Seven is a pretty common number in ancient tradition. Some will probably tell you that there is some hidden numerological significance or a meaningful connection between different instances of the number. But personally, I don't buy that shit. There are plenty of other frequently appearing numbers, too. Three, nine, twelve etc. Some of it is no doubt just tradition - medieval authors liked to list things in threes just because it was the literary custom, without any single deep reason for it. And some of it is common sense/connection between the inherent qualities of the number and human psychology. That seven is a prime number may have something to do with it, for example.

Old cultures in general liked to make lists. That it happens to be precisely 7 sins you need to beware of is part coincidence, part literary tradition (the contents of the seven sins were modified by Gregory and reinterpreted later, but the number remained the same). The reason for lists is that it's easier to memorize in a predominantly oral, illiterate culture, that it's probably easy to comprehend pyschologically when it's laid out in clear order, and (I suspect) because it was a way of structuring your writing at a time when things like punctuation and paragraphs were irregular and often not used at all.

Seven deadly sins, though, in the version they came to be recognized in Latin Christianity, come from pope Gregory the Great's (540-604) work, which was itself a modification of an earlier list.

If anyone tries to give you a simple, conclusive answer to the question, they're bullshitting you or buying into some sensationalist TV documentary ("the secret of seven revealed!").

Written by IronAngel on 18.01.2015 at 18:28

Seven is a pretty common number in ancient tradition. Some will probably tell you that there is some hidden numerological significance or a meaningful connection between different instances of the number. But personally, I don't buy that shit. There are plenty of other frequently appearing numbers, too. Three, nine, twelve etc. Some of it is no doubt just tradition - medieval authors liked to list things in threes just because it was the literary custom, without any single deep reason for it. And some of it is common sense/connection between the inherent qualities of the number and human psychology. That seven is a prime number may have something to do with it, for example.

Old cultures in general liked to make lists. That it happens to be precisely 7 sins you need to beware of is part coincidence, part literary tradition (the contents of the seven sins were modified by Gregory and reinterpreted later, but the number remained the same). The reason for lists is that it's easier to memorize in a predominantly oral, illiterate culture, that it's probably easy to comprehend pyschologically when it's laid out in clear order, and (I suspect) because it was a way of structuring your writing at a time when things like punctuation and paragraphs were irregular and often not used at all.

Seven deadly sins, though, in the version they came to be recognized in Latin Christianity, come from pope Gregory the Great's (540-604) work, which was itself a modification of an earlier list.

If anyone tries to give you a simple, conclusive answer to the question, they're bullshitting you or buying into some sensationalist TV documentary ("the secret of seven revealed!").

another evidence that Christianity has deeper pagan roots and seems most are stolen , I am not expert in hebru, arab nation history, but Europe - paganisnm, I know a lot and same whit Christianity seems its stolen , most things

I am not sure how you read that from my reply. That it is common to human culture at a certain period, even common to human nature perhaps, to make lists and ennumerate things and that seven happens to be a convenient number, does not imply any kind of "stealing". It's just common sense.

How could any literary tradition, religion or school of thought remain immune and detached from the society and culture around it? In this, Christianity is no different from any religion, and no biblical scholar would deny the influence of several strands of religious practice and thought on Christianity.

In defining the seven deadly sins, the Christian authors were quite unique and original. There is much continuity between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, and Greek philosophy and Christianity on the other, but early Christian authors did make novel contributions to mainstream thought and ethics. You won't find an equivalent list of seven vices from Greek philosophy, for example. Compare Gregory to Aristotle, and you'll see plenty of difference. The sin of pride, or of spiritual sloth, are not something mainstream pagan culture would have readily understood and condemned, for example.

Written by Bad English on 18.01.2015 at 20:35

Written by IronAngel on 18.01.2015 at 18:28

Seven is a pretty common number in ancient tradition. Some will probably tell you that there is some hidden numerological significance or a meaningful connection between different instances of the number. But personally, I don't buy that shit. There are plenty of other frequently appearing numbers, too. Three, nine, twelve etc. Some of it is no doubt just tradition - medieval authors liked to list things in threes just because it was the literary custom, without any single deep reason for it. And some of it is common sense/connection between the inherent qualities of the number and human psychology. That seven is a prime number may have something to do with it, for example.

Old cultures in general liked to make lists. That it happens to be precisely 7 sins you need to beware of is part coincidence, part literary tradition (the contents of the seven sins were modified by Gregory and reinterpreted later, but the number remained the same). The reason for lists is that it's easier to memorize in a predominantly oral, illiterate culture, that it's probably easy to comprehend pyschologically when it's laid out in clear order, and (I suspect) because it was a way of structuring your writing at a time when things like punctuation and paragraphs were irregular and often not used at all.

Seven deadly sins, though, in the version they came to be recognized in Latin Christianity, come from pope Gregory the Great's (540-604) work, which was itself a modification of an earlier list.

If anyone tries to give you a simple, conclusive answer to the question, they're bullshitting you or buying into some sensationalist TV documentary ("the secret of seven revealed!").

another evidence that Christianity has deeper pagan roots and seems most are stolen , I am not expert in hebru, arab nation history, but Europe - paganisnm, I know a lot and same whit Christianity seems its stolen , most things

Like everything in christianity is stolen.. Most of the holidays mean something in paganism.. Christianity is a religion of lies..

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2014/06/st-louis-archbishop-claims-he-wasnt-sure-it-was-illegal-for-priests-to-have-sex-with-kids/



sex before marriage , whit prostitute and use condom is sin, but children is not .... people whit good education, retards cant be priests , its long and hard education, don't know it...

Suicide cult in medieval ages, ppl run to others attack in Africa, wanted be killed, because they will be reunite whit God.. when ppl didn't want kill them, they jump from clif, cant remember name of cult, so in original bible and church suicide was not sin, but became it later... why people don't use own brains, read, re search, look skeptically, believe in aliens, not make omw theories, wjay they accept what weput in the brains

Most of you all that disscuss Christianity from view and stance of scientistic people, i mean most of you speak about being skeptical and criticizing the religion.. Non of you are christians or even not serious christians, as ive never seen even one in ms..

Some hint: you need to understand the religion before criticizing. People says how to do is by to learn and by to understand how to do. You want to do business, you got to study business in colleges than to criticize christianity, you got to study and understand it and the religion is thousands years of history n evengot more so you cant bash it when you dont actually understandit..

Anyway, i indeed agree that pedophiles in church, pastors is bullshit thing. But church is church, one christian thing is you should not trust even the one who lecture about christianity or like church, its God not the one human flesh who claim to be.. I remember Ernis said Jesus said build your own church..
I would research more about that part of Jesus saying..

If summary to christianity ican say that it applies to personal, and helpful for vairous lives destinies catastrophet, which lighthearts and kids dont undertstand.. The religionis very metaphysical in term of undestand..

I'd consider myself a "serious Christian". But then again, I'm a Mormon, so that complicates things sometimes.

That being said, there will always be people who criticize religion from a purely scientific point of view because science is their "religion", if you will. It is the framework they have chosen through which they see EVERYTHING in their existence in this world. With that perspective, it's understandable that these people see religion as mass delusions or the manipulations of the conniving (or what have you) because that's what they perceive through that specific framework.

It all depends on how flexible you allow your perceptual framework to be. (Or so I think.)

Written by bj_waters on 28.10.2015 at 03:25

I'd consider myself a "serious Christian". But then again, I'm a Mormon, so that complicates things sometimes.

That being said, there will always be people who criticize religion from a purely scientific point of view because science is their "religion", if you will. It is the framework they have chosen through which they see EVERYTHING in their existence in this world. With that perspective, it's understandable that these people see religion as mass delusions or the manipulations of the conniving (or what have you) because that's what they perceive through that specific framework.

It all depends on how flexible you allow your perceptual framework to be. (Or so I think.)

Exactly. Whenever people who criticize the Christianity, they aware or unawared that actually they always see it from scientific view when they skept.

I could criticise Christianity from a dozen points of view apart from the "scientific" one. It's a pretty cheap defense to say that everyone who disagrees is just blinded by scientism. That said, I actually rather like Christanity, at least Christanity that hasn't broken from the apostolic succession and unity with Rome or communion with the ecumenical patriarchy of Constantinople. Protestants are schismatics at best, heretics at worst.

I can't believe, because I am just not wired that way and haven't been presented with any convincing evidence/experience to abandon what I consider rational secularism. But if I were to convert to active Christianity by some epistemic acrobatics or brain-altering experience, it would definitely be to a traditional church. Not only has their ceremony retained more integrity, their argument is actually stronger IMO. The Reformation belief in sola scriptura is naive, because it presupposes that everyone will glean the same basic truth from the Bible - and that the Bible should be the highest authority to begin with. Emprically, this has not been the case, and Protestant churches have kept on fracturing into smaller sects. The dilemma of any religion is why to choose this one over another; how to know that my belief is teh right one. A Catholic who can appeal to the tradition of the church is actually on firmer ground than the individualist who only has his interpretation to rely on. The fact that the church exists and performs efficacious sacraments (if you believe that) may be reason enough to believe its doctrine to contain the truth. And more generally, I just find it naively arrogant that Protestants (or Mormons etc.) believe they can just read a timeless truth from the Bible and interpret it better than patristic theologians who were actually closer to the original context and argued successfully against different interpretations that ended up excluded from orthodox Christianity. If I were religious, I'd take the decrees of the first General Councils, informed as they were by the greatest patristic writers, over the private brain-farts of some 19th century traveling preacher or whateer.

Mind you, this is all academic since I'm not really invested one way or the other. But if I was, I'd crusade for traditional high-church Christianity. Probably become a Dominican or a Jesuit.

Written by IronAngel on 29.10.2015 at 03:06

I could criticise Christianity from a dozen points of view apart from the "scientific" one. It's a pretty cheap defense to say that everyone who disagrees is just blinded by scientism.

There are plenty of perspectives from which one could criticize Christianity. I once read an Islam criticism of Christianity, which was unusual to say the least! I certainly don't think that all critics of Christianity are "blinded by scientism", just many of the ones on the internet (based on what I've encountered and lurked over).

Written by IronAngel on 29.10.2015 at 03:06

I can't believe, because I am just not wired that way and haven't been presented with any convincing evidence/experience to abandon what I consider rational secularism. But if I were to convert to active Christianity by some epistemic acrobatics or brain-altering experience, it would definitely be to a traditional church. Not only has their ceremony retained more integrity, their argument is actually stronger IMO. The Reformation belief in sola scriptura is naive, because it presupposes that everyone will glean the same basic truth from the Bible - and that the Bible should be the highest authority to begin with. Emprically, this has not been the case, and Protestant churches have kept on fracturing into smaller sects. The dilemma of any religion is why to choose this one over another; how to know that my belief is teh right one. A Catholic who can appeal to the tradition of the church is actually on firmer ground than the individualist who only has his interpretation to rely on. The fact that the church exists and performs efficacious sacraments (if you believe that) may be reason enough to believe its doctrine to contain the truth. And more generally, I just find it naively arrogant that Protestants (or Mormons etc.) believe they can just read a timeless truth from the Bible and interpret it better than patristic theologians who were actually closer to the original context and argued successfully against different interpretations that ended up excluded from orthodox Christianity. If I were religious, I'd take the decrees of the first General Councils, informed as they were by the greatest patristic writers, over the private brain-farts of some 19th century traveling preacher or whateer.

Mind you, this is all academic since I'm not really invested one way or the other. But if I was, I'd crusade for traditional high-church Christianity. Probably become a Dominican or a Jesuit.

For the sake of clarification, Mormons are not Protestants. Protestants are historically a break off from the Catholic tradition, and in recent years have been basing much of their authority on the Bible itself. Mormonism wasn't formed this way. Instead, it's based on Restoration, the idea that the church from the first century A.D. (or C.E., if you prefer) crumbled and lost it's priesthood authority when the Apostles were killed, and that priesthood authority had since been literally restored to Joseph Smith through Peter, James, and John (among others), and this authority have since been passed down to our current leaders. They have a direct priesthood lineage going back to the Apostles for the New Testament (and thus, Jesus Christ).

In fact, when you consider this idea of priesthood lineage, there's an interesting comparison that can be made between the Mormon church and the Catholic church that was made once by a Catholic scholar once, as told by one of our early leaders, Orson F. Whitney:

Quote:
"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: 'You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.'" (Citation)

As a Mormon, I certainly believe that the priesthood authority was lost and needed to be restored through Joseph Smith. Of course, whether or not you decide to take this interpretation of true authority seriously is up to you. I just simply thought all of this was worth sharing this for the sake of clarity.

Oh, I know Mormons aren't Protestants. Mormons arguably (and it is the pretty neutral consensus, I think) aren't Christians, so I was restricting myself to the more generally-recognised sects. I did not know that Mormons actually had a doctrine of apostolic succession, that's interesting. Cheers! The quote from Whitney is very apologetic, though, and certainly made by the Catholic in a spirit of sucking up to his hosts, if made at all. Because even if the Catholic church was wrong and they had lost the apostolic succession, that would still not imply that the Mormons were right and that Joseph Smith had restored it. There's no logical necessity that it be restored at all, and not much reason to believe it was restored to Smith specifically. Why do you believe that, if you don't mind the personal question?

It is the case with all new sects and "modern inspiration": I personally can't grasp why one would take a contemporary authority more seriously than an ancient and well-established one, in a religious context. Psychologically, doesn't it put your faith on very unsecure ground? If someone a few centuries back got a whole new testament and revealed that everything in the last two thousand years was bollocks, what makes you trust that it won't happen again and it be relieved that this guy, too, was a hoax?

Written by IronAngel on 29.10.2015 at 04:17

Oh, I know Mormons aren't Protestants. Mormons arguably (and it is the pretty neutral consensus, I think) aren't Christians, so I was restricting myself to the more generally-recognised sects.

That entirely depends on how you choose to define "Christian." Mormons do believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. We believe He was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth, that He taught salvation and performed miracles, and that He Atoned for all the sins of mankind, was crucified, and rose again on the third day. We believe that it is through Him (and only Him) that we can be cleansed of our sins, and that He will come again to reign upon the Earth at the end of times. I would think this would qualify Mormons as Christians (IMO).

Of course, there are a few differences that seem to matter to some people. For example, we believe that God and Jesus Christ are two separate and distinct beings (we don't believe in the Trinity), and that Jesus Christ, after his resurrection, went and visited the people on the American continent as recorded in the Book of Mormon, among a few other things that escape my mind at the moment.

Written by IronAngel on 29.10.2015 at 04:17
I did not know that Mormons actually had a doctrine of apostolic succession, that's interesting. Cheers! The quote from Whitney is very apologetic, though, and certainly made by the Catholic in a spirit of sucking up to his hosts, if made at all. Because even if the Catholic church was wrong and they had lost the apostolic succession, that would still not imply that the Mormons were right and that Joseph Smith had restored it. There's no logical necessity that it be restored at all, and not much reason to believe it was restored to Smith specifically.

It is the case with all new sects and "modern inspiration": I personally can't grasp why one would take a contemporary authority more seriously than an ancient and well-established one, in a religious context. Psychologically, doesn't it put your faith on very unsecure ground? If someone a few centuries back got a whole new testament and revealed that everything in the last two thousand years was bollocks, what makes you trust that it won't happen again and it be relieved that this guy, too, was a hoax?

Technically you're quite correct. Much (if not all) of the doctrine of the Mormon Church does ride on very little, and it really is up to the individual (and their relationship with God) to decide if it's true or not. However, there are a few things I can explain that may clear up why we believe things the way we do. (Mormonism 101, here we go!)

One of the big things we believe in is the idea that people are free to choose their paths in life, and God respects their agency. Because of that, the history of humanity's relationship with God has gone in cycles, where a prophet will come to preach the word, people will believe for a while, and then fall away into apostasy. We see this in the Old Testament all of the time: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. This is important as we believe these prophets held the authority from God to be prophets. Amos 3:7 even states that: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." [KJV] So, in order for God to reveal His will to His children, he will do it through a prophet. Essentially, we believe that God has "restored" His Gospel multiple times already.

When Jesus Christ began his ministry, it was much of the same idea: restore the Gospel and establish His Church upon the land, calling His 12 Apostles and giving them the authority (the keys of the priesthood) to lead the Church once He left them. However, the Church ended up facing a lot of persecution, with the Apostles dying off faster than new ones could be called to the position. This left the people to try and hide whatever pieces of the gospel and put them back together on their own (without the proper authority!).

This isn't to say that everything after 100 A.D. is "bollocks", but simply incomplete. Imagine the Fullness of the Gospel as taught by Christ as a nice, new mirror. When the Apostles were killed and the priesthood authority lost from the Earth, imagine that mirror being dropped and broken into several pieces. When the remaining Christians were able to reassemble the pieces in an effort to put the mirror back together, using glue to fill in the pieces they had lost. Sure, the mirror still reflects light (truth), but it's broken and incomplete, making it hard to get a complete picture from it.

This is why Joseph Smith is such a big deal for the Mormons. He didn't repair the mirror with his own efforts, but he was given the priesthood authority to restore the mirror back to one single piece. This makes him a prophet just like Noah or Moses. He was given the priesthood keys by Peter, James, and John, which allowed him to restore the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth and provide the true doctrines and proper ordinances for God's children (us).

Written by IronAngel on 29.10.2015 at 04:17
Why do you believe that, if you don't mind the personal question?

Okay, this is where I answer this question, keeping in mind with the context I've established.

One of the important things that prophets do is that they provide a kind of proof of their prophetic calling. Sometimes this involves miracles (Moses), other times it involves prophecies of doom and destruction (Noah). For Joseph Smith, his "proof" is the Book of Mormon. One of his duties was to find and translate the Book of Mormon from an ancient, forgotten language into English by the power of God. Essentially, it all boils down to whether or not the Book of Mormon is truly the Word of God, because if it is, then Joseph Smith is a prophet, and he's restored God's Kingdom on earth as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If not, then it all falls apart. I know it's a lot to hinge upon a single book, but we do refer to it as the Keystone of Our Religion for a reason!

So what is the Book of Mormon? Essentially, it's the writings of prophets on the American continents (we're not sure where specifically). A prophet named Mormon was commanded by God to compile a spiritual history of his people (which is [i]why[/] it's called The Book of Mormon!). When it was mostly complete, he passed the project to his son Moroni (who was also a prophet), who wrote the last section of the book and buried in the Earth to be recovered by Joseph Smith. Because Moroni was a prophet, he could see that his writings would end up being translated, so much of his work speaks directly to the reader. Towards the end of his section, he actually gives a challenge to the reader:

Quote:
Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. [Moroni 10:3-5]

I have personally taken this challenge multiple times, and every time, I have felt the witness of the Holy Ghost testifying to me that The Book of Mormon is true and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Church is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth. I have had these experiences, and denying that they happened to me would simply make me a hypocrite.

However, while I do stand by my testimony, I recognize that is merely the word of one person, and that it is up to each individual to consider these things. Is it all a hoax? Or was Joseph Smith really a prophet of God? If you (or anyone) is genuinely serious about wanting to know the truth of these things, I recommend that you do as Moroni asks: read the Book of Mormon, ponder what it teaches, and then ask God in prayer about its truthfulness, with real intent on gaining an answer. It's not scientific, or conclusive, or empirical, or logical, but more of a personal decision, based on personal experiences, and your willingness to pray to God and listen to His answer.

Well, I hope that was informative (if not too horribly long). There may have been a shorter way to say these things, but I felt like I needed to at least provide some narrative context to what Mormons believe and why I believe it. (That, and I'm not very good at being concise! Sorry!)

I'm willing to answer any other questions you or anyone may have about the Church and our beliefs. There is also a Mormonism thread here on Metal Storm, so if the moderators would prefer, we could take the discussion there.

Well, I didn't have an immediate response in mind. Thanks for your post, anyhow!

Written by IronAngel on 04.11.2015 at 18:31



Well, I didn't have an immediate response in mind. Thanks for your post, anyhow!

Thanks, I guess. After I posted it, I wondered if I wasn't getting too preachy (and boring, really). I can just hope it cleared things up for those who were interested. I'll go back to my Mormon corner now.

Why book of Enoch was origanly rejected from Bible?
I just found out that originally suicide was not sin , that there was that sect, cult what attack in N Africa to travelers and wanted to be killed , because they wanted go to heaven and get salvation. Non killed them, they all jumped from cliff and commuted mass suicide. After it Vatican said its a sin .... o yes , more you know, more you see its bullshit

Ancient alien theory suggests that satan was real and good guy, he was one of aliens who crated us, and then he was send here, helped ppl , they rejected him and he also was pissed. Its like Prometheus stoll fire from the Gods and gave to humans, Gods-ET
Satan was like snake serpent.,... like Kukalkan and other mayan Gods? Book of Enoch tells about Watchers and are missing part of old and early Christianity .... gosh ... AAT are better story as official bible story

Written by Bad English on 18.11.2015 at 12:37

Why book of Enoch was origanly rejected from Bible?
I just found out that originally suicide was not sin , that there was that sect, cult what attack in N Africa to travelers and wanted to be killed , because they wanted go to heaven and get salvation. Non killed them, they all jumped from cliff and commuted mass suicide. After it Vatican said its a sin .... o yes , more you know, more you see its bullshit

It is a common misconception that books were "rejected" or "censored" from the Biblical canon (whichever it is we're talking about - there is no one Bible, and the Book of Enoch is part of some canons). It's more that they simply weren't included in the first place. It's not like some committee sat down with a bunch of miscellaneous texts and picked their favorites to form a canon. If some authority (like a general council) did make decisions regarding the canon, it was based on already-established practice: what texts parishes really read, copied and considered authoritative. It as only minor disagreements or marginal deviations that would have to be debated. The first Book of Enoch wasn't used by most Jews or early Christians - maybe it wasn't good enough, maybe its claim to divine inspiration wasn't credible, maybe it was hard to come by, who knows, but it wasn't copied or used as actively so it didn't make it into the canon. I am under the impression its theology is a bit weird and non-Jewish/Christian, so that's probably why.

Care to provide a reference for the suicide story? It sounds like exaggerated/misrepresented nonsense to me. Early martyrs certainly exhibited a rather extreme deathwish, at least in later hagiography, but that's still far from suicide. Either way, I don't see why something or the other would be automatically "bullshit" because someone, somewhere, had a different opinion.

Hm, my answer re: Enoch is a little misleading, because it's concerned with the formation of the canon in general. Usually such questions were actualised in the case of "New Testament" texts. The case was probably very unproblematic with Enoch: it wasn't part of the Hebrew Bible the early Christians adopted pretty much as such. So it's not a question of them having to justify why not add this random text that isn't part of Jewish Scripture to their own holy book - why would they?

My whole problem with Christianity is that there is something "wrong" with Man, as in sin. If we look at "sins" as defined by the Bible we might take murder (Thou Shalt Not Kill) as probably the most obvious. Well?

My problem with murder as an example of the sinfulness of man is that animals do it, too! There are cases of even birds forsaking their own young, even murdering their own children for somewhat mysterious reasons. Closer to the human genome many examples can be found of primate murders and there are certainly cases of killing, intentional or otherwise, resulting from competition over territory and resources, or sexual partners. Baboons and chimps most notably can be cruel, vicious creatures. Are they "sinful"?

How about lying? (Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness) My own stupid dog will shit on the floor then act as if nothing happened. "Who shit on the floor?!"

"WHAT? I DIDN'T SHIT ON THE FLOOR!" when there is a turd right there on the floor.

"Sin" is not unique to man, therefore man, or Man if you prefer to capitalize, is not different from animals except in that he has the ability to write and record his thoughts, history, mark time and compose narratives (storytelling). Now other species, namely bees, may tell stories also, but certainly our stories are more complex and resilient - a bee's dance is over and done while we can dig up a human story from thousands of years ago and at least try and interpret and understand what it means.

So to me that's what religion, especially Abrahamic religions, represent - the human talent for storytelling expressed in perhaps its most complex way. Who is God? The Father. What is the Father? A King. This is a cosmic analog for our own family and more broadly our societies. Everything is written into an onion-skin type hierarchy where your father is king of your family and he is a member of a trade group or so forth, answering to a local Lord or whatever, and then he answers to a Duke on up to the King, and of course the King answers to God.

And of course the world revolves around us. Or so the story goes...

What is "sin" in the context of the human narrative? It answers a question, perhaps boiled down to, "Why does bad stuff happen?" or "Why are there mean people?" or something.

Bad stuff happens because people are born sinful because Satan tempted Eve with the fruit, etc. Different cultures have different explanations for it, just as they have a creation myth, a myth for why the sun sets and so on.

If you remove sin, especially Original Sin, then Christianity falls apart. You will have to convince me of sin before attempting to "Save" me.

Written by Enteroctopus on 02.03.2016 at 22:08
If you remove sin, especially Original Sin, then Christianity falls apart. You will have to convince me of sin before attempting to "Save" me.

While I admit I'm the local Mormon, I'd like to try and answer your question, and I suspect most Christians would agree with most of what I'm trying to say here.

When we look at the commandments, perhaps we should see them as ways to transcend our base, primal natures. These commandments ask us to discipline ourselves and become more than just another animal on the planet. They tell us that there is more to life than just eating, sleeping, and procreating, but there is a purpose to this life and something to strive for, namely "Heaven."

However, we are not perfect and we will break a commandment, or "sin." Because of this, we fall short of reaching Heaven on our own. This is what makes Jesus Christ (and most importantly, his ultimate sacrifice) so important. Because of the death and resurrection of the Savior, we do not have to live perfect lives. Instead, by having faith in Christ and his Atonement, we can be cleansed of our sins. Even if your sins are "as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" [Isaiah 1:18] making it possible for us to live with God in Heaven.

In short, we see "sin" as something that holds us back from our true potential. Sure, animals may do things that look like "sin", but the commandments weren't given to them. They were given to us, and if we keep them and rely on the Savior for when we fall short, then we can become "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" [Romans 8:17].

While I'm not expecting this to "convert you" or whatever, but at the very least, I hope it helps you understand how we see things a little.

I get that sin is a failure or inability to live up to the commandments, but there are a few leaps of logic one has to embark upon before bad behavior, "being a jerk," is interpreted as disobedience to God. The most significant leap is a belief in God, and I don't feel we need him in order to explain our existence.

There is a very interesting discussion between Richard Dawkins and Neil De Grasse Tyson on what extraterrestrial life would be like, and I particularly liked Dawkins' perspective (paraphrased):

If we encountered a technologically and socially advanced race of extraterrestrials we could almost certainly expect them to be humanoid because it works physically and biologically. They'd look an awful lot like we do and probably behave like us, too. It's a successful evolutionary pathway. The "Star Trek alien," being a guy dressed in a green costume or something, is roughly accurate according to Dawkins.

Tyson argued the opposite, that virtually anything should be expected morphologically, and he rather liked "The Blob" as a sci-fi alien because why must life consist of DNA, RNA, proteins, etc.?

I feel Dawkins won the argument because if you look at trees, for example, the same basic idea evolves in various environments because the idea is to reach the sun. The plants with the highest-up leaves get the most sunshine, so they win and get to pass on their genes to the next generation. Trees look like trees not "by design," but by virtue of the way light behaves.

We deal with reality through stories because we evolved from hunter-gatherers. Religion is nothing more than a creation story placing us at some point of importance in the Universe. We desire to have a purpose, so we write one for ourselves.

Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense to us, yet it is the most precisely measured theory ever. We resist it because it is counterintuitive, but just because particles aren't "supposed" to pop in an out of existence doesn't mean that they don't, constantly. Many people reject science because it calls into question our identity, or even our purpose or place in the Universe. The age of the Earth, known to be roughly 5 billion years, is still argued by some to be mere thousands because this reinforces their creation narrative.

Sin as I said I just a part of the narrative in our culture for explaining why bad behaviors exist. The problem with sin, however, is that there are very good reasons to lie, steal, or even kill. What would I do to an ISIS terrorist I knew was about to blow up a church? I'd toast his ass! Killing the bastard would be a good thing. From his perspective, though, I'd be sinning against God and probably destined to fry in Hell for eternity. Who's right?

It's not so cut and dry what is right and wrong when we consider the contexts of the behaviors. Promiscuity can be beneficial genetically, for example. Multiple sexual partners brings diversity to the genome and therefore resistance to disease. Dogs often have litters involving offspring of two or more fathers. The strongest survive.

(have edited several times, it is a complex post)

Written by Enteroctopus on 03.03.2016 at 18:53
The most significant leap is a belief in God, and I don't feel we need him in order to explain our existence.

The decision to believe in a God is entirely up to the individual as one considers and understands one's own life. You call it a leap to believe in God and that is very much true. To have faith is to believe in something despite, (and perhaps even in spite of) a lack of evidence. It's not about that which is provable or measurable or logical, but something more personal.

Therefore, if one chooses not to believe in God, it makes sense for that individual to consider sin as arbitrary. Or, perhaps, that individual disagrees with the traditional Christian definition of "sin" and chooses to define it differently. Everyone has their own ideas about what is right and what is wrong (sin). The problems occur when people disagree as to what those things are.

So, in a sense, you're right. A person doesn't need God in order to explain one's existence if one doesn't choose to. The fact that there are so many different models and frameworks for defining and understanding existence is more than enough proof for that. Believing in God isn't necessary, but simply one of the models chosen by the individual, one that wants to believe God is real. Once that belief is accepted, then sin also becomes real and preferably avoided.

In my experience, true belief in God isn't about handing down a convenient tradition that provides justifications, but is a decision based on one's own personal experiences and spiritual awareness. If a person "encounters" God, if you will, then it's up to that individual to try and reconcile their view to that personal truth, regardless of whether or not a God is necessary.

(Just as a side note, a belief in God doesn't necessarily mean a rejection of scientific models and ideas. I personally think religion and science doesn't conflict as much as some might have me think, and can even work together, but that's my Mormonism peeking out again!)

Of course, there are also many people who simply accept a religion or belief structure in order to not really think about what their existence means and focus on whatever they feel like is more worth their time. As a consequence, they often allow themselves to let others decide what they believe, resulting in some rather strange and even contradictory behaviors.

In the end, the existence of "sin" and "God" (and many other things) really comes down to what the individual wants and chooses for one's own existential model, whether it's one handed down by people the individual trusts or one put together by oneself. And I'm sure many people can attest that such a choice is certainly not permanent.

I like Alan Watts' take on the matter (and many other as well):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTIVrFV3S2c

I think original Christianity was radically different than what we see today. There is a Key and Peele sketch about this which I think is perfect (sorry no link, gotta pay to see that stuff!) A religious group asks God to please speak to them and he does, and he says thing like:

"Give up all material possessions and quit your job. Give your life to the service of your fellow man and be true at all times to my Commandments..."

They're all, "THIS HOUSE IS HAUNTED!! WE GOTTA GO!"

It's a joke, a skit, but I think that's a pretty accurate representation of how people would actually react to what Jesus actually would have asked of them.

Written by Enteroctopus on 08.03.2016 at 02:17
I think original Christianity was radically different than what we see today. There is a Key and Peele sketch about this which I think is perfect (sorry no link, gotta pay to see that stuff!) A religious group asks God to please speak to them and he does, and he says thing like:

"Give up all material possessions and quit your job. Give your life to the service of your fellow man and be true at all times to my Commandments..."

They're all, "THIS HOUSE IS HAUNTED!! WE GOTTA GO!"

It's a joke, a skit, but I think that's a pretty accurate representation of how people would actually react to what Jesus actually would have asked of them.

Heh, that's kinda funny.

I believe there has been quite a bit of research noting the differences between Christianity in the first 300 years and today. While I know it can be a major point of contention among other Christians, it is something that I, as a Mormon, do agree with.

I don't know if you want to bother reading my disgustingly huge post I made up above where I give a Mormon 101, but in there I mentioned the idea that while Christ did establish his doctrine (and a church to maintain it), things fell apart, priesthood authority was lost, and Christianity (and especially the Bible) became subject to a centuries-long game of "telephone." In the end, things got twisted or lost over time and many are simply trying to make the most of what's left.

This is what makes the Mormon position so unique. Even though we see the Bible as the Word of God (despite its flaws), we believe that God has called a new prophet (like Moses) to preach his gospel in purity and establish a church just like Christ did during his ministry. While we think we can learn and grow from what God has said in the past, we also focus on what God is saying to us today through His apostles. (In fact, if you wish, you can watch them speak in April in a broadcast on the internet that occurs twice a year.)

Of course, believing that God has a new prophet and speaks to humanity today requires as much faith as believing in God in the first place. However, I do think Mormonism does maintain an interesting place in the religious and philosophical landscape, showing that Christianity can be relevant in today's world, and not some decaying "old time tradition" that critics might think it to be.

Then again, I am a Mormon, and I think that biases me a little.

I must say I've quite enjoyed talking with you. It's refreshing that we can share different perspectives and for this not to turn into a flame-fest! I did read your post and thought you summed it up pretty well.

I suspect there is a common mystical experience that is simply interpreted differently based upon the worldview one believes at the time. Even atheists such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Cosmos, etc.) describe almost mystical experiences related to exploring the distant universe and/or imagining the possibilities of life on other planets, etc.

I would define a mystical experience as the Self being revealed for the fake that it is as one discovers an intimate connection with the universe, life, God and so on. In terms of my own experiences, at one point in high school I recall one night thinking about how ridiculous it is that I try and behave a certain way because I'm "supposed" to belong to a certain group, and all of this pretending that we are "jocks" or "nerds" or whatever is all a bunch of crap, because it is! It allowed me to branch out musically into Jazz and Classical, and I even started listening to Alternative and Grunge music. Oh, the horror!

It opened my mind up, and it made me a lot better person, and a better musician.

I was fortunate enough to live close to some very beautiful land, a state park or two, and would go bike riding through the foothills. I'd sit and watch nature and began to realize I was more than some kid in a Slayer t-shirt. I'm a living being, and that's bigger than being an "American" or a "Christian" or any of the other things we might identify with. Once I realized I was something more than the labels I had tried to conform to I was a whole lot happier. I was also able to stand by my convictions, my taste in music, whatever, because I don't "have" to be anything other than alive, and being alive is pretty cool!

I majored in Biology, got my degree in dentistry and people call me Dr.

I still listen to metal almost constantly. Some things will never change.

Written by Enteroctopus on 08.03.2016 at 19:10
I would define a mystical experience as the Self being revealed for the fake that it is as one discovers an intimate connection with the universe, life, God and so on. In terms of my own experiences, at one point in high school I recall one night thinking about how ridiculous it is that I try and behave a certain way because I'm "supposed" to belong to a certain group, and all of this pretending that we are "jocks" or "nerds" or whatever is all a bunch of crap, because it is!

Sounds like a spiritual experience to me!

(I'm not saying you should start believing in God or anything; just that it's important to recognize and remember those moments where your self-awareness helps you make decisions in your life!)

Written by Enteroctopus on 08.03.2016 at 19:10
It allowed me to branch out musically into Jazz and Classical, and I even started listening to Alternative and Grunge music. Oh, the horror!

Heh.

Written by Enteroctopus on 08.03.2016 at 19:10
I must say I've quite enjoyed talking with you. It's refreshing that we can share different perspectives and for this not to turn into a flame-fest!

Indeed. Who says every discussion about religion or philosophy has to be contentious and alienating?!

We dont know what is in the other side of black hole, the thing Stephen Hawking discovered. He doesnt believe in God, all scientist mostly dont believe, but actually the questio about Gods real or not is still havent been proved.

Luckil you know my thought and what ive been through, firstly research about ghost, you will know ghost can be real. If ghosts real then God can be real.

Secondly, who the fuck has created black hole and universe
Thirdly, what the hell is on the other side of the black hole. Imaginedly, one side has our universe with sun galaxy and other star and potentially galaxy and other potential life made planets, and the other side of black hole,wha is it inside..

But mostly i believe in God cuz Ghost is real.. So thats fun..

Anyway if just say so for you if need prayer to God whenyou i trouble you can Do so..

It's not accurate nor fair to generalize scientists as a monolithic group. While it's true that many famous scientists are outspoken atheists (Richard Dawkins is probably the best example) there are countless examples of devoted believers among their ranks. Also, certain religions tend to be more attractive to scientists, like Catholicism which officially embraces the Big Bang and Evolution, where certain evangelical Protestant sects are strongly opposed to these ideas.

Einstein famously envoked God in some of his most controversial stances, "God does not play dice," etc. Edwin Hubble, if I remember correctly, was also a theist.

I think the science of the very large, namely Astrophysics and General Relativity, are more in line with religious doctrine while fields such as evolutionary biology and genetics may be a bit more tricky to reconcile with religious beliefs.

In physics scientists are torn, it seems, between the Elegant and the Chaos. Brian Greene, while not a theist as far as I'm aware, is faithful in String Theory which posits that everything, virtually everything fits neatly into a mathematical model. It's enticing. And similarly Einstein was a fan of a closed Universe (not infinite) with a beginning and an end, which again is reassuring, even allowing a crack in the window for the possibility of something like God to step in.

Others have argued that such beliefs are mere conjecture and their devotees nothing more than fools.

Science is by no means a united front of atheist fundamentalism.