One of the lies for profit by the Churches seems to be the invention of hell to instill fear and loosen the purse strings and increase the indulgences people pay to save their souls, which were never condemned in the first place.
Another example of this for profit lying by Christianity would be Original Sin. This was something unknown to the Jews who have a different interpretation of their myths. To them, Eden was we were elevated, not where we fell.
Is creating false guilt for profit a good moral tenet and should a religion that does so be followed?
Or would God forbid such a sin and curse those religions to hell?
Re: Re: Is creating false guilt for profit by religions a good moral tenet?
Agreed
Hell isn't something you can prove or disprove with personal experience until you die.
You answered two questions at once there but it should be pointed out that there is a difference between following a belief religiously, and believing every teacher of religion. Any repeated behavior can be defined as being done religiously, it is that vague of a term.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is creating false guilt for profit by religions a good moral tenet?
The last questions... The "and" separated two distinct questions. And yes I agree with your last statement. What God would truly forbid wouldn't exist for us to discuss,(for example humans born with feathered wings and the ability to fly) and as we have a will of our own we are absolutely responsible for the evil we have placed on the earth. Who else can we blame when the choices we make are ours to make?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is creating false guilt for profit by religions a good moral tenet?
Nope.
The MISTER
You seem to think that we and our free will can reject sin altogether. Somehow.
Please explain how?
------------
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 5th, 2015 05:18 PM
