You are so wrong! You are going to find out on the final judgment day!
Just kidding, but in all seriousness, and for purposes of furthering the argument:
In your opening paragraph, only the first of those axioms must be accepted in order to create the desired effect. The second one is a part of the first, and the third one is just completely unrelated to the matter at hand. Christianity does not teach that humanity is incapable of avoiding sin, but that humanity sins of her own free will.
As for your second paragraph: it is here that you set up an exclusively rhetorical approach that is used throughout the rest of the argument. You never address whether sin is actually real or not, but instead focus only on the ramifications of a belief in sin. I would suggest that the ramifications of a belief are irrelevant until the belief is determined to be true or false. For example, if I wanted to convince someone that the moon is made of cheese, I would not go about it by first telling them how useful such a belief would be, that is, how it would reduce the operation costs of NASA missions in feeding their astronauts. Instead, I would begin by raising evidence and explaining to them why it is only logical that the moon be made out of cheese.
And now to your third paragraph. I see here that you accept the notion of absolute truth. Just out of personal curiosity, I wonder if you would be so kind as to reply or comment on this reblog to tell me why that is. In any case, it is very useful to the argument. I might, therefore, refer you to my seven posts on ‘The Omnipotent.’
This I don’t understand at all, though I’ve heard it said by many people: “We simply, as mortal beings, cannot relate to [god(s)] in any real meaningful way.” I get the whole notion of an infinite god being beyond the reach of human wisdom, but the conclusion that we therefore can’t know anything about him/her/it is completely illogical once you strip it of its rhetoric. That is, if God is so powerful, wouldn’t he be powerful enough to reveal Himself to us if He liked? Sure, an ant isn’t going to know the first thing about human matters on his own, but we can easily teach him all his little brain can hold in a matter of seconds.
As for your belief that “such anthropomorphic classification [of god(s)] is pointless.” I think this statement is just too belittling to all of humanity to so much as fit within the logical scope. That is, if there is no such thing as ‘Transposition,’ as C. S. Lewis calls it, if bigger things cannot be expressed (how ever incompletely) in smaller languages, then there is hardly a point to life at all. I should not bother writing this post if I didn’t believe that you, an intelligent being, could take these configurations of a twenty-six-lettered alphabet and convert them into immeasurable, human thoughts. Maybe what you get out of what I’ve written here isn’t the whole of what I was thinking when I wrote it, but that is a part of the art of communication. Sure, a god could not be expressed wholly in human terms, and I don’t believe there is a religion that denies that, but he/she/it must be expressible in some terms, or else there is no such thing as reality.
Sorry about my formatting with the obnoxious, noxious lines; it seems this reblogging thing won’t let me use paragraphs. I guess that’s too much to ask.
So, according to Christianity, I’m a sinner. In order for this to be true, I must accept 1.) Christianity is the one true religion, 2.) that sin itself exists, and 3.) that I am incapable of avoiding acts that are sinful.
In my philosophy, I do not acknowledge sin, as the very concept is one designed to force you into compliance with a stated dogma; Christianity. It relies on guilt, shame, and fear to be successful. It requires the supplicant to prostrate oneself before the altar of a god that may not even exist in the first place.
Therefore, I reject Christianity as the One True Religion, since no religion of any stripe has the full truth. Is there truth in Christianity? Some. Is there truth in Islam? Some. Is there truth in Judaism? Some.
Should we define our laws to conform to one religion or another? Absolutely not. Religion…
View original post 254 more words