of abortion as birth control?

If they came to reject it, they didn't understand/experience it in the same way as people who don't reject it, do/did they?

Think of it in terms of your vaccine example...

Frank Apisa wrote:

Sin...essentially is anything a human does that offends his/her GOD.

You're misconstruing God as a subjective being with arbitrary sensibilities that get offended or not based on something akin to personal opinions or values.

Sin only 'offends' to the extent that people are aware of it. Let's say someone kills someone else and it doesn't offend anyone (unlikely example, I know, but an easy one for illustrating the point).

Even if no one is offended by an act of killing, it still causes death. In the Bible it says, "the wages of sin is death," because sin is whatever causes harm, destruction, etc.


If you worship Satan or some other 'dark lord,' sin doesn't offend him/her; quite the opposite. But even if sin pleases your personal lord, it still does harm, causes destruction/death/etc. That is its effect.

A "sin" is something that offends a GOD...a transgression, if you will, against the sensibilities of that GOD.

Frank Apisa wrote:

A "sin" is something that offends a GOD...a transgression, if you will, against the sensibilities of that GOD.

That’s a starting point, but the debate has moved on since then. We’ve got the seven deadly sins all of which are harmful regardless of whether one believes in a higher power or whether one even exists.

I think the concept of sin moved way beyond narrow theological definitions a long time ago.

Respectfully as possible, L, I am not misconstruing anything.

A "sin" is something that offends a GOD...a transgression, if you will, against the sensibilities of that GOD.

hightor wrote:

Many critics of religious belief, be they atheists, agnostics, or heretics, have a very good understanding of it.

You can't completely understand something that someone else truly believes in unless you are able to also experience true belief in it too.

Take a simple example like a song that someone believes is truly prophetic, e.g. Imagine by John Lennon. You might understand the belief that without religion, there would be nothing to live or die for, and that would be liberating; but if you don't experience the same level of belief as the atheist who truly believes that war wouldn't happen if no one had any religion to live or die for, then you don't completely understand that faith in Lennon's Imagine as atheist prophecy.

You might be able to understand on a abstract level why atheists think Lennon's lyrics are right about religion causing war, but if you believe something different, you're not going to experience the same complete faith in that belief as the atheist.