We may be sinners ....

Post Reply New Topic

I think that the quality of our life is based more on action and consequence than reward and punishment. I think most religions are based on thousands of years of observation to determine what actions create the best consequences. A person can quickly find themselves in a "hell" on earth if their actions are not in harmony with their nature as human. I think we are innately rewarded for actions that have been successful to our species for many thousands of years.

I think the instant gratification in today's world is a new thing in our environment, uncommon in the history of man. I think this may alter the way our brains respond to reward, and our accompanying motivations, and contributes to the misery of unbalanced brain chemistry.

Instant gratification applies to many things, sugar, fatty foods, pornography, TV, music, Email, Texting, etc. Basically all of the things we have to make us feel good, that we have instant access to, that were not dreamed of 200 years ago.

To me this is like the monkey reaching for the lever to get the cocaine. The monkey may feel like he is in heaven on earth as long as the cocaine feels good, but the heaven on earth will soon be replaced by an opposite "hell on earth".

To me sinning are the actions we choose, against our human nature, that cause us negative consequences in our life. In general I think religions have done a good job of helping us take action that is in accordance with our nature.

I'm not sure religion can keep up any longer, with technology. The promise of a reward of eternal heaven or the punishment of eternal hell is not nearly as significant when people are experiencing what may feel like an heaven on earth through instant gratification.

So many ironies in life:
Live spelled backwards is Evil
Lived spelled backwards is Devil

No, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that it is the human desire to exist apart from God that separates us from Him. Apart from God, there can be no eternal life or provision for physical and spiritual health. Suffering happens because we fail to choose God's care, and thus eternal spiritual decay is the end result. The trouble is the soul isn't made to merely "cease to exist," so there's no moment at which to say there's nothing of the soul left to even justify existence. In a sense, we're frozen in that moment after death. So either God provides for you or He doesn't, and if He doesn't, the only alternative to heavenly paradise is hellish suffering.

Preachers used to be fixated on hell, and you don't really hear that much in churches anymore. I'm just guessing here, but I think part of the problem is too much fire and brimstone is misleading to believers. Even I started wondering if I was saved or not at a revival or two. Rather than focusing on everyone going straight to hell, the trend has turned in favor of the "presence/absence" of God, which in terms of heaven/hell makes much more sense. Focusing on heaven and being with God might make much more sense and make congregants feel better about going to church at all. But I also think it has given us the impression that there really is no such thing as hell and eternal suffering, hence we don't seem to take those things very seriously. At the same time, though, it is true that if you accept Jesus as your salvation, you personally have nothing more to worry about.

This brings up an interesting point. I've noticed the same thing amoungst my friends who are deeply religious. I don't know a whole of of the bible but I had always assumed it made references to a hell that involved eternal burning of the inhabitants. (I recently ran into one quote that said essentially this - I think it was from the old testament but if I remember correctly, it is the only reference to hell being a place of fire in any part of the bible.) It was only a few years back that I heard the concept of hell being the absence of god. A friend explained to me that the modern conception of hell as a lake of fire was mostly established in the middle ages.

But in conjunction with what I posted above, it seems that if you have small, tribal societies and a frequent punishment might be to ostracize offenders, then something similar in an after life might be deemed appropriate. But as cities grew and ostracism became a less effective punishment (since ostracized people might be able to blend in and make a new life in the growing cities) the threat of ostracism from god might have become a less effective way of influencing behavior. Some new representation of punishment in the after life had to be used. Enter the popularization of the lake of fire concept. A person in mideaval Europe could survive ostracism, but not so much being burned for all eternity.

In modern times as people are seriously questioning a great many of the basic ideas in Christianity, the idea of god allowing humans to be tortured for eternity has come to seem rather repugnant. By returning to a conception of hell as the absence of god, it is possible to side step the idea that god may be a bit of a jerk. I notice that many people carefully put the onus back on the person rather than on the god with statements such as "Suffering happens because we fail to choose god's care."

If we look at the history of Christianity as well as the diversity of its interpretations throughout the modern world, it seems fair to conclude that much of the concepts of punishments, proper worship, religious laws etc are very much dependant upon the culture. Are all of these equally valid interpretations of Christianity? Or is there one right interpretation? Conventional modern Christianity in America probably looks a good deal different from that which arose after the death of Jesus. And even more so to the religion of the old testament.

Do we adopt the laws and mythology of one era over another? Or do we accept whatever is currently fashionable? If interpretations of a religion can freely evolve over time and this is accepted within the religion, doesn't that suggest that perhaps we cannot assume that anything is fixed in place. That what is "The Law of God" today may just be a option tomorrow (like showing up to church once a week).

Is each person allowed to freely interpret the religion? Certainly that was not the case before the reformation and translation of the bible into vernacular that the common educated person could understand. As literacy in the world increases, a greater range of people are able to read and interpret the bible for themselves. Does this greater range of interpretations ultimately lead to many more equally valid forms of Christianity? Or is there only one true religion and if so, which is it?

I've sort of wavered off the point here. I guess my point is it is interesting to see how history and culture shape what people see within their religions. It brings up some questions that become a complex, tangled morass if their answers must agree. It seems to me that the simpler answer is that the questions were never relevant to begin with.

That used to put me off God, until I found out for myself.

The original sin of Adam that lead us all into this mess had the warning punishment from Genesis 2 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Note God dint warn Adam that he would be tortured forever in burning hell for the worst sin any mna has ever done, he was told he would die.
Just like Jesus said, through sin, death entered the world and all men die as they have all sinned.

What is death then?, is it going to live somewhere else like Heaven or Hell?

Dust you are, and to dust you will return.
A live dog is better than a dead lion for there is no devising, no knowledge no wisdom in sheol (hell) the place you are going.
For the living know they will die, but the dead are consious of nothing at all.

Those are all from the Bible, the punishment for sin is death, just as God said it was originally.

Jesus went to "hell" for 3 days, was it a place of God burning him even though he committed no sin, or was it the common grave, where man lies dead until a resurrection?

Another thing, Jesus said he was the resurrection and that the dead are to be resurrected, if we went off to Heaven or Hell anyway when we die?, what on earth is th eresurrection for?

It was the Devils original lie that Adam wouldnt die that lead to all this deceipt in all religions about an afterlife.

When you die, you die.
At the end ot the 1000 years Jesus will bring you back to life where you will be judged as to wiether you warrent forgiveness through Jesus dying in your place and therefore a nullification of the original punishment of death, or a permanent non existance.

I'd have to look, but I think the candy argument would be invalid depending on the age of the child in question because children under a certain age are considered innocents regardless because they don't understand the consequences of their actions.

Just to let you know, I myself was a fundamentalist Christian for many years. So I know what the deal is. But that's exactly the reason why we should question such a deal.

Who told Jehovah to put us in such a mess? If he knew beforehand that we would all be born with a nature that only deserves eternal suffering in hell, then he should be responsible for every sinner that ends up going to hell because he should've done something about it instead of letting them suffer for eternity. Why create us if many of us are going to end up in an eternal hell anyway?

Do you see what I have a problem with?

I'm sure some Christian here will reply here with "God is good no matter what and you're nothing but a puny human who lacks moral standards", but such statements don't help because, the way I'm seeing it, I do have moral standards (high moral standards actually) and, according to my moral standards, Jehovah is definitely not good. He's a big narcissist.

Thankfully, he's just a fictional character made up by men who weren't as civilized as today's world is. We should know better than to submit to such a being.

Oops, quoted the wrong guy. Sorry. I meant to quote Angel. I'll reply to yours later, Nambo (if necessary).

Completely false.

Sounds like you've pretty much got your mind made up and you've got it all figured out. So why bother even posting?

Yahweh DIDN'T put us in such a mess. We put ourselves in our own messes.

"If he knew beforehand..." Well, if God truly knows everything, then He knows all possible outcomes, including the complete range of all decisions we can possibly make. Such a decision necessarily includes whether Adam will bring sin into the world or not. If God is so evil, why even give us the freedom to choose wrong over right, evil over good, or Satan over Himself? If God is so evil, then why would He give us a means to redemption, rescuing us from the power of sin and freeing us from an eternity in hell? Because God is good, He gives us the chance to choose Him willingly. Because God is good, He provides a way to reconcile Himself to us so that we don't have to be separated from Him. God DID do something about it, so you can't rightfully blame God for failure to act.

Here's a conclusion I've drawn just from my own personal study of the Bible and from talking with people on this forum: We seem to choose rather to blame God for the fallen world rather than accept the blame for ourselves. "If there is a God, then why..." I like to ask the question, "If your way is better than God's way, then what are you doing to correct all the suffering in the world?" That's not to denigrate all the unbelievers out there who are adopting children, feeding the hungry, and working for peace. But generally, the average, every day man off the street is doing no more to improve the world than the Christian who just shows up on Sunday as a social obligation. So my conclusion is it's more convenient to blame God in spite of the fact we know good and well the suffering in the world is caused directly or indirectly by our own failure to act. Seriously, if you have the answer to world peace, let's have it. But if you don't put your ideas into action, then it is your failure to act that is responsible. After all, you don't even believe in God, right? So if there is no God, and if you yourself don't want to actively work to do anything about the situation, why even complain about it? On the other hand, we don't like to think of ourselves as being at fault. It's easier to place the blame on someone, and strangely enough a God that we claim doesn't even exist makes a perfect target in our minds.

Therefore, we blame God for things that are our own fault. I'm talking about each and every one of us, atheists and believers alike. In the person of Jesus, God says, "It is not my fault and I don't have to forgive you. But just this once, I will take the blame for all your sins for all time. All you have to do is believe that I've taken these sins away, and you will be free of their eternal consequences." It is all sin, but especially those for which we are too proud to confess belong to us that constitute the nails in the cross. Being able to admit that is a profound act and is the only one that really matters. If you can come to that realization, then you can be saved from eternal punishment. But you can't come to that realization as long as you are unwilling to hold onto what you and you alone judge as good for yourself.

You say that "according to my moral standards..." But who are you to decide whether human moral standards are higher than divine moral standards? A divine, supreme Creator with infinite knowledge and wisdom is assumed to have perfect standards. This means that any moral standards we claim are superior to His are self-centered and self-seeking rather than seeking that which God wants for us. In your own mind, you place yourself higher than your Creator. And if you're wondering what the implications of that are, look up the word "arrogance" in the dictionary sometime. It is a gradually acquired sense of arrogance, in my opinion, that led to the fall of man. Most of us don't MEAN for this to happen, but by definition it is what we are by asserting that some aspect of our being is superior to that of the One who created us.

Being able to come to terms with that on some level and asking for forgiveness is the solution. But if you have to much pride to admit to wrongdoing, you simply aren't ready for that next step. If you preference is for your own way rather than God's plan, then you're not going to want to be in God's presence, anyway. So as far as that goes, I do hope you will change your mind on this matter.

The omnipotent God could've easily prevented this from happening. That's exactly why God (if He does exist) is responsible for allowing it to happen. It's not our fault that we are born sinners. There are people who like to put the blame on an innocent child instead of on his narcissistic father, and (sadly) fundamentalist Christians do a similar thing when it comes to God and the humans that He Himself created.



So even though God could've prevented anyone from going to hell by creating a much safer reality for humans, He chose to create a reality in which some will be in eternal danger and harm and suffering forever and ever despite the "sacrifice" that He made in order to save as many as He can (or should I say "wants").

If a normal human in today's civilized world were to be God, he would've done a far better job than the God that you speak of because it seems like your God has no choice but to be an extreme narcissist.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you could've done a far better job yourself if you were God ... unless you're a psychopath or someone with a narcissistic personality disorder.



God is omnipotent and in full control (as Christians say), so why doesn't He feel responsible enough to make this world a better and safer place for us all? Why put the burden on us limited beings?

If I were the omnipotent God, with my moral standards, I would've done a much better job than He. You may disagree with me on that, but wouldn't you rather want a world in which all people live at peace with each other and life is still enjoyable and interesting but with no death and torture than have a world (already full of death and unnecessary suffering) in which we must either submit to the will of a narcissistic god or else eventually suffer more and more pain for eternity without a break?

And, by the way, whether I believe in God or not is irrelevant to what we're discussing here. Here, we're assuming that the God you worship exists and that the Bible is from God. And we're making our arguments based on such premises.



But it is God's fault! Who else is omnipotent and in full control and is capable of making this world a world free from harm and torture?



Whether or not the moral standards of your God are superior to mine does not change the fact that God could easily be identified as a being with Narcissistic Personality Disorder according to psychology books like the DSM.

I'd rather submit to my own subjective standards than submit to the "absolute" standards of the narcissistic God. I've been there before and don't intend to go back no more. And you can call it arrogance as much as you want. But that's the way to go for me.



I have autism. Therefore, I can never be too proud to admit to wrongdoing. However, that is not the same as unreasonably thinking that you and I are sinners who deserve to suffer for eternity in hell! No limited being deserves that (no matter how evil he may be)!

Seriously, I really hope you do some research on Narcissistic Personality Disorder and read up on personal experiences that people have gone through due to their interactions with people who suffer from narcissistic personality disorders.

And then compare the words and actions of those narcissists to the words and actions of God in the Bible.

That's what I did. And that's why I'm no longer a fundamentalist Christian.

Cheers.

Your god is too small. Given you say you were with a Fundamentlist group thazt may be one factor - a lot of fundamentalists of all shades have trouble with a Big God.

Monkey at the end of the world.

The only big thing about your God is His ego. I refuse to call Jehovah big.

And I don't have trouble with a big God. I have a problem with a God that acts like an omnipotent version of Hitler.

I know I can only dream for now, but every one of us living today needs to start going beyond dramatic stories and scare tactics and seek nothing but the truth (even if we haven't reached it yet and never will). Seeking God in dramatic stories that appeal too much to the heart and to emotions only works for those who care more about what their hearts want than what their guts tell them.

Remember, we're in 2011 now. Gone are the days of primitive knowledge of the world and of primitive moral standards. Extreme narcissism was readily accepted back then but not as much anymore. It's now considered a disorder ... and for good reason! It's nothing but destructive to the soul.

That is a SELF-centered attitude, not GOD-centered. It puts humans above the divine. Is God really narcissistic? Or are we "normal" humans narcissistic?



IF you were the omnipotent God, you'd know all the answers just like God does. How can you possibly know whether, having all the answers, you'd have really handled things differently? God, in effect, gave Adam (and therefore us) the keys to heaven and hell and said, "Look, everything is yours. Decide what you're going to do."

When we opened the gates of hell through the tree of knowledge, etc., we created a situation, tying God's hands as it were (because He afforded us that freedom), in which we forever cut ourselves off from the tree of life. All human effort in coming back to God is seeking access to the Tree of Life, which we find in Jesus Christ. That Tree is what we find in Jesus, having been lifted up on the cross, and God opens the door to heaven for us.



Well, in my experience, Yahweh is the only God who makes sense. I've had plenty of time to adequately evaluate the basic tenets of other religions. No human effort can possibly reach up to heaven. Yet if God is all-powerful, He can, if He chooses, reach down to us.



God already did that. We screwed it up, not God. The issue here is that we'd rather not admit our own fault. So if we mess things up, the best thing God can possibly do is make a way in which we can approach God for spiritual restoration. Remember, God reached down to us because we never had the power to reach up. We were never meant to, but we WERE (and are) meant to trust God. So we don't HAVE to reach up, but rather accept God who has already come down to us.

Whether that creates a world free from harm and torture is up to us. We don't all accept God or each other. So how are we supposed to expect a world free from harm and torture? Only when we live in a world that universally accepts that God and freely chooses to live according to His will. That kind of restoration will, at least as far as we know from prophecy, have to wait for the next world.



But your standards aren't really subjective. They're just different from God's standards. And how do you know that if you were in the place of God someone wouldn't label you with Narcissistic Personality Disorder? You're putting yourself in that same position in which your will dominates creation. So, in your infinite wisdom and power, you create a world in which human beings (whether we are truly "free" or not) are allowed to make choices, INCLUDING the belief in whether or not you exist, whether or not your way is the best way, in which they may or may not do your will, in which they may or may not live in perfect harmony with each other, in which they may or may not harm or torture each other, do you really expect that your will for all human beings with the power to choose to do that will or not, to object to you and your will or not, will be universally accepted and that your reign will usher in a bright paradise of eternal peace, love, and joy? If you give people freedom, you HAVE to accept the risk that people will make the "wrong" choice. You have the power to completely wipe them out and start over, just as Yahweh did. But how many times do you do this? Do you completely wipe them out if just ONE person does wrong? Do you wipe them ALL out if there is only ONE who trusts and obeys you? Or do you leave them with the continued power to make those choices regarding you and each other and show mercy to those who ask for it?

If you deny your creation the power to choose after you give it that power, that makes you unjust. If you limit your creation to ONLY doing that which is good, then that makes you authoritarian. I mean, it's YOUR creation, after all, so if you want to be an authoritarian, Hitler-esque god then that's your business. But people in general who know what it means to live in a Hitler or Stalin-influenced society do NOT enjoy the prospect of what that means. If you are comfortable populating your utopian paradise with subjects who might not have been happy living in eternity with you if they hadn't been created to feel that way, then that is your choice. Yahweh already created beings that didn't have a choice but to at least acknowledge His existence--the angels. For the angels, the only "choice" is to follow completely within God's will or be cut off forever. A being existing entirely within reach of God's throne ought to know better, right? So in heaven, there is no place for disobedience, not even once. In the case of Satan and his followers, they don't even WANT to be back in God's graces. So rather than populating Earth with subservient automatons, which the "good" angels basically are, God populates the Earth with humans who DON'T have to trust God but MAY DO SO freely. My wife, for instance, is completely committed to me because she wants to be, not because she has to be. I would be sad to live with someone who didn't want me. But we made that commitment to each other and hold that commitment to be sacred. God wants the same for us, but He doesn't force it from us any more than I forced my wife to marry me.

Maybe you LIKE the idea of a creation of your own making being forced to endure an eternity with you. But I'm not certain that most of us would choose that kind of existence. It seems to me the current state of affairs is the best possible considering the circumstances.



No, it's NOT the same as unreasonably thinking that you and I are sinners, etc. It's completely different unreasonable thinking. If we are promised an eternity reconciled with God and a perfect world under God's reign, it stands to reason that such a world would be populated with people God intended to reward for obeying His commands and, most importantly, deciding that such a world with God was what they wanted in the first place. Now, I do believe that there is a lake of fire, etc., awaiting unbelievers, whatever that means (remember, a lake of fire cannot literally exist if hell is also described as eternal darkness). I guess another analogy to describe it is looking at presence/absence of God as being opposites (which they are). If the presence of God represents eternal providence, then the opposite, absence, represents eternal neglect. So if Heaven is a paradise of life and healing, what else can hell possibly be?

Regarding a narcissistic disorder, like I already said, why think that you, if you were God, would be perceived by your creation as anything different?



Whether one is a fundamentalist Christian or not depends on exactly what "fundamentalist" means. In the sense that I don't bow to a lot of funny ideas a lot of Christians conform to, which really has more to do with a long-evolved sense of institutional doctrine than beliefs stemming directly from the Bible, then I'm not even fundamentalist. A fundamentalist Southern Baptist (which I am) doesn't believe in dancing or drinking--so in that sense I guess I'm going to hell with everyone else. However, there's no Biblical basis for the prohibition of alcohol and dancing in any strict sense.

Rather, I believe the "fundamental" tenets of Christian faith ARE strictly Bible-based, and you really have to be careful with the interpretation and application of those things. You have to take the Bible as a WHOLE, not just the parts you like and discard the rest. Part of the problem with so-called "fundies" is they tend to do this to suit their own purpose--to say somehow that THESE people are sinners while they themselves aren't. And you can't do that with the Bible. I mean, I could quote the book of Joshua up and down and make a case for why Christians should engage in holy war. But if you consider WHY wars were waged in the Bible and look at the outcome of those wars, you find the same exact thing not such a great idea in a modern context. When a New Testament author says, "I am crucified with Christ," is that an instruction for all of us to become nailed to a wooden cross the same way Jesus was? If that is so, then most of us are in deep trouble (there are SOME Christian groups, though not in the USA, that actually HAVE practiced voluntary partial crucifixion--literally nailed to the cross, but not to the point of death).

So in a sense, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, but I am in another sense. Rather than getting hung up on details, I take the Bible as a whole and consider how best the details harmonize.

Ah, well, it is 2011, we are NOW enlightened.

A species with a fragmentary and oft inaccurate history going back maybe 6000 years, with an assume planetary age of - what is it now? and we are SO wise and enlightened.

Okay.

See, IF there in fact IS a god, he / she / it / they ain't a going to ask you what they should be like.. The animacules on my hide do not get a vote on whether there will be a Flood - if I want to shower, I, even I will just DO it. We do not deserve hell? If God IS, how the Hell [sorry, can't resist] do you get away with saying, look, judge, sure I molested and killed all those children, but I don't think I deserve more than three weeks jail time?

Of course, if there in fact is no god, then you can say we need to update the church, and the constitution, and the climate. If you made it, go ahead, change it.

But WHY would you update god if no such exists?

ANY god you dream up - any god you understand - is way too small.

If you try to make sense on a theological basis you will forever tangle yourself up in imaginary theological assumptions. You must regard sin from a pragmatic point of view as a prime source of power by the church. Churchwise sin is guilt and guilt is a form of debt. Even in secular legal systems guilt must be paid off in fines or service of some kind. It is the same in a formal religion where the forever guilty adherents must pay off their debts to the church. It is a lucrative form of control and that s why the major churches are so rich. It's a great system since the payment is for a few kind and very cheap words assuring the timorous adherent that he might escape eternal punishment if he keeps paying. The credit card system in current financial setups more or less serves the same purpose and you can readily see how successful that is.