Atheism is a faith.

[Tricky]

Xtianity would say that the sins of someone are not part of the essential "me-ness"; Jesus showed that it is quite possible to be sinless and human and perhaps the state in which someone can be fully human is to be sinless.

In my reading of the bible, Jesus didn't appear sinless at all, although a much nicer guy than most folks. He sometimes was short-tempered. He appeared to have an occasional bout of hypocrisy, e.g. telling people to give away their worldly goods, but keeping some foot-anointing oil for himself. He withered that poor little fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season.

These things and others serve to reinforce my opinion that the sinlessness of Jesus is merely a Xtian assumption that is required in order to give Him godhood.

The q of where do these traits go is a good one. In Prot land it appears that this process of glorification/theosis is glossed over somewhat and happens as one 'enters heaven' but I find Catholic and Orthodox ideas more appealing. The idea is more of a purgatory, a 'place' where one can come to terms with who one is and work through 'issues', for want of a better word, (sounds like a divine therapy clinic, doesn't it!).

It does indeed. But my experience is that no person comes out of a clinic in perfect health. Better, yes, but never perfect. So can you enter heaven with "just a few" sins that can't be scrubbed?

In some ways it could be hellish - facing up to how one has hurt others and oneself and then undergoing change is painful.

We have that "hell" right here on earth.

Some very popular versions of Christianity have no such place of change. They say your sins (including your character flaws, I'm guessing) are washed away completely by handing them over to Jesus. Sure, it doesn't make sense, but neither does any concept of heaven I've ever heard.

 

[Mr Clingford]

I think you will find that there is less ignorance of Xtianity here than in many places, but also less (a great deal less) reverence for it. I hope that doesn't piss you off too badly.

You may well be right, but then some threads have very basic misunderstandings; also many here appear to be fundamentalist literalist atheists with regard to the Bible, hell etc so when people think they have dismissed the whole of Xtianity because they think that literalism is stupid then they are ignorant.

Because it wouldn't be me. It would be something else. If I snap at a loved one (or you), that is a part of my personality, for good or bad. If you excise the short-tempered part of my personality then you might as well lobotomize me. I want to fix my personality problems by recognizing them and working on them, not by having them wiped away.

It sure as hell wouldn't be "Tricky", the sarcastic flame warrior who things everything, even tragedy, contains elements of humor. While your concept of heaven (as best I understand it) is a great deal more benign than most I have heard, it still requires some change in my basic nature. Well, maybe I need some changes, but I want to be the one who decides that.

I think I touch on something like this above with regard to a hellish purgatory where one might work on it. I'll also say that I know near to sweet FA about what a sinless human is like as all a Xtian has really is the 4 gospels and theology. A redeemed Tricky might still express himself in sarcastic flaming ways as we have Jesus saying some religious hypocrites were 'white-washed tombs' and 'brood of vipers'. Of course, that was on earth, where there was a suitable subject for flaming (how does it feel, to know you are walking in the ways of Jesus the Flamer? ) You know it's an interesting subject and I would like to keep it very narrowed on this point so it doesn't snowball horribly. It is possible that the aspect of your character that you express through flaming might still finds means of expression but in a different way. I don't know you so I couldn't speculate how.

Here's a good question for you. In your version of heaven, how much free will do you have? Are you free to do evil?

Yes, but we will wish to choose good options.
***

BTW, you can nest quotes, though it takes a bit of cutting and pasting.
though it takes a bit of cutting and pasting.

Must work on my 'can't be arsed element'!

Thanks for the offer about Iaachus, but no thanks - I am lost in the dark enough up my own back alley. But surely if science considers how space-time came into existence then the subject is not mere philosophic meanderings?

I will need to go away and do some reading about heaven, theosis etc. I don't think I am being vague deliberately it's that I don't know and the nature of the beast (religious matters being mysterious).

 

[sphenisc]

... but keeping some foot-anointing oil for himself...

Do you have a particular passage in mind? I can't think of one where Jesus claimed ownership of the oil.

 

[Mr Clingford]

In my reading of the bible, Jesus didn't appear sinless at all, although a much nicer guy than most folks. He sometimes was short-tempered. He appeared to have an occasional bout of hypocrisy, e.g. telling people to give away their worldly goods, but keeping some foot-anointing oil for himself. He withered that poor little fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season.

These things and others serve to reinforce my opinion that the sinlessness of Jesus is merely a Xtian assumption that is required in order to give Him godhood.

We would have to get story specific (I will if you will) to examine these instances properly. In your above examples I could say that anger is not necessarily wrong; some people cling on to worldly goods too much (have priorities wrong) but that doesn't make goods wrong per se; the fig tree was a symbolic act concerning judgement against the temple authorities. But is this sinlessness aspect any more unbelievable than a 'personal ground of all being'?

It does indeed. But my experience is that no person comes out of a clinic in perfect health. Better, yes, but never perfect. So can you enter heaven with "just a few" sins that can't be scrubbed?

But it would, of course, be a divine clinic with a much better success rate (beats Betty Ford hands down, in Xtian love, course).

We have that "hell" right here on earth.

Yes, it is Orthodox and orthodox belief too that we can change somewhat for the better in the here and now.

Some very popular versions of Christianity have no such place of change. They say your sins (including your character flaws, I'm guessing) are washed away completely by handing them over to Jesus. Sure, it doesn't make sense, but neither does any concept of heaven I've ever heard.

Is that meant to take place after death? In a flash kind of thing. I'm not sure that it that makes sense to me - little makes sense to me!

 

[Tricky]

Do you have a particular passage in mind? I can't think of one where Jesus claimed ownership of the oil.

Matthew 26:8-9 (KJV)

8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

The ability to sell something implies ownership.

 

[Mr Clingford]

I thought the woman owned it, though?

 

[sphenisc]

Matthew 26:8-9 (KJV)

The ability to sell something implies ownership.

Verse 10 makes it clear that the disciples' indignation was expressed to the woman, who is therefore implied to be the owner.

 

[Tricky]

Verse 10 makes it clear that the disciples' indignation was expressed to the woman, who is therefore implied to be the owner.

It is still quite clear that the disciples felt like they had a right to control the disposition of the ointment. Remember, they were a pretty socialistic little band, splitting their belongings between themselves and such.

 

[sphenisc]

It is still quite clear that the disciples felt like they had a right to control the disposition of the ointment. Remember, they were a pretty socialistic little band, splitting their belongings between themselves and such.

They why did they fail to do so? Isn't it the case that they recognised the right of the woman to do so, they just disagreed with her decision.

 

[Tricky]

They why did they fail to do so? Isn't it the case that they recognised the right of the woman to do so, they just disagreed with her decision.

You're asking me to make sense out of the bible? LOL.

But let's end this little derail. My point was that Jesus could act selfish and petulant. These are at worst, minor sins, but it makes him look less sin-free and sang-froid.

 

[Mr Clingford]

You're asking me to make sense out of the bible? LOL.

I don't think sphenisc is! But he does have a reasonable point there.

But let's end this little derail. My point was that Jesus could act selfish and petulant. These are at worst, minor sins, but it makes him look less sin-free and sang-froid.

You have asserted but not yet made your point, I think!

How dare you suggest Jesus was a cold-blooded Frenchman - you really know how to upset an Englishman

 

[drkitten]

They why did they fail to do so?

Er, because Jesus specifically told them to "get stuffed"? ( think that's from the British Modernist translation.)

Isn't it the case that they recognised the right of the woman to do so?

I'm not sure that they recognized the right of the woman as much as they recognized Jesus's authority.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I don't think sphenisc is! But he does have a reasonable point there.

You have asserted but not yet made your point, I think!

How dare you suggest Jesus was a cold-blooded Frenchman - you really know how to upset an Englishman

Begin slight derail.

While visiting Washington D.C. a few years ago my wife wanted to visit the Washington National Cathedral. Behind the altar is a huge painting of Jesus which to me seemed rather homo-erotic, even for the Catholic Church. He's depicted as being very Northern European looking with strawberry-blond hair and piercing blue eyes. I leaned over to my wife and stage whispered "Funny, he doesn't look Jewish."

End slight derail.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Er, because Jesus specifically told them to "get stuffed"? ( think that's from the British Modernist translation.)



I'm not sure that they recognized the right of the woman as much as they recognized Jesus's authority.

The King James is "Get thee stuffed"

 

[Mr Clingford]

Well, you do know that God is English, at least according to the prophet Isaiah? Cf chapter 40:1

"Come for tea, come for tea, my people" says the Lord.

Earl Grey please and a biscuit.

 

[Tricky]

I don't think sphenisc is! But he does have a reasonable point there.

Well, it sounds like a nit-pick to me. I just wanted to point out a couple of instances where Jesus appeared to be displaying what could be called "sinful" behavior, even to a small extent.

You have asserted but not yet made your point, I think!

The real assertion was that Jesus was zip zero zilch in the sin department. Such an absolute statement needs only one tiny little sin to collapse the assumption. A sin even so slight and minor as selfishness.

How dare you suggest Jesus was a cold-blooded Frenchman - you really know how to upset an Englishman

C'est dommage, mon petite pois.

 

[sphenisc]

Well, it sounds like a nit-pick to me. I just wanted to point out a couple of instances where Jesus appeared to be displaying what could be called "sinful" behavior, even to a small extent.

The real assertion was that Jesus was zip zero zilch in the sin department. Such an absolute statement needs only one tiny little sin to collapse the assumption. A sin even so slight and minor as selfishness.
C'est dommage, mon petite pois.

Fine, I'd just like to point out that you buy all your underwear at Victoria's Secret. Feel free not to nitpick me on that one.

I realise that you probably known more than I do about people who are in the thrall of oil-grabbing leaders who don't give a damn about the poor.

How's the day job?

 

[Mr Clingford]

Well, it sounds like a nit-pick to me. I just wanted to point out a couple of instances where Jesus appeared to be displaying what could be called "sinful" behavior, even to a small extent.

The real assertion was that Jesus was zip zero zilch in the sin department. Such an absolute statement needs only one tiny little sin to collapse the assumption.A sin even so slight and minor as selfishness.

You're right that even a small sin completely undermines the whole of trad Xtianity so that's why it's important to not just dismiss a claim of a sin by Jesus because if it is as easy as that to find a sin then lots of very intelligent and knowledgeable people have got a very simple thing wrong and I, for one, would like to know (seriously).

C'est dommage, mon petite pois.

Hey now, I'd prefer to be a sweet pea, darling, not a small one (have you been talking to my partner?).

 

[Tricky]

Fine, I'd just like to point out that you buy all your underwear at Victoria's Secret. Feel free not to nitpick me on that one.

What? I don't get to mention Fredrick's of Hollywood?

I realise that you probably know more than I do about people who are in the thrall of oil-grabbing leaders who don't give a damn about the poor.

We call 'em Saddemites.

How's the day job?

I work for an oil company. Business is good.

 

[Tricky]

You're right that even a small sin completely undermines the whole of trad Xtianity so that's why it's important to not just dismiss a claim of a sin by Jesus because if it is as easy as that to find a sin then lots of very intelligent and knowledgeable people have got a very simple thing wrong and I, for one, would like to know (seriously).

See, I don't think it does. I like the idea of Christ as a teacher who tried as hard as he could to get people to be better to each other. You don't have to be perfect to teach. If Xtianity is undermined by a single tiny foible on the part of Jesus, then it was on wobbly ground to start with.

Hey now, I'd prefer to be a sweet pea, darling, not a small one (have you been talking to my partner?).

This guy?

Well, I suppose you could make him your avatar.