I never cared what scientist said. Until someone can answer me logically what came 1st, the chicken or the egg, then they could probably convince me differently. Meanwhile, there's a god!
@NakedExperiment I believed in God, but do not belong in any religious group and I’m not a Christian. It is comforting to believe that there is a possibility that something is up there. And comforting to believe that my loved ones who died are in some place called “heaven”. I consider myself to be more spiritual. I’m not trying to fit in anywhere, because I have friends from many different backgrounds and beliefs. I come from a root/family of Catholics, was baptized Catholic, but wasn’t raised Catholic.
@frequentlyme I think you are referring to humans from decades (even centuries) ago. I assume most humans today don't think God is the answer of the unknown.
@Qwerty14 Yes and no. People can't or don't want to think, reason things out, etc. That's been true throughout time. Also, some use Gods as a means to gain control over others.
@frequentlyme I'm just saying when most people don't understand/comprehend something it is more believable to doubt your own knowledge than to believe it must be a God. Or else we would never try to think and that has not been the case.
@NorthernBear It isn't the whole reason for the Messiah. Up until the idea of Baptism, the "original sin" of Adam wasn't even a thing. The Qur'an even states that Adam and Eve asked God for forgiveness and it was given to them. Almost all Jews believe you are born without sin and are only judged by the sins you have committed in life. In fact very few Christians believe in the idea of an inherited sin from Adam. Further, Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was so that all mankind could go to heaven without further bloodshed. It was based on the idea that all people required ritual sacrifice to get into God's grace. Jesus swiftly put an end to it and also proved he was in fact the lord by resurrecting. Jesus really loved crapping on silly Jewish laws from that time
There is the idea of the actual sin being inherited, and then there's sinful nature.
The actual sin is called Original Sin, and it is believed by over one and a quarter [b]billion[/b] (with a "b") Catholics. Between 15 and 20% of the population of the entire world, hardly "very few Christians."
Well, maybe not. Some of us might still be included in that number even though we don''t believe and don't practice Catholicism. The actual figure I found in a quick web search was 1.28 billion. Let's call it 999 million. Still a hell of a lot.
Sinful nature is one of the main subjects of the letters attributed to the Apostle Paul, his stating time and again that this is the reason God sent Christ. Statements like "through one man sin entered into the world," "In Adam all are dying," "Adam was not deceived, the woman was thoroughly deceived."
One of the big stories the small stories add up to is that the ritualistic animal sacrifice practiced by the Jews were a prophetic archetype pointing to Christ himself. He didn't "replace" them, as they did nothing but point to him.
What you call "silly Jewish laws" is more commonly called "the Law of Moses," and the Book claims it was handed down directly by YHWH to Moses. What Jesus "crapped" on was hypocrisy of the religious leaders, not really following the Law they swore to uphold. He was a little bit of a hypocrite as well, violating the Sabbath. I don't recall chapter and verse, but I could look it up. The Gospel writer, serving as narrator, says explicitly that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath.
This leads to one of the inconsistencies in the Book. The Messiah needed to follow the Law perfectly, in order for his sacrifice to cover our sins. He broke the Sabbath, that much at least is established.
Another inconsistency is that the Law itself states it should stand forever, the messiah will not cause one letter of it to pass away. Jesus himself indicated something similar at least once. The writers of the epistles said something completely different, that Christ's sacrifice replaces the old Law. Of course, that's the version most Christians believe.
Either way, it still comes back to inheriting sinful [b]nature[/b] from Adam. The stories about Noah, about Sodom, about Abraham and his descendants are also spoken of as being historical fact. It adds up to one big story that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.
@NorthernBear You went very off topic there man so I'm gonna try bring it all back to the point at hand.
Inherited sin from Adam: most people don't believe we are born with this sin. Those who do also believe that baptism cleanses you of that sin.
Jesus breaking the law: he and his apostles did this all the time. But these were the laws practised by the pharisees that they claimed were God's will. You see the Jews had lost their way and that's why the Messiah came. Ironically it is the one big time God really did do something to fix the world.
Bible is historical fact: well we can't be sure that the events of the bible are real. At the end of the day we should ask ourselves "does it matter if the events were real?" and the answer is no. The teachings are apt whether based on fact or fable.
I don't know whether gods exist or not, but worship is morally wrong and faith without evidence is an insane requirement. Any being that requires worship is evil and I will not worship such a being.
I guess for the same reason why people say that he does? Because everybody have different reasons. Non of it is the same. Each person believes differently. Whether it’s the same God, or no God.
What if the gods are actually green with purple stripes and with big horns sticking out of their heads? We can play this "what if" game as looong as you like. Until we start asking for evidence from one another, we cant really progress anywhere, can we?
