In todays

[MWB]

modern world, where the accepted definition of sin has become blurred, we need to protect ourselves against an over-zealous deity keen to promote an out-dated set of rules.

Who agrees?

[naomi24]

Yep. It's someone's opinion, and they're entitled to voice that opinion here.

[Octavius]

Yes, did any part of my sentence make you think otherwise?

[Theland1]

Sin is that which causes us to fall below Gods' perfect standard.
Our built in consciense is simply Gods' way of warning us that we are in sin.
Further to a comment or two above, I would like to state for the record that I do not live in the terrified fear of God that has been implied. Quite the opposite in fact.

[chakka35]

It's a good idea,Theland, to make it clear who you mean by 'us'.

Incidentally have you and naomi now returned from Penge? If so, welcome back.

[Theland1]

"Us" = "Mankind."

Ah yes! Penge! Quite lovely. The donkey rides and candyfloss were quite superb, and there was only one other couple sharing our room in the guest house! Sheer luxury. (Nims bought a "Kiss me quick" hat - she looks lovely in it.)

[naomi24]

Hi Theland. Good to see you back again. So what changed? You've said in the past that you fear God's wrath and retribution, so do tell. Have you finally seen the light?

This thing about our built in conscience being God's way of warning us that we are in sin, is, if you'll excuse the expression, utter twaddle. I can suffer from a guilty conscience because I've been held up in traffic and kept someone waiting 5 minutes when meeting me for lunch! Hardly a sin, I'd have thought. You'll drive yourself potty with all this sin nonsense!

Not sure about the hat. Not a good colour on me - but I like the legend. ;o)

[Theland1]

The fear of God is better understood as, "awe."
He is so "other" to what we are that such awe is justified.
But fear of going to the hell I also believe in? Nope! Not me.
I am comforted by the knowledge that my sins, and they are many, are forgiven.

[Gormless]

The debate goes on and on, fortunately.

There is no proof of God, although St.Thomas Aquinas gets close. There can be no proof, don't you all see that? I just find it hard to believe that so many independent people should spend so much effort making stuff up. Was St.Paul a complete loony? Luke a total fraud?

[naomi24]

Theland, you've changed your tune!

Gormless, when Thomas Aquinas's imagination became challenged, he simply reached the conclusion that everything is attributable to God. I can't see how that can be construed in any way as geting close to the truth. It's par for the course with religion. Don't know the answer? Oh well, it must be God's doing then.

Was Paul a complete loony, and was Luke a total fraud? Perhaps you should look at the evidence and ask yourself seriously whether either of them were entirely rational - or perhaps whether either of them had another, more personal, agenda.

[Gormless]

I have looked at the evidence, and I find no grounds for a personal agenda, like getting your head cut off in Rome (probably).

I have just been reading about Paul's missionary journeys, and he does not come across as a fraud. Something happened to him which utterly changed his life, I think this is inescapable.

[naomi24]

Maybe something did happen to him that utterly changed his life - but it doesn't follow that the message he spread was the message that Jesus taught. If it had been (as I've just said on another thread) then you and all the other Christians would be Jews.

[Gormless]

You have to get away from the notion of Jesus as a teacher, a good man, and all that diluted stuff. The essence is in what he was and repeatedly claimed to be. This is a challenge you eventually have to face. Examine the evidence, if you find it lacking then you'll do something else, if however, you find it more than a little compelling, then you'll be drawn back to it time and time again.

[Theland1]

If Jesus was simply a good man, clever teacher, etc then he was a self deluded fraud. Or mad.
However, His claims were and are borne out by millions of testimonies, including my own.
He is the Son of God.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Blimey, I'm convinced. Where do I sign up?

[mibn2cweus]

Theland, Welcome back. I suppose I should not find it so odd that after all this time you would show up one day . . . early! Can't you get anything right? ;o)

[chakka35]

Theland, you are not entitled to use 'us' in that context to include all mankind. You've had it explained more than once that sin is meaningless to non-religionists. To gather us into your flock is impertinence.

Gormless, there is no evidence for anything to do with Jesus, merely stories. As a matter of interest what, in your view, was he, and what did he claim to be? Be careful with your answer.

[Theland1]

Correction:-
"All of mankind except chakka 35". There!

[Theland1]

Mibs - I thought it WAS tomorrow!

[Theland1]

Waldo - I knew one day you would melt!
I'll send you the forms.

[Gormless]

chakka, why are the Gospels not evidence? Why do you dismiss them as stories?

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. There were preliminaries like walking on water, raising people from the dead (although Peter et al did that too), and ultimately his own resurrection.

The gospels are challenging, they can get very niggling.