Why evil exists?explanation by christianity

[Guest guest]

I read the Bible recently and the way it explained evil and bad was hilarious to say the least.

 

Why does evil exist?

 

Because satan exists

 

why does satan exist?

(no answer)

 

If god is the most powerful why couldnt he have destroyed satan?

 

God did not do so.We dont know why.

 

Why does man suffer from sin?

 

Because adam ate the apple.

 

Why should I suffer, since somebody ate something before millions of years?

 

(no answer)Billy graham said "adam is like president of men.His actions control all men." how crazy?

 

what is the proof that adam was there and all the things said in bible?

It is given in bible,so it is true.

 

-----------------------

it only goes on like this.I fail to understand their logic.

 

They say that jesus died for all our sins and hence all our sins are forgiven.

 

Isnt that giving an open licence to sin?

 

And worst of all,their god is a ghost."holy spirit".

 

Let their god save them.

 

 

[barney 0]

Jesus' Faulty Reasoning

By Peter Murphy

 

--

 

What kind of person was Jesus? We know from the bible evidence, which was all written long after the fact by people who never knew Jesus, that his own family and townspeople considered him mentally deficient. Considering that every time he was questioned he resorted to personal attacks, slander, and violence, it is no wonder the Jews rejected such an unbalanced preacher. To get an idea of how unbalance Jesus was, let us look at one of his apparent sayings.

 

John 5: 46-47, "46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words."

 

Here is a statement, that the NT claims Jesus made. But the statement reveals an unbalanced mind at work for several reasons.

 

1) Jesus is using what is called a loaded alternative. He has linked belief in Moses, to believe in himself. This is a fallacy: a) one can believe in Moses and utterly reject Jesus; b) one can believe in Jesus, and utterly reject Moses; c) one can believe in both; and d) one can believe in neither. This is a fallacy used by a weak debater, who attempts to link his opinion to an authority figure.

 

2) Jesus then makes a false claim, for traditionally Moses wrote the Torah, and Jesus claims Moses wrote about him. That is utterly untrue for three reasons: a) the Torah never makes mention of Jesus in name or character; b) there is no evidence that Moses wrote the Torah, but there is sufficient evidence to prove that the first book of the Torah, and the last book of the Torah, were written long after Moses by unknowns, and if two of five are without authority, it logically follows that the remaining three are equally without authority as the word of god; and c) all evidence points to the Torah being originally a verbal, not a written account, in which case, the only thing written were the basic commandments placed in the Ark.

 

Jesus admits the weakness of his arguments, concerning his mission and person. He appeals, like a cult leader who no longer can defend himself logically and with Reason to signs and miracles. It is an admission of defeat for his teachings, and his person.

 

John 10: 37-38, "37 If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

 

But, according to another part of John, Jesus never did anything publicly!

 

John 7: 3-5, "3 His brothers therefore said to him, 'Depart from here, and go into Judea, that your disciples also may behold your works which you are doing. 4 for no one does anything in secret, when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.'"

 

What was he hiding from? What else, exposure as a fraud. His brothers put the cards on the table, Jesus was seeking public recognition, but was too cowardly to do it. For look at Jesus' ministry, almost all of it is private and skulking in the wilderness; look at the supposed resurrection, more skulking in the recesses of mountains, the inner chambers of rooms, beaches, in disguise so that he would not be identified; instead of the unknown writer of Matthew having dead saints walk around the city, it would have been more believable for the resurrection story if Jesus had entered the temple in a public sign, which he promised, but never delivered in Matt. 12: 40.. The whole story of miracles is self-defeating, for a miracle is a cop-out, a trick to deceive the crowd.

 

"Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name religion has been given, that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is the most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief (for a miracle, under any idea of the word, is a show), it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached. And in the second place, it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a showman, playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder." -- The Age of Reason

 

In the final analysis, Jesus was a cult leader, with delusions of kingship. His cult survived, but so has Jim Jone's and David "Christ" Corish. Cults have a way of existing for centuries.

 

Peace,

Peter M.

 

 

 

[barney 0]

Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood?

I Don’t Think So!

By Rev. G. R. Gaudreau

 

--

 

There’s an ongoing debate between Christians and Sceptics concerning the Eucharist, sometimes referred to as the Lord’s Supper or Communion. Sceptics, generally speaking, charge that it’s cannibalism and Christians argue that it’s not.

 

My opinion in this matter is twofold: As far as Roman Catholicism is concerned, I maintain that it’s outright cannibalism, because of the literal way they interpret the Eucharist passages in the NT. But a lot of Christians believe that Jesus’ words were to be taken symbolically, ergo, I maintain that these last are practicing symbolic cannibalism.

 

The most oft quoted passage, where this doctrine is concerned, is found in John 6 and reads as follows in the KJV:

 

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

 

The Roman Catholic Obscenity of Transubstantiation

 

From this passage, and others like it which tell of the Last Supper, it is clear that, at the very least, some kind of flesh eating and blood drinking must take place in order for one to gain life. (v. 53, 54, 57, 58)

 

Personally, I just can’t see the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation in any passage in the NT. However, because they maintain that at Mass, the bread (wafer) and wine are literally transformed into the body and blood of Jesus by the words of the priest, then anyone who eats the bread, or drinks the wine, is engaging in cannibalism. I don’t see how anyone can logically escape this conclusion.

 

Webster’s dictionary defines cannibalism as “the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being.” <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary> This is pretty clear language and I think we can all agree on this definition; I know I do.

 

If, as Catholics maintain, the bread and wine’s substances are miraculously transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, then it stands to reason that Catholics are guilty of cannibalism by eating and drinking those. But Catholics object that they would never engage in such a practice. In fact, they recoil at the accusation of cannibalism. Unfortunately, their doctrine tells another story.

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia web site <http://newadvent.org/cathen/> has a search function which yields an interesting answer when the word “cannibalism” is entered. The site directed me to this URL <http://www.newadvent.org/faq/faq028.htm> and here’s what it had to say concerning the charge of cannibalism against Catholics:

 

The questioner, real or not, asks: "Your answer to the question about cannibalism and the Eucharist in the December 1990 issue of This Rock disturbs me. The promise in John 6 of the flesh of Christ to eat and his blood to drink sounds literal. Christ is present substantially (rather than supernaturally); if we eat only the accidents (appearances), how do we eat Christ, who said unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we will not have life?”

 

The reply is given: “Your question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine).”

 

“In consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.”

 

“We can still say Christ's flesh and blood are consumed sacramentally in Holy Communion because what is eaten is literally his body and blood, even if the physical action of eating affects only the accidents of bread and wine.”

 

Note what the person answering states: “Jesus is both substantially present… and supernaturally present.” This establishes clearly that Catholics believe that the bread and wine are actually (magically?) the body and blood of Jesus. If this is so, then, ipso facto, they are practicing cannibalism.

 

But the answer person goes on to state: “In consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.”

 

This is utterly ridiculous as well as very contradictory! If Jesus is, as maintained by this person, “substantially present,” then when you eat the bread and drink the wine, you’re eating Jesus and drinking his blood! You can’t have it two ways, despite the theological double speak utilized by the answer person to eschew the charge of cannibalism.

 

On the one hand Jesus is substantially present and is consumed by the Catholic faithful, but on the other the charge of cannibalism is nul and void because Catholics “injure only the accidents of bread and wine.” How can one “injure only the accidents of bread and wine” if those “accidents” are actually, and in fact, the body and blood of Jesus by some “supernatural act of God?” This person's argument is ludicrous!

 

It’s clear, at least to this writer, that Catholics, by their very words, are practicing cannibals. They may look in disgust at the practice of cannibalism in other peoples, but they do so hypocritically. This practice is no less cannibalistic, because of the literal way they interpret the words of Jesus, then those members of some tribe who ritually eats human flesh.

 

The Fundamentalist and Evangelical Symbolic Obscenity of Communion

 

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, who accuse Roman Catholicism of being the Devil’s religion, maintain that the eating and drinking of Jesus is purely symbolic and that there is no supernatural intervention of God to change the substance of the bread and wine. I happen to agree with them on this wise.

 

However, even though the whole thing is symbolic, what it represents is still the body and blood of Jesus. If one eats, symbolically or otherwise, this body and blood, it follows logically that cannibalism is practiced.

 

The words of Jesus were pretty clear that the bread represented his body and the wine represented his blood. When one consumes the bread and wine, symbolically representing Jesus’ body and blood, the one is unquestionably engaging, at least at a symbolic level, in cannibalism. How can one possibly avoid this conclusion?

 

If you symbolically eat the body (bread) and blood (wine), then you are symbolically eating the person of Jesus. This is cannibalism by any definition, though symbolic in nature. Again, I fail to see how a person can avoid this charge.

 

There’s no logic in maintaining otherwise, but then again, I’ve yet to see the Christian faith being logically demonstrated. The whole thing, from start to finish, is chock-a-block with myths, inconsistencies, errors and outright lies.

 

Conclusion

 

No matter how they slice it, Catholics are, by their very words, cannibals in practice. And no matter how much the other Christians try to rationalize it, they are still guilty of cannibalism, though in a symbolic way.

 

Whether the bread and wine merely represent or actually are the body and blood of Jesus, the charge of cannibalism stands, unless it can be logically demonstrated that my reasoning is wrong.

 

I have yet to see any Christian do that, so I maintain that they are all cannibals of one sort or another. This is a disgusting doctrine and practice, no matter how you define it. Unfortunately, it is but one of the obscenities in the Bible.

 

 

[bubri 0]

--------------------------

it only goes on like this.I fail to understand their logic.

--------------------------

 

 

u need not.

 

it is for them to understand.

 

the same Supreme Principle which we all worship by various names, who created everything, will give them understanding and peace.

 

Everything is by His Will. we need not break our heads worrying about logic. after all we too got our power of reasoning due to Him.

 

follow your path and dont denounce others' faith however illogical it may seem.

 

peace to followers of all paths.

 

" I am in every religion like a thread through a string of pearls." : Krishna

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

1. How do they explain the current population that started with two humans? Do they accept Incest then?

2. Their arguement is " Bible says Blah blah blah blah...."So its like that. They never question the bible. What if Bible itself is a Cartoon/Joke book in the first place?

3. How can a finite cause lead to an eternal effect( Eternal heaven , or Eternal hell)

4. What will happen to the poor souls that were born before the arrival of JC? Do they accept him posthumously? If yes, how do we know? If not , is it their fault to be born ahead of JC? Are they now in Heaven or hell? Atleast if they believe in rebirth, the souls would be reborn and they can accept JC in the Current and goto heaven. But even that bridge is burnt? So are the souls damned forever for no fault of theirs.

[maadhav 0]

priya_vaishnav,

 

your post is simple, to the point, and funny too. :-)

Thanks!

 

[maadhav 0]

<< " I am in every religion like a thread through a string of pearls." : Krishna >>

 

where He says so please?

there is similar verse in gita,

but it is not taling abour religions.

 

 

[Guest guest]

if you are intrested in vaishnavam, you can visit my "Sathsang thread - Glory of Lord Narayana". This thread is to sing glories of Lord Narayana.

 

if you are intrested, then visit my above thread.

 

(note: if this post is deleted, i will confirm that the moderator doesnt like my presence in this forum)

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif JAI SHRI KRISHNA

[Guest guest]

Madhav,

 

if you are intrested you visit my "Sathsang thread- Glory of Lord Narayana".

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Jai Shri krishna

[Guest guest]

"I am in every religion like a thread through a string of pearls" - Sri Krishna

 

I think this quote is cause of much of the confusion in Hinduism about acceptence of other religions. Plus you have to take into account when Sri Krishna said this and in what context he meant.

 

Sri Krishna is referring to the different Vedic groups of his time as all paths to reaching God (Sri Krishna). At this time there was no such thing as Christianity and Islam, so the Hindu view on predatory religions such as these should be questionable, as also they share completly different views such as heaven, hell and day of judgement, where as the Vedic faiths have re-incarnation, moksha, karma, dharma etc.

 

It could also mean that God is in all religions (all-pervading) just as a string pervades a necklace of pearls.

[bubri 0]

hi madhav,

 

the below sentence is the complete and exact phrase from the bhagavad gita.

 

I am in every religion as the thread through a string of pearls, wherever thou seest extraordinary holiness and extraordinary power raising and purifying humanity, know that I am there." (Krishna)

 

i have unfortunately not read the gita so cant give u the exact reference.

 

the above sentence is one which i liked so much that i assimilated it when it was told to me by a friend of mine.

 

i tried the internet...but though many sites quote the sentence extensively...i was not able to find the exact chapter reference to this.

 

interestingly most of the sites are where debates were going on the universality of religion and this sentence was used as a point of argument and reason.

 

hope that solves ur query.

 

 

 

[bubri 0]

hi there,

 

u r right when u say that neither islam nor christianity existed when sri krishna said the sentence.

 

but should that matter? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

reason wise...we can argue that sri krishna also told of many prev incarnations of himself and arjuna...which arjuna didnt remember.

 

so whatever sri krishna told ....need not necessarily mean it was meant for that time...how can it?...arent we reading the gita today? a book written thousands of years ago...

 

his philosophy and teaching , i feel , transcend time...it is a feeling...nothing argumentative...but an appeal for assimilation.

 

and it is that very nature of his that transcends time and makes truth universal both space and timewise that makes him worthy of worship.

 

[Guest guest]

Im sorry i cannot answer all of your questions, but i can answer a few.

2) Not everyone has blind faith...people do question the Bible.

4) Before Jesus died on the cross, it was necessary to sacrifice lambs, etc to redeem ones sins. One could not go straight to God for forgiveness. Jesus' death was seen as the "ultimate sacrifice"-therefore the curtain was torn in two between mankind and God (hence the great earthquake and darkness directly after His death). So to put it plainly, the people who lived in the BC could go to heaven. Have you ever heard of Abrahams Bosom? That is where they went and after His death they went into Heaven. (A little confusing but all to God's plan)

Marti

[Guest guest]

Perhaps i can help you out with some of those "burning" questions. First of all Satan, aka Lucifer, was once the greatest angel in Heaven. However he wanted the power and glory God had, so God sent him to a place called hell with a few more angels who sided with Lucifer. Satan exists because it is part of God's plan. You will be hearing "God's plan" a lot. This only means that yes, i do not exactly know because the way God works is unknown, and we wont know until we get to Heaven.

God will destroy Satan at the end of this world (judgment day). Man suffers from sin because Adam AND Eve first sinned. Actually, Eve sinned first. As a punishment, God sent them from the Garden of Eden and made them work-there would now be pain in childbirth, etc.

To my knowledge, there is no proof that Adam and Eve existed, in fact, some say they are just a symbol, not actual human beings.

Those who believe in the Judaeo-Christian God do not accept Him as their Lord just so they can sin. The point is, God is merciful and he stresses perfection. Naturally, no one is perfect (except Jesus), but we should try to be. In addition, one has to be a believer to recieve forgiveness for sins. One exception to this is when for the first time someone accepts Jesus as their Saviour their sins are also forgiven.

The Holy Spirit lives in believers hearts. This is where the trinity comes in: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. Yes, this is hard to understand. This is where the human brain is at its limits. We just cannot understand this 3 in 1 concept.

Let me know if i missed anything.

Marti

[Guest guest]

Why can't someone talk to or ask forgiveness directly from God?

And what if a person doesn't do any sin, but doesn't believe in jesus or god?

How sure are you that Jesus is the son of God?

And how come the satan has a last name?

What is god going to do after he destroy the satan?

what are the points of all these?

[Sephiroth 0]

Why can't someone talk to or ask forgiveness directly from God?

 

According to Christians, because God had send his "son" to be guide for man and he is deaf to ALL but those who come by his son (believe in Jesus).

 

In another word, by giving himself a son, God had limited his own mercy to Man.

 

And what if a person doesn't do any sin, but doesn't believe in jesus or god?

 

He still goes to Hell and damned in it for eternity. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

Meaning, someone like Gandhi could be frying in Hell right about now while someone useless like Bush could be in Heaven after his death. All because Bush believe in Jesus and Gandhi didn't. Fairness of Christian God. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

How sure are you that Jesus is the son of God?

As much as you are sure that Jesus existed. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

And how come the satan has a last name?

Which name is that? Lucifer?

 

I believe Lucifer is the actual name and when Lucy fall down from grace of God, God gave him an extra name which is Satan. I believe Lucifer has another, nice sounded name, though. Forgot that one.

 

What is god going to do after he destroy the satan?

I don't know ...

 

what are the points of all these?

I don't know either ...

[nem 0]

Please make sure you read carefully. And also never insult other religions. There are many paths with one destination - GOD.

 

 

Why does evil exist?

 

Because satan exists - We created evil ourselves from materialistic things

 

why does satan exist?

(no answer) - the more you think of satan, the more he exists

 

If god is the most powerful why couldnt he have destroyed satan?

 

God did not do so.We dont know why. - maybe its a test for us: The main prayer for christianity has a line: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (satan) , amen.

 

Why does man suffer from sin?

 

Because adam ate the apple. - This may be true, infact i cant argue since its in a holy scripture. But also look at it in another perspective. We sin ourselves because of our sense, for example lust. In bhagavad gita it says something like: From lust, arises anger, and from anger arises delusion. -- In the bible their are stories, these are like parables. Just like the Parable of the Cave from Socrates, who spoke of the men in a cave and the shadows.

 

Why should I suffer, since somebody ate something before millions of years?

 

(no answer)Billy graham said "adam is like president of men.His actions control all men." how crazy? - Again, its more or less a parable. There are deeper meanings. But really, every line you read in any holy scripture you must think carefully.

 

what is the proof that adam was there and all the things said in bible?

It is given in bible,so it is true.

 

-----------------------

it only goes on like this.I fail to understand their logic.

 

They say that jesus died for all our sins and hence all our sins are forgiven.

 

Isnt that giving an open licence to sin?

 

And worst of all,their god is a ghost."holy spirit".

 

Let their god save them.

 

 

--

 

Their God is the same as our GOD. Hinduism also believe in one GOD. The Holy spirit could be a soul, this i am not too sure on. I will do some research. However, all Christians do a sign of the cross on their chest. Saying: Our father, the son, and the holy spirity: AMEN. So 'Father' is GOD. 'Son' is JESUS CHRIST'.

 

IF I AM WRONG THEN PLEASE CORRECT ME, I SEE THIS FORUM AS A CHANCE FOR EDUCATION RATHER THAN DEBATES AND POINTLESS COMMENTS

[maadhav 0]

exactly this:

 

mattah parataram na anyat ki.ncht asti dhananjaja

mai sarvam idam proktam sUtre maNi gaNA iva.

- Gita 7.7

 

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me.

Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are struhg on a thread.

 

This is deffrent than what you said.

So now remember this only.