Part of my dedication to the rule of law is to ignore any law that forbids me to love my neighbor or myself, law that punishes one for doing good. This is what Jesus taught. He also taught us not to give tribute to false rulers.

I don’t believe that every word of the Bible is true. I wouldn’t believe that even if I believed in God, and there is nothing in the Bible to support the idea that it is all true. As Jesus said, “There is none good but one, that is, God.” The Bible is an anthology of stories by many different men; compiled by committee; translated by individuals; and again compiled by a different committee. No work of man is perfect; how could this be?

I take all the stories with a grain of salt, but the gospel of John has no credibility at all, as it neither follows the lead of the other gospels nor shows any understanding of Judaic belief or viewpoint. It is also the only gospel that insists on belief in Jesus us the Only Begotten Son of God as the way to salvation. The others, being Judaic, demand action, not belief.

A lot of Gentiles became Christians and were executed. Do you think that they chose such a path because they suddenly believed in the Jewish God and his Son? I think it was because they wanted freedom from Romans and their local god’s rule.

Live free, and prosper.

Rycke

Perhaps I’m in trouble…

Well, perhaps for traditional RCC folks.

But, if we still do sin, that is, if sin is as much present tense as past tense, then salvation is still necessary (of course, assuming sin actually is).

I’m sorry I didnt respond, I never saw your question please repeat it and I will do my best to answer you. What exactly are you wondering about? Thx

http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/crime_facts_world.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/serial_killers.htm

http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=701

I’d be curious to know what the distinction is between “the fall”, the way a biblical literalist reads it in Genesis, and the way you understand this concept in Genesis.

gulker: “That’s why I talked about Genesis happening — we all ’sin,’ ie., hurt each other, hurt creation, etc.”

Again, I’m curious—-do you use quotations on the word “sin” because you don’t believe that the act of causing unnecessary harm to “each other” *is* actually a “sin”?

In any event, we have objective confirmation that human beings behave unethically at times. On the other hand, we do not have objective confirmation that this behavior is a “sin”. Further, even if we grant that the Christian philosophy and its “sin” concept true, there seems to be only one “sin” that is relevent, and that is the (“unforgivable”) “sin” of non-belief. All other “sins”..i.e..murder, child molesting, rape, etc., can be overlooked by biblegod. This is the point I was trying to make to you previously about “Christians” attempting to disassociate themselves with “sinners”. Your “Heaven” could easily be full of “sinners”(assuming such a place exists for sake of argument). You mentioned that you discussed this issue with others, but to my understanding, you didn’t offer any hypothesis that would overcome this rather blatant flaw in the philosophy, itself.

gulker: “Consequently, redemption isn’t about being ‘restored to an idealic state of bliss’ but rather about being freed from the pattern of sin.”

Why, in your opinion, does humankind need to be “redeemed” from a supposed “inherent”(innate) “pattern” that they presumably have no control over, and one that they didn’t adopt of their own free will in the first place?

I think I agree with your main point, but,

In Galatians we see Paul feuding with another sect of the church – maybe a sect that included Peter and James – that required circumcision. A Jew coming into Paul’s Christianity would have to give up his understanding of the relationship between God and his people. Those that couldn’t became the Ebionites, and were later branded as heretics.

I think you might be off on this particular example. Paul argued that circumcision wasn’t salvific; faith is. Therefore, Gentiles who believed didn’t need to be circumcised. To say that a Jew had to ‘give up his understanding of the relationship between God and his people’ altogether seems to exaggerate Paul’s claims a bit. Paul didn’t say a Jew must abandon the practice of circumcision but rather that a Christian doesn’t have to be circumcised, especially a Gentile convert. Paul didn’t say that that all feasts should be abandoned by Jews but rather that they didn’t have to be celebrated. Paul didn’t say that you must stop observing the Sabbath but rather that you don’t have to observe it.

In other words, I think Paul’s point was not that Jews had to change their lives but rather that Gentiles didn’t have to completely change theirs.

Two things (in a hurry, not trying to be curt or rude):

1) The ‘original state’ thing we agree on, I think. We both accept evolution, which completely undermines a literal “fall.” That’s why I talked about Genesis happening — we all ’sin,’ ie., hurt each other, hurt creation, etc.

2) Consequently, redemption isn’t about being ‘restored to an idealic state of bliss’ but rather about being freed from the pattern of sin.

Have you ever looked at the etymology of the term ‘redemption’? It might be insightful… or at least interesting :)

You have piqued my interest. Would you put some meat on those bones?