You and your queer world

[MargeB]

Ug, I always feared this

Or at least figured that since we were made by this dimension, we have nothing in common with all the other dimensions that may explain the whole thing.

Please, someone tell me he is totally WRONG! 

[MargeB]

Hi mfewell, thanks for your post, and I won't bite. The most important thing here is respectful discussion, and I will try not to rant.

I have two issues with Christianity, scientific really. Christianity is based on two main ideas:

1) We are all destined to eternal punishment as a result of the actions of the first man.

2) Jesus died so that we would not have this suffering but would live forever with him, and this Sanctification is mediated by the banishment of the stain of sin on our souls. The sin is Original Sin from (1) and from our own sins.

For scientific reasons I do not accept that there was a 'first man', nor do I accept the christian concept of 'soul', nor do I accept that I can be held in any way accountable, ontologically or otherwise, for the actions of the first 'man'.

Given this, my separation from Christianity is absolute. I do not even begin to take issue with the historical facts of Christ or resurrection, since I reject even the basic claims on which it appears to be founded.

Whadya think?

[mfewell]

Hello MargeB, I didn't think you'd respond, but thanks for doing so. I don't bother with original sin, even the word sin. I don't like it and think it is inflammatory and just gets people worked up. I don't believe in Adam and Eve, it's peripheral. I also have no thoughts either way about the virgin birth or transubstantiation because they deflect and don't matter. I don't care if a whale swallowed Jonah or not, I think the book of Jonah only exists so that JC was able to allude to it in reference to his own time in the tomb. My chief exec once said to me: "What statement was God making from the cross ?". And that made me think. You have mentioned in other threads about the NT being invented. I don't think that if you were going to invent a religion you would base the whole thing on something as inherently improbable as a resurrection. I can't even see the purpose of inventing a religion anyway and then dying for it, it doesn't add up. So I approach the gospels on the premise that they are true. They conflict in parts, well and good, if I'd invented it I'd be sure it was waterproof. Miracles ? Why not. Not scientific, but then religion isn't scientific. If the existence of God were amenable to scientific proof we'd all be believers (if proven) and God would have missed his point. St Thomas Aquinas makes a thoughtful case for the existence of God in Summa Theologica. Frank Morison, a barrister, set out to disprove the resurrection, finished up on the other end of his own argument and was a Christian by the end of the book, "Who moved the stone?", which I expect you've read. If not, give it a try ?  Anyway, this is the most debated topic in the history of mankind, no-one's going to prove anything, but it's fun to try, and I will go on looking. Do you believe in Caesar's Gallic Wars ? There is actually more documentary evidence for the gospels than for Caesar. Sorry to go on, and my very best wishes to you - but you did finish with Whadya think ? :)

[MargeB]

sorry mfewell, thanks for the reply, but the thread gets pushed down quite fast. Are you still there?