New Pew Religion survey - America's changing landscape

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...
Also, you don't get original sin. I'm not going to try to set you straight (because you probably won't bother to read it, and you'll be back here tomorrow saying incorrect things again). However, you should know that you've got it very wrong wrt original sin and non-Christian infants.

I just did a bit of Googling on "original sin" and what I found is that there is not much agreement on it. I'm not the poster you were addressing, but my take is that, like many other terms we throw around as though we all understand them, original sin means many different things. So, for one of my fellow atheists to be tainting all Christians, let alone all believers, with belief in original sin is a gross oversimplification. But then, so is PP's implication that s/he knows exactly what original sin means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not exactly. First, Jesus didn't bring down the 10 commandments. Moses brought down the 10 commandments. Jesus' take on the 10 commandments is at Matthew 22:34-40, where basically he prioritizes them into "love God, love your neighbor." Honestly, people, if you don't have the first clue about the facts, you really shouldn't be opining in public.

Second, it has been explained to you before that there's a broad diversity among Christians as to what happens to murderers and non-Christian children. Probably the vast majority of Christians believe that non-Christian infants will go to heaven.

But you knew that. You've read that before. It just doesn't fit into your hate narrative, so you ignore it.

Wait a minute. So you are saying the 10 commandments are wrong and Jesus didn't believe in them?

People have different reasons for believing in religion, most of them pick and choose what to believe based how how convenient it is for them at the present moment. If one can pick and choose to believe the meaning and consequence of something as fundamental as original sin, then what truth is there in any text or authority on the Christian God? The concept of original sin is central to Christianity. Without original sin, Jesus's crucifixion was meaningless, and therefore there can be no salvation through him. It may be popular to believe that "we are cool with people who don't believe", but that view is contradictory to the very concept of Christianity. How can it ever be okay if everyone was born with original sin, and if the only path to redemption is accepting Jesus as the savior?

Yup. Jesus didn't believe in a lot of what's in the Old Testament: he got rid of dietary laws and eye-for-eye justice, just for starters. That's not picking and choosing, that's following Jesus' revolution to the letter.

Also, you don't get original sin. I'm not going to try to set you straight (because you probably won't bother to read it, and you'll be back here tomorrow saying incorrect things again). However, you should know that you've got it very wrong wrt original sin and non-Christian infants.

Except for the part about Homosexuality -- Jesus really believed that part, at least according to some (not all) Christians. Also the part about slaves. A lot of Christian slave holders thought Jesus approved of it, but modern Christians changed their minds.

As for original sin, sounds like Christians have different ideas about that too. It's almost like people make up what they feel most comfortable with

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...
Also, you don't get original sin. I'm not going to try to set you straight (because you probably won't bother to read it, and you'll be back here tomorrow saying incorrect things again). However, you should know that you've got it very wrong wrt original sin and non-Christian infants.

I just did a bit of Googling on "original sin" and what I found is that there is not much agreement on it. I'm not the poster you were addressing, but my take is that, like many other terms we throw around as though we all understand them, original sin means many different things. So, for one of my fellow atheists to be tainting all Christians, let alone all believers, with belief in original sin is a gross oversimplification. But then, so is PP's implication that s/he knows exactly what original sin means.

Your fellow atheist might not have been "tainting" all believers, simply assuming all Christians believed in this basic element of the faith -- and basic as the virgin birth and the resurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...
Also, you don't get original sin. I'm not going to try to set you straight (because you probably won't bother to read it, and you'll be back here tomorrow saying incorrect things again). However, you should know that you've got it very wrong wrt original sin and non-Christian infants.

I just did a bit of Googling on "original sin" and what I found is that there is not much agreement on it. I'm not the poster you were addressing, but my take is that, like many other terms we throw around as though we all understand them, original sin means many different things. So, for one of my fellow atheists to be tainting all Christians, let alone all believers, with belief in original sin is a gross oversimplification. But then, so is PP's implication that s/he knows exactly what original sin means.

I'm the pp. For sure there's a lot of disagreement even on the basic tenets within Christianity, because religion is based on faith rather than fact or knowledge. You don't see scientists disagreeing very much on the existence of gravity - a fundamental force of the universe. The disagreement is a red herring since it is pointless what any particular practitioner choose to believe, but what is actually being claimed by a religion. Christianity claims to be the one true religion, with its God the one true god, with modern man being fallen, born in sin, and thus has a mortal life that ends in death. The salvation to get into heaven after death to live their real eternal life with God is to accept Jesus as their personal savior. All of this is tied together with the virgin birth of Jesus, his sacrifice for the sins of man, and his resurrection proves the truth of his claims. That people are sinners without exception and that the only path through salvation is Jesus is absolutely core to Christianity.

What's the point of needing salvation if it is possible to not be a sinner?

What's the point of having faith in Jesus if a sinner can also get into heaven through other means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...
Also, you don't get original sin. I'm not going to try to set you straight (because you probably won't bother to read it, and you'll be back here tomorrow saying incorrect things again). However, you should know that you've got it very wrong wrt original sin and non-Christian infants.

I just did a bit of Googling on "original sin" and what I found is that there is not much agreement on it. I'm not the poster you were addressing, but my take is that, like many other terms we throw around as though we all understand them, original sin means many different things. So, for one of my fellow atheists to be tainting all Christians, let alone all believers, with belief in original sin is a gross oversimplification. But then, so is PP's implication that s/he knows exactly what original sin means.

I'm the pp. For sure there's a lot of disagreement even on the basic tenets within Christianity, because religion is based on faith rather than fact or knowledge. You don't see scientists disagreeing very much on the existence of gravity - a fundamental force of the universe. The disagreement is a red herring since it is pointless what any particular practitioner choose to believe, but what is actually being claimed by a religion. Christianity claims to be the one true religion, with its God the one true god, with modern man being fallen, born in sin, and thus has a mortal life that ends in death. The salvation to get into heaven after death to live their real eternal life with God is to accept Jesus as their personal savior. All of this is tied together with the virgin birth of Jesus, his sacrifice for the sins of man, and his resurrection proves the truth of his claims. That people are sinners without exception and that the only path through salvation is Jesus is absolutely core to Christianity.

What's the point of needing salvation if it is possible to not be a sinner?

What's the point of having faith in Jesus if a sinner can also get into heaven through other means?

What is the point, if there is no heaven to get "into" - that this life is the only one we have, just as it is for all the other animals on earth and that religion developed at a pre-scientific time that's outmoded now and survives primarily for the financial benefit of people employed in the institutions that have grown up around religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the point, if there is no heaven to get "into" - that this life is the only one we have, just as it is for all the other animals on earth and that religion developed at a pre-scientific time that's outmoded now and survives primarily for the financial benefit of people employed in the institutions that have grown up around religion.

Why does there have to be a collective point, or purpose. Individual may feel a strong sense of spirituality and higher purpose, but this doesn't translate into the collective. Our minds aren't connected, our consciousness exists in isolation except through our senses. There may be reasons why humans have compassion, experience love and other emotions, but there is no great purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the point, if there is no heaven to get "into" - that this life is the only one we have, just as it is for all the other animals on earth and that religion developed at a pre-scientific time that's outmoded now and survives primarily for the financial benefit of people employed in the institutions that have grown up around religion.

Why does there have to be a collective point, or purpose. Individual may feel a strong sense of spirituality and higher purpose, but this doesn't translate into the collective. Our minds aren't connected, our consciousness exists in isolation except through our senses. There may be reasons why humans have compassion, experience love and other emotions, but there is no great purpose.

Sounds reasonable to me. Unfortunately, for the last 2000 or so years, certain religious views have been forced on people - under threat of not only death, but of eternal suffering after death, if you did not follow particular religious beliefs.

This outmoded way of thinking and manipulating society is starting to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
Except for the part about Homosexuality -- Jesus really believed that part, at least according to some (not all) Christians. Also the part about slaves. A lot of Christian slave holders thought Jesus approved of it, but modern Christians changed their minds.

As for original sin, sounds like Christians have different ideas about that too. It's almost like people make up what they feel most comfortable with

No, he did not. There isn't a single quote in the gospels where Jesus talks about homosexuality one way or another. Also, the quotes about slavery aren't "approval" by a long shot, they are simply reflecting the reality of those times (and in the gospels the slaves were better people than the masters).

You guys really, really have to stop making stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the point, if there is no heaven to get "into" - that this life is the only one we have, just as it is for all the other animals on earth and that religion developed at a pre-scientific time that's outmoded now and survives primarily for the financial benefit of people employed in the institutions that have grown up around religion.

Why does there have to be a collective point, or purpose. Individual may feel a strong sense of spirituality and higher purpose, but this doesn't translate into the collective. Our minds aren't connected, our consciousness exists in isolation except through our senses. There may be reasons why humans have compassion, experience love and other emotions, but there is no great purpose.

Sounds reasonable to me. Unfortunately, for the last 2000 or so years, certain religious views have been forced on people - under threat of not only death, but of eternal suffering after death, if you did not follow particular religious beliefs.

This outmoded way of thinking and manipulating society is starting to change.

And then: Enter Islam!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Except for the part about Homosexuality -- Jesus really believed that part, at least according to some (not all) Christians. Also the part about slaves. A lot of Christian slave holders thought Jesus approved of it, but modern Christians changed their minds.

As for original sin, sounds like Christians have different ideas about that too. It's almost like people make up what they feel most comfortable with

No, he did not. There isn't a single quote in the gospels where Jesus talks about homosexuality one way or another. Also, the quotes about slavery aren't "approval" by a long shot, they are simply reflecting the reality of those times (and in the gospels the slaves were better people than the masters).

You guys really, really have to stop making stuff up.

How can you tell the part of the bible that are just reflecting ancient times from the parts that reflect eternal truths?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...
Also, you don't get original sin. I'm not going to try to set you straight (because you probably won't bother to read it, and you'll be back here tomorrow saying incorrect things again). However, you should know that you've got it very wrong wrt original sin and non-Christian infants.

I just did a bit of Googling on "original sin" and what I found is that there is not much agreement on it. I'm not the poster you were addressing, but my take is that, like many other terms we throw around as though we all understand them, original sin means many different things. So, for one of my fellow atheists to be tainting all Christians, let alone all believers, with belief in original sin is a gross oversimplification. But then, so is PP's implication that s/he knows exactly what original sin means.

I'm the pp. For sure there's a lot of disagreement even on the basic tenets within Christianity, because religion is based on faith rather than fact or knowledge. You don't see scientists disagreeing very much on the existence of gravity - a fundamental force of the universe. The disagreement is a red herring since it is pointless what any particular practitioner choose to believe, but what is actually being claimed by a religion. Christianity claims to be the one true religion, with its God the one true god, with modern man being fallen, born in sin, and thus has a mortal life that ends in death. The salvation to get into heaven after death to live their real eternal life with God is to accept Jesus as their personal savior. All of this is tied together with the virgin birth of Jesus, his sacrifice for the sins of man, and his resurrection proves the truth of his claims. That people are sinners without exception and that the only path through salvation is Jesus is absolutely core to Christianity.

What's the point of needing salvation if it is possible to not be a sinner?

What's the point of having faith in Jesus if a sinner can also get into heaven through other means?

A lot of people are quite attached to Jesus even if they don't think he's the son of God who will get them into heaven. They think he was an extraordinary 1st century prophet whose teachings are timeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Except for the part about Homosexuality -- Jesus really believed that part, at least according to some (not all) Christians. Also the part about slaves. A lot of Christian slave holders thought Jesus approved of it, but modern Christians changed their minds.

As for original sin, sounds like Christians have different ideas about that too. It's almost like people make up what they feel most comfortable with

No, he did not. There isn't a single quote in the gospels where Jesus talks about homosexuality one way or another. Also, the quotes about slavery aren't "approval" by a long shot, they are simply reflecting the reality of those times (and in the gospels the slaves were better people than the masters).

You guys really, really have to stop making stuff up.

How can you in clear conscience make such an argument? Jesus thinks it's okay to reflect the reality of the times without condemning or prohibiting immoral acts? If so, why is there a prohibition on murder, adultery, and theft, when clearly these types of acts were pervasive during certain periods of human history. I mean, if it's reality of our times to turn away from God, is he cool with that as well? Would he provide helpful instructions on how to turn away from God just as how he provided guidance on owning and disciplining slaves?

If you believe slavery is immoral, and you believe that God gave you your morals, and also you believe that Jesus was God, then how can Jesus not condemn and prohibit slavery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Except for the part about Homosexuality -- Jesus really believed that part, at least according to some (not all) Christians. Also the part about slaves. A lot of Christian slave holders thought Jesus approved of it, but modern Christians changed their minds.

As for original sin, sounds like Christians have different ideas about that too. It's almost like people make up what they feel most comfortable with

No, he did not. There isn't a single quote in the gospels where Jesus talks about homosexuality one way or another. Also, the quotes about slavery aren't "approval" by a long shot, they are simply reflecting the reality of those times (and in the gospels the slaves were better people than the masters).

You guys really, really have to stop making stuff up.

How can you in clear conscience make such an argument? Jesus thinks it's okay to reflect the reality of the times without condemning or prohibiting immoral acts? If so, why is there a prohibition on murder, adultery, and theft, when clearly these types of acts were pervasive during certain periods of human history. I mean, if it's reality of our times to turn away from God, is he cool with that as well? Would he provide helpful instructions on how to turn away from God just as how he provided guidance on owning and disciplining slaves?

If you believe slavery is immoral, and you believe that God gave you your morals, and also you believe that Jesus was God, then how can Jesus not condemn and prohibit slavery?

It's clearly not worth spending any time at all going through the gospel quotes on this subject with you, because you'll just pretend tomorrow that you never read it. (The repeated cries of "Christians think unbaptised children are going to hell!" being a prime example of the worthlessness of discussing religion on DCUM.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Except for the part about Homosexuality -- Jesus really believed that part, at least according to some (not all) Christians. Also the part about slaves. A lot of Christian slave holders thought Jesus approved of it, but modern Christians changed their minds.

As for original sin, sounds like Christians have different ideas about that too. It's almost like people make up what they feel most comfortable with

No, he did not. There isn't a single quote in the gospels where Jesus talks about homosexuality one way or another. Also, the quotes about slavery aren't "approval" by a long shot, they are simply reflecting the reality of those times (and in the gospels the slaves were better people than the masters).

You guys really, really have to stop making stuff up.

How can you in clear conscience make such an argument? Jesus thinks it's okay to reflect the reality of the times without condemning or prohibiting immoral acts? If so, why is there a prohibition on murder, adultery, and theft, when clearly these types of acts were pervasive during certain periods of human history. I mean, if it's reality of our times to turn away from God, is he cool with that as well? Would he provide helpful instructions on how to turn away from God just as how he provided guidance on owning and disciplining slaves?

If you believe slavery is immoral, and you believe that God gave you your morals, and also you believe that Jesus was God, then how can Jesus not condemn and prohibit slavery?

It's clearly not worth spending any time at all going through the gospel quotes on this subject with you, because you'll just pretend tomorrow that you never read it. (The repeated cries of "Christians think unbaptised children are going to hell!" being a prime example of the worthlessness of discussing religion on DCUM.)

IOW - you don't have a good answer for this. You're stumped, so you belittle the person who stumped you. Maybe you'll ask a clergy person, or maybe you'll just work it out in your own mind -- whatever it takes to keep the faith.