• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus (Video)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you expect me to simply "know" that I am sinful through my own conscience or intuition, just as CS Lewis argued? Intuition is not a guide to objective moral bearings. Someone who grew up as Buddhist will tell you that you should "know" that the secret to life is the constant cycle of death and rebirth. In other words, what we think we know as truth is often transmitted culturally to us throughout our lives. Only some of it is innate, and that innateness certainly does not come from god.

One thing that definitely bothers me about the idea of original sin is that it was apparently gained from eating the fruit of a tree named "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." With a name such as that, you would expect those who ate it to understand morality. Why is it that upon gaining said understanding, we've all come to radically different views on morality, what it is, where it came from and what its purpose is? I mean that is what is in the story; "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." This doesn't make any sense.

The muddying of waters on this topic is insidious. Einstein made it very clear he didn't believe in God as a being of any sort. He only used the phrase in metaphorical manner to describe the universe and the physical laws that govern it.

Any attempt to suggest more than that is merely the work of religious people trying to hang their hat on a genius.

I've looked at Atheist resources, even they don't have any quotes stating rejection of all god concepts. Unless I missed something, of course.
 
Are you positing that Einstein was a theist? That's still something of a fuzzy issue. We aren't certain about what his beliefs on the topic were. He used god a lot metaphorically, but he certainly didn't believe in any personal god. He was also hyper critical of religious institutes. Einstein was definitely a free thinker, but it is not at all clear if Einstein belived in gods or not.

I was confused about your question, but now I see what I did wrong in my first phrase.

He wasn't a gnostic atheist, or like Bertrand Russell establishes, just an Agnostic (no atheist).

Should have been:

He wasn't a gnostic atheist, but maybe like Bertrand Russell establishes, he was an Agnostic (no atheist).

My apologies, sometimes I rush to reply and don't notice I've made little sense.
 
I've looked at Atheist resources, even they don't have any quotes stating rejection of all god concepts. Unless I missed something, of course.

I'm pretty sure there's a famous quote where he states it plainly... at the same time chides the aggressive atheist types as having bitterness issues. iirc, something to that effect.

I'll look around. Might be wrong... been a while.

edit: haha first result (not the particular quote I was searching for, but...)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
-- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

source

Also... I see this one is all over the place. Don't know the original source (honestly I've never actually checked the original sources of any these quotes -- Whether or not he was an atheist doesn't really matter to me at all, outside of mild curiosity.)

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
― Albert Einstein
 
One thing that definitely bothers me about the idea of original sin is that it was apparently gained from eating the fruit of a tree named "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." With a name such as that, you would expect those who ate it to understand morality. Why is it that upon gaining said understanding, we've all come to radically different views on morality, what it is, where it came from and what its purpose is? I mean that is what is in the story; "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." This doesn't make any sense.
I haven't read any literature on the subject, but from my limited perspective the concept of an innate knowledge of objective moral principles is problematic. In order to have a proper intuitive moral framework, I would have to know that I have knowledge about it, and I would have to know when I'm disobeying that intuitive sense. I cannot have any delusions about what is right and what is wrong. But any empirical rendering on the subject will tell us that this is not how morality works within the human brain. Some neuroscientists even argue that our "feeling of knowing" is determined by several factors, many of which are subjective and endemic to the individual's mind.
 
I'm pretty sure there's a famous quote where he states it plainly... at the same time chides the aggressive atheist types as having bitterness issues. iirc, something to that effect.

I'll look around. Might be wrong... been a while.

edit: haha first result (not the particular quote I was searching for, but...)

source

So Einstein believed in an abstract pantheism/panentheism type god.


I haven't read any literature on the subject, but from my limited perspective the concept of an innate knowledge of objective moral principles is problematic. In order to have a proper intuitive moral framework, I would have to know that I have knowledge about it, and I would have to know when I'm disobeying that intuitive sense. I cannot have any delusions about what is right and what is wrong. But any empirical rendering on the subject will tell us that this is not how morality works within the human brain. Our "feeling of knowing" is determined by several factors, many of which are subjective and endemic to the individual's mind.

Well, that too.

It still seems like a gaping plot hole. If we ate from a tree that apparently gave all humans knowledge of right and wrong, why is there so much variance in our morality?
 
So Einstein believed in an abstract pantheism/panentheism type god.

From Einstein's mouth itself:

I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.

And the quote Evolved1 was talking about:

"The fanatical atheists," Einstein said in correspondence, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."

That's why I explained him as just as Agnostic, period. Like Bertrand Russell definition. :)
 
Unfortunately, that rarely seems to stop people from attempting to vindicate their Judeo-Christian beliefs with quotes from him...

Which I've never really understood. It's like, so what?

So what if Darwin recanted on his deathbed
he didn't, jerks
but so what if he did? Means nothing.
 
From Einstein's mouth itself:



And the quote Evolved1 was talking about:



That's why I explained him as just as Agnostic, period. Like Bertrand Russell definition. :)

The thing is, agnostic doesn't answer whether he believed in god. Honestly, Einstein's thoughts on theism were kind of a mess from what I've read.
 
The thing is, agnostic doesn't answer whether he believed in god. Honestly, Einstein's thoughts on theism were kind of a mess from what I've read.

Here's Bertrand Russell's text transcript

http://www.agnosticuniverse.org/content/am-i-atheist-or-agnostic

It works a bit of a separation between an atheist and an agnostic only.

This text about Max Planck is pretty interesting too, if only for a different perspective of the usual confrontational.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pp/Max_Planck.html
 
Then surely he should define terms, considering that neither are what people view as normal definitions? Wouldnt it then be: NT religion> OT religion? Rather than Jesus > religion.

Or is it an in joke kind of thing?

God doesn't want a religion with his children. That would be the equivalent of me having a set of rules that my wife has in order for her to love me. I would not want to be in any relationship like that. That is not what love is about.

What God wants is for us to love him how he loves us. God wants to be with us 24/7 and enjoys us choosing to help him accomplish his purposes on this planet.

This is completely different than the laws God set up in the Old Testament. God gave those laws to protect us from harming ourselves. We try to follow them but fail in doing so depending on the day we are having. Because of this, God uses His Law's to show us that we are law breakers (sinners at heart). He knows we are infected with a disease that he has the cure for. He asks us to admit that we have this disease and to ask for the cure. He then forgives us and comes to live in us.

That being said, once all of this takes place, God will begin to write his will on hearts and we just follow his lead. Living for his will (which is the very purpose of our existence).

The guy in the video is saying the same thing. The only problem is that if you do not know the Bible very well, you might misunderstand what he is saying.

Why is it that upon gaining said understanding, we've all come to radically different views on morality, what it is, where it came from and what its purpose is?

This is because sin behaves differently in each person. Paul wrote the following about sin living in us:

Well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is sinful? Of course not! In fact, it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, “You must not covet.” But sin used this command to arouse all kinds of covetous desires within me! If there were no law, sin would not have that power. At one time I lived without understanding the law. But when I learned the command not to covet, for instance, the power of sin came to life, and I died. So I discovered that the law’s commands, which were supposed to bring life, brought spiritual death instead. Sin took advantage of those commands and deceived me; it used the commands to kill me. But still, the law itself is holy, and its commands are holy and right and good.

But how can that be? Did the law, which is good, cause my death? Of course not! Sin used what was good to bring about my condemnation to death. So we can see how terrible sin really is. It uses God’s good commands for its own evil purposes.


I mean that is what is in the story; "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." This doesn't make any sense.

Adam and Eve only knew good until they ate from the tree. Then the ate from the tree and were infected with sin (evil).
 
Adam and Eve only knew good until they ate from the tree. Then the ate from the tree and were infected with sin (evil).

They weren't infected with sin. They were granted knowledge of wrongdoing and of negative consequence.

In fact, it's a stretch to even say they "sinned" in their disobedience, since they had no knowledge of wrongdoing at the time. Their sin was retroactive. As it would be for every human to follow. The lesson taken from this is fucked up.

The entire story is retarded. It's been so throughly shredded... I recommend reading the criticism of pre-sin Eden, and how it makes no frigging sense whatsoever. To take it literally... good god.
 
They weren't infected with sin. They were granted knowledge of wrongdoing and of negative consequence.

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." Romans 5

In fact, it's a stretch to even say they "sinned" in their disobedience, since they had no knowledge of wrongdoing at the time.

God told them they would die (spiritual death and then physical death) before they ever ate from the tree.

“You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden— except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.” Genesis 2

The entire story is retarded. It's been so throughly shredded... I recommend reading the criticism of pre-sin Eden, and how it makes no frigging sense whatsoever. To take it literally... good god.

It has been shredded by people who do not know God or by people who do not want to admit they are sinners.

Ty for the info on that book, but for me God's Word is good enough. Why? Because I have never met a person who does not sin. Every single person I have ever met sins constantly.
 
While on the subject of original sin and tree of knowledge and Adam and Eve...

This is how I read way too much into it or way over:

It plays on human behaviour and how perfection (rationality) lead us to an unescapable "sin" (lying). And once you realize you lie (eating from the tree of knowledge), there's the end of your 'purity'.
And the outcome of this newfound "mortality" is shown by the tale of Cain and Abel.
 
Great question. Many believe they would they would have lived on Earth for so many years and then they would have been taken to Heaven.

Is there any justification for that?

I'm seriously sick of hearing "There was no death before the fall." The Bible says the exact opposite of that. Adam and Eve were capable of eating living cells for sustenance, in this case fruit. That is the very definition of what it means to be an animal. Do you Christians honestly not realize that plant matter is made up of living cells as well?
 
Is there any justification for that?

The last post I shared is just a belief. There is no scriptural basis for what I shared. Just a common belief shared by believers.

II'm seriously sick of hearing "There was no death before the fall." The Bible says the exact opposite of that. Adam and Eve were capable of eating living cells for sustenance, in this case fruit. That is the very definition of what it means to be an animal. Do you Christians honestly not realize that plant matter is made up of living cells as well?

You make a valid point, but I do not know. What I do know is that death entered God's creation when Adam and Eve sinned. I do not know if God had different laws in place before their fall. All of this is speculation from my point of view.
 
No offense Game Analyst but you need more practice at this.
 
I remember debating Game Analyst on here once. In the end I basically had to write his arguments for him so that we could have a debate which actually made sense.
 
What would life be without sin? Is there an explanation of what it is to not sin? Clearly if we know all people sin then there is a set of rules that define it. So what is it to not sin?
I assume a lot of current human emotion would have to be removed. You couldn't have jealousy etc that could lead a person to do something bad to another.
 
What God wants is for us to love him how he loves us. God wants to be with us 24/7 and enjoys us choosing to help him accomplish his purposes on this planet.

Doesn't that seem kind of selfish? An odd character flaw for an otherwise flawless being.

What would life be without sin? Is there an explanation of what it is to not sin? Clearly if we know all people sin then there is a set of rules that define it. So what is it to not sin?
I assume a lot of current human emotion would have to be removed. You couldn't have jealousy etc that could lead a person to do something bad to another.

It's impossible. Sitting in one place is the only way to avoid sinning, and that counts as sloth, which is a sin.
 
What would life be without sin? Is there an explanation of what it is to not sin? Clearly if we know all people sin then there is a set of rules that define it. So what is it to not sin?
I assume a lot of current human emotion would have to be removed. You couldn't have jealousy etc that could lead a person to do something bad to another.

Ultimately, it's not worth spending time thinking over. Learn to enjoy your life. The most difficult decision you should be making is whether you should download the nude mod for Skyrim, or preserve the game in it's original form in order to preserve the authentic memories of it in your mind.
 
Ultimately, it's not worth spending time thinking over. Learn to enjoy your life. The most difficult decision you should be making is whether you should download the nude mod for Skyrim, or preserve the game in it's original form in order to preserve the authentic memories of it in your mind.

The ultimate sin is downloading the nude mod without face smoothing.
 
Religion truly does elevate incoherence to a virtue. Who says that it actually has to make sense? The less sense it makes, the more appealing it becomes. I have an entire critique about how biology and physics would even work in the garden of Eden, but I see that it's wasted if I actually expect it to convince anyone.
 
I remember debating Game Analyst on here once. In the end I basically had to write his arguments for him so that we could have a debate which actually made sense.

Most of the things that the Bible says will not make sense to people who do not want to know God. Why?

At that time Jesus prayed this prayer: “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike. Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way!" Matthew 11

As the Scriptures say, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.” So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense." 1 Corinthians 1

God will not show a person the truth if they do not want to know the truth. He will allow them to remain deceived/blind until they want to know the truth. Until then, most of what the Bible says will be foolish to them.

Doesn't that seem kind of selfish? An odd character flaw for an otherwise flawless being.

I believe it is extremely difficult at times for us finite beings to understand an infinite God.
 
Religion truly does elevate incoherence to a virtue. Who says that it actually has to make sense? The less sense it makes, the more appealing it becomes. I have an entire critique about how biology and physics would even work in the garden of Eden, but I see that it's wasted if I actually expect it to convince anyone.

I would love to read it. I've spent some time on it myself. And there are some articles and things on the net I've found.

Always interesting to read another's take on it. Especially this particular topic. Guilty pleasure.
 
Finally watched this video. Some pretty good quotes ( church is the hospital for the broken, religion says do, Jesus says done). If there was a Jesus, thinks of him as a role model is much better than following rules and regulations brought on by the church
 
Most of the things that the Bible says will not make sense to people who do not want to know God. Why?

At that time Jesus prayed this prayer: “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike. Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way!" Matthew 11

As the Scriptures say, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.” So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense." 1 Corinthians 1

God will not show a person the truth if they do not want to know the truth. He will allow them to remain deceived/blind until they want to know the truth. Until then, most of what the Bible says will be foolish to them.

What about apostates? Do they suddenly forget? Did they ever understand? Were they ever True Believers™?
 
Finally watched this video. Some pretty good quotes ( church is the hospital for the broken, religion says do, Jesus says done). If there was a Jesus, thinks of him as a role model is much better than following rules and regulations brought on by the church

Remember the last time you had a wank? Yeh, Jesus now commands you to gouge out your eyes. Are you going to do it, or tell him to take a walk (on water)?
 
Religion truly does elevate incoherence to a virtue. Who says that it actually has to make sense? The less sense it makes, the more appealing it becomes. I have an entire critique about how biology and physics would even work in the garden of Eden, but I see that it's wasted if I actually expect it to convince anyone.

You shouldn't expect to convince! Valid or not, it would probably be a new perspective for most here, and hopefully they would learn something, even if it was a new way to not look at the subject.
 
You shouldn't expect to convince! Valid or not, it would probably be a new perspective for most here, and hopefully they would learn something, even if it was a new way to not look at the subject.

Also... lurkers.

On the internet, battles are fought in the trenches, but they're won with the onlookers.
 
What about apostates? Do they suddenly forget? Did they ever understand? Were they ever True Believers™?

I think this explanation will answer your questions.

Apostasy means to fall away from the truth. Therefore, an apostate is someone who has once believed and then rejected the truth of God. Apostasy is a rebellion against God because it is a rebellion against truth. In the Old Testament God warned the Jewish people about their idolatry and their lack of trust in Him. In the New Testament the epistles warn us about not falling away from the truth.

link
 
Here's Bertrand Russell's text transcript

http://www.agnosticuniverse.org/content/am-i-atheist-or-agnostic

It works a bit of a separation between an atheist and an agnostic only.

This text about Max Planck is pretty interesting too, if only for a different perspective of the usual confrontational.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pp/Max_Planck.html

Agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive. In those quotes Einstein comes across as an agnostic theist or atheist depending on how you interpret his interpretation of Spinoza's god. It sounds like he's deifying the forces that govern the universe to give them reverence, which is atheistic to me. His quote about atheists is an overgeneralization of atheists not appreciating the universe, possibly confusing them with nihilists or something. I think the universe is more beautiful unfiltered by the lens of religion.
 
Well, at least you had the good sense to knock Christian one as "bloodthirsty" instead of saying, for instance, the "bloodthirsty Muslim one" or what about the "bloodthirsty Jewish one?" They had him first after all.

Like apples in a barrel, am I right?

I wasn't talking to a Muslim or a Jew. Rest assured, I have as little regard for their version of the same poorly-written character.
 
I would love to read it. I've spent some time on it myself. And there are some articles and things on the net I've found.

Always interesting to read another's take on it. Especially this particular topic. Guilty pleasure.
I don't have anything written up, but the basic idea is that the garden of Eden requires one to believe that god created the universe (and an entire ecosystem) with the expectation that Adam and Eve would eventually sin. All of that cellular machinery - the stuff that creationists love to tell us could only come about through a creator - would be absolutely useless without the concepts of death and decay. Adam and Eve might as well have literally been made of dirt. God would also have to create organisms in paradise that are, nevertheless, specifically adapted to completely different environments. These are certainly not original critiques. They could've been made as far back as the 19th century. Nevertheless, some 40 percent of Americans, at least up until recently, still accept an account of life's origins that necessitate the creation of humans in their present form. Anyway, I appreciate your interest.
You shouldn't expect to convince! Valid or not, it would probably be a new perspective for most here, and hopefully they would learn something, even if it was a new way to not look at the subject.
I reasoned my way out of my own religious beliefs using some of the very same arguments, and yet I am somewhat cynical that new perspectives are accepted that easily. As Thomas Paine once said, "Time makes more converts than reason."
 
Most of the things that the Bible says will not make sense to people who do not want to know God. Why?
Scientific knowledge will make far more sense of this world than the bible will. I know from first hand experience, and I most certainly wanted to know god. I tried for the first 30 years of my life. In the end the facts and stories just didn't add up.

Do you understand evolution and how it clearly explains how life evolved on earth? Do you understand how we now know how insignificant our planet, our solar system, and our galaxy is in the universe?
 
Most of the things that the Bible says will not make sense to people who do not want to know God. Why?
...

God will not show a person the truth if they do not want to know the truth. He will allow them to remain deceived/blind until they want to know the truth. Until then, most of what the Bible says will be foolish to them.

The Devil will not show a person the truth if they do not want to know the truth. He will allow them to remain deceived/blind until they want to know the truth. Until then, most of what the Bible says will be correct to them.

Now what?
 
Muslim reply. With the same annoying text effects. With added annoying noises.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNGqrzkFp_4

JerrySeinfeld.gif
 
I believe it is extremely difficult at times for us finite beings to understand an infinite God.

This bullshit reasoning is what started me on my path from being a "born again Christian" to agnosticism. Whenever I asked about the illogical and retarded logic of the things in the Bible, I always had the cop out of "well, we can't know God's thoughts, he works in mysterious ways!"

That never flied with me. Eventually I had to ask myself does this shit even make any sense? The only answer I could come up with was hell fucking no.
 
So, I'm bored and I found a transcript... I'm not posting this to argue with people here, but I thought maybe some of you would find it interesting to see someone rip this video apart according to Christianity.

What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion?
I would say no, he came to fulfill the religion of God.

Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Note: Accomplishment of it all wasn't his death on the cross, but is the time when all is to be joined into that death and a new heaven and new earth is born. Yet this doesn't mean every single ceremony and practice in the OT is still to be practiced by believers, because, as you can read in Hebrews, Christ is the high priest who performed/is performing much of it now. However, things like moral principles still remain as they are personal standards, not legal (in the spiritual sense, obviously) rituals.

Things get tricker trying to sort out these from expectations only on Israel as his representative nation of holiness to the world in ancient times (in practice: cultural policies and different ways of doing things to distinguish them) now that Christ was/is the primary representation of his holiness, the revelation of God to the world in a personal sense... yet we are united with him in some way and... yeah, like I said, it's tricky...

What if I told you voting republican really wasn’t his mission.
What if I told you republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian.
I am not shocked in the least.

And just because you call some people blind.
Doesn’t automatically give you vision.
What?

I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars?
Oh, well it's not nearly that simple. The initiation of war has many factors involved and when it does occur, social bonds and differences become skewed in pubic perception to justify it, including religious ones.

Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor.
Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce.
I'm pretty sure these are personal actions. Religion is a defined pattern of life, not a person.

But in the old testament God actually calls religious people whores.
He called some of them whores, and he used other religious people to pass that message along.

Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice.
Woah son, you dun goofed. "They"? You're not supposed to expose the fact that you're passively aggressively talking about people you don't like. I would recommend checking yourself with James 3:13-18 in light of this.

Tend to ridicule God’s people, they did it to John The Baptist.
They can’t fix their problems, and so they just mask it.
Not realizing religions like spraying perfume on a casket.
So religion is bad because people fail at following the plan their religion set out for them? That doesn't make any sense.

See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core.
It’s just behavior modification, like a long list of chores.
Like lets dress up the outside make look nice and neat.
But it’s funny that’s what they use to do to mummies.
While the corps rots underneath.
Now I ain’t judgin.
I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look, Cause there’s a problem.
If people only know you’re a Christian by your Facebook.
I mean in every other aspect of life, you know that logic’s unworthy.
It’s like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey.
Okay so you're saying behavior modification is bad, and what people need is some sort of change in their convictions. I'm pretty sure that falls under 'belief" which is a pillar of religion.

You see this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me.
Acting like a church kid, while addicted to pornography.
See on Sunday I’d go to church, but Saturday getting faded.
Acting if I was simply created just to have sex and get wasted.
See I spent my whole life building this facade of neatness.
But now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness.
Wait, so this isn't clear at all. If you apparently have a problem with how you are living, the idea you're sharing is Jesus makes it all better, but how? Do you no longer live in the way that you used to? If so, then it would seem that Jesus has helped you fulfill the religion that you were failing to fulfill before. And if this is named up front, it must have been a primary desire, which means you still wanted religion and still like it.

The other possibility is that you didn't change at all, but you feel like because Jesus said it is all okay, then it is. So rather than renewing your "core" you have in fact tossed aside all moral integrity and are proudly living in a complete dissonance of belief and action. I feel like this may be the more likely possibility with talk of boasting in your weakness, as you quote and completely misunderstand Paul.

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Because if grace is water, then the church should be an ocean.
It’s not a museum for good people, it’s a hospital for the broken.
Which means I don’t have to hide my failure, I don’t have to hide my sin.
Because it doesn’t depend on me it depends on him.
See because when I was God’s enemy and certainly not a fan.
He looked down and said I want that man.
Which is why Jesus hated religion, and for it he called them fools.
Don’t you see so much better than just following some rules.
This is an astounding failure at explaining the premise of gospel and also blatantly ignores the commands that spiritual renewal is supposed to manifest in behavioral renewal.

Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the bible, and yes I believe in sin.
But if Jesus came to your church would they actually let him in.
See remember he was called a glutton, and a drunkard by religious men.
But the son of God never supports self righteousness not now, not then.
By biblical definition, self-righteousness does not mean any attempt to be righteous. If you are a Christian it does not mean you no longer try and always only point to the righteousness of Christ, but you believe the spiritual requirement in the view of God has been fulfilled by uniting with him, and thus all righteousness you perform but also have been his own, from that unity.

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

You see, his good work is causing your good work so your good work is his good work. That's where the whole "Body of Christ" identity comes from, and it is why Christians ought to be "following the rules" all the more.

Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention.
How Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrum’s.
See one’s the work of God, but one’s a man made invention.
What? You might want to try reading the Old Testament, where absolutely every single command and rule of the religion of God's people was dictated to them by God himself.

See one is the cure, but the other is the infection.
You're getting sin mixed up with that which defines sin. It does say in Romans that it was through the law by which we died, but that is only in the sense of it being "on the record" and known to us. Religion, or the law which God gave (or just any religion, as Romans 2:14-15 points out), would be the diagnosis in this analogy.

See because religion says do, Jesus says done.
Okay, you said one accurate thing.

Religion says slave, Jesus says son.
No, Jesus would say "brother" and also still slave, except now unto righteousness, because you will be made new in his likeness, and he doesn't sin.

Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free.
Religion makes you blind, but Jesus makes you see.
No, again, religion wouldn't be the cause here, it would only be the method of identification.

And that’s why religion and Jesus are two different clans.
*sigh*

Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man.
Yes, that is the premise of Christianity but it is not the only religion to hold that premise. I can only assume that your apparent ignorance of the basics of the religion you adhere to extend to all belief systems.

Which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own.
Not based on my merits but Jesus’ obedience alone.
Because he took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face.
He took what we all deserved, I guess that’s why you call it grace.
Okay, but in scripture this is described as a starting point. You don't take that message and say "Wonderful! Thanks Jesus!" but the whole purpose in a spiritual redemption to belonging to God is so that you can do what humanity was supposed to do in the first place: Not sin.

That's why whenever Jesus healed people he would say "Go and sin no more" because there was some sort of enabling expectation inherent in accepting them despite their sin, that they couldn't use being outcast as an excuse. Granted, the theology of post-acceptance expectation and forgiveness for sin as a believer gets pretty messy, but the overwhelming message of the New Testament is that it should be guiding you to stop and live according to the pattern Christ set as our Holy One... which would be the definition of religion.

And while being murdered he yelled. “Father forgive them they know not what they do.”
Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you.
No, it means he was thinking about the people who were doing that to him. There is no evidence of a time-and-space transcending consciousness in Christ on the cross. He seems pretty focused on the people around him and fulfilling what the Father asked him to do.

And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb.
Which is why I’m kneeling at the cross, saying come on there’s room.
So for religion, no, I hate it, in fact I literally resent it.
Small quip: How would you figuratively resent it?

Because when Jesus said it is finished, I believe he meant it.
Yet you seem to have little understanding as to what "it" was or what joining into "it" would then mean, namely this, which is too long to slap on the post:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans 8:1-30&version=ESV

Sounds like a lot of law-fulfillment, obedience, and religion to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom