Offending Christians

[Vigile]

Slave to sin, fallen humanity, sin punishible by death (do we commit the death penality on people we don't consider evil?), STATE of WAYWARDNESS (state is a consuming condition).

 

Oh come on if you claim such knowledge of Christianity how can you even suggest this? Afterall doesn't the basic premise of slavation promise 'eternal life' what does it logically follow happens to those 'not saved'?

 

Man is wayward, man is a slave to his own sinful nature; evil; tomato; tomahto.

 

What fundies brain-fucked you? Sin equals 'Evil'? No wonder you left or rejected Christianity if that was the shit they were feeding you.

 

When sin is as petty as a flaw in Adam's seed, lust in one's heart (read natural evolutionary sexual impulses)

 

Yep this confirms it - you're the victim of a fundamentalist ideology if 'lustful' thoughts is equated to sin... oh and before you go rattling around in the Vatican archives I can sumarize what it says for you. When the Commandments refers to that whole 'do not covet' thing it refers to an active or obsessive 'coveting' (and yes even in the orignal Hebrew).

 

Dude, you just ad hommed my entire post, completely ignoring the fact that all it was was a highlight of your catchisms.

 

You're worse than Kir and as such, not worth any more time.

 

BTW, I no longer believe because it's all bullshit, not just because I didn't like the theology.

 

* wondering how I got sucked into an idiotic theological debate in the first place*

[Ouroboros]

Mt 13:41

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

 

Ro 6:12

Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

 

1Jo 5:18a

We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin;

I think "sin" and "evil" is very strongly connected, according to the Bible.

[Sceadugenga]

Connected sure, but not the same or equal - otherwise they'd have just used one word for sin and evil wouldn't they?

[Robbobrob]

OK, so let us drop the word "evil". I still don't accept the notion that human beings are awful things that NEED to be saved. The salvation stories means we are born awful, dispictable people, and only because a god loves us so much, that we are even given a chance to be saved, but saved only after death.

 

What an awful system. You never really know if you are obeying correctly, and the final exam you can not redo if you messed up. Even strick human laws give you a 3 strikes and your are out policy...giving you a chance to mend your ways. But in Christianity there is no second chance to get things right. Whether you are devout or not, there is no way of knowing if anything you do is right.

 

Refering to a Bible for guidance is like trying to learn kung-fu from a book. You can think you are doing it right, but when pus hcomes to shove, MOST people will end up geting their asses kicked. And with Christians, you get one shot at getting it right.

[Ouroboros]

Connected sure, but not the same or equal - otherwise they'd have just used one word for sin and evil wouldn't they?

Very true. Like two identical twins, two individuals but look awfully alike. According to the Bible, to do evil is to sin, and to do sin is because one is evil. Pretty much a kind of recursive formula there. A leads to B, and B leads to A. It kind of makes it two sides of the same coin.

[Vigile]

OK, so let us drop the word "evil". I still don't accept the notion that human beings are awful things that NEED to be saved. The salvation stories means we are born awful, dispictable people, and only because a god loves us so much, that we are even given a chance to be saved, but saved only after death.

 

What an awful system. You never really know if you are obeying correctly, and the final exam you can not redo if you messed up. Even strick human laws give you a 3 strikes and your are out policy...giving you a chance to mend your ways. But in Christianity there is no second chance to get things right. Whether you are devout or not, there is no way of knowing if anything you do is right.

 

Refering to a Bible for guidance is like trying to learn kung-fu from a book. You can think you are doing it right, but when pus hcomes to shove, MOST people will end up geting their asses kicked. And with Christians, you get one shot at getting it right.

 

Well Rob you were obviously brainfucked by fundies if you think this.

 

Great post. It's what I was trying to say, only written sooo much better.

[Grandpa Harley]

We aren't talking about pagan origins however, we're talking about the current blood/death cult called Christianity. Man without being saved is only worthy of burning forever. Man without god/christ is evil, hence man is evil.

 

Actually, Pagan Origins are a great way of offending Christians... you pull out the common ground with who was born of a virgin, and work forward... Pisses them into the roof space... most gratifying infact

[Robbobrob]

Well Rob you were obviously brainfucked by fundies if you think this.

 

Great post. It's what I was trying to say, only written sooo much better.

 

And thank you, I do have rare lucid moments between seizures of religious zeal. LOL

[Sceadugenga]

Very true. Like two identical twins, two individuals but look awfully alike. According to the Bible, to do evil is to sin, and to do sin is because one is evil. Pretty much a kind of recursive formula there. A leads to B, and B leads to A. It kind of makes it two sides of the same coin.

 

Again a faulty arguement - if sin and evil are related it'd be more like cousins or brothers, not identical twins. Anyways according to the Bible, to do evil is to consiously sin, but to commit a sin is not a indication of a persons moral standing. Only in the more extreme Christian and Jewish theologies is the forumla: A leads to B, and B leads to A. They are more like two coins in the same pocket that sometimes touch as they jingle around.

[Sceadugenga]

We aren't talking about pagan origins however, we're talking about the current blood/death cult called Christianity. Man without being saved is only worthy of burning forever. Man without god/christ is evil, hence man is evil.

 

Actually, Pagan Origins are a great way of offending Christians... you pull out the common ground with who was born of a virgin, and work forward... Pisses them into the roof space... most gratifying infact

 

Really? Never bothered me in the least... but I do agree it sends the fundies into a screaming frenzy.

[Ouroboros]

Again a faulty arguement - if sin and evil are related it'd be more like cousins or brothers, not identical twins. Anyways according to the Bible, to do evil is to consiously sin, but to commit a sin is not a indication of a persons moral standing. Only in the more extreme Christian and Jewish theologies is the forumla: A leads to B, and B leads to A. They are more like two coins in the same pocket that sometimes touch as they jingle around.

I see. So you're saying that you can sin without being evil, but on the other hand you can't be evil unless you also sin. Right?

 

-edit-

 

Like you can get dirty without being a pig, but a pig is very likely to get dirty.

 

Some questions:

 

Who invented sin? Or in other words, where did "sin" come from?

 

What does is the difference when someone say: "you're evil" vs "you're a sinner"?

 

-edit-

 

And how would you interpret this verse?

1 Peter 4

1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. 2 As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do--living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

To me, it still sounds like the Bible want to say that people are evil and sinners, simultaneous, and not as two different states or actions. Sure, we could argue that "sin" and "evil" are different aspects, but yet, it seems like the Bible say that either you are "evil"+"sinner" or you're "good"+"righteous".

[Sceadugenga]

Again a faulty arguement - if sin and evil are related it'd be more like cousins or brothers, not identical twins. Anyways according to the Bible, to do evil is to consiously sin, but to commit a sin is not a indication of a persons moral standing. Only in the more extreme Christian and Jewish theologies is the forumla: A leads to B, and B leads to A. They are more like two coins in the same pocket that sometimes touch as they jingle around.

I see. So you're saying that you can sin without being evil, but on the other hand you can't be evil unless you also sin. Right?

 

Basically... at least in the strictest interpretation of the Christian moral system. Of course there is a huge grey area between the 'letter of the law' folks (literalists) and the 'spirit of the law' folks (alegorical) about how much intent and understanding plays into one being evil.

 

Who invented sin? Or in other words, where did "sin" come from?

 

Who knows? 'Sin' is at it's most fundamental level is a break/rejection/'crime' against a social and moral code.... so it's safe to say that 'sin' has existed since humans started forming social groups, and that it has the same anthropological origins as crime.

 

What does is the difference when someone say: "you're evil" vs "you're a sinner"?

 

One is a judgement of your morality, the other is a judgement how you fit into the Christian moral standard/commandments.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry. I did some additions to the post at the same time as you answered.

 

How would you define someone being "evil", and how someone being a "sinner"? When does a sinful act become an evil act? And what kind of sinful acts are not evil (especially towards God and his righteousness)?

[Sceadugenga]

Sorry. I did some additions to the post at the same time as you answered.

 

How would you define someone being "evil", and how someone being a "sinner"? When does a sinful act become an evil act? And what kind of sinful acts are not evil (especially towards God and his righteousness)?

 

In my view and most of the theological and philosophical writings/debates of the Christianity (well the first 1500 years or so) basically saw the deciding characteristic between a sinful act and a evil act with the intent behind the act (and the understanding of that intent if you wanted to get technical)... now post Reformation things became much more confusing with a myriad of views to the reation between sin and evil, some of which you have obviously seen in which sin and evil are seen as one and the same by some, while others continued on with the intent arguement and applied it back to the Bible which allowed for something once seen as 'sinful' to be discarded because the intent behind the original condemnation of the sin wasn't seen to be in keeping with the overall intent or 'spirit' of the teachings of the Bible/Jesus/God/whatever.

[Lycorth]

Just because the majority of people here think that doesn't make it right... after all how many fundies in the US think Jesus was some blue eyed blonde haried dude? Anyways I was one of the people Kirangel talked to, and stupidly maybe I decided to take a look over here.

 

I've heard of only relatively few who think Jesus had such features. Generally, even fundies accept the traditional Catholic image of their boy hero.

 

And I cited the majority belief here only because it is accurate, not because it is the majority belief. Duh.

 

Sure Man according to the Christian tradition is prone to sin, but that doesn't make Man evil only 'flawed' (ie. not perfect like God). It's a pretty basic philosophical arguement that predates Christianity even, at least in the Greek classical tradition.

 

Evil, sin, to-may-to, to-mah-to. Same sick concept, just different words. As GrandpaHarley noted earlier, take a look at some good old-fashioned Catholic cultures in Europe - like the Irish. The Xian leaders amongst them terrorized the concept of inherent worthlessness into the littlest of children - and they were Catholics. Hence, it doesn't matter which sect you look at - Xianity preaches human evil. Period.

 

The Church may have moderated some of its language, but they make no apology for their past behavior, nor do they relent from teaching we're prone to evil, which is only a stone's throw away from saying we're evil period.

 

If by fundies you mean American Revivalist sects you'd be right, but the fundamentalist traditions reach all the way back to the birth of Christianity - heck one of the earliest records regarding arguements over doctrine deals with folks we'd label 'Fundies' now (the Donatists).

 

I meant the Revivalists but I also understand that fundy concepts reach all the way back to the roots of Xianity - which is part of the point everyone makes here. From its very inception, Xianity was always a fucked-up deathcult that taught the inherent wickedness of the human spirit, and today's Revivalist fundies only mirror the original teachings, found in the Wholly Babble itself.

 

My aren't we special - swearing and acting like an ass doesn't make you right, only look like a bigger asshole... before accusing someone of not defending their position you might want to try doing so yourself.

 

Aww, ty - you're special, too

 

I did defend my position - several times, in fact. Either go back and read or don't talk shit you can't back up.

 

And if you don't like my swearing, too bad. The only assholes here are the brassy noobs who think they can waltz on here and lecture us about their spiritual Nazism. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo

 

I'll take up that challenge - mostly because you sound like those fundie fucks I love to evicerate when they spout their shit (at least you'd be a 'fun' change of pace, I hope), but also for Chivalric reasons...

 

Oh my, but aren't you the dashing one, here to save your fellow spook-worshipper in "distress"

[Sceadugenga]

Evil, sin, to-may-to, to-mah-to. Same sick concept, just different words. As GrandpaHarley noted earlier, take a look at some good old-fashioned Catholic cultures in Europe - like the Irish. The Xian leaders amongst them terrorized the concept of inherent worthlessness into the littlest of children - and they were Catholics. Hence, it doesn't matter which sect you look at - Xianity preaches human evil. Period.

 

Interesting choice in cultures to pick, given that my BA and MA involved the study of Ireland, and yet I don't seem to recall this "terrorized the concept of inherent worthlessness" so could you please provide an example or two? and just for a change try and actually cite objectively without resorting to the anti-Christian vitrol.

 

The Church may have moderated some of its language, but they make no apology for their past behavior, nor do they relent from teaching we're prone to evil, which is only a stone's throw away from saying we're evil period.

 

No apologies for past wrongs... interesting I guess perhaps you missed the various apologies actually issued by the Vatican huh? As for the teachings concerning the moral nature of Man they don't teach that 'Man is prone to evil', but that Man is capable of 'evil' which is a distinct and important difference - one that I'm sure if you read through my previous posts you'll see the philosphical arguement laid out.

 

I meant the Revivalists but I also understand that fundy concepts reach all the way back to the roots of Xianity - which is part of the point everyone makes here. From its very inception, Xianity was always a fucked-up deathcult that taught the inherent wickedness of the human spirit, and today's Revivalist fundies only mirror the original teachings, found in the Wholly Babble itself.

 

Ah yes because Christianity is this giant monolithic group with absolutely no variation in thought, philosophy, theology, or even evolution of those ideas...

 

And if you don't like my swearing, too bad. The only assholes here are the brassy noobs who think they can waltz on here and lecture us about their spiritual Nazism. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo

 

Oh noes teh l337 dood called me a noob

 

I'm not 'waltzing' on here to teach 'spiritual Nazism', but rather to actually present a possible alternative to some of the misinformation or opinions offered here... so far the only ideological 'Nazism' being taught seems to be yours - in that you are demonizing and denouncing a group or ideology based on more on hate and less on actual understanding.

 

Oh my, but aren't you the dashing one, here to save your fellow spook-worshipper in "distress"

 

Kirangel isn't Christian... or at least I don't think she is.

[Unknowing1]

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that; however, after being catholic for many years and doing research it's my opinion that the catholic church believes man is inclined toward evil and unless they continue to confess or be batised will definately go to Hell. Hell is for evil, heaven for good...that being the teaching I received from the catholic church.

 

No offense but perhaps you should have done a little more research because that certainly isn't the case now or even back in the early Church... well excepting of course the stints with ultra-conservativism that hits the Church from time to time (and hides out in some dioceses). But yes the basic equation you have there at the end is right - Hell is for the Evil, Heaven is for the Good; it's just you seemed to differ on what constitutes evil and good (at least according to Catholicism).

 

Thanks, but I think I've done my research. Here is 405 of the Catechism taken from the Vatican website.

 

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

The words used are inclined and inclination, not capable. Yes I am capable of evil as are you; however, the catechism states I am inclined toward evil. There is a big difference between inclined or prone to do something and capable of doing something. I suggest you also check out the New Advent Dictionary (catholic dictionary) that defines evil, sin and Hell. I believe it backs up the interpretation of inclination to evil and not capability of evil.

 

And you are totally right I do not agree with the Catholic Church on what is evil and what is good nor do I believe that humanity is inclined toward evil (I believe humanity is capable of evil) which is why I changed denominations in the first place.

[Evolution_beyond]

I've been reading this thread and trying to follow most of it and i do think that people are being a bit unfair to Kirangel.

 

The Catholic Church was the first christian church, after all. If not the Catholic Church, then the Orthodox church. After that come the Anglican and Methodist churches.

 

All of these mainstream churches have a lot more influence and history behind them than the fairly recent fundamentalist sects.

 

And mainstream christianity does not claim that humans are evil. It claims that humans were created perfect and in God's image. But human beings are flawed and so they sin. Sinfulness is more like wrongness in the world than evilness (closer to Buddhist concepts of wrongness in the world) - things that need fixing or understanding how to fix.

 

The way to 'fix' sin of course is through Jesus etc - and that's where the religion starts to be bullshit and make no sense.

 

I understand that the Bible itself can be pretty heavy handed about original sin. That is where fundamentalists get their attitude from after all. But the Bible is pretty schizophrenic in attitude and other parts of it are a lot more in line with more liberal, mainstream christian views.

 

There is nothing bogus about the mainstream christian beliefs (at least no more bogus than the fundamentalist ones) - and they would never state that humanity is essentially evil. Sinfulness is more of a flawed condition than an evilness. humans are after all also created in God's image.

 

Of course it's all bullshit anyway. But I think some ex-christians still have views that are skewed by their fundamentalist backgrounds - and they might need to view the reality of christianity as a whole in a slightly more balanced way. Fundamentalism is not the only true form of christianity - that's just the lies that the fundamentalists feed you. There is as much justification from the Bible for a more moderate form of chrisitian belief as there is for a fundamentalist view. Or to put it another way - the Bible is so schizophrenic and inconsistent that both fundamentalism and more liberal/moderate forms of christianity actually distort and put a particular slant on what is actually in the Bible.

[Vigile]

The way to 'fix' sin of course is through Jesus etc - and that's where the religion starts to be bullshit and make no sense.

 

IMO it starts to be bullshit when it defines what sin is in the first place. Xianity as a moral guide is one of the worst models available.

[Evolution_beyond]

The way to 'fix' sin of course is through Jesus etc - and that's where the religion starts to be bullshit and make no sense.

 

IMO it starts to be bullshit when it defines what sin is in the first place. Xianity as a moral guide is one of the worst models available.

 

True

[crazy-tiger]

Still waiting for an answer...

 

I still want an answer to something... if, as you claim, Man isn't inherently evil, why the need for the Crucifixion? Why the need to Salvation in the form of Human Sacrifice?

Why, if we aren't evil fuck-ups, are we told we are evil fuck-ups who are gonna burn for eternity unless we praise Jesus?

 

Christianity needs Humanity to be evil fuck-ups to justify the Crucifixion... because if we ain't evil fuck-ups, we don't need to accept Jesus's sacrifice to get into heaven... but Christianity teaches that we MUST accept that sacrifice to get into heaven because we are evil fuck-ups that God is going to cast into hell.

[Unknowing1]

Still waiting for an answer...

 

I still want an answer to something... if, as you claim, Man isn't inherently evil, why the need for the Crucifixion? Why the need to Salvation in the form of Human Sacrifice?

Why, if we aren't evil fuck-ups, are we told we are evil fuck-ups who are gonna burn for eternity unless we praise Jesus?

 

Christianity needs Humanity to be evil fuck-ups to justify the Crucifixion... because if we ain't evil fuck-ups, we don't need to accept Jesus's sacrifice to get into heaven... but Christianity teaches that we MUST accept that sacrifice to get into heaven because we are evil fuck-ups that God is going to cast into hell.

 

 

I have the feeling that you will be waiting and waiting and waiting......

[Kirangel]

Still waiting for an answer...

 

I still want an answer to something... if, as you claim, Man isn't inherently evil, why the need for the Crucifixion? Why the need to Salvation in the form of Human Sacrifice?

Why, if we aren't evil fuck-ups, are we told we are evil fuck-ups who are gonna burn for eternity unless we praise Jesus?

 

Christianity needs Humanity to be evil fuck-ups to justify the Crucifixion... because if we ain't evil fuck-ups, we don't need to accept Jesus's sacrifice to get into heaven... but Christianity teaches that we MUST accept that sacrifice to get into heaven because we are evil fuck-ups that God is going to cast into hell.

 

 

I have the feeling that you will be waiting and waiting and waiting......

 

Take out the 'evil' and you have it about right.

[R. S. Martin]

I'm a bit confused here. Can someone bring me up to speed here and tell me if we're still talking about the topic "Offending Christians, They don't get a free pass from me", or is it something else?

 

The topic was de-railed a long time ago. As near as I can tell, it's turned into a pile onto Kirangel thread.

 

 

I think the way it all hangs together is that Kir is insisting we should give Christians a free pass if they are nice. Kir seems to measure "nice" by standards very different from most people here. Most people here are saying Christians are inherently not-nice because Christians of necessity believes people are bad, i.e. sinful, evil, in need of salvation, etc.

 

Kir, I have also defended Christianity to some extent. I know that there are good Chrisians, but I know that they are far out-numbered by the not-so-nice Christians. However, even the nice Christians believe that salvation is necessary. Anyone who believes salvation is necessary also beleives that humans are sinful=evil=deserving of hell in the hereafter. Or more happiness in this life. They don't all say the same thing but they all agree that a savior is necessary in some way or other.

If your brand of Catholicism did not believe this, then why do they go to church? Why do they serve in religious capacities as nun, monk, priest, etc.? Why do they baptize? Why don't they just dismantle the church and let everyone live according to secular humanist values/principles?

[Vigile]

Most people here are saying Christians are inherently not-nice because Christians of necessity believes people are bad, i.e. sinful, evil, in need of salvation, etc.

 

Just for clarification of my own position, I don't think that xians are not nice. I think their doctrine is not nice. I see them as victims of their doctrine. I know a lot of very nice xians.