Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Defining a True One

73 posts in this topic

Posted

What's a corrupt nature?  How can you know that one's being is corrupt versus uncorrupt?  Who is this Jesus fellow you say wasn't in possession of a corrupt nature?  Is there anything outside of your one text corroborating any of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why must Genesis be literal for the teachings of Jesus to be sensical?

 

What teachings specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What teachings specifically.

 

Pick any.  Perhaps the parable of the good samaritan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What's a corrupt nature?  How can you know that one's being is corrupt versus uncorrupt?  Who is this Jesus fellow you say wasn't in possession of a corrupt nature?  Is there anything outside of your one text corroborating any of this?

 

A corrupt nature is basically one that is not operating as God created it to operate.  Before I answer any more, keep in mind that these questions are asked in light of the Bible.  These questions aren't about actual evidence and me presenting my case in that fashion.  I'll have that discussion later on hehe!  Yet in terms of the biblical terms, man was originally made in the image of God.  So in essence, our nature mirrored His.  How can we tell a corrupt nature?  By trying to keep the Torah or Law.  Now, Jesus made it even clearer for us when it comes to the commandments, that even if you dwelled on things counter to the law, you are breaking it.  That if you lust after someone, you commit adultery.  If you hate someone, you a muderer and break those commandments.  So the Law reveals our true nature, because of course we want to lust after good looking people right?  It's just not how God created us.  Now the text say Jesus wasn't born with this nature, but was born after God's nature. (Like the first Adam)  I can't comment what's outside the text and what governs what outside it, but this discussion is concerning the text.

 

 

 

Pick any.  Perhaps the parable of the good samaritan

 

 

Well, teachings like that I agree aren't dependant on a literal Genesis.  Anyone can do good things and things like that.  Yet what's dependant on a literal Genesis is the whole reason why God is at odds with the world.  If God created the world like we see it today, or that we came about through the accepted history of the world, that eliminates the need for Jesus to come and "save" us.  Save us from what exactly and redeem us from what exactly, if there wasn't a fall of creation in the beginning?  So I argue, the whole set up for Jesus coming to redeem us, hangs on a literal Genesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So basically the Bible should be taken literally except when it shouldn't.

 

One thing I keep in mind is the bible was written by dozens of different people over thousands of years. There are even a half dozen or so books that made it into and out of different versions of the bible. It was very interesting reading these in religion class.

 

Anyway the point is I think it would be difficult to argue that each one was meant to be interpreted with the same level of literalness. (although I take very little of it literally)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A corrupt nature is basically one that is not operating as God created it to operate  ...  Yet in terms of the biblical terms, man was originally made in the image of God.  So in essence, our nature mirrored His.  How can we tell a corrupt nature?  By trying to keep the Torah or Law.  

 

What does that mean that our nature mirrors God's?  By trying to keep the "Torah or Law" as you say reveals a corrupt nature?  That is what you are saying here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

  Jesus came into the world to save it, not to condemn it.

 

Matthais,

 

Jesus' crucifixion was a sacrifice for humanity's sins, but was it really that big of a sacrifice?

 

Most of us have been taught that heaven is a paradise.  

 

Jesus presumably knew this better than anyone, so sacrificing his earthbound body of flesh and blood was really not much of a sacrifice at all.  It amounted to little more than temporary pain and anguish for a big payoff at the end.

 

God should have simply cut out the "middle man" and decreed that humanity was getting a "do-over".  As long as individuals accepted God as their savior, they would be forgiven. 

 

Why all the unnecessary dramatics?

 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Was Jesus REALLY that great of a guy? I mean, he did say he did not intend to bring peace to earth, but a sword. And he did refer to one non-Jew (Gentile) woman as a "dog" when she asked for him to heal her daughter. Matthew 15:22-28. He basically said, in whole, "No, I will not help you, because I came to help the Jews, not the non-Jews." Then, with all of his power, he was ultimately convinced to change his mind by her basically saying, "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table".

Jesus also gives numerous examples of bad advice (not saving money, not planning for the future, make people want to persecute you, if someone hits you, invite them to do it again, etc) and examples of things that are just patently absurd (marrying a divorced women is adultery, don't have sexual urges, if your eyes or hands do something wrong, pluck it out/cut it off, etc). And thought crimes, as you gave examples of, are also absurd. Thinking about doing ANYTHING immoral or harmful is NOT as bad as doing it. It actually is good if you can THINK of doing something like murder and have the restraint NOT to. To say "thinking it is as bad as doing it" sort of permits bad behavior since you haven't drawn a distinction between the two.

So, on top of his "sacrifice" not really being a real sacrifice, he's also a bit of a dick and a bit crazy. Do we REALLY need to strive to be like that character?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Allow me to get on topic a bit, though. Other posters have covered the big issues with this thread topic. You simply can't draw a universal Christianity premise here. Defining which god it is that we're talking about IS important. So, your intention is right, but your execution leaves something to be desired. The best you can do with this is define what god is TO YOU and argue that point (which, essentially, you have done). Just don't assume that these are things that are/should be universal (your Genesis as literal truth, for example).

Arguing against your point, it's really simple to debunk the bible as a collection of stories written by men in the Bronze Age.

First line of the bible. A claim is made there. Prove that claim. If you cannot or if you do not desire to, there is no need to have the conversation. EVERYTHING in the bible hinges on whether or not that claim is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Arguing against your point, it's really simple to debunk the bible as a collection of stories written by men in the Bronze Age.

 

this is liberal propaganda and totally wrong!!!!!!

 

it was actually the iron age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

this is liberal propaganda and totally wrong!!!!!!

 

it was actually the iron age

 

Well, I think of it as Iron Age re-tellings of Bronze Age myths. Meh. *shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Belinda Carlslile taught me that Heaven Is A Place On Earth.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites