Jesus (peace be upon him) did not die for your sins !

[faye]

what dot?
sneaky devil, you've changed what you said, 2010.

[Zirey]

RTR,
you misunderstand the doctrine of original sin. It is not the same as the theory of original guilt, which is not accepted by all Christians.
In a sense, you are right to be afraid, for God's love is inexorable and ultimately inescapable.


Brother 2010,
You believe that Jesus is the Messiah, born of the Virgin Mary, and that is great. But you must also ask, What is a Messiah? The answer is found in the Bible. If you humbly seek the Messiah described in the Bible, you will find Him and rejoice.
It may sound like a contradiction, but God's Truth is always bigger than human logic. God has revealed deep mysteries that human reason will never fully understand in this life. Jesus said:
زَۀ تاسو ته دا وايم چه تر څو تاسو راوانۀ وړئ اَؤ دَ ماشُومانو په شان نۀ شئ نو تاسو به هيڅ کله هم دَ آسمان په بادشاهئ کښى داخل نۀ شئ. (Matthew 18:3).
Your question is astute: Why did Jesus not say such things? Why was He not more explicit?
Sometimes He was explicit, as when He provoked the Jews to anger by saying,
عيسىٰ ووئيل،”زَۀ تاسو ته رښتيا رښتيا وايم چه اِبراهيم لا پيدا هم نۀ وُو چه زَۀ يم.“ "Before Abraham was, I AM".
But at other times He was not explicit. The Roman ruler who ordered the crucifixion, Pontius Pilate, "said to Jesus, Where are you from? But Jesus gave him no answer."
In ancient times the Jews ate of the Passover sacrifice, so today Christians eat of the sacrificed Lamb of God. Jesus said,
عيسىٰ جواب ورکړو،”په رښتيا رښتيا زَۀ تاسو ته وايم چه تر څو چه تاسو دَ اِبن آدم جُسه ونۀ خورئ اَؤ دَ هغۀ وينه ونۀ څښئ تر هغى تاسو په ځان کښى ژوندُون نۀ شئ ليدى. (John 6:53)
The statement was hard to accept in those days as it is now.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I'm not "afraid" as you put it for that reason you assume. ; it's natural for men of conscience to dislike and disgust one would have for people who deceive others with false promises; this is my attitude on the Christian narrative, and if original sin isn't the same as original guilt, then there's nothing to compensate for with a "sacrifice" since there would be no SIN to be guilty for

as they say in chess, check mate,

[RevolutionThroughReason]

It may sound like a contradiction, but God's Truth is always bigger than human logic. God has revealed deep mysteries that human reason will never fully understand in this life. Jesus said:[B]
.

the problem with that line of reasoning though is that without Logic you cannot discern whether the claims are in fact Truths or merely imposters; therefore Human Logic is crucial in understanding God's truth otherwise it holds no relevance.

thus the Christian narrative cannot serve humans since it ignores human reason

[faye]

logic is a tool to decipher certain things but, one has to transcend that tool to 'consciously' connect with god. logic is only one aspect of the mind.
god creates what we think of as energy, the universe, the thinking mind but is beyond words and thoughts, though they are part of creation that us humans consider 'reality'.
our reality is part of god.
i believe.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

the tools are the means to "consciously" connect to God, otherwise you don't know if it's God you're actually connecting with or your own self deception.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

It should also be noted that Other forms of so called "Christianity" such as Gnosticism which shun much of the Mainstream Christian Narrative actually have Sound Theological Principles which I respect.

[faye]

[QUOTE=Zirey;641104]
In a sense, you are right to be afraid, for God's love is inexorable and ultimately inescapable

why would one have to be afraid of god's love?

[faye]

i disagree that one doesn't know, from my experience. what i consider my experience can never be dealt with by logic. my actual experience is not something one can see, measure or even truly describe in words.
logic can be used for deciphering what is meant as a symbol in the teachings of the prophets and what is not.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

but what do you have to confirm your "experiences" other than "well because I felt it". At a certain point you have to realize Truth transcends self and we need to use the tools that transcend self too

[faye]

logic is of the brain and for dealing with the sciences and what we classify as physical reality, transcedance is beyond the material reality.
i have no need to prove to another, my experience. i believe a transcendant experience is for the individual. when they are open and ready for it.
my self is a part of truth.
i think this was a major point in the differences between al ghazali and the mu'tazilah, if i remember correctly. al ghazali believed logic is not for proving theological truths but useful in the sciences and mathematics.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Logic is used by the brain; but what makes logic differ is that it corresponds to properties of things outside of the brain, and their mechanics. That's why Logic tends to provide more unbiased conclusions than emotional appeals or extravagant narratives do.

This is why in the end even with emotive or contemplative narratives/experiences a logical analysis is often used to sift through what is an actual cognitive insight or what is mystified foolery

[faye]

logic is limited. it is only one aspect of the totality of being. a tool used by the human computer, the brain.
so how does an outsider such as you, use logic on an insight or transcendant experience which you have no acces to?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

the power of logic is appparent in how it solves problems; The Limits of Logic are much more broad than the Limits of Personalized Emotional experiences

Logic produced computers, helped us get to the moon, helped us cure diseases

Christianity has never cured a single disease, never fed a single poor person with food (I mean by giving them the means of growing food, hand outs don't count). Never solved a problem.

Sure Logic is limited, but the stuff being touted as alternatives are even more limited.

[faye]

a transcendant experience is not a problem. it needs no solving.
can you prove that logic is more expansive than personalised emotional experience. is a transcendantal experience of communion with god an emotional experience?