Why has God allowed religion to be so tribal?

[Jason118]

There is so much solid teachings in religious dogma and so many warm and kind people who practice. Why has it all come to this, or was it ever thus?

How do you come to this conclusion? It makes sense to me.

It makes sense to me.

So it's a common sense fallacy. That alone isn't enough to demonstrate that it's true, so you've come to an illogical conclusion.

Religion has been created by men for the upper hand to remain with men

Christianity is the only abrahamic religion to say that everyone is born in sin, Judaism and Islam do not believe that so we don’t see the necessity of the ultimate sacrifice. Muslims ourselves don’t see the reasoning behind Jesus: a good, honourable, holy, person: being made to die for the sins of murderers, liars or thieves. Even Abraham who would have sacrificed his son Ismael (or Isaac) for what God wanted to was told it was not necessary and we celebrate that every year in the Islamic calendar as the big Eid. If God had mercy for Isaac/Ismael why not for Jesus if He was purportedly his son?

But that’s by the by. The Christian idea of the big sacrifice is still better than the concept of karma/reincarnation as once someone does accept Jesus as their saviour then whatever happens afterwards is not because of their sin because they became perpetually sinless.

ultimately everything can be blamed on God, why did He make us need to eat, need to sleep, need to work? Why did He not make us impervious to the cold, wet, heat, why is our skin easily scratched or punctured by thorns or brush that we need to wear clothing? As a Muslim, when we say it’s God’s will it means we accept the natural laws of our own physical being and the physical world around us as God’s Will. Knowing our constraints and limitations we have to labour with what we can manipulate and control and that is also God’s Will.

Crucially - is God against us learning agriculture against hunger and famine? Or medicine against disease? These are praiseworthy actions in Islam. Building against earthquakes or fire- is that thwarting God’s Will? Engineering tunnels through mountains or bridges over rivers? Is that thwarting God’s Will? even our manoeuvring against those constraints are also themselves, by God’s Will.

Feeding the poor, hungry, the sick, alleviating their suffering, not only are they praiseworthy actions - not thwarting God’s Will - but turning away from people in those conditions is blameworthy, sinning. It’s the concept of faith and works: what’s the point of belief if you do not apply it for the service of others?

So it's a common sense fallacy. That alone isn't enough to demonstrate that it's true, so you've come to an illogical conclusion. According to WiseOldElfIsNick I don't come on here to demonstrate.

According to WiseOldElfIsNick I don't come on here to demonstrate.

Actually, it's according to the rules of logic and constructs of argument. I'm not suggesting you were trying to demonstate. I'm just pointing out that your reasoning is flawed.

according to the rules of logic What's your definition of logic?

I'm just pointing out that your reasoning is flawed Again, according to you.

I'm sorry but historians on the whole do believe in historical Jesus so it is entirely revelant to faith.

As the Elf says, this is becomming more debated, as people are no longer being persecuted for suggesting it is not true. Also, the church can no longer get away with shutting down debate by insisting that it is proven fact that Jesus existed, because people are no allowed to question.

You seem to say any written evidence is likely to be wrong- therefore no one can realistically believe any historical account of anything.

Everything that you use as "evidence", is subjectively written by those who want it to be true, and none of it was written in the supposed lifetime of the Jesus character. The fact that there is literally not one shred of corroborating evidence is rather telling to me.

There is less evidence to support Alexander the Great than there is Jesus.

This is not actually true (although oft quoted by theists). There is some evidence for the acts that Alexander the Great is claimed to have done. However, it's not important as I'm pretty sure nobody has been killed or had their rights removed in Alexander the Great's name.

I cannot reasonably be said to be religious if I think all religions are true. only one can be true.

Or, considerably more likely, none of them are.

I'm just pointing out that your reasoning is flawed Again, according to you.

No, not according me. The common sense fallacy is a logical fallacy. You cannot logically conclude something to be true just because it makes sense to you. That's not to say it isn't true, necessarily, but common sense cannot form the premise of a reasonably sound argument.

www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/197/Appeal-to-Common-Sense

once someone does accept Jesus as their saviour then whatever happens afterwards is not because of their sin because they became perpetually sinless.

This is not accurate.
The Christian belief is that your sins are forgiven at the point you acknowledge Jesus and sincerely ask for forgiveness. The slate is wiped clean at that point. However, thereafter you are 'saved' but well sin again too. Subsequent sins are not wiped clean unless you ask for forgiveness again,.but once you're 'saved' you're getting into heaven. In theory if you truly accepted Jesus in your life, then went on to become an axe murderer you'd still get into heaven.

From your link:

Exception: What is "common sense" to one might not be to another. It is possible one might not accept something that is "common sense," so it could be argued that the error in reasoning falls on the person rejecting the assertion of common sense.

Definition of logic:

Logic, originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken", but coming to mean "thought" or "reason", is a subject concerned with the most general laws of truth, and is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference. A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion.

Exception: What is "common sense" to one might not be to another. It is possible one might not accept something that is "common sense," so it could be argued that the error in reasoning falls on the person rejecting the assertion of common sense.

Exactly. I said it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong, you just can't use it as the basis for a rational argument. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Logic, originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken", but coming to mean "thought" or "reason", is a subject concerned with the most general laws of truth, and is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference. A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion.

OK, thank you. I think you'll find that common sense alone does not constitute a valid inference.

Logic nowadays is commonly held to mean a systematic and rational conclusion, almost mathematic or scientific in nature.
With logic, you'd expect two practitioners of it to reach the same conclusions given the same premise.

All cars have wheels. I have a car - ergo my car has wheels is logical.
All boats sail on water. I sailed on water - ergo I must have been on a boat is illogical.

Actually torn that’s new to me, from what I have always heard the acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Saviour into one’s life gives a person a get out of jail free card in perpetuity. I did not even know a Christian ever had to ask forgiveness again or even just the once. Is that from normal Protestant beliefs? Coptics and other types of Christians have slightly different rhetoric - like Muslims some still believe in judgement and the risk of hell if your a sinner- but I was going off what I heard most of my Anglican Protestant friends say. If I’m wrong my apologies.

you just can't use it as the basis for a rational argument. Back to logic again.

I think you'll find that common sense alone does not constitute a valid inference. Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. I've used my reasoning and myself as the measure.

Missfatty, they don't have to ask forgiveness again and again to get into heaven. Once you're saved, you are saved. However, your statement that they become perpetually sinless is incorrect.
The slate is wiped clean when asking forgiveness, but it gets dirty again as we continue to sin. Every Christian remains a sinner. They will be forgiven again and again providing they ask for forgiveness again and again, but that's not the same as the moment they become a Christian... at that very moment, they gain membership into heaven.

Imagine it like this...

Once adopted, you are always in the family, you cannot be disowned. However, you'll still mess up time and time again after being adopted, and you'll sometimes leave home and do some very bad things, but you will always be adopted and welcomed home... no matter what.
That's the Christian faith.

However, you cannot 'fake' your way in. You can't ask for forgiveness and not mean it. To a Christian, God will know if you mean it or not :-)

you just can't use it as the basis for a rational argument. Back to logic again.

Yes, logic. You haven't used it correctly.

Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. I've used my reasoning and myself as the measure.

Where's your evidence then? You have not used reasoning because you have committed a common sense fallacy, ergo, not a reasonable argument.

What do you even mean by using yourself as a measure? Can you elaborate?

What does gain membership into heaven mean torn? Does that mean without any accounting for misdeeds? Must they be sinless to enter heaven? Can they still go to hell if they sin? Or if they are they absolved of blame in the next world must they pay reparation in this life or does seeking forgiveness from God wipe it out in both domains?

The whole reason I brought up the point abit the sinless Christian - now confirmed erroneous by yourself - was to say that the Christian belief on being born with sin is still not the same as the idea of reincarnation and karma. But of course a baby or young child cannot ask for forgiveness or accept Jesus. So can they still be carrying repercussions of being born with sin in the worldly life? I did not think any of the abrahamic faiths would say that.

It means that once you accept Jesus as your saviour, your name goes in the book - you've given a pass into heaven.

That happens once only, the moment you become a Christian.

After that, you will continue to sin, because humans aren't perfect, and will still be tempted. You can't go to hell though. You only have to accept him as your saviour once and that's it.
That is the Christian teaching.

I think it's a little misleading to say a child is born with sin. It's not wrong, just misleading. It's more accurate to say humans are sinners. It's inevitable. We will all sin in the eyes of God, before being Christian and after. So yes, a child too will naturally be a sinner, but that's not the same as the child having actually already sinned per se.

The theory of why Jesus died so that mankind's sins can be forgiven is very complex, and I do not fully understand it (perhaps because it doesn't actually make sense). But in theory, Jesus took on all the sins of mankind - past, present and future, but in order to have our sins forgiven, we have to ask him into our lives and have our slate wiped clean), It's a bit strange to say the least, but that's the basic premise.

One of the common challenges that non Christians put forwards is 'I may as well sin all my life, and just ask forgiveness on my death bed'. In theory IF you truly asked for forgiveness on your deathbed, you'd receive it, but you can't fake it. In the same way (and this is very perverse) IF you became a Christian at 18 then went on to become a serial killer, you'd still get into heaven!

Yes, logic. You haven't used it correctly. The definition I posted fits in with my reasoning. You still haven't given your definition of logic.

Where's your evidence then? Myself. You can use yourself.

You have not used reasoning because you have committed a common sense fallacy, ergo, not a reasonable argument. The exception that your link included fits with this issue.

What do you even mean by using yourself as a measure? Can you elaborate? When you know the Self.

I'm finishing MN for this evening. Will chat again tomorrow.

But torn, how about this:

‘Subsequent sins are not wiped clean unless you ask for forgiveness again,.but once you're 'saved' you're getting into heaven’,

So what happens if those sins are on your slate and you have not asked for forgiveness for them, and they are not ‘wiped clean’ - can you still get into heaven with them? What is the purpose of their being recorded then?

Btw Some Muslims also say that as long as you believe you will get into heaven no matter your deeds but it’s not a typically espoused belief, mainstream Islam is still dominated by the stick and carrot of hell and heaven.

actually Iv always thought of Christianity as far more merciful than Islam about the nature of humanity. Which is why privately I’m surprised that a baby or child can be considered as a sinner. in Islam all children are born clean and free of sin even if conceived from incest or adultery or rape. Until puberty all are regarded sinless and destined for heaven no matter who they pray to. (Because it’s the parents who decide their religion not the child.) But once puberty begins then sins begin to be recorded and the need therefore for forgiveness and redemption. But you cannot carry someone else’s burden only your own sins.

If in that scenario that someone waits till they have a whole lifetime of sins and then asks for forgiveness on their deathbed but it’s not sincere repentance, what then? Where is their destination? Still heaven?

I’m interested as lots of trust amongst Muslims is established just as much by the doctrine of hell as of heaven. The idea of hell is as repercussion, inhibition, keeps people scrupulous, sticking to their promises/oaths/debts, and if they keel over dead without sorting them out the fear they’ll go to hell makes their kin sort out any unfinished business. People may not be prayerful or particularly religious but the fear of a wronged person praying against you keeps even ordinary Muslims on their toes. Otherwise, God is forgiving, merciful, benevolent, magnanimous and all of that.

Yes you're still going to heaven and those sins don't count against you.
I guess the 'punishment' is carrying those sins with you - the guilt.

You can't change what you've done, all you can ever hope for is forgiveness. If you're truly sorry and ask for forgiveness, you'll be given it. If you're not sorry, you won't.

The Prodigal Son is a famous parable that tries to illustrate this. From memory, a man has two sons... one is a son who stays with him all his life and is loyal and loving. The other son argues with his father and leaves him, only to return years later.
The father rejoices when the prodigal son returns home and the loyal son feels jealous because he was always 'good'. The father explains that both are equal to him and not dependent on who has been good or bad, but if either return to him or stay with him, they deserve the same love.

In the eyes of Christianity, it doesn't matter who sinned less or more... we are all sinners. Of course, our human nature can make us jealous, or can make us feel it is unfair to be good all your life, when someone else can do many bad things and still get into heaven, but if we are Christian we are supposed to see others as our brother and we should be happy that they finally arrived in heaven, regardless of their past.

I suspect there are similar parables in other religions. It's like asking God which son he prefers the most, and he's answering 'I love them all equally even though some have made bad mistakes and others made few'

The definition I posted fits in with my reasoning.

No, it really doesn't.

You still haven't given your definition of logic.

You gave one already, why do I need to also give one?

Where's your evidence then? Myself. You can use yourself.

How have you demonstrated that you come here many times and experience many lives by using yourself?

You have not used reasoning because you have committed a common sense fallacy, ergo, not a reasonable argument. The exception that your link included fits with this issue.

The exception in the link merely states that common sense might lead you to the correct answer. What it doesn't say is that common sense alone is sufficient for a reasonable argument.

What do you even mean by using yourself as a measure? Can you elaborate? When you know the Self.

What does that mean though. You realise you're just saying words?

Honestly, this is typical of a theist just sprouting meaningless phases with no substance. Do you honestly believe that because you think that something 'just makes sense' that this is a solid basis for demonstrating that thing is true?

It would make sense to some that the sun goes around the earth based on some crude observations of it, but it isn't true and the fact that different people have different ideas of common sense is definitive proof that it's not a good method of determining truth. It really doesn't matter how you wish to define logic, it's simply not a good argument. I don't understand how that is so difficult to grasp.

One of the common challenges that non Christians put forwards is 'I may as well sin all my life, and just ask forgiveness on my death bed'.

Why would a non-Christian put this forward if they didn't believe in Christ in the first place?

IF you became a Christian at 18 then went on to become a serial killer, you'd still get into heaven!

I don't think I want to go to heaven if that's the kind of people they let in.

Why would a non-Christian put this forward if they didn't believe in Christ in the first place?

Because it's used as a critique, not a desire.

Why would a non-Christian put this forward if they didn't believe in Christ in the first place?

Well, the problem there is that we tend to perceive heaven in earthly terms with earthly feature and earthly people - paradise with nice people. The Christian view is that we'd all be equal and with all our sins discounted etc. It's a totally surreal view, whether it's real or a myth.

It's all a bit bonkers really.