…in every way? 
My perfectionist side feels compelled to point out that the first two sentences were in reference to traditional Christian theology, and the rest of the paragraph was referring to Lib’s. Considering I didn’t specify, it might appear confusing.
No, I said that the concept of original sin is not in the OT. Original sin and the fall of man are two different things. Most of Christianity points to the fall of man as how original sin began for the human race, but they HAD to in order to justify the need for God to sacrifice himself.
I must have missed that, I didn’t see you define what exactly original sin is. You mentioned that sacrifice is needed to overcome it and that it keeps us hidden from God, whatever that may mean. God enjoys a good game of hide and seek?
Ok, why am I picturing the Scarecrow taken down from his post and pointing which way to go on the yellow brick road? Maybe the Scarecrow is the Christ figure in the Wizard of Oz! No, it isn’t the most charitable defintion, I was trying to keep it short and to the point. Are you saying that Jesus’ death wasn’t needed to bridge the gap between God and man caused by original sin, it was merely a show to prove that everything is going ok?
I was referring to original sin as I defined it, uncharitable as my defintion was. Are the Jews waiting for God’s kingdom to be established through the Messiah? You bet. But that Messiah has nothing to do with forgiving the sins of people and being some kind of sacrificial demi-god. Their description of life after the Messiah is not even close to the description given in Genesis of Eden, so I don’t know where you are implying here. I’m living in Chicago, I don’t know where you are living at :p.
Here is my point. The very beginning of the Bible set up the rules and said that man was able to overcome sin by himself. If man can overcome sin on his own, then there was never a need to have Jesus sacrifice himself to himself for himself.
Eh, to me that’s just making up an excuse so the Church doesn’t look like it’s sanctioning burning infants in hellfire. I don’t recall seeing anything about an “age of accountability” in the Old Testament or the New Testament, in any event.
Besides, the idea is still a crock. Say you waited until my son was old enough to understand the basics of religion, and you sit down and tell him all about God and Jesus and salvation and whatever else, blab blab blab.
Then, after absorbing all of this, my kid (being raised as a smart and analytical thinker 
), points out that there is no evidence that any of your claims are true, and politely dismisses it as just an overblown fluffy fairy tale.
He then gets hit by a truck, and according to your religious teachings, he gets to spend enternity in Hellfire, just because he was smart enough to use his brain and not swallow any ol’ nonsense that gets fed to him.
(Feel free to adapt the above scenario for Catholicism or any other religion you choose)
Again, whotta crock. Most parents I know will love and cherish their kids regardless of how much they misbehave or rebel; but apparently such levels of compassion aren’t good enough for the so-called Creator. “I am a kind and loving God, but if you don’t believe in me, you will burn in Hell for all eternity!”
Pbbbbbbbbbttttttttt. This God doesn’t deserve my respect, much less my adulation or worship.
Esprix:
Whatever it pleases you to call me pleases me. (smile) I know that your heart is full of Love. That makes you my brother.
Why do you concern yourself with Hell? What did Jesus mean by this? “Let the dead bury the dead.”
DrMatrix wrote:
Incidentally, in How to Play with Your Food, Penn and Teller tell you how you, too, can do the water-to-wine trick from the comfort of your neighborhood McDonald’s.
Similarly, as a Unitarian Universalist, and, more basically, as a human being, I think of you the same way.
I concern myself with Hell because, unlike your and Polycarp’s more open-minded and liberal approach to Christianity, and perhaps in direct relation to the pleading of your OP, the majority of Christians on the face of this planet do indeed believe that I’m going there, and have no problem either telling me so or at least believing so in their hearts - because that’s what the Bible tells them. So loving God or no, there are clear-cut punishments meted out to those who choose not to love him back. Again, hello Divine Weasel.
I have no idea - I’m neither Jesus nor Christian (although I once played Jesus in a production of “Godspell”). Why do you keep asking me what Jesus meant? It’s your religion - you tell me.
(This even begs a further criticism of the Christians you’re begging to see a change in - stop quoting scripture at me. It’s not my holy book, so it doesn’t carry the weight that it carries for you. So many Christians have quoted a passage to me as if to say, “There - that should answer everything.” Um, no, not quite… Additionally, you might find comfort in and/or understand the contradictions therein, but I don’t.)
Esprix
jmullaney
Are you serious? Jesus thought anyone could “levitate trees and move mountains and the like.”
He was mistaken.
Libertarian
People are concerned with Hell because if you break the wrong rule, you’re stuck there for eternity. (I just noticed that Esprix already answered this.)
Esprix:
Though you are gay, I do not think of the words you speak as valuable to gays and gays alone. Jesus is your brother and mine. His words are not for Christians alone. His words are for those who Love. “By this will all men know that you are my disciples, that you love one another.” Do those sound like the words of a man who is incompatible with your own heart?
Now, I ask you again, what does Jesus (your brother) mean by this? “Let the dead bury the dead.” All who love will understand these words, no matter whether they wear a “Christian” label or not. Hell is of no interest to the living (like you and me and my sainted mother), but only to the dead.
By the way, there is nothing holy about any book. I do not worship a book. The discerning person will notice that in these matters I never “quote scripture”. I quote only the words of Jesus.
Dr Matrix:
Merciful heavens. What a teensy and insignificant god those people adore. They’ve turned the Living Love into a surly headmaster. If it weren’t so funny, I would cry.
**Libertarian wrote:
Does a man saying “Buddha is my savior” equate with Buddha saying “I am a god”?**
Why would a Buddhist ever call upon the Buddha as savior? Can you cite any of the relevant Buddhist text to show it would be proper? Other than invoking his name in an argument or for the purposes of discussion, why would anyone else invoke his name, especially as “savior” in the Christian sense of the word?
Confusion between “Christianity” and “Buddhism” (mere words) is trivial intellectual data mapping.
You’re saying that Christianity and Buddhism are so equal to each other that that the difference between them are trival? If not, what are you saying by that statement?
If it is a stumbling block to you, rest assured that I do not confuse the two.
I would argue that you are and I’d like to know why, because up til now, you seemed reasonable and intelligent. What seems to be implicit in your argument is that all religions are the same, they all really worship the same God. If that’s what you’re impling, I’d like some sort of citation to back it up.
Buddha was God before he “died”.
Again, citation please, from the relevent text of Buddhism that he ever made a claim of god-hood. Or are you applying a Christian veneer to a foreign philosophical system to show that we’re all following the same god?
What did Jesus mean by this? "Before Abraham was, I am."
Other than it’s mixed up tenses of grammar, I have no idea. I’m not a Christian. It’s your religion, YOU explain it.
Terms are worthless. Love is all that matters.
I won’t argue that love is an important factor, but what’s the point of a discussion if we won’t agree on terms. You seemed to conflate Christianity and Buddhism. When I called you on it, you replied they’re simply words or terms and we shouldn’t concern ourselves with them.
Please explain yourself or learn to use English properly.
Sin: the act of moving away from God. Death (D): total separation from God. They are not the same thing, but rather the latter is the eventual consequence of the former. Man sinned. Jesus took upon Himself the consequence.
Freyr:
(smile)
My friend, I am not talking about religion at all. I am talking about Love.
So Jesus, because he died, was seperated from God?! He removed Himself from Himself! Hey jab, maybe you could incorporate that into your sig line too!
lambda:
Except he didn’t take upon himself the consequence, as those in this thread have been repeatedly trying to tell you. Jesus didn’t stay dead, or stay in Hell, which means his “sacrifice” is roughly on a level with my giving my neighbor a couch I was going to throw out anyway.
Don’t call atheists naive or confused when we call you on this point. It’s entirely valid, and if you want to witness effectively you’ll find a way to answer it.
**Fiver: **
I haven’t called anybody naive or confused, nor did I imply it. And I don’t think of your objections as invalid. I know of no other subject harder to understand than this, and I don’t claim to be an authority, nor try to witness to you, if it means trying to convince you of anything. There are many atheists with a much clearer view on this than I ever had (except from a different perspective), from which I am continually learning, some of them posting on this very board.
To your point: like Libertarian, I don’t think of the time Jesus was dead as being enclosed completely in the linear flow of time that we are part of. I don’t think it started on a Friday and ended on a Sunday. I think of those three days as being a projection from eternity into our finite world.
:shrug: Francis of Assisi didn’t do so bad I am told. And there have been others. Perhaps you simply haven’t traveled in the right circles?
In what way? Mankind did fall. Mankind has not been restored.
Sin keeps us hidden from God. How original sin is transmitted is a mystery. Might I suggest monkey see monkey do?
According to Genesis chapter 3. Of course, I realize some people don’t read this story as a fable about mankind’s fall, but as a literal creation story. Other people don’t believe in creationism, though.
Man in his fallen state has a tendancy towards sin. This theme is repeated over and over again in the stories of the Old Testament. Not that I think it matters – I don’t think any reasonable person can deny that this is the case. (That would be Brian Bunnyhurt’s cue!). Jesus’s mission waas to prepare a way such that this tendacy could be overcome.
I thought so.
You don’t believe people should be forgiven for their sins?
People who are just and holy, even if only slightly more than normal, get killed all the time. Are you suggesting the Jewish Messiah will be unjust and unholy? Or by some miracle he won’t get martyred?
No tree of life, huh? No peace on Earth? People still unfaithful to God? Sounds like a real paradise to me!
Can you give me the scripture on that so I can see it myself? BTW – I still haven’t found a good place to read the Jewish translations of the scriptures online, so if you know of one, tell me. I am sure some translations done by Christians or Jews may be biased either way, but I’d like to get both sides.
Then what’s the whole point of having God in the story at all? I suppose Pelagious could have been right. Why would you follow the teachings of someone who admitted they might well get you killed if he himself wasn’t willing to die for what he believed in himself? And the resurrection, if true, proves Jesus’s teachings were right. Some people might be able to figure out right from wrong all on their lonesome. But if that is true, why does Judaism have rabbis? You don’t think people need to be taught? What is wrong with God helping things along a little?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Libertarian
I don’t disagree with you, Lib - I’ve always found Jesus to be a valuable teacher, so don’t think I’m throwing away his lessons simply because I find Christanity to be fundamentally flawed. But I think it’s safe to say that the Bible is “the book” for Christianity, and it quite clearly condemns a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons, not the least of which is, “Don’t love Jesus/God? Burn for eternity.” OK, so you want to look at just Jesus’ teachings? Well, doesn’t he also condemn quite a few people? Granted, they are the ones without love, which, as you say, ought to be the highest law. But I don’t think Jesus shared your Universalist leanings, that is to say (in its most traditional, historical sense) that on Judgement Day, all souls will go to Heaven, regardless of who or what they believed in on Earth. Did he say that somewhere and I missed it? If he did, then a lot of Christians have been wasting a lot of time trying to convert people, that’s for sure.
Yes, but since, according to Christian doctrine (granted, probably not yours personally) the soul is eternal, and evidently the only chance one has to not end up in Hell after death is by what is done in this life. So Hell may only interest the dead, but once we’re dead, we can’t go back, and at that point we’re going to really be interested, I’ll bet.
If only more Christians were like you. “Lord, save me from your followers” and all that…
Well, this is fairly clearly the God of the Bible. So you believe in a different god?
As a personal aside, Lib, I have to say that I find your Christian faith and your Libertarian politics to be a most fascinating juxtaposition. It’s a little weird to see you witnessing and espousing God’s unconditional love in one thread, and in another see you railing against the tyrannical government and going on about “peaceful, honest people” in others. Understandably they’re not incompatible by any means, but I guess I always thought of them as seperate camps. You are an interesting one…
Esprix
Libertarian:
Define love.
**Libertarian wrote:
My friend, I am not talking about religion at all. I am talking about Love.**
How interesting. I thought we were talking about Christianity and Buddhism. Now, if you’ve finished your mealy-mouth platitudes about “Love” would you mind answering my questions?
Is that a typo, or are you deliberately putting words into Jesus’s mouth?
I believe you are twisting one of the Gospels, that of John.
There is nothing in there about people being their own judges.