Jump to content

PaulS

Administrator
  • Content count

    1,888
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

Everything posted by PaulS

  1. I think the world would be a much better place if this was the dominant type of Christianity.
  2. I might not have much luck here, but I am just wondering if anybody has heard of a logical argument for original sin in the face of the science of evolution? So much of traditional Christianity relies on 'sin', typically expressed through the myth of Adam & Eve. But where was the 'sin' supposed to be when we were amoebas, or early mammals/apes/neanderthals? Not that I believe in sin, but I am just curious if anybody has any Christian arguments to share which try to explain this conundrum now that most of us don't believe that God physically formed the first man out of clay, a fellow who then went on to eat an apple and curse all of mankind for all eternity.
  3. Or later writer's attribute these words to him but he never actually prophesy such at all.
  4. I think a lot of it can be a waste of time, but can't an idea of a kingdom to come simply be an aspiration rather than a concrete prediction? Personally I think Jesus was somewhat aligned with Jewish expectations of his time AND a proponent of some original thought, but not necessarily only one or the other.
  5. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    That does seem to be an egoistic way of looking at it I think (no insult intended). Clearly we are animals that have evolved, along with the rest of the animals on earth, but we have evolved to a point that we think we are the planet's superior species in both intelligence and achievement. Perhaps we are. But then to say we are 'more' simply seems to me our own ego patting us on the back. It would be so interesting to know what other animals think about us (but alas, I am no Dr Dolittle).
  6. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    Fully aware how some modern Aborigines have taken to Christianity. What i am questioning is that if Jesus really was 'Good News' why did God not share that news for nearly 2000 years with any of the Aborigines that lived between now and your video participants? Maybe Jesus simply wasn't needed for those 2000 years?
  7. PaulS

    USA liberal / conservative - divide

    Which is why I continued on in the next sentence to specifically cite a US example.
  8. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    Except if you were perhaps Australian Aboriginal - indigenous people to Australia who for nearly 2000 years had no idea that Jesus or His God existed. Not sure their relationship with God changed one iota following Jesus' life and death during that 2000 year period.
  9. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    The biblical context of a bible assembled by man - with numerous religious texts omitted, hardly any writings available that are less than 200 years old after they were written (some fragments and pieces maybe), proven additions made after the fact (the bogus ending of Mark 9-19 that was regarded as the word of God until it was established that it wasn't), and the entire New testament written AFTER the death of Jesus (very easy to narrate Jesus as predicting his future when your are writing about the event AFTER that future has occurred). Most likely Matthew has a bias towards Judaism that is reflected in his preferential regard of the disciples.
  10. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    Actually most recognise us as animals but just at the higher end of the spectrum concerning intelligence. I don't think we are more than animals but rather the top of the line of animal species in many ways.
  11. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that it appears to me this 'sin' is a continuation of our animal instincts. So whereas animals have certain instincts, we have further involved into a more intelligent species yet still have those hallmark animal instincts, but because of our higher intelligence and sophistication we have elaborated on these instincts and made them into more.
  12. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    I can understand why you say that but really, do any of us know what goes on in a lion's head? I say not. My p[problem wit that is that I don't think there's any knight in shining amour (i.e. divinity) waiting in the wings to set things right. We either take action ourselves or nothing changes.
  13. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    See - another 'sin' shared between us and the animal kingdom!
  14. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    Try being a lazy lion and not participating in the pack hunt and see how far that gets you (documentaries often report lions in a pack that don't pull their weight or are bad mothers etc) Are the other lions being judgemental or do we just call it animal instincts that causes them to exclude the one who doesn't fit their societal norms?
  15. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    What can be more selfish than a new lion king killing any cubs that have blood to the old king, purely to protect his self interest as the new leader of the pack? I'm not convinced this 'animal instinct' is any different to mans' instincts which you might call sin. We may have a higher degree of intelligence which offers us more choices, but maybe that's where we start seeing consciousness as somehow affecting 'sin' rather than it simply being regarded as animal instincts. After all, we are simply animals too. I'm not convinced you can replace animal instincts with sin simply due to consciousness and higher levels of intelligence. Certainly both of those can impact on our instincts, but they remain base instincts and not 'sin' I think.
  16. PaulS

    USA liberal / conservative - divide

    Well my own experience for one, even though I'm Australian. My religious views changed because I questioned what I had been taught and found it wanting. It had nothing to do with political parties driving me a certain way. I think also if you look at the likes of Donald Trump - it's not his religious views that are driving people to support him but rather his support has been built because he has tapped into what those people want to hear. The 'forgotten people' who have felt disenfranchised by the 'establishment', now find a supporter for their religious views in him, not the other way around. No doubt media drive 'talking points' as you suggest, but I think that is distinctly different from driving beliefs. Those beliefs already existed it's just that the voices on social media start getting louder simply because the topic was raised in mainstream media. For instance, I don't support slavery but don't really post anything about it because it's largely irrelevant in my day-to-day. But if the media started reporting on a slavery issue I'd probably be a little more vocal socially about it because it'd be a current topic of discussion. I agree with your first sentence but not sure about your next. Can you give any examples of where you think the media has led religious belief that may assist?
  17. PaulS

    USA liberal / conservative - divide

    That makes a little more sense than 'politically correct', but I think you're probably underselling your countrymen if you think the majority of them are so shallow as to change their religious beliefs because it fits in with family and friends (except you of course). No doubt social acceptance plays a part in religion - I mean I doubt anybody joins or stays with a religion without feeling 'accepted' to some degree into that community! Yet I see this as a far cry from politics driving their religious beliefs. No doubt for all of us, the way we see the world both is affected by and affects our religious views. Perhaps more hand in hand than one or the other being the primary cause.
  18. PaulS

    USA liberal / conservative - divide

    So unlike Americans in general, you didn't think politically correct first and then choose a 'religion' which supports your bias?
  19. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    Then no real argument from me other than I would say this 'sin' is subjective depending on the circumstances, but also that it does exist in animals. Take your lions for example - they commit acts of betrayal, they carry out infanticide to protect their bloodlines, they murder their competition for resources, etc. Maybe we call it animal instincts instead of sin, but perhaps our 'sin' is just our animal instincts still being worked through as we develop as a species. Also, I think many animals also realise they need others to enable them to be and to do - try surviving as a lion without the pack to assist in hunting. It might be on a lower level than our 'needs' at this point in our societal development, but once upon a time we had similar needs when we were a troupe of monkeys. So again, I see where we are at now as simply a continuation of our species' development. Of course focus on working towards being a more peaceful species is beneficial. I think we are truly human the way that we currently are - the good bits and the bad bits, it's just that at our current level of intelligence and development, many can see the benefits of continuing toward a better version of human. Sometimes religion can add to that and sometimes it can detract.
  20. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    Agreed. Can't agree with you there, but if how you act and what you do contributes to the human race continuing to develop into a more peaceful species, then no issue with me.
  21. PaulS

    USA liberal / conservative - divide

    So would you say that you have chosen your religion because it supports your bias and level of political correctness?
  22. PaulS

    USA liberal / conservative - divide

    I don't think it's that black and white but I do agree that the philosophies of the two major parties in the US do tend to have people of a certain mindset align with them (hence why liberal/progressive Christians may be more aligned to Democrats and conservative Christians more aligned with Republicans - but I'm sure that's not a rule). However I think, particularly in the Republican party's circumstances, that the parties play up to the religious fears and expectations of a certain mindset to garner their support/vote . Personally, I think what we call progressive Christians have made their move away from traditional Christianity because they find it lacking in today's world. That and they find new biblical scholarship challenging long held beliefs. Of course that doesn't hold true for all types of Christians, but I think PC's have moved away from traditional religion because of these modern developments. I think this then feeds into their support for the various political positions. I'm certain it's not always as clear cut as that, but I think that is a major influence.
  23. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    Thanks for the in-depth response, Thormas. I think what you're saying is that you attribute the development of sin and the need for salvation as something that came about at a certain point in our evolution when home sapiens first gained a certain level of self consciousness. Prior to this level of self consciousness there was no sin, and the reason you're referring to salvation as being remedy for sin is that it is a way of better living one's life. Am I understanding you correctly?
  24. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    No, because I'm not interested in debating the science of evolution. There's enough information out there to explain it. If it doesn't work for you then so be it. I was only asking you to clarify earlier because I'd thought you wrote in another thread that you understood evolution and agreed. Your posts in this thread confused me. But now I know where you stand, I'll leave it at that thanks. But I am still interested in discussing with others in this thread who believe in sin, salvation etc AND who do accept the science of evolution.
  25. PaulS

    Evolution and Original Sin

    No,but I don't see 'salvation'or 'redemption' as something homo sapiens require either. That is what I am digging around about in this thread. No, I definitely agree with this. I think life on earth started as bacterium and evolved from there. I think you're missing my point - I'm not asking if those other things in our current world need saving etc, but am asking that if one considers man needs saving from sin, then how does this fit with the time when man wasn't man, but was a neanderthal, or an ape, or even way back when we were bacteria. Do you, or people who think we need this salvation consider why and when this 'need' came into being? I guess what I'm trying to understand is how can this need to be saved not look like a man-made concept that neatly fits with our human existence but doesn't fall into a hole when one thinks of our existence before becoming homo sapiens. To me it's looking like all this language about Jesus as 'saviour' and the need to be 'saved' looks like a human construct. If however people look at it more as an 'improving' of our species and cultures away from ignorance and violence then I'm good with that. I just don't necessarily see the need for it to be isolated to Jesus as an influence in working toward that. Do I make any sense?
×