Question About Christianity

<p>Well, when you ask a question like "Why did Jesus die?" and you know nothing about christianity, wouldn't assume there is only ONE answer?</p>

<p>No because that person might know some other religion that also mentions Jesus</p>

<p>Quite jaded how did you come to know so much about christianity?</p>

<p>I just said the person knows nothing about Christianity. Which other religion mentions JEsus as a diety who died on the cross for us?</p>

<p>How do I know?
1) I'm Catholic
2) I do my research</p>

<p>I never said as a diety isn't there a religion that thinks of jesus as just a prophet?</p>

<p>Yes, but they don't think he died for our sins. They feel he failed to fit the descriptions of the prophicied messiah.</p>

<p>Ah, I assume you're talking about judaism? Any other religion also would answer the question with a "No" or something because they don't believe he did.</p>

<p>yeah nick, islam thinks of jesus as a prophet, actually that's already been said on this thread</p>

<p>Thanks for backing me up sarorah</p>

<p>backing you up? I never opposed you...</p>

<p>Well thanks for being on my side .</p>

<p>Quitejaded i'm glad I came here today you made have to think.Thank you.</p>

<p>"son of God(or really is God, depends on who you ask)"</p>

<p>Umm...Christian doctrine asserts that God IS a trinity</p>

<ol>
<li>Father</li>
<li>Son(Jesus)</li>
<li>Holy spirit</li>
</ol>

<p>They are one entity -GOD, you dont discern them.</p>

<p>I have yet to come across a Christian denomination that holds that Jesus didn't die for our sins, and if one exists, then I guess this argument doesn't apply to it. For the meantime, though, my argument holds.</p>

<p>Nick:
I'm not going to go into detail about my other views on religion. I think I have some posts on a thread called "How many of you people believe in God?" (or something like that) that explain them fairly well, if you're that interested.</p>

<p>Quitejaded:
Although I'm sure you typed your rant with the best of intentions, you haven't really added anything new. It's already been established that the Bible says that Jesus died for our sins because he's the son of God, sinless, etc. This entire thread is supposed to be about why it should work. If it's just because God says it does, and it appears increasingly likely that it is, then that leads into the argument I brought up previously, and a whole slew of problems for Christianity.</p>

<p>Again, this is the Euthyphro question. There is no “Good” independent of God (there can’t be). God is Good. Since we are made in God’s likeness, thus our morality is God’s morality. In one sense, yes, God is a dictator. For whatever reason, he did not make a world in which 2+2=5, and Good is Good. He is not the dictator you mentioned (Stalin or whomever), he is the ultimate expression of your own conception of Good. Again, your obligation to Good stems from your nature, you cannot refute it on any reasonable grounds without necessarily establishing something that isn’t good according to your nature. It’s sort of like denying your obligation to be human. </p>

<p>You did not answer my argument, which is that God does not choose not-Good, or not Himself, just as no one would choose to be wrong. You’re also using a definition of morality different from the one I introduced. You establish that it’s a logical contradiction since God is by definition Good and thus cannot be not-Good. Well yeah, God cannot be both right and wrong. Your establishment of a moral being is dependent, I believe, on consciousness (which a dog doesn’t have). Okay, then a dog can’t act morally. Humans can act according to morals, but we can never be moral as we are both moral and immoral. God is the only moral, or Good, being. You’re basically saying that anyone we define as a good man has no choice to be a good man as we’ve defined him as a good man. The good man has a choice whether to be a good man or not, but our calling him a good man is dependent on his remaining good. Just extend that upwards. </p>

<p>"I understand your point about how Jesus' purpose is to "bring humanity into the realm of the infinite," but that does not answer my question. Why is it that sin can be transferred like money? This proposition seems ludicrous to me, since suffering isn't a generic quantity like cash. Each person's sin is unique, and responsibility cannot simply be shunted onto another's conscience, omnipotence be damned."</p>

<p>I never said sin was transferred like cash, not do I believe that’s true. You’re arguing against a strawman.</p>

<p>"If morality is defined by God's actions, as suggested by Christianity, then it makes the very concept of a moral action meaningless, since it is only blind obedience to God, by definition. If this God exists, then I hate him (thankfully, I am relatively sure that he does not, as explained above and for other reasons. Also, I would hate any God who interacts with humanity on any level, but for different reasons that are beyond the scope of this thread)."</p>

<p>Just as being right is just blind obedience to reason. <em>rolls eyes</em> Again, you’re arguing on different terms than the ones I introduced.</p>

<p>mankind has corrupted religion.</p>

<p>*Again, this is the Euthyphro question. There is no “Good” independent of God (there can’t be). *</p>

<p>wait a second - the Euthyphro argues against your opinion that God dictates the rules of morality.... </p>

<p>For whatever reason, he did not make a world in which 2+2=5, and Good is Good.</p>

<p>You speak as if God could have made the world such that 2+2=5, which is not true. Like morality, logic is one realm that God has absolutely no power over. Plato recognized this in the Euthyphro, as have many Christian theologists. Do you think that if God suddenly decided to say that indiscriminant killing is totally okay morally, it would be? Because that is what you are saying. And you can't say that "well, God wouldn't do that" because who are you to say what anyone would and wouldn't do? I don't want to make this a major issue - just trying to make a point.</p>

<p>This is my question to atheists (if there are any out there): Who do you think created the Universe, the planets? OPRAH?</p>

<p>How could the universe have come into place by "chance".</p>

<p>Materialism and Darwin's theory of evolution are false.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.darwinismrefuted.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Icarus (good name),
But the Euthyphro question isn't particularly useful. It was applied to polytheism, in which there are a multiple of gods and no absolute standards. The monotheist God is different. In polytheism, calling the gods good was appealing to a standard apart from the gods, and thus raises the question, as people worship the good, and not the gods. In monotheism, God is the greatest being conceivable, and thus is good. The Euthyphro argument hints at an ultimate good, which would thus be God. Furthermore, it implies that good can have a separate existence, which, as an idea is impossible, and thus God is the standard for good.</p>

<p>Why would God have no power over logic? "In the beginning there was the word." Word, logos, logic. Any ideas you bring up, logic, goodness, etc. do not have independent existences, they are not standards you can appeal to outside of God. Your second point, that God could randomly change the rules, is just rhetoric. Read my first post in which good is not arbitrarily chosen, but an expression of God's nature, while anything other than that is mere perversion.</p>

<p>I'm going to go to bed, so I'll address Psyche's post later. However, I will say that I've found it wise just to stop once someone starts arguing against evolution--it's just not worth it.</p>

<p>EDIT: And yes, baller, I am mocking your misinformed, logically incoherent, irrelevant position. Take it personally if you wish--I don't care.</p>

<p>"However, I will say that I've found it wise just to stop once someone starts arguing against evolution"</p>

<p>How very devout you are to your prized and most precious beliefs...I find that admirable, and unconsciously religious in a secularist doctrinaire sort of way. Or is this just an extension of that "don't ask--don't tell" policy? or, see no evil, hear no evil…?</p>

<p>Anyhow, it amounts to the same thing: sweet devotion.</p>