We may be sinners ....

Post Reply New Topic

but we sure don't deserve to be punished eternally in an eternal hell.

I think the whole concept of Heaven and Hell was fabricated to put people under the delusion that the "wicked and evil" will always be punished after death; possibly so people could have a false sense of moral justice in an otherwise "free-for-all" world. I believe that karma is the same idea, just from a different religion.

Ah, you get it.

If young Ted steals the Easter candy of his little brother Deacon, the immortal punishment far outstrips the crime. It makes no sense.

So if you rethink it, maybe the idea of sin is predicated upon something more earthly... like a control mechanism by a sham leadership.

Life is an excellent adventure. What happens after is a bogus journey.

One thing I appreciate about Fuzzy is how, in general, his atheistic outlook seems to me much more sensible than some.

"Hell" in its various descriptions only represents an eternity of separation from a God who provides for us spiritually and physically. We cannot have eternal life outside His presence.

But the thing is that nothing or no one can come into the presence of God in a fallen, imperfect state. We can all point to Adam and say, "Gee, thanks." The reality, though, is our fallen nature takes over the instant we do something that is wrong and we realize that. Because of how easy it is to fall into sin, no human being--whether they know God or not, is guiltless. And because sin cannot enter into heaven, whether we think we deserve to or not, there is not a single person who can justifiably be said to "deserve" heaven. EVERYONE who knows good from evil is destined for hell.

I think the OP has very good intentions in starting this thread. What you may be missing is the implication of claiming for one reason or another that one does not deserve what one does indeed deserve. It implies that what you do as a sinful creature is superior to the perfect goodness and wisdom of your Creator. It's an easy trap to fall into, and I'm not convinced many people really want to admit to it. We don't like the idea that there is any wisdom superior to our own or that any person, divine or otherwise, has a right to determine our will. You would think that human wisdom would desire divine wisdom, yet humans prefer to live in rebellion to divine will.

If you think your way is better than God's way, why would you WANT to live in heaven? You want the all the rewards but you don't want to pay your dues. The way I see it, hell is just a way of God giving you what you want. People who "get in" to heaven are those who place their faith in a divine person who stands in their place as a redeemer. Believers understand that they will never be perfect, but they don't have to be. The only difference is that believers recognize their sin as sin and wish to avoid it as much as possible. But do we think we "deserve" to get in heaven? No. We recognize that we don't deserve it. We admit we don't deserve it. But because we ask for God's mercy through Jesus and receive His grace as a gift given to us sinners, we have no need to fear hell.

In any case those so separated from God chose it.

That's one of the best quotes I've ever heard. Kudos.

This argument assumes a few things that I don't think are supportable.

First there is the idea of sin. What is that? The more I hear about it, the less sense it makes.

Let's first assume a universe without a god. In this universe, does the concept of sin make any sense? Would it still be reasonable to assume that humans are born into the world with some ill defined... I don't quite know how to translate it into other words... corruption? Criminal record? Tendency to do wrong?

As far as i can understand, the concept of doing wrong can only exist within a society or in relationship to another person (or god, if that's your inclination) A person, wholly alone, will do what he needs to survive and get some sort of pleasure whenever he can. Being alone, the only rules to live by are his own. Perhaps he might find two ways of looking at an act and may find himself doing something he would usually consider to be a wrongful act. But would he construct these internal rules if he had never lived in a society? I don't know.

In a society we construct basic rules for getting along. As societies grow more complex, so do the rules. And knowing exactly what is right and what is wrong can become a very difficult issue to figure out. Look at copyright law. There is not "natural law" that grants ownership of intellectual property to anyone. But there are practical reasons in our society why we might value a copyright law. But where should it balance. What grants too much rights to the original creator? At what point is an idea so woven into society that it ceases to be the property of the person who came up with it and becomes the property of the people in the society? Is it right to fine or jail a person who uses someone else's creative work as an element within their own? How about the person consuming the works.

But the idea of sin covers none of these sorts of laws. Is it right to say that a new born infant carries a burden of "original sin?" If I understand modern Christianity properly, this seems to be the case. Is that really what people believe? If so, and if one is to place this burden on a child you are raising, isn't it your responsibility to really know what that original sin is so that you can communicate it in a meaningful manner that does not frighten the child?

To be honest, the idea of original sin comes across as a vague threat to be held over the heads of anyone you don't agree with. It certainly goes against the idea that one should not be considered guilty until guilt is proved.

There are some things I have done in my life that I am not proud of. For these things I might reasonably be accused of a mis-deed. But have I sinned? Do I carry with me a burden of original sin? Is there something I need to do to relieve myself of this sin? I've certainly been told often enough that I have to accept some vague aspects of a religion in order to have some vague eternal happiness. But life after death isn't a concept that makes a whole lot of sense to me. What I want to do in my life is to be a good person both for my own well being and for others around me. But I'm not going to buy into a mythology that says I must work for the well being of a religious institution and for the support of people who believe a complex set of unsupportable ideas.

I think it is important to think for oneself and question these ideas. I would like to hear some reasonable explanations of these concepts of sin. Maybe there are reasonable explanations for the concept, but if they involve invoking a god and a really old book, I'm not sure they are going to have any validity in the real world.

Thanks, can you illustrate what you mean? How is my outlook different?

Almighty and most merciful Father,
We have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep,
We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts,
We have offended against thy holy laws,
We have left undone those things which we ought to have done,
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done,
And there is no health in us;

But thou, O Lord,
Have mercy upon us miserable offenders;
Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults,
Restore them that are penitent,
According to thy promises declared to mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord:
And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake,
That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous and sober life,
To the glory of thy holy name. Amen.

If you don't like the term "sin", think in terms of the ultimate 12 Step program.

Hi - I'm Sharif, and I am a recovering sinner.

For the sake of argument, let's see what might happen if we transfer the style of dealing with those who do not accept the Christian god to human society. Instead of sin, we assume the each individual is born having committed a crime.

Let's say that we have a society that accuses every human of murder when they are born and that the only way to be allowed to remain in the society is to admit to the murder and accept certain conditions by which the crime is not held against the individual. In the ancient world, the punishment for not admitting to the crime would be ostracism. Perhaps in mediaeval times it would be death. (The two different punishments are meant to reflect the changing ideas of the results of not believing in god.)

And the fact that ostracism might have been the threatened form of punishment rather than death does not mean that the threat of punishment was any kinder. Remember that in ancient societies, to be cast out of your small group could be a death sentence. In the modern world, if we leave one city, we can usually find acceptance in another town. But when societies were comprised of small, insular tribes, strangers were often seen as a threat and outsiders could not expect to rely upon help from strangers.

Clearly each individual has not committed the crime they are accused of and the accusation is so absurd that few societies would tolerate it in that form. And yet they do when it is put in terms of an unseen god. So it may be useful to question what would a society gain by accusing everyone of a crime and demanding that they make amends for that crime to be accepted by others?

It would seem that this is a good way to control people. Threaten everyone with punishment, deserved or not, and then provide mercy for those who comply. Most adults would cave in under the pressure of a whole society making these demands. Think how a child, without the benefit of complex reason and logic might respond. When looked at in the light of human law, I think most of us would agree that this is an unethical method of obtaining loyalty and service. But when attributed to a deity it is considered good and praiseworthy.

Why?

I am not Milton, that I should justify the ways of God to men. He can talk for himself - and does.

He answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

That is pretty much self chosen. As the proverb says, Toma lo que quieres, dice Dios, y págalo. You are free to work the program and take the consequences, or drop out and take the consequences. If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it.

http://www.worldwar1.com/tripwire/smtw0309.htm

I never said we deserve heaven ...

By the way, are you denying the Biblical idea that hell is eternal suffering?

No need to justify the ways of Jehovah. His actions in the Bible speak for themselves.

Jagatai, your posts are full of wisdom and insight and reflect a person with a very clear mind. Very appeciated.

If so many people have a problem with narcissistic behavior coming from men, why don't they think the same way when it comes to Jehovah?

Thanks, the analogy was a situational play on a plot point of a movie. The last two sentences reference the titles in the series and their chronological order.