The Lord's Prayer

[Shaker]

I don't quite believe that....are you bullshitting?

If you had quoted the relevant post in its entirety and not selectively you might have picked up on the fact that it was a joke.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are mistaking falling - screwing up - with being fallen - being worthless. One dies not follow the other.

No, Christianity never says people are worthless because Jesus died for us.

It is you caricature of Christianity which is at fault here.

At the end of the day it is the bleak philosophy of materialism which suggests we are worthless and even illusiory since it ultimately contains nothing to confirm the value of people.

[Shaker]

No a Christianity never says people are worthless because Jesus died for us.

It is you caricature of Christianity which is at fault here.

So the doctrine of original sin never existed, then?

At the end of the day it is the bleak philosophy of materialism which suggests we are worthless and even illusiory since it ultimately contains nothing to confirm the value of people.

You do love to throw in words you don't understand at random, don't you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you had quoted the relevant post in its entirety and not selectively you might have picked up on the fact that it was a joke.

yeah, but nothings quite ever a joke with Antitheist Axe grinder types is it?

[Shaker]

yeah, but nothings quite ever a joke with Antitheist Axe grinder types is it?

Nothing's ever a joke with you, Vlad, as the ability to make one oneself or recognise one in another requires a sense of humour.

[Hope]

Why is there a line in it where believers ask the supreme cosmic mega being not to lead them into temptation?

Is their god likely to do that?

Perhaps you ought to look at the original language and see whether that is what it says   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the doctrine of original sin never existed, then?

what has that got to do with worthlessness or value?

[Shaker]

what has that got to do with worthlessness or value?

So you don't even know about one of the central doctrines of the religion you claim to follow.

Figures.

[Hope]

So the doctrine of original sin never existed, then?

And what does the doctrine of original sin have to do with whether someone has worth or not, Shakes?  Take the analogy of a child who starts out their existence with an integral genetic error - for them they are 'originally erroneous' as a human.  Does that mean that their parent(s) will regard them as of less worth than a so-called 'normal' child?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you don't even know about one of the central doctrines of the religion you claim to follow.

Figures.

Whatever that is ....and I think it is merely part of a caricature you cling to to keep God away.....what has it to do with God so loving the world that he gave his only begotten son to die for us?

[Rhiannon]

No, Christianity never says people are worthless because Jesus died for us.

It is you caricature of Christianity which is at fault here.

At the end of the day it is the bleak philosophy of materialism which suggests we are worthless and even illusiory since it ultimately contains nothing to confirm the value of people.

Go back and look at the original conversation that you decided to reference.

We really don't to need to waste time creating caricatures of Christianity around here, Vlad. It's done for us by Christians themselves.

[floo]

I suppose we only have to look at what happened with Christ...

God knew that both Adam and Eve would be tempted as he did Christ.
Adam failed but Christ didn't.

Temptation will all be part of life but since Christ Satan can no longer accuse even though he will try his best to tempt people away from Christ. As we see the things of the world is what Satan uses to tempt people.

I think it is clear the prayer asks God not to let us go into temptation.

If any of that was true it just goes to prove what an evil so and so the deity is!

[Shaker]

And what does the doctrine of original sin have to do with whether someone has worth or not, Shakes?  Take the analogy of a child who starts out their existence with an integral genetic error - for them they are 'originally erroneous' as a human.  Does that mean that their parent(s) will regard them as of less worth than a so-called 'normal' child?

The trouble with these fatuous analogies that the truly desperate keep coming up with is that there's always at least one central and more importantly fatal flaw which demolishes it entirely.

In this case, a genetic error is a random biochemical mistake over which the parents have no control - no parent would want this for their child and, most importantly of all, would prevent it if they possibly could. In the god scenario, on the other hand, if that god (as on the traditional omnimax view) is held to be omnipotent, any characteristics in humanity deemed to be faults exist with that god's knowledge and with its express and explicit permission according to its own will.

Of course, you seem remarkably coy as to whether you regard the God you allege you believe in to be omnipotent or not, for some reason. Given your purported beliefs I can't say I blame you.

[Rhiannon]

Whatever that is ....and I think it is merely part of a caricature you cling to to keep God away.....what has it to do with God so loving the world that he gave his only begotten son to die for us?

Stop hiding behind this nonsense that a lack of faith means god -dodging ; it doesn't.

The rest is white noise, but I'll pretend to give it some meaning; explain why a death was required before your all -loving, all-merciful god could forgive.

[Hope]

The trouble with these fatuous analogies that the truly desperate keep coming up with is that there's always at least one central and more importantly fatal flaw which demolishes it entirely.

It is hard to demolish analogies, Shakes, because by definition they are not identical to the thing being compared with.

In this case, a genetic error is a random biochemical mistake over which the parents have no control - no parent would want this for their child and, most importantly of all, would prevent it if they possibly could. In the god scenario, on the other hand, if that god (as on the traditional omnimax view) is held to be omnipotent, any characteristics in humanity deemed to be faults exist with that god's knowledge and with its express and explicit permission according to its own will.

But none oif that is relevant to the issue: the issue is whether or not being flawed in any way makes one of less value - to other human beings, to God, to ... - than if you aren't.

Of course, you seem remarkably coy as to whether you regard the God you allege you believe in to be omnipotent or not, for some reason.

About as coy as you are regarding your understanding of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop hiding behind this nonsense that a lack of faith means god -dodging ; it doesn't.

The rest is white noise, but I'll pretend to give it some meaning; explain why a death was required before your all -loving, all-merciful god could forgive.

But having a caricature version of Christianity and wanting to hang on to it is god dodging .......because what else can it be?

For sin to be truly forgiven the cost and consequences need to be borne by someone. Such is the gravity and effect of sin that the price is self alienation and alienation from others hence the crucifixion.

To forgive we must take it on ourselves in a way that is the opposite of retributive justice. When a debt is cancelled for one it is paid somewhere else.

[Shaker]

It is hard to demolish analogies, Shakes, because by definition they are not identical to the thing being compared with.

It's often rather easy, actually - I've just done it with your latest offering of tripe. 

But none oif that is relevant to the issue: the issue is whether or not being flawed in any way makes one of less value - to other human beings, to God, to ... - than if you aren't.

Of course it does, otherwise there wouldn't be such a concept as being flawed (which by definition is a negative - a flawed plan is a bad plan; a flawed diamond is a less-than-perfect diamond, and so forth), and in a Christian context especially, there would be no need for supposedly "flawed" people  to swallow the whole Christian schema in order to bridge the gap between themselves and God and to patch up the estrangement between the two parties that sin supposedly leads to.

About as coy as you are regarding your understanding of God.

There's no such thing as "an understanding of God." For the most part even those who claim to believe in such a thing don't make such a claim.

[Rhiannon]

But having a caricature version of Christianity and wanting to hang on to it is god dodging .......because what else can it be?

For sin to be truly forgiven the cost and consequences need to be borne by someone. Such is the gravity and effect of sin that the price is self alienation and alienation from others hence the crucifixion.

To forgive we must take it on ourselves in a way that is the opposite of retributive justice. When a debt is cancelled for one it is paid somewhere else.

It's not a caricature Vlad, but even if it were it's not God-dodging.

The rest is a cop-out. 'Gravity' of sin where nothing wrong is done or a cosmic get-out-of jail-free card to make believers feel better about themselves, with little cost (or cost directed up the wrong places) and often at the expense of others.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not a caricature Vlad, but even if it were it's not God-dodging.

The rest is a cop-out. 'Gravity' of sin where nothing wrong is done or a cosmic get-out-of jail-free card to make believers feel better about themselves, with little cost (or cost directed up the wrong places) and often at the expense of others.

It's not a cop out. If you truly forgive someone then you have released them from a debt because you are now taking what they owe you (restoration) on yourself. And God does that in the crucifixion.

If you do not believe that forgiveness is cancelled restoration then can it be said that you have ever forgiven anybody yourself or do you think they still owe you or righteousness something?

If you have forgiven somebody in actuality then you expect nothing more from them since you are prepared to settle that out of your own account. That is the crucifixion.

[Rhiannon]

Vlad,

People forgiving isn't the same as all the god stuff. You can't compare the two.

Also, if God forgives unconditionally then why the Crucifixion? That isn't unconditional by any definition.

[wigginhall]

The language that Vlad is using here is interesting - cancelling debts, accounts, restoration, and so on - it has a commercial or mercantile slant.  I suspect this goes back to ancient Judaism, but it was common in medieval theology, and also in the Reformation, for example, I think the Calvinists use it big time.  Possibly, it acquired a new momentum under capitalism.

However, it's not necessary to see forgiveness in such commercial terms, as cancelled debts and so on.  For example, you can talk about letting go of something, not a debt, but a grudge or a sense of hurt. 

[Shaker]

The language that Vlad is using here is interesting - cancelling debts, accounts, restoration, and so on - it has a commercial or mercantile slant.  I suspect this goes back to ancient Judaism, but it was common in medieval theology, and also in the Reformation, for example, I think the Calvinists use it big time.  Possibly, it acquired a new momentum under capitalism.

Echoing exactly my own thoughts here - it's very transactional language.

[Owlswing]

It's a contradiction - God leading someone into temptation is a different thing to having temptation around us.

The Christian God 'leads us into temptation' but God help you if you give in to that temptation 'cos you are going to pay for it in Hell for all eternity.

In Floo's words - BASTARD!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

People forgiving isn't the same as all the god stuff. You can't compare the two.

Also, if God forgives unconditionally then why the Crucifixion? That isn't unconditional by any definition.

That's because I think real unconditional forgiveness is a rare thing because we always harbour some vague hope of restoration. God is not like that hence the crucifixion. Secondly we may forgive but that forgiveness does not affect the recipient in anyway. They are still prepared to have another shot or to see your forgiveness as weakness.

To forgive unconditionally you have to take something on yourself....from your own account as it were.

I think the problem you have is one where God offers unconditional forgiveness but you are not prepared to be affected by that prefering to see God not as someone hugely loving but as the cosmic villain of the piece.

[Owlswing]

Speak for yourself. I prefer the version (by whoever-it-was): "Lead me not into temptation - I can find my own way, thanks."

Piccadilly Circus - Shaftsbury Avenue - Fifth door on the left and ask for Angel - £50 for an hour anbd you will crawl out on your hands and knees.