Religion is anti-truth: yes or no

[Saru Inc]

Yes, you asked a question. The thing is: the question you asked is like the most common argument theists have against atheists. I have encountered it and the discussion surrounding it way too often, and there is never anything new or interesting to it. I am sorry if it came out a little rude. I'm just kind of tired of the whole god-debate because both sides look at the question so narrow-mindedly.

Basically it boils down to this: which of the following is the positive claim (positive claims need either proof (or personal belief, which also needs a reason), otherwise negatives are assumed true.): A) there is a god, B) there is no god. To me the answer seems to be obviously A. You apparently disagree. I don't know how you do it without being maimed by a severe case of Occam's Razor.

Is it a religion to not believe, that Reindeer can't fly? That's an over-simplification, and I do admit there are atheists who can almost be classified as religious people.

Au contraire, (is that how it spelled? Never said it on the webs before.) To assume because a negative of proof, aka a lack of proof assumes the opposite, is merely the argument from ignorance fallacy. Stating that because you cannot prove it, it must exist. Because you cannot provide proof that God exists, we will assume do to a lack of proof on your side, our side is true. Which isn't really true at all, your side could be just as wrong as our side. There may be... a third... side. Like a God/World Avatar mindfuck?

 

[aeon]

To my thinking, religion is a practice of human beings. Truth is an ideal that does not exist in the material world, save the sense the universal "isness" can be called truth inasmuch as it is nondual and has no antithesis.

Given this, my sense is they have nothing to do with each other, so anti-truth, no.


cheers,
Ian

 

[NeverAmI]

This entire argument is not possible.

You are prescribing an answer for the ultimate question of truth which has not been proven by any logical means, therefore logical argumentation is irrelevent.

 

[Altruistic Muse]

Ok you're confused, I've asked all these questions too. Some books helped, if you like reading? Screwtape Letters and the Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. They get the right perspective I think, on Christianity. I loved Kierkegaard, he's sorted out a few things for me. I read them first, and then I started reading the Bible again, and it was a completely different world, so much clearer.

Note that, as Kierkegaard said, your inward journey of faith, and the external "religion" are two separate things. The Church sometimes comes across as a sort of club to me. Each different church will think their interpretation is correct, and they will judge other churches accordingly. Thou shalt not judge though. To me, the significance of Church is simply a place to go to worship. Jesus said "for when two or three are gathered in my name, then I am among them". This is why the Church is important. Praying in a group is very powerful. BUT it doesn't matter which Church, or how you worship, just that you are thinking about God and worshipping him.

Again, I like Kierkegaard's definition of sin as anything that separates you from God. Then it is less of a rule-following scenario. Original sin strikes us all down to begin with, we then disappoint ourselves repeatedly. God is sad, but He is sad because we suffer from this distance from our maker. That empty feeling? or the niggling feeling? I get it anyway. The relationship with God, in my view, is one of compassion and betterment, not of judgement and damnation.

In answer to your original statement... Rephrase. Religion is the practice of worship, a system of beliefs. It is the dogmatic end of the subject. If you were to say "Faith is the anti-truth", I would fundamentally disagree. I see faith as the purest truth. It is subjective, it cannot be rationalised... but does this matter? It is in it's simplest form, something that you know to be true. Why then, would that need proof?

Desmond Tutu writes the following words. Kind of soothing:

" Do you think I don't know the demands of your life?
I see you striving for perfection, craving my acceptance.
I see you bending yourself out of shape to conform to the image that you have of me.
Do you imagine that I did not know who you were when I made you, when I knit you together in your mother's womb?
Do you think I planted a fig tree and expected roses to bloom?
...No, child, I sowed what I wanted to reap.

You are a child after my own heart.
Seek out your deepest joy and you will find me therre.
Find that which makes you most perfectly yourself and know that I am at the heart of it"

 

[IndigoSensor]

This entire argument is not possible.

You are prescribing an answer for the ultimate question of truth which has not been proven by any logical means, therefore logical argumentation is irrelevent.

This

 

[magister343]

There are several terms for sin in the original languages, but the most common conveys the sense of missing the mark, of trying and failing. Others could be seen as violations of laws or principles, or of doing harm either to the self or others. In general disease is a better model than crime, but addiction a batter model than disease. Most fundamentally though Sin is anything which is harmful to one's relationship with God.


Sin lies in the Will. If the body is forced to act without consent of the will there is no sin (in that person, although almost certainly it exists in those behind the force). It can either be the will to do ill, or the lack of sufficient will to be diligent enough to do good.


I don't know whether the crucifixion is the only way things could have happened or not. I believe that the Western Church has long taught it necessary while the Eastern Church instead emphasized the necessity of the incarnation, which its theologians claimed would have had to have happened even if man had never sinned. God becoming man is considered by them to be an important step in Theosis, the process of men becoming God. The East tends to favor Theosis while the West favored the Beatific Vision. In the west Christians are thought to at beast have a clear vision of their maker while in the East the intimacy is thought to be so close that we become one. (These days the Eastern Orthodox tend to view heaven and hell as merely different ways of experiencing the overwhelming love and energy of the presence of the Father which is given to all.)



The Kingdom of Heaven is within you and without you. It is here now and yet to come. Heaven can refer to all of creation that is in accord with the will of God. Frequently the bible speaks of heavens and heavens of heavens, implying not one place but a great myriad. Galaxies and other dimensions may count as parts of heaven, but that is not really our concern.

It is far from clear that the soul ever leaves the body at all. In its most basic sense the Soul is defined as that which makes something alive and/or gives it its identity. Socrates described it as the form of the body, which while distinct from the physical body is immanent in it and cannot exist without a body to bear it. It is like the information written in a book, distinct from the matter of the paper and ink but not something you can just remove without translating it to another medium.

Scripture seems to me to better fit with the doctrine of conditional immortality and soul sleep, in which the soul ceases to at least consciously exist upon death and does not experience anything until we all take part in the Bodily Resurrection on Judgment day. From there those who are in Christ will be given incorruptible bodies and live forever in glory on the New Earth. Rather than us going to heaven, heaven comes to us.

The rest of humanity will pass again into the second death, a permanent destruction rather than eternal torture. Scripture clearly states that Only God is Immortal, and describes immortality as a gift available to us rather than our natural state. Life is not possible for anything that is fully cut off from God. I prefer to think that the destruction of the wicked comes only from their refusal of the sustenance being offered to them, rather than from God's highly unsymmetrical retribution. It could also be though that a more active destruction is used as a form of mercy killing, so that He does not have to watch his beloved suffer the slow agony of spiritual starvation.

The common notion of hell comes from Greek philosophy rather than Jewish tradition or scripture. The New testament uses 3 terms which are often translated Hell, but which are all really proper names better left untranslated. The most common is Hades, the Greek term for the underworld and the god thereof. Its meaning seems ultimately to be derived from a term meaning "hidden." (Technically, the etymology if Hell is the same.) It can refer to the elaborate world where disembodies spirits of both good and evil men dwelt after death in Greek mythology, but does not have to. In a more general sense, it refers to everything even slightly below the ground. Hades is not only lord of the dead, he also presided over mineral wealth. If it involves digging into the ground, it involved Hades. It seems pretty clear that Hades was being used as a translation of the Hebrew term Sheol. The more Hellenized of the Pharisees had adopted a somewhat Greek-like notion of Sheol where the spirits of all dead went before the spits of the righteous were reincarnated, but I see little basis for that. Most Jews thought of it less superstitiously, simply as The Grave or the state of not being alive. The general bodily resurrection of the dead in the last days was believed by most Pharisees and most lesser sects of Judaism, and is very much reaffirmed by Christ and the early church. The Sadducees taught that death was simply the end, with no continued existence of the soul after death or resurrection in the coming age, only a lifeless and decaying corpse below the ground and hopefully a good reputation carried on my loved ones still living on the surface. It seems best for Hades and Sheol to be considered a neutral term describing where our bodies go between death and the resurrection, regardless of how one lived his live. The righteous patriarchs went to Hades/Sheol, and it is very likely all of us will go there too. The second term for "hell" is Gehenna, or the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom. This was a site which was in ancient times used for human sacrifice to Moloch, but which had centuries before the time of Christ been converted into the garbage dump of the city of Jerusalem. "Hellfire" is literally the flames of the garbage incinerators that were constantly running here to get rid of refuse. In the old testament God says it would not even enter his mind to order or send a son here to be tortured and killed as the Israelites were doing for Moloch. This is shown as the final fate of the wicked, but apparently in the original languages it specified that this is where their corpses go to be burned and their ashes consumed by worms. It is likely a metaphor for complete destruction, not a eternal place of torment. Some point to references to "eternal fire" and smoke that ascends forever as saying that the destruction will last forever, but the same terms are used for the flames that burned Sodom and Gomorrah and they certainly are not still in a conflagration to this day nor were they when those words were written so that is probably not a good translation. Smoke ascending forever is considered by many to be an idiom meaning that memory of the event will never pass away. It does say that the shame of those who are raised not unto eternal life will go on forever, but this ost plainly means that those who do live forever will never get over their disgust at the abominations of sinners like Hitler long after no trace of the wicked remains. The final term for "hell" is Tartaroo, a corruption of the term Tartaros which in Greek mythology is a place below Hades where Zeus imprisoned the Titans who opposed his usurpation of his father's throne. This is used only once in a single epistle (one of the epistles of more doubtful authenticity, if I remember correctly) in reference to the place that certain demons are being held for later judgment. (Alternate translations make it sound like those imprisoned there are the spirits who before the flood came down and impregnated human women and created the race of giants. Many Jewish groups considered this crossbreeding to the the source of evil rather than Adam's sin, but this does not fit at all with what Christ taught. There is no reason for a human to believe than an angelic being is in any way capable of producing offspring with an flesh and blood human, or that doing so would make the offspring genetically inclined towards evil. There are a couple other verses that seem to allude to Jewish beliefs of the Nephthilim, but I see absolutely no reason to accept this type of Jewish superstition and folk belief.)


It does seem that we will face punishment before our final fate, but this punishment will be proportional to the magnitude of our sins and great mercy will be shown to those who sinned out of ignorance while the fate of hypocrites who knew full and well what they were doing in their hidden sins will be severe. Hardships suffered in life may also be taken into account and reckoned as part of this punishment. Scripture seems to imply that the sins of Christians will be punished more harshly than those of heavens, rather than simply ignored. However, we have assurance that we will emerge from this trial stronger and better than before. It is like the refiners fire used to obtain the purest of gold. Even in the Old Testament when it says that God "punished" someone a more literal translation is that he "added value to" him. If punishment is for correction and betterment it makes more sense to use it most for the sake of those who will endure forever rather than those who will not last.




By the way, the Law was never given for God's sake, but for Man's. The law is a gift meant to allow us to demonstrate our love for God, but without that love is empty and meaningless. Also, the Ten Commandments are but part os the law given specifically to Israel, and never meant for all of humanity. The rest of us ought but try to adhere to the Seven Noahide Laws. Even those are not fully necessary though, but should be taken as commentary or a guide in helping to follow the only 2 commandments that ever truely mattered: Love God with all you are, and love your fellow man as you love yourself.

 

[frozen_water]

This is a kind of interesting question, but I still can't figure out what I think about it. I've heard it argued (by a pastor, nonetheless) that religion is a sort of psychopathy towards God. Psychopaths essentially have no conscience or internal constraints that hold them to values which other people naturally have in common, but they can become adept in social situations by paying hyper-attention to the details that they notice make other people appear trustworthy. It's then sort of a toss-up (though it's extremely common, because they get things out of it) whether or not they use this artificial trustworthiness to manipulate people and do all sorts of other mean things. From what I've heard, INFJs kind of attract people like this, so I probably don't need to say much more on it.

Similarly, the guy argued, religion (in the sense of holding to an authority or following rules without any internal conscience/intuition/stuff) is psychopathy towards God. He suggested that although a lot of people neither understand nor feel that it's true, they draw lines on which beliefs they think are necessary for his approval, and which actions must be followed, and twist the edges of their personality into alignment with it, just like a psychopath trying to learn to obey societal rules.

While I still don't know if I agree with him, I thought I'd throw the idea out there because it seems almost like what you're wondering about. There are also a few other things I've observed which have some relevance to your post.

When someone tells you that Jesus is the only path to salvation and you question what that is then you are questioning the authority of that persons leader (Jesus) and therefore it is a personal attack on that believer.

I think you're thinking about this in a weird way which makes them seem worse than they are. Since Christians today constantly stress a personal relationship with Jesus (which is a bit of a weird concept, developing a relationship with someone without current physical form, but let's let that slide for now), consider the ideal Christian, who is closer to Jesus than anyone else in the world. Then think about the things Jesus said--that nobody comes to God except through him, and the like. When you question Jesus' authority, you implicitly express mistrust in him--either that he was mistaken, or lying, or crazy, etc. Now if you just think about two very close friends on earth... old war buddies who had risked their lives for each other, or people who had known each other their whole lives and seen each other through rough times, etc.. and suppose you were friends with just one of them. That one suggested you go into business with the second, which you do. Supposing you neglected to sign contracts, or something, and began to worry whether or not he would pay you back. Your mutual friend says "this guy has stuck his neck out for me many times over the course of our life... I promise you he's a good guy and he'll split profits fairly." Expressing skepticism in that situation is a little bit accusatory, on a feelings-level, because you're 1. suspicious of someone who may never have wronged a single person in his life, and 2. suspicious of your friend as well.

If there's one thing you can expect people to get angry at, it's thinking poorly of them and the things they value. I know at least that I've definitely left friends because I've heard them badmouthing mutual friends before. So it may be arrogance that they don't provide any reasonable debate.... but it may also be just a very defensive person's reaction to "unprovoked" attacks against someone they respect.

On the other hand: it's often ridiculous because there are, in everyone's life, times when they don't trust God. I can't actually think of a single Christian, at least, who doesn't know that God overlooked or overcame their mistrust and some point (and probably many points) in their lives. When they insist that you obey someone's authority immediately, I have to question their reason for doing it. Ideally, it's because they believe that your belief is urgent, because if you died tomorrow without belief, you would go to hell. But if that were true, I think there's some implicit mistrust of God in that situation. Do they think God finds your objections so insignificant that he wouldn't respect them? The Psalms suggest otherwise. Does he read the mind (which is really the substance of what they're pushing for, when they say "believe X"--agree that it's true), or can he see into the heart where the deeper reasons lay?

These sorts of things always seem to come in sets of two, in my mind. One side begs understanding, because I know that so many objections against them are unfounded, or relate only to such a small subset that they're hardly worth rolling your eyes at, but the other side says that--although (like you mentioned) I can't say they're wrong--I really, really think they're getting carried away by the various cultures they're a part of (their country's culture, their age group's culture, modernism/postmodernism culture, information age culture, etc), which blend together into the little unhealthy certainty which causes them to claim certain truth in the first place and then (reasonably) try to make other people adopt it.

 

[Saru Inc]

Ok you're confused, I've asked all these questions too. Some books helped, if you like reading? Screwtape Letters and the Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. They get the right perspective I think, on Christianity. I loved Kierkegaard, he's sorted out a few things for me. I read them first, and then I started reading the Bible again, and it was a completely different world, so much clearer.

Note that, as Kierkegaard said, your inward journey of faith, and the external "religion" are two separate things. The Church sometimes comes across as a sort of club to me. Each different church will think their interpretation is correct, and they will judge other churches accordingly. Thou shalt not judge though. To me, the significance of Church is simply a place to go to worship. Jesus said "for when two or three are gathered in my name, then I am among them". This is why the Church is important. Praying in a group is very powerful. BUT it doesn't matter which Church, or how you worship, just that you are thinking about God and worshipping him.

Again, I like Kierkegaard's definition of sin as anything that separates you from God. Then it is less of a rule-following scenario. Original sin strikes us all down to begin with, we then disappoint ourselves repeatedly. God is sad, but He is sad because we suffer from this distance from our maker. That empty feeling? or the niggling feeling? I get it anyway. The relationship with God, in my view, is one of compassion and betterment, not of judgement and damnation.

In answer to your original statement... Rephrase. Religion is the practice of worship, a system of beliefs. It is the dogmatic end of the subject. If you were to say "Faith is the anti-truth", I would fundamentally disagree. I see faith as the purest truth. It is subjective, it cannot be rationalised... but does this matter? It is in it's simplest form, something that you know to be true. Why then, would that need proof?

Desmond Tutu writes the following words. Kind of soothing:

" Do you think I don't know the demands of your life?
I see you striving for perfection, craving my acceptance.
I see you bending yourself out of shape to conform to the image that you have of me.
Do you imagine that I did not know who you were when I made you, when I knit you together in your mother's womb?
Do you think I planted a fig tree and expected roses to bloom?
...No, child, I sowed what I wanted to reap.

You are a child after my own heart.
Seek out your deepest joy and you will find me therre.
Find that which makes you most perfectly yourself and know that I am at the heart of it"

Yes.

I wish I could articulate my thoughts better XD

 

[NeverAmI]

This is all centered around one or perhaps a couple religions that are typically geographically significant to the parties involved.

Religion cannot be used as a blanket term in most cases unless you exclusively state which religions you are talking about. There are so many different perspectives and metaphysical descriptions that they simply cannot be lumped into a single category in something like this.

Judaism
Christianity (plus a million subcategories)
Islam
Baha'i
Hinduism
Jainism
Sikhism
Buddhism
Zoroastiranisum (Parsi)
Mandaeism
Yazdanism
Confucianism
Taoism
Aztec
Incan
Mayan
Aboriginal
Shinto
Norse

The list goes on.

 

[Animekitty]

Not at all. What I am saying is that if I don't know all the little itty bitty parts, even for someone as OCD as me, it's ok.

Thats understandable.

Well, why not? What are you asking here? I mean thats kind of what I just said, and I must say.... "good spirits?"

A spirit is like a soul with a non-physical form that cannot die. At least thats what I was told.
Angels are good spirits. Demons are bad spirits. God is a spirit somehow.

This isn't really saying anything, it's just assuming knowledge which can't exist. Sin is in the core of our beings, known as 'Original Sin,' which is why we need Jesus.

If original sin is defiance of God does that make sin a genetic personality disorder? And if sin is a genetic personality disorder Why would Jesus need to die on a cross to cure it. Isn't there a medication or something that he could have given us.

No, you stated it was a soul shape. I implied no shape or form, nor a spiritual liquid, which is a contradiction in terms.

Contradiction how?

And a child in Africa is right now dying in a hut due to Aids, and no one cares about him. (No one in his village) due to the evilness of man, great tragedies will occur.

If Jesus loves that little child then I don't know why that child is suffer so greatly?

Also, Jesus had to die that way, thats why he did. And actually, Jesus died the average death of a criminal, everyone was crucified back in the day, the politicians might have had a more graceful execution. But the common criminals? Crucify them.

Jesus had to die?
Was his death just a symbolic act to make people turn to God?
If sin is defiance of God then sin is really a psychological problem. So Jesus was not really take the sin of the world upon himself. He was being an example Gods love to encouraged people to love God? His death was like a therapy for the psychologically ill?

You defiantly had faith that you were going to hell? What does this sentence mean? That in order to rebel against Christianity, you stated no matter what you were going to hell, that way you could drop the religion and live your care free life? Seems counter intuitive and self destructive, in my opinion.

Apparently you have never felt the fear of going hell. From 12 to 19 that was a fact of my life. Its a good thing I grew past it.

Dude, why are you bring up a soul shape? It doesn't exist.

And this is what the bible tell you, that the soul has no shape?

If you are imply that sin is shaping your soul, (which is different...) then you're exactly right, you are going to hell.

How do you know that its sin shaping my life and not the search for genuine answers?

I mean, you just admitted it yourself. Being a good person doesn't mean shit, pardon the language. Because you still sin, and you need Jesus, everyone does.

So being a good person is defying Gods will and therefore is a sin?

If mother Teresa wasn't a Christian, she would still go to hell.

If Christianity is defined as the opposite of love truth and justice then she has committed to many sin in the eyes of God to be in heaven at this moment.

Going to heaven and going to hell are not determined by your physical life on Earth, its more of are you committed to God, and do you believe He died for you, and without him you would go to hell?

A commitment to God is not defined by believing in the death of Jesus but by seeking the truth about who God actually is if he exists.

And you seem to have already made up your mind, you don't like religion. Doesn't have to be logical, you just don't want to like it. And... well... then there's no point in even asking those questions.

The religion you present is not logical otherwise I would believe in it. A good God would not send good people to hell. But if thats what you want to believe I cant stop you. I only think that what you believe brings more harm than good.

 

[Saru Inc]

I am perplexed, by your posts. I honestly am. It;s like I'll say:


THIS IS "B".


"I understand, but what about B? "

The soul does not have a shape, I said in the first post of this that sin is not physical. I also said in the direct quote you quoted the children must suffer because of the evilness of man. It is a horrible tragedy, but so is sin. People who think God is a douche because he allows such things as warfare in Africa, aids, rape and maiming of childen; but that only shows they don't have a clear understanding of who and what God is.

And yes Jesus had to die, I just said that...

So being a good person is defying Gods will and therefore is a sin?
"

What? How could you get that from what I said? Are you trolling? If I saved 10000 infants from drowning, and spent my whole life caring for the good. But I had a bad habit of cussing, or speeding in traffic, I would still go to hell.

This isn't really going anywhere. Except to bonkersville.

 

[894tt3h9]

Religion to me as I define it is about seeking truth by appealing to authority. Without a leader their can be no religion. When someone tells you that Jesus is the only path to salvation and you question what that is then you are questioning the authority of that persons leader (Jesus) and therefore it is a personal attack on that believer. The leader is always right, the leader is always infallibly. I cannot trust someone that has such arrogance for when confronted they will not provide any reasonable debate but instead claim infallibility granted to them by the leadership of their choosing. So then whom do I trust? In this life I see many proclaiming that they have the truth. But how do I know that they are right if others say the opposite is truth? No one is infallible, we all make mistakes and yet some act as if they know what truth is when actually don't. But then who am I to say they are wrong? Who am I to say I know better then they do? The answer is that I cant. I can only go with what I know will affect me and my life. To put myself under a false authority would not be good, I do not wish to be manipulated. If a religious person tells what to do with my life should I be obedient to their wishes. Not if what I think they are saying is hogwash. I see that people being manipulated all the time and so why not be suspect of anyone acting as an authority. I will not cripple myself by rejecting everything they say but I will have to take it with a grain of salt. The world is a giant puzzle of which the big picture is of great importance. A single piece of that puzzle does not deserve to be elevated above all others as the single truth. But thats what I see religion doing. Using authority to justify one piece as ultimate truth and the entire big picture when that piece might not even exist.

I don't feel like interjecting a religious debate, so I'll just answer the original post.

I believe that there is one universal truth. I think the truth will always be revealed, but not everyone will arrive at that truth on the same path, in the same time, or in the same manner.

I don't believe in saying whether or not a particular religion or belief set is right or wrong. What may be right for one person won't necessarily (and usually isn't) right for me.

I don't believe in following rules and guidelines and religious laws in order to get to the truth. I think they may have their own value, and many need to be told what to do, lest they lose their way. For some, it is all they know and they aren't aware of another way.

As someone who grew up in a non-religious household (I don't even know if my parents believe in God), who went to a Catholic High School and who now believes in a high power, I can say that I think I am getting a grasp of what "truth is" and for me, it's not religious practices. This goes for ANY religion.

I have a feeling that the truth is a mixture of all different interpretations of God from different cultures and different times, and not any single one has got it 100% right. I think God is above trying to rule and regulate us. I think it goes beyond strict procedures and rituals. It's simpler than that. For me, it comes down to love, acceptance and inner peace. It comes to being at one with the source of all that is. It's not this notion of some man in outer space who is going to condemn us to hell or grant us entry into heaven based on our behaviour.

I could go on forever I guess. In short, what's true for you isn't going to always be what's true for someone else. Unless you can define what the actual TRUTH is, then you can't hope to pick and choose a path or say whether or not the path someone else has chosen is right or wrong. One way or another, each of us will find out what is true for us and maybe we won't know it until our last moments of life. So why worry so much about it?

 

[Kavalan]

Blind belief in anything or lack there of can cause/create anti-truths. Sandra covered it well, there is no one right path but many but a destination.

 

[Saru Inc]

Blind belief in anything or lack there of can cause/create anti-truths. Sandra covered it well, there is no one right path but many but a destination.

That's your opinion... I believe in one absolute truth.

 

[Kavalan]

That's your opinion... I believe in one absolute truth.

which would be the destination

 

[Animekitty]

I am perplexed, by your posts. I honestly am. It;s like I'll say:

THIS IS "B".

"I understand, but what about B? "

If you don't know why (THIS IS "B") at the deepest levels then how can you accept it as the only truth. It may be you could be wrong about what "B" is. It is not enough just to accept what is said I must know why it is the way it is.

The soul does not have a shape, I said in the first post of this that sin is not physical.

If sin is not physical then it is psychological. Agree or disagree?

I also said in the direct quote you quoted the children must suffer because of the evilness of man. It is a horrible tragedy, but so is sin. People who think God is a douche because he allows such things as warfare in Africa, aids, rape and maiming of childen; but that only shows they don't have a clear understanding of who and what God is.

If a good God allows men to be evil for a reason then I do not know what that reason is.

And yes Jesus had to die, I just said that...

But you never explained why.

"So being a good person is defying Gods will and therefore is a sin?"

What? How could you get that from what I said? Are you trolling?

Do you believe your God would send me to hell for being an agnostic? I don't think God would do that to me. I don't think God would send me to hell for questioning the Bible or even for questioning his existence. A good God does not send good people to hell even if they are atheists. Its you heart that matters not your religion.

If I saved 10000 infants from drowning, and spent my whole life caring for the good. But I had a bad habit of cussing, or speeding in traffic, I would still go to hell.

This isn't really going anywhere. Except to bonkersville.

The quantity of good you do is irreverent in comparison to the quality of your heart. Believing in Jesus does not necessarily make you a good person nor does it necessarily mean you have love in you heart.

 

[Saru Inc]

which would be the destination

Sandra implied that the truth is all of the religions combined. I believe only one religion is true.

 

[Kavalan]

ah well I see religions(or lack there of) as the paths and the truth as the destination

 

[Animekitty]

Sandra implied that the truth is all of the religions combined. I believe only one religion is true.

No. She said that most religions have a piece to the bigger picture. One religion cannot encompass all of truth.

 

[Saru Inc]

This is seriously head deep in bonkersville Animekitty. Are you reading what I wrote? I wrote an entire paragraph on why Jesus had to die.