On sin, justice and hell
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>is. Based on the questions I'm getting, it seems there is a
misconception about what sin is (according to the Bible.) This then
translates into a misunderstanding about justice and the reason for
hell. So let's start with sin.
I believe it was wiseclam who asked about a situation where an
unbeliever had no sin and a believer lived in sin. Wiseclam, could you
give your definition of sin?
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>provide you with what I think is the biblical definition of sin (and
then you can correct me :-) ).
Sin, according to scipture is acting against the commandments of God.
It is a morally bad act, where "morally bad" is defined as being
against the interests of God. Sin is necessarily God-centered in that
there can not be sin without an offense to God, therefore God is
central to the idea of sin.
I've seen definitions where it is necessary for sin to be deliberate,
but I don't agree with this extension.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>One of the primary words for sin is an archery term meaning 'missing
the mark'. It is falling short of the standard that God has
established. That includes both things I should not do but do as well
as things I should do but do not. Jesus also extends the typical
definition of sin to be more than just our actions. It extends to my
thoughts and attitudes.
Accidental
<Philip.Kooistra@gmail.com>OldMan wrote:
> One of the primary words for sin is an archery term meaning 'missing
> the mark'. It is falling short of the standard that God has
> established. That includes both things I should not do but do as well
> as things I should do but do not. Jesus also extends the typical
> definition of sin to be more than just our actions. It extends to my
> thoughts and attitudes.
Where do you come up with this information? Why would God change his
definition of sin?
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>Why would God change his
>definition of sin?
*typical definition* of sin. In Jesus' day, just as today, many thought of
sins strictly in terms of actions. Jesus made it clear that there was never
a time when God only cared about outward actions. He's always been concerned
about what is in the heart.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>we can talk about that later.) You stated in a previous email: Imagine a
sinless unbeliever, and a sinful believer.
Well, the sinful believer is pretty easy to imagine. But I'm having trouble
imagining what you mean by a sinless unbeliever. How could there be such a
thing in light of the (Biblical) definition of sin you gave?
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Rather than say Jesus has extended the definition I should have said
that he he focused more on the internal life. Who I am inside.
Matthew 5:21-48 is an example of this. But even in the Old Testament
you can find this. Look at Psalms 66:17-19:
I cried out to him with my mouth;
his praise was on my tongue.
If I had cherished sin in my heart,
the Lord would not have listened;
but God has surely listened
and heard my voice in prayer.
And in 1 Samuel 15:22:
But Samuel replied:
"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> Rather than say Jesus has extended the definition I should have said
> that he he focused more on the internal life. Who I am inside.
> Matthew 5:21-48 is an example of this. But even in the Old Testament
> you can find this. Look at Psalms 66:17-19:
>
> I cried out to him with my mouth;
> his praise was on my tongue.
> If I had cherished sin in my heart,
> the Lord would not have listened;
> but God has surely listened
> and heard my voice in prayer.
>
> And in 1 Samuel 15:22:
>
> But Samuel replied:
> "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
> as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD?
> To obey is better than sacrifice,
> and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his
maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy
neighbour's." The Ten Commandments prohibit stealing -- and then go on
to prohibit wanting to steal.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>be a "sinless" non-believer since the act of non-belief is a sin
itself. For the sake of the discussion I will use this definition but
please understand that I do not accept this definition of sin. Why?
Because it presupposes the "truth" of biblical sin. It presupposes the
very existence of God (i.e., you can't have biblical sin unless God
exists). And you have yet to prove that God and/or biblical sin are
real. That said, I'll continue the discussion. Let me draw three
conclusions based on what we've said thus far, and you can comment on
each of them if you wish...
1. Since we know what sin is (biblical sin, that is) then we can say
that any non-believer will spend eternity in hell after their death, no
matter how good they were in their conduct throughout their life. A
believer, on the other hand, can only commit one sin which would result
in eternal punishment - and that is the sin of non-belief. All other
transgressions against God are forgiven as long as they sincerely
believe the Jesus story when they die.
2. God's judgment is black-and-white. If you are a sinner at the time
of your death then you will spend eternity in hell. If you are a
sincere believer in Jesus at the time of your death, no matter what
other transgressions you've made against God, you are rewarded with
eternal heaven. There is no alternative to these two options in the
Christian belief.
3. Human beings who are never presented the story of Jesus are still
sinners at the time of their death since they have not accepted Jesus
as their savior. It doesn't matter if they are otherwise moral people
(even if they live their lives consistent with the teaching of Jesus).
They are "non-believers" and as has been established, this is THE
biblical sin that is punishable by eternal torture.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>legally) is a sin. This made the top ten over such things as slavery
and rape. Imagine the poor goat herder thinking to himself, "Man, I
wish I had an ass like my neighbor's. That is one great ass! My ass
is bad but his ass is excellent. I wish I had it." Those covetous
thoughts would land the poor man in the eternal fires of hell - unless,
of course, he accepted Jesus as his personal savior.
It all makes so much sense.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that the commandment prohibits
wanting an ass "like" your neighbor's. I take it as literally
prohibiting coveting your neighbor's ass. Moreover, I'm willing to cut
the commandment considerable slack by interpreting the word "covet"
here to mean "want to steal." After all, suppose your neighbor wanted
to sell you his ass. I don't think the commandment should be read as
prohibiting you from wanting it and therefore from wanting to buy it.
The issue raises a couple of interesting questions: If wanting to steal
is a sin, and stealing is a sin, if you steal something, have you
committed one sin, or two (wanting to steal being sin one, and then
acting on that desire being sin two)? And if being tempted to steal
something is a sin, is it true that there is no merit in resisting the
temptation? Would it be the case that, if you are tempted to steal
something, what the heck, you might as well go ahead and steal it since
you've already sinned?
Your point about "the top ten" is certainly well taken. It's a weird
grab bag of stuff to bother carving in stone.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>"hard ass" on the Ten Commandments, which I am prone to be. Mere
"wanting" your neighbor's ass isn't enough to qualify as a sin.
Then again, how does one interpret this with respect to the neighbor's
wife item? I'm pretty sure that "wanting" my neighbor's wife would
qualify as a sin in the minds of most Ten Commandments interpreters.
What do you think about that? Of course, these people considered a
wife to be mere property, so maybe "coveting" the wife is *like*
wanting to steal the wife. Thoughts?
On the "wanting to steal and then stealing anyway" question, I would
have to say that this is a double whammy. And unless a person steals
something unintentionally (which is possible, is it not?) one can
conclude that stealing is always a double whammy, on the grounds that
the theif necessarily "wanted" to steal the ass/wife/ox/etc. a priori.
Agree?
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> GC - I'll concede the point about coveting. You caught me being a
> "hard ass" on the Ten Commandments, which I am prone to be. Mere
> "wanting" your neighbor's ass isn't enough to qualify as a sin.
>
> Then again, how does one interpret this with respect to the neighbor's
> wife item? I'm pretty sure that "wanting" my neighbor's wife would
> qualify as a sin in the minds of most Ten Commandments interpreters.
> What do you think about that? Of course, these people considered a
> wife to be mere property, so maybe "coveting" the wife is *like*
> wanting to steal the wife. Thoughts?
Per Jesus of Nazareth in the Sermon on the Mount: "You have heard that
it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who
looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in
his heart." So if you look on your neighbor's wife lustfully, you
have committed adultery with her in your heart, and in that sense have
stolen her from your neighbor.
> On the "wanting to steal and then stealing anyway" question, I would
> have to say that this is a double whammy. And unless a person steals
> something unintentionally (which is possible, is it not?) one can
> conclude that stealing is always a double whammy, on the grounds that
> the theif necessarily "wanted" to steal the ass/wife/ox/etc. a priori.
> Agree?
Agree. The question is: Is EVERY sin a double whammy,or does that only
apply to certain sins such as stealing and adultery?
Regarding "unintentional theft": Look at Leviticus 4 for a long
discussion of unintentional sin in general. For example, "If a member
of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any
of the LORD's commands, he is guilty. When he is made aware of the sin
he committed, he must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a
female goat without defect. He is to lay his hand on the head of the
sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. Then
the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on
the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the
blood at the base of the altar. He shall remove all the fat, just as
the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall
burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the
priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven."
Unintentional theft would presumably be possible (e.g., you pick up
your neighbor's pen thinking it is yours), and would leave you as a
"member of the community" guilty of theft as if you had committed it
intentionally -- but I suppose without the double whammy implied by
first coveting what one stole unintentionally. The prescribed
atonement differs for "the anointed priest," "the whole Israelite
community," and "a leader." Unless you fall into one of those
categories, I'd recommend stocking up particularly on the female goats,
just in case.
Note especially in Leviticus 4 that there can be collective sin as well
as individual sin. If the "anointed priest" sins unintentionally, he
brings guilt on the [whole] people, and the whole people can sin: "If
the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is
forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though the community is
unaware of the matter, they are guilty."
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>thing is sometimes unclear but we can always count on Leviticus to
clarify.
I wonder... do Christians think that this stuff makes any sense at
all? I mean honestly, even if you are willing to overlook the lunacy
of offering a female goat as atonement, the Chirstian MUST acknowledge
that this is the God of Abraham commanding such a practice. How do
they rationalize this?
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Actually it does make sense to me. But you have to realize that I come
at this from a totally different direction that you. I believe in God
and study the Bible to understand it, not to try and find
inconsistencies. The Bible is pretty clear that sin is sin. There is
no issue of degrees of sin or tracking the number of sins. If you have
sinned, and the Bible says that we all have, then you fall short of
what God wants from you. Much of the Old Testament covenant was one of
law. Here's the rules. Obey them and you will be considered righteous
before God. The Old Testament demonstrates the impossibility of that
task. The covenant established in the New Testament (testament =
covenant) replaces the law with grace. In essence Jesus pays the
penality for my sins with his death on the cross. By faith, I choose
to accept what he has done for me, commit myself to him, and my sin is
atoned for. He does for me what I could not do for myself.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>(even if they live their lives consistent with the teaching of Jesus).
unjustly suffer in hell.
Let's examine that further. For the sake of argument, let's say unbelief
itself is NOT a sin.
Now the question is, what is a moral and good person? How good does someone
have to be before they are good enough for heaven? Is there anyone who is
perfect? Where does God set the "bar" for entering paradise? Let's even
throw out the Bible for this discussion. If you were God, and were
absolutely holy and perfect, what exactly would be your requirements for a
human so he could live with you in perfection for all eternity?
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>Excellent example.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that the commandment prohibits
>wanting an ass "like" your neighbor's. I take it as literally
>prohibiting coveting your neighbor's ass.
>Have you
>acting on that desire being sin two)?
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>wife to be mere property, so maybe "coveting" the wife is *like*
>wanting to steal the wife.
to those passages?
Billy Bones
<mark.jacksondownes@gmail.com>In that text (images of which adorn the walls and ceilings of many
churchs) all poor blokes born before Chirst (who washed away the sin of
Adam) are condemed to hell (be it the outer circle). Even those chaps
from the old testemant who did nice things to one another didn't get
much of a chance. The idea goes that, not only was one not cleansed of
one's sins by the sacrifice of Jesus but because one was not a
Christian (due to the fact that such an idea was contemporarily
non-existant) then one did not fully understand the glory of god.
Dante was a genius, makes more space next to the angels for us last
minute converters.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>>unjustly suffer in hell.
And you envision a "good/moral" unbeliever suffering eternal torture.
And you consider this just AND merciful.
If I were God... Michael, you are very generous to open this up for
me. Where to begin...
If I were God I might just start everyone out in eternal heaven. Why
bother with 30 to 40 years (life expectency for most of mankind's
existence) on earth where there is suffering and pain. I can tell you
I certainly would not create a place of eternal damnation (i.e.,
torture). Maybe I'd have a penalty box where people like Hitler can go
- and that's where bad guys would go even if they believed in me (or my
son, but if I were God I would never have chosen to sacrifice my son in
the first place). And for those that did not believe in me, I'd
understand that they are not rejecting me out of hatred or anger. They
simply never heard of Me. Or, in some cases, they heard about Me but
thought "that's silly", which I would think was reasonable if I didn't
make it perfectly clear to them. And don't forget, I would have KNOWN
IN ADVANCE that they didn't get the message about my existance, or got
it and thought it was silly and rejected Me, so why would I punish
them?
I could go on (and maybe I will in a future post) but sufice it to say
that if I were God none of this silly stuff would be necessary.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>please provide more details about who would go to the "penalty box." Only
the "really bad" people? How exactly would you classify them? You must have
a concrete, clear cut way of distinguishing. PLUS your concrete, clear cut
standards would also have to be shared with people, right? Which sins and
how many of them put a person in the penalty box?
Also, please elaborate on your penalty box idea. With such terminology, it's
obviously a temporary thing. How long would Hitler have to sit there? What
is existence like in the penalty box? Do you envision Hitler being
rehabilitated in you penalty box? This whole idea sounds a little like
purgatory.
I'm hoping by analyzing your ideal view of what God should do, we can more
concretely discuss this thread's topic.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> Actually it does make sense to me. But you have to realize that I come
> at this from a totally different direction that you. I believe in God
> and study the Bible to understand it, not to try and find
> inconsistencies. The Bible is pretty clear that sin is sin. There is
> no issue of degrees of sin or tracking the number of sins. If you have
> sinned, and the Bible says that we all have, then you fall short of
> what God wants from you.
The claim that "we" have all sinned carried with it a certain
implication as to who "we" are. It thus provides one possible
Christian answer to the ethical problem of abortion. If "we" have all
sinned, and if a fetus has not sinned, then a fetus is not "one of us".
A fetus is not a person, and therefore abortion is not obviously
immoral. At the very least, it is not an offense carried out against a
person, but an offense carried out against something that might someday
become a person.
If, on the other hand, a fetus is "one of us," then we have another
(and fairly orthodox) Christian answer to what "sin" is. That is, it
is not bad actions, or even bad actions. Rather, it is essentially a
hereditary condition.
> Much of the Old Testament covenant was one of
> law. Here's the rules. Obey them and you will be considered righteous
> before God. The Old Testament demonstrates the impossibility of that
> task. The covenant established in the New Testament (testament =
> covenant) replaces the law with grace. In essence Jesus pays the
> penality for my sins with his death on the cross. By faith, I choose
> to accept what he has done for me, commit myself to him, and my sin is
> atoned for. He does for me what I could not do for myself.
That all having been said, are you or are you now obliged, as a followr
of the teachings of Jesus, to follow the Jewish Law to the best of your
ability? Recall the words attributed to Jesus in Matthew, chapter 5:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the
truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not
the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of
these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called
least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these
commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you
that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the
teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of
heaven."
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>"concrete, clearl cut way of distinguishing" the good from the bad?
Won't I just *know*. Don't I know RIGHT NOW all who ever were and ever
will be "bad" and deserving of punishment? Could I not endow my
special creation (humans) with the inate ability to know when they are
acting badly?
I'm reading through all your questions and I realize two things...
1. We're debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
This is silly. "How long is Hitler in the penalty box". Please, I
don't even believe in any of this and I don't see the need for it,
whether I can define the god or you can.
2. You are assuming that a god of some sort is essential. It seems
you can not contemplate the absence of god.
If your sincere objective is to understand what I think an "ideal god"
would do then why don't you assume that an "ideal god' would ONLY
create heaven. There would be no earth, no need for salvation, no
death or pain - only heaven.
If I could turn this around on you, let me ask this... Why all this
overhead? Why earth, death, salvation, sacrificial sons, hell, etc.
Why have any of it? What's your God thinking?
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>mean to suggest that the Word of God suggests that husbands "owned"
their wives. Not specifically, anyway.
On the other hand, the bible doesn't treat women very well. Read
Leviticus while evaluating how women are valued. God is pretty clear
about devaluing women relative to men. See Lev 27:3-7 specifically.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> If, on the other hand, a fetus is "one of us," then we have another
> (and fairly orthodox) Christian answer to what "sin" is. That is, it
> is not bad actions, or even bad actions. Rather, it is essentially a
> hereditary condition.
Sorry, that second sentence should read, "That is, it is not bad
actions, or even bad thoughts."
Accidental
<Philip.Kooistra@gmail.com>> overhead? Why earth, death, salvation, sacrificial sons, hell, etc.
> Why have any of it? What's your God thinking?
Well the logical answer why we have all these "little" hurdle is that
God only wants to have good people in heaven, and we aren't good
because two people thousands of years ago were bad, so we inherited
their badness somehow (nobody knows how badness is inherited, they're
looking into it), and as to why God doesn't just create good people? I
think the answer is that if God made us good, he'd somehow be taking
away our free will, because if people must be good, they obvious have
no choices (other than every action they choose, with the exception
that their actions are always good). Doesn't it seem like a silly
question now!?
And as to what his God is thinking, the obvious answer is that "man
cannot know God's will." Ominous, isn't it? This sounds fun and
condescending; sign me up!
If you ask me, it's all a stupid way of trying to convince people to
live the way they should be living anyway. But some people don't have
the intelligence to figure out which actions promote their well-being
and which actions don't, so they had to weave a little story with all
these nifty caveats. Think of it this way: Christianity is like potty
training, and most people are adults and know how to use the bathroom,
but Christians are toddlers. People should know how to take a crap on
their own, but toddlers are too ignorant/stupid to learn how to do it
without some help from an external reward and punishment system.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>children? I get the impression you don't. Just curious.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>Wiseclam, you clearly object to the way the Bible describes God's exercise
of justice. If you object to it, then you must have an idea of what a better
form of justice would be. You are more than willing to explore and criticize
all the implications of God's idea of justice. I am now simply trying to
explore the implications of your idea of justice. Perhaps we will discover
that you can't come up with a unified, just, knowable and merciful method of
justice. If that is true, are you really in the position to criticize God's
justice? It's easy to be an armchair god. I'm trying to throw you into the
game to see how you perform.
>2. You are assuming that a god of some sort is essential.
look at this world and say there is an ultimate justice. There is no god and
cannot be one.
Accidental
<Philip.Kooistra@gmail.com>Michael Ewart wrote:
> Personal question, Accidental. Don't answer if you don't want. Do you have
> children? I get the impression you don't. Just curious.
largely because I'm 21 years old.
Will I have children at some point in time? Maybe, but I havent made
any plans to. I think I'd be a pretty good father actually, although
you may disagree; don't confuse my philosophy with my personality.
YES! It is possible to be a good person without beleiving in
fairytales.
Accidental
<Philip.Kooistra@gmail.com>> that you can't come up with a unified, just, knowable and merciful method of
> justice. If that is true, are you really in the position to criticize God's
> justice? It's easy to be an armchair god. I'm trying to throw you into the
> game to see how you perform.
I know this isn't directed to me, but I'm nosy.
What is your definition of a just, merciful justice? Isn't just
justice merely a double positive? So just cut out the just part....
Would you say that an eternal punishment is merciful? I wouldn't, nor
would most people. Another word for mercy is clemency. Clemency
implies a reduction of punishment. Eternity is not a reduction of
anything.
Why should it be any person's job or right to define justice when
justice is a concept invented by humanity, and therefore must be some
sort of consensus. Justice is therefore whatever society says it is
(this would make justice knowable and unified, by the way). It is not
absolute though, because societies change. I'm sorry that a life
without absolutes isn't so simple as the black and white you desire so
much.
It is, however, a person's right to object to something he perceives as
injustice, to inform others that the punishment meted out does not seem
reasonable. This is what is being done right here. God's forms of
punishment are not reasonable.
> So if I understand your argument, you're saying there is no possible way to
> look at this world and say there is an ultimate justice. There is no god and
> cannot be one.
Yes. That is correct. Justice is an idea men created, therefore, how
could there be some ultimate justice? The ultimate justice is whatever
people happen to think it is, I guess, if that's what you want to hear.
The point is this: You must positively show that eternal suffering is
somehow reasonable punishment for any small infringement on God's law.
Again I'm really nosy, and I represent only my thoughts on the matter
(and I didn't write his argument, but perhaps I wish to agree and
defend him).
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> OldMan wrote:
> > Actually it does make sense to me. But you have to realize that I come
> > at this from a totally different direction that you. I believe in God
> > and study the Bible to understand it, not to try and find
> > inconsistencies. The Bible is pretty clear that sin is sin. There is
> > no issue of degrees of sin or tracking the number of sins. If you have
> > sinned, and the Bible says that we all have, then you fall short of
> > what God wants from you.
>
> The claim that "we" have all sinned carried with it a certain
> implication as to who "we" are. It thus provides one possible
> Christian answer to the ethical problem of abortion. If "we" have all
> sinned, and if a fetus has not sinned, then a fetus is not "one of us".
> A fetus is not a person, and therefore abortion is not obviously
> immoral. At the very least, it is not an offense carried out against a
> person, but an offense carried out against something that might someday
> become a person.
>
> If, on the other hand, a fetus is "one of us," then we have another
> (and fairly orthodox) Christian answer to what "sin" is. That is, it
> is not bad actions, or even bad actions. Rather, it is essentially a
> hereditary condition.
I am going to spilt this response into two parts because, at least in
part, it will be easier for me to deal with and followup on. This
first part is quite honestly the harder of the two. This is an area
that many committed believers struggle with and ultimately disagree
about. One part of the response is to determine the place of 'original
sin' in my own life. To some, Adam's sin was enough to condemn all of
his descendants. I do not believe that is the case though. I believe
that each one of us has individually sinned and because of my own sin I
fall short of the 'glory of God'. Is an unborn child guilty of sin
committed in their mother's womb. How could they be. So to me the
implication would be they have not fallen. The bigger question would
relate to a two year old or to a severly mentally handicapped person.
Have they committed sin and are they in a state of separation from God.
The Bible does not clearly say. You can find arguments both for and
against the inferred doctrine of 'the age of accountability' that says
a child is not responsible for sin until they reach a stage in
development where they know what they are doing. I believe in it but
can not make a hard case for it. Others do not. I do believe though,
that God is both just and merciful and that he will do the right thing.
And BTW I do believe the unborn child is a person. God tells Jeremiah
in 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
While the words here are likely figurative they do indicate that God
knows us before our birth. I would also suspect that there are few
that would disagreed that at some point before a baby is delivered that
it has the capacity to live outside of the womb and is itself alive,
even though still hooked up to mom.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> OldMan wrote:
> > law. Here's the rules. Obey them and you will be considered righteous
> > before God. The Old Testament demonstrates the impossibility of that
> > task. The covenant established in the New Testament (testament =
> > covenant) replaces the law with grace. In essence Jesus pays the
> > penality for my sins with his death on the cross. By faith, I choose
> > to accept what he has done for me, commit myself to him, and my sin is
> > atoned for. He does for me what I could not do for myself.
>
> That all having been said, are you or are you now obliged, as a followr
> of the teachings of Jesus, to follow the Jewish Law to the best of your
> ability? Recall the words attributed to Jesus in Matthew, chapter 5:
> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
> have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the
> truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not
> the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
> until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of
> these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called
> least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these
> commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you
> that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the
> teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of
> heaven."
In Galatians 5:15-25, and other places, Paul states that the purpose of
the Law, the Old Testament commands, was intended to help to know my
sin and the futility of attaining righteousness on my own. It's
purpose was to bring me to Christ. Once that happens I am no longer
under the law but am under grace. That means I am not obligated to
obey all of the Old Testament law. Does that mean I can do whatever I
want? In the sixth chapter of Romans Paul makes a very emphatic
argument that that is not the case. We are called to live holy lives
before God. The first 17 verses of the third chapter of Colossians
also makes a very clear call to holy living.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>have children... especially about the nature of your love for them... and
that in turn may change your view about love in general. I have no idea if
you'll be a good father or not since I don't know you.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>could there be some ultimate justice?
justice. Would you agree? If Saudi's want to cut off thieves hands, who are
we to say that form of justice is inferior to ours? If Hitler wants to kill
off the Jews, who are we to day his country which follows him is misguided?
They decided what was right in their society, and it's just an alternate
form of justice. Is this what you're saying?
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>and clemency are rejected.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>same as accidental's. I probably would not express my views with the
"Christains are toddlers" analogy, but that's only because I would not
want to hurt anyone's feelings.
I can tell you this... there is nothing my children could do that
would cause me to torture them. There is no crime they could commit,
no act or ommision that would justify this in my mind. And yet "Our
Father" created an eternal torture chamber. For me!
And Michael. You should be honest with Accidental. You think he'll be
the worst of fathers. If Accidental raises his children without Jesus
in their lives (which he will do) then they will not be saved. What
could a parent do that is worse than this? Accidental (and I) will
ruin eternity for our children. Be honest. If you sincerely believe
the word of God, be honest about this.
This, by the way, takes us back to one of my favorite topics... are
there any truly sincere Christians? If there were. If a Christian was
certain of eternal damnation and eternal heaven then they would tell
the atheist parent that they are doing the VERY WORST thing they could
do to their children. Do any of us doubt that we would be honest with
a person in this group who admits to sexually molesting their child?
Would any of us soft peddle our response to that parent and say "I have
no idea if you'll be a good father". No way! And a true Christian
would believe with certainty in heaven and hell. And they would say
"You are condemning your child to eternal hell!". Frankly, they should
say that the atheist who raises their child to reject God is WORSE than
the child molesting parent.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>to a life sentance of torture if they rejected clemency? Would you not
at least consider the possibility that the "criminal" may not
understand (or believe) that they will actually get clemency? This is
so twisted I'm having trouble responding without emotion.
And if we are going to use analogies, let's make them accurate. Not
only does the person in this scenario have to reject clemency. They
must reject it KNOWING full well that the alternative is a lifetime
sentance of torture. And let's not forget the poor soles who don't
even know that they rejected clemency - these are the folks who didn't
even know they committed anykind of crime (you continue to avoid this
topic, Michael). But still, Michael Ewart stands by ready to offer his
mercy. His perfect justice. A lifetime of torture.
This is sick.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>come up with a "unified, just, knowable and merciful method of justice"
Instead I claim the right to poke holes in the Christian model, which I
have done (because it is oh so easy to do).
That said, I'll bite. A rough model for justice and mercy that I would
endorse OVER the Christian model is established in the US jurisprudence
system as defined by the US Constitution. It has some basic elements
you won't find in the bible (despite claims that this is a country
founded on Christian principles). For example, those elements I refer
to include:
A representative democracy
Freedom of thought. Freedom to believe what one chooses.
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Trial by jury. The idea of a fair trial.
Prohibition of any cruel and unusual punishment.
If the Chrisian God could be so just.
Accidental
<Philip.Kooistra@gmail.com>> justice. Would you agree?
No, I disagree, because there is a larger society that may take
authority. Moreover, just because they think it is just does not mean
that I think it is just. I'd like to see their reasons behind it. If
you take objection to the idea that there is no absolute standard of
justice, please let me know, because it seems like this is what bother
you.
> If Saudi's want to cut off thieves hands, who are
> we to say that form of justice is inferior to ours? If Hitler wants to kill
> off the Jews, who are we to day his country which follows him is misguided?
> They decided what was right in their society, and it's just an alternate
> form of justice. Is this what you're saying?
Yes we have a right to interfere or to think they have an inferior form
of justice: we may have our reasons to think so. We can interfere
provided the world sees it as just to interfere in such things... this
is because the world composes a larger society than any individual
society, so they are "under our jurisdiction" in a way. If we as a
world decide that it is just to interfere with their form of justice,
then that is what our standard is. These standards can not be seen as
absolute, because absolutism is impossible to determine.
The point I tried to make earlier is this: the idea of an absolute
justice doesn't exist if you follow my argument. Maybe you don't
follow my argument. Ok, thats understandable, but give a reason please.
Accidental
<Philip.Kooistra@gmail.com>while. Forgive me if it is.
Well-put wiseclam. I think it's dubious to say that just because a
parent doesn't raise his/her child to believe in a God that the child
wont at some point become a Christian. It's pretty doubtful that the
child would become Christian if he/she understands that it is
impossible to assert anything on faith, and it is therefore a poor
standard to determine an eternal fate. But not all atheists have such
reasoning abilities.
It seems that if I disect any idea that seems to be concrete or
romantic, like love, morality, justice, into something less than
absolute, less romantic, and perhaps more reasonable, I am a horrible
person. To say that I think that love and morality and justice are not
absolutes, nor as fluffy as everyone makes them out to be does not
suggest that I can't possess those qualities. It's so ludicruous, but
it seems like anytime I try to say "X appears to be Y but is probably
not for reasons a, b, and c." I become some sort of target for
questions concerning implications on the nature of my character.
Maybe I'm being overly sensitive.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>So God should rule by majority vote?
>Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
>Trial by jury. The idea of a fair trial.
of the defendant.
>Prohibition of any cruel and unusual punishment.
nature of the punishment, perhaps we can examine this further.
By the way, have you ever seen the movie, "Almighty Bruce"? While not
exactly a philosophical (and certainly not religious) movie, it does serve
to demonstrate that while it's easy to sit and take pot shots at God's rule,
it's a different story if you had to do it yourself.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>God exists, so I will not engage this topic of what perfect justice with
mercy would / could be." Is it possible you don't understand what the nature
of the crime really is? What the nature of the punishment really is? I'm not
sure, because you won't answer my questions.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>To say that I think that love and morality and justice are not
>absolutes, nor as fluffy as everyone makes them out to be does not
>suggest that I can't possess those qualities.
qualities (although I do, of course, disagree.) I think what's offensive and
strikingly candid is your "selfish" world view. I've always seen this as the
inevitable logical conclusion of atheism and evolution, and yet no atheist
has been so bold as to say it as you have. I also notice a general lack of
support from the atheists (at least in regards to the way you said this), so
I'm curious if others have reached the same logical conclusions.
Accidental
<Philip.Kooistra@gmail.com>This is not the logical conclusion, it is one conclusion I think to be
logical, but more so I really know it to be an argument based off
semantics and definitions of words. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't
hold up to scrutiny, if I recall correctly, and I'd like someone to
specifically point out why. I think antonio has responded numerous
times, but I can't quite understand his writing, and I don't think he
quite understands my view. His writing is a strange mixture of
intellectual jargon (which I can figure out) and broken English all
written in extremely large paragraphs with no white space.
I think I stated this before, but I really haven't analyzed this enough
yet and probably should not go spouting off about things I haven't
thought enough about. When I state my opinions on this matter, I am
really looking for constructive criticism, not offended viewers acting
shocked.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> In Galatians 5:15-25, and other places, Paul states that the purpose of
> the Law, the Old Testament commands, was intended to help to know my
> sin and the futility of attaining righteousness on my own. It's
> purpose was to bring me to Christ. Once that happens I am no longer
> under the law but am under grace. That means I am not obligated to
> obey all of the Old Testament law. Does that mean I can do whatever I
> want? In the sixth chapter of Romans Paul makes a very emphatic
> argument that that is not the case. We are called to live holy lives
> before God. The first 17 verses of the third chapter of Colossians
> also makes a very clear call to holy living.
What Paul said is not what Jesus supposedly said, however. I have
quoted to you what Christ is supposed to have said, and it directly
conflicts with your belief that you are "no longer under the law but
under grace." I'd say you face a bit of a dilemma here. Should you
listen to Paul, or should you listen to Jesus?
You said earlier that you do not read the Bible for the purpose of
looking for contradictions. OK, so what do you do when you find them?
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>inevitable logical conclusion of atheism and evolution? This might be
an interesting new thread.
Also, no response to my "torture your own children" remarks? Do you
not wish to defend God who has set up an eternal torture chamber?
And no comment on the suggestion that a sincere Christian would inform
the atheist that he is doing a disservice to his children if he does
not raise them to be Christian? We're talking about eternity here (a
very long time) so I would think you'd want to help atheist parents
with a little polite criticism.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> I am going to spilt this response into two parts because, at least in
> part, it will be easier for me to deal with and followup on. This
> first part is quite honestly the harder of the two. This is an area
> that many committed believers struggle with and ultimately disagree
> about. One part of the response is to determine the place of 'original
> sin' in my own life. To some, Adam's sin was enough to condemn all of
> his descendants. I do not believe that is the case though. I believe
> that each one of us has individually sinned and because of my own sin I
> fall short of the 'glory of God'. Is an unborn child guilty of sin
> committed in their mother's womb. How could they be. So to me the
> implication would be they have not fallen. The bigger question would
> relate to a two year old or to a severly mentally handicapped person.
> Have they committed sin and are they in a state of separation from God.
> The Bible does not clearly say. You can find arguments both for and
> against the inferred doctrine of 'the age of accountability' that says
> a child is not responsible for sin until they reach a stage in
> development where they know what they are doing. I believe in it but
> can not make a hard case for it. Others do not. I do believe though,
> that God is both just and merciful and that he will do the right thing.
You might want to consult Romans 5:12-19 to see where the doctrine of
original sin came from -- it came from Paul. See particularly verse 12
("Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned") and verse 18 ("For just as through the disobedience of the one
man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the
one man the many will be made righteous").
As I understand it, therefore, you are a Paulist when it comes to the
question of whether you are obliged to follow the Jewish law (rejecting
even the supposed teaching of Jesus in this matter), but not a Paulist
when it comes to the question of original sin.
> And BTW I do believe the unborn child is a person. God tells Jeremiah
> in 1:5
>
> "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
> before you were born I set you apart;
> I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
>
> While the words here are likely figurative they do indicate that God
> knows us before our birth.
What they seem indicate, given the way you choose to read the passage,
is that God knows us even before our conception. The passage begins,
"BEFORE I formed you in the womb I knew you...," not "AFTER I formed
you in the womb I knew you...." That would have certain theological
implications that would be rather, er, startling -- unless you read the
passage as saying that God, having perfect foreknowledge, knows what
anyone is going to be like before they are ever even conceived. I'll
let you take that way out if you want to.
If you believe that an "unborn child" is a person, and if you believe
that unborn children have not sinned -- not even through Original Sin
--than I am at a loss as to what to make of the statement you made
earlier: "If you have sinned, and the Bible says that we all have, then
you fall short of what God wants from you." You are now telling me
that there are some persons that have not sinned, namely "unborn
children." We haven't even considered "born children" -- infants.
Are you now telling me that you are rejecting one of the Bible's
teachings, or are you now telling me that you wish to retract your
statement that the Bible tells us that we have all sinned?
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>the nature of the punishment. Of course, I am looking at these two
things from a human perspective (which is all I have available to me).
Perhaps your study (and interpretation) of scripture has afforded you a
different perspective. Please share this with me and maybe we can dive
more deeply into this topic.
To assist you, I should warn you that you have a big hill to climb.
For example, I cannot (with my simple human mind) imagine any crime
that would justify an eternal punishment (particulary a cruel
punishment). Further, I cannot see how such a punishment could ever be
described as merciful - nor can the creator of such a punitive system
be described as merciful. And of course you'll need to address the
"crime" comitted by those who are not aware of "the law". These people
are punished too (I think?), so address this if you can as well.
But I am open to hearing how these things might make sense, so educate
me, please.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>punishment as it pertains to salvation.
Yes, I have seen "Bruce Almighty". I think the film ignored some
fundamental assumptions about God (the Christian God, anyway) and you,
too, are ignoring them with this comparison. God is supposedly
all-powerful and all-knowing. Surely if these are traits of God He
would not have to struggle to fix the world's problems. For starters
he could end all natural disasters. He could rid the world of desease.
He could fertilize the soil of the earth so none would starve. Even
if He left man with his own "will" on all other matters, He could at
least remove these horrible obsticles.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> OldMan wrote:
> > In Galatians 5:15-25, and other places, Paul states that the purpose of
> > the Law, the Old Testament commands, was intended to help to know my
> > sin and the futility of attaining righteousness on my own. It's
> > purpose was to bring me to Christ. Once that happens I am no longer
> > under the law but am under grace. That means I am not obligated to
> > obey all of the Old Testament law. Does that mean I can do whatever I
> > want? In the sixth chapter of Romans Paul makes a very emphatic
> > argument that that is not the case. We are called to live holy lives
> > before God. The first 17 verses of the third chapter of Colossians
> > also makes a very clear call to holy living.
>
> What Paul said is not what Jesus supposedly said, however. I have
> quoted to you what Christ is supposed to have said, and it directly
> conflicts with your belief that you are "no longer under the law but
> under grace." I'd say you face a bit of a dilemma here. Should you
> listen to Paul, or should you listen to Jesus?
Why could they not both be correct? The purpose of the law still
stands and it will not pass away. Yet the purpose of the law was to
bring me to Christ. Once that has happened the purpose of the law has
been accomplished. I realize that is pretty simplistic but I am on my
way out for a couple of days. I can go into greater detail later if
you like.
>
> You said earlier that you do not read the Bible for the purpose of
> looking for contradictions. OK, so what do you do when you find them?
I do find things in the Bible that I do not know how to reconcile.
Things like God's soverignty and man's free will. They seem
contradictory yet the Bible teaches them both. I study them and seek
understanding but I also realize that I am finite and there are things
I can't understand. That does not make them wrong through. I don't
understand how relativity and quantum mechanics work together either
but that does not cause me to doubt either of them.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>I do not mean to dispute that sin entered the world through 'Adams
sin'. Nor would I dispute that my nature at birth is sinful. The
argument I was making was that I am responsible for my own sin, not
Adams. I have sinned and fall short of God's glory, not Adam sinned
and caused me to fall short of God's glory.
>
> As I understand it, therefore, you are a Paulist when it comes to the
> question of whether you are obliged to follow the Jewish law (rejecting
> even the supposed teaching of Jesus in this matter), but not a Paulist
> when it comes to the question of original sin.
No.
>
> > And BTW I do believe the unborn child is a person. God tells Jeremiah
> > in 1:5
> >
> > "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
> > before you were born I set you apart;
> > I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
> >
> > While the words here are likely figurative they do indicate that God
> > knows us before our birth.
>
> What they seem indicate, given the way you choose to read the passage,
> is that God knows us even before our conception. The passage begins,
> "BEFORE I formed you in the womb I knew you...," not "AFTER I formed
> you in the womb I knew you...." That would have certain theological
> implications that would be rather, er, startling -- unless you read the
> passage as saying that God, having perfect foreknowledge, knows what
> anyone is going to be like before they are ever even conceived. I'll
> let you take that way out if you want to.
I do believe that God knew me before the creation of the universe. Not
because I existed in any way then. But because he is omniscient. I'm
not sure what you are giving me a way out of?
>
> If you believe that an "unborn child" is a person, and if you believe
> that unborn children have not sinned -- not even through Original Sin
> --than I am at a loss as to what to make of the statement you made
> earlier: "If you have sinned, and the Bible says that we all have, then
> you fall short of what God wants from you." You are now telling me
> that there are some persons that have not sinned, namely "unborn
> children." We haven't even considered "born children" -- infants.
>
> Are you now telling me that you are rejecting one of the Bible's
> teachings, or are you now telling me that you wish to retract your
> statement that the Bible tells us that we have all sinned?
No. I admitted up from that 'the age of accountability' is an inferred
doctrine, not one that is clearly taught. Let me share a couple of
passage before I have to leave. The first is Romans 2:14-15 and the
second is Romans 5:12-13.
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things
required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do
not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are
written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and
their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned-for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is
not taken into account when there is no law."
The first passage indicates that my conscience serves as a law within
me that will condemn or defend me. The second saws that were there is
no law, sin is not taken into account. When does a conscience develop
in a person? Is it before birth, at birth, as an infant, sometime
later? Again let me state that this is not a position that I am very
dogmatic about, but I do believe that children are not help accountable
for their actions until they reach some level of maturity.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> I do not mean to dispute that sin entered the world through 'Adams
> sin'. Nor would I dispute that my nature at birth is sinful. The
> argument I was making was that I am responsible for my own sin, not
> Adams. I have sinned and fall short of God's glory, not Adam sinned
> and caused me to fall short of God's glory.
Therefore, when you said "If you have sinned, and the Bible says that
we all have, then you fall short of what God wants from you," you
misspoke. You are now saying that the Bible does not say that we have
all sinned. We have only sinned if we have sinned.
Yet even if we have not sinned, we have a "sinful nature." That part
escapes me.
> I do believe that God knew me before the creation of the universe. Not
> because I existed in any way then. But because he is omniscient. I'm
> not sure what you are giving me a way out of?
Simply the notion that you existed before you were conceived.
Not exactly. Look at Paul's statement more closely: "WHEN Gentiles, who
do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are
a law for themselves...." He's not saying that Gentiles always do the
things required by the law, he's implying that sometimes they do, and
sometimes they don't. Many a Gentile might refrain from murder, or
from theft, because of conscience. A Gentile would not, however, honor
the sabbath day; such a thing would have been foreign to the conscience
of a Gentile who had no idea what the sabbath day was. And certainly
no pagan Gentile, because of conscience, would refrain from worhipping
his own gods and worship the Jewish god instead. Whether a Gentile's
conscience would cause him to refrain from adultery, as the Jewish law
understood it, would depend on the rules of sexual behavior that he
happened to accept. Islam permits polygamy, and Mormonism once did.
So you've got at least three of the Ten Commandments that a Gentile
could not be expected to obey -- indeed, might be expected not to obey,
despite his conscience.
> The second saws that were there is
> no law, sin is not taken into account. When does a conscience develop
> in a person? Is it before birth, at birth, as an infant, sometime
> later? Again let me state that this is not a position that I am very
> dogmatic about, but I do believe that children are not help accountable
> for their actions until they reach some level of maturity.
The foregoing discussion should suggest that there is a distinction
between what the Jewish law required and what an individual conscience
requires. Moreover, the law, being something theoretically objective
(because it is formalized and written down), exists independently of
conscience. Consequently, it cannot be said, for example, that, if a
given person's conscience does not tell him that something is wrong,
there is no law. Because the Gentile's concience does not tell him to
honor the sabbath day does not mean there is no law requiring the
honoring of the sabbath day. Again, I think you need to read Paul more
carefully: "Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is
not taken into account when there is no law." What precisely he means
by that is not clear to me, but it is fairly clear that he is trying to
address the time before the Jewish law even existed, not after (e.g.,
the time before Moses brought the Ten Commandments down from Mt.
Sinai).
At times, Paul simply appears to babble -- that's why it's possible for
you to deny the doctrine of Original Sin while quoting approvingly from
the very passage in which that doctrine originated.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> > What Paul said is not what Jesus supposedly said, however. I have
> > quoted to you what Christ is supposed to have said, and it directly
> > conflicts with your belief that you are "no longer under the law but
> > under grace." I'd say you face a bit of a dilemma here. Should you
> > listen to Paul, or should you listen to Jesus?
>
> Why could they not both be correct? The purpose of the law still
> stands and it will not pass away. Yet the purpose of the law was to
> bring me to Christ. Once that has happened the purpose of the law has
> been accomplished. I realize that is pretty simplistic but I am on my
> way out for a couple of days. I can go into greater detail later if
> you like.
The purpose of the law could not have been to bring people to Christ,
because (a) the law existed before Christ did, and (b) very few people
come to Christ by way of the law. In fact, I would say that no one
comes to Christ by way of the law. I can't imagine anyone deciding to
believe in Jesus as a divine savior because the law says to honor the
sabbath day. Observant Jews who do their best to follow the law do
not, as a general rule, morph into Christians as a result.
Jesus' own attitude toward the law, shall we say, rather ambiguous. On
the one hand, he was saying that the law must be strictly observed --
one must observe it as strictly as any Pharisee -- and he certainly
didn't say that the sole purpose of the law was to bring people to him.
On the other hand, when it came to specifics, he was saying, "Just
kidding." Did the law even HAVE a purpose? Insofar as it had any
discernable purpose, it seems to have been to provide for the existence
and full employment of a sacerdotal class.
Jesus is reported to have said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man
for the Sabbath." But in Leviticus it is recorded, "While the
Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the
Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses
and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because
it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to
Moses, 'The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the
camp.' So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to
death, as the LORD commanded Moses."
The Jesus who said "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the
Sabbath" (if Jesus actually existed, and if he ever actually said such
a thing) might have objected to the notion of stoning a man to death
for gathering wood on that day. But who ya gonna follow, Jesus, or his
father? If it be true that, as Paul wrote, "Sin is not taken into
account when there is no law," is it true that sin is also not taken
into account when there is a law, and gathering wood on the Sabbath is
a capital offense?
As for myself, I mow my lawn with equal indifference on Saturday or
Sunday, without troubling myself about which one is the Sabbath, or
about what Jesus is supposed to have said, or about what God is
supposed to have told Moses.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>teenager out of the house to fend for himself? You've told him repeatedly
the behavior required to live under your roof. He flat refuses, breaking
every rule you give. His lifestyle is offensive to you and you just can't
put up with it any longer. In fact, let's say his behavior is illegal, and
you could be held responsible for what he is doing. By his behavior, he is
clearly demonstrating zero respect for you, and shows the desire to live
away from you. Finally, you announce that because of his attitude and
behavior, he can no longer live under your roof. Separated from the help and
provisions you provided, the teenager will suffer. Nevertheless, (and you'll
probably argue with my conclusion) the decision is a just and right one. (At
least admit that under certain circumstances it's the right thing to do.)
Hell is God saying you cannot live under his roof because of your attitude
and lifestyle. Separated from the help and provisions he provides, the
person suffers. And lest you think, "It wouldn't be so bad not having God's
blessings. I don't need him. I'd do all right on my own..." God provides a
colorful description of what life without him is like. It's not the bed of
roses you might imagine.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>would not have to struggle to fix the world's problems. For starters
>he could end all natural disasters. He could rid the world of desease.
>He could fertilize the soil of the earth so none would starve. Even
>if He left man with his own "will" on all other matters, He could at
>least remove these horrible obsticles.
rebellion against the Creator is common place. It is no longer "good"...
made so by man's decision. Man made his bed, and God is letting him sleep in
it. He does so to provide a daily and vivid reminder that we are not in
paradise. Opposing him has terrible consequences. Why not destroy it all and
build a new one? Actually, that is his plan. But first he'd like to be able
to take more to that new perfect place, so he's waiting.
In short, to make this current rebellious world a paradise would be
rewarding rebellion.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>the nature of hell than I can do in a forum post. In short, it states (from
Scripture) that hell is more a state than a place... a state of being
separated from God. Check this out:
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html
(Check out other articles on this site... they're not bad.)
And here's a page that describes the existence of hell as evidence of God's
mercy (!)
http://justthinkingpages.tripod.com/hell.html
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>wiseclam wrote:
<snip>
> And no comment on the suggestion that a sincere Christian would inform
> the atheist that he is doing a disservice to his children if he does
> not raise them to be Christian? We're talking about eternity here (a
> very long time) so I would think you'd want to help atheist parents
> with a little polite criticism.
OK, I'll bite. I do believe that what happens to a person for eternity
is more important than anything that happens in this short life time.
So yes, I would say that a atheist parent is not doing his children any
favors in telling them that God does not exist. I would also argue
that a Hindu or Moslem parent would be leading their children astray.
And I would argue that a so-called Christian parent who teaches his
children that it is OK to hate others or whose Christianity is only a
matter of outward forms are also teaching their children somthing about
God that will hinder their coming to know him in a personal way. Which
is worse, telling your child that God does not exist, or telling them
that God condones hatred, intolerance or indifference in his followers.
But it is ultimately the childs choice. I know a man who was raised
as an atheist and is now an active Christian. I know others who have
come to Christianity from other faiths. And I know some who were
raised in Christian homes but have turned from the faith of their
parents.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> OldMan wrote:
>
> > I do not mean to dispute that sin entered the world through 'Adams
> > sin'. Nor would I dispute that my nature at birth is sinful. The
> > argument I was making was that I am responsible for my own sin, not
> > Adams. I have sinned and fall short of God's glory, not Adam sinned
> > and caused me to fall short of God's glory.
>
> Therefore, when you said "If you have sinned, and the Bible says that
> we all have, then you fall short of what God wants from you," you
> misspoke. You are now saying that the Bible does not say that we have
> all sinned. We have only sinned if we have sinned.
I'm not sure what is so difficult here. I think you are starting to
play with words. When I choose to disobey God I sin. It is a choice
that I make. Do I have to? No. But everyone does. 'If you have
sinned' is somewhat retorical.
>
> Yet even if we have not sinned, we have a "sinful nature." That part
> escapes me.
I have a nature that is opposed to God. That does not automatically
mean that I am forced to sin.
>
> > I do believe that God knew me before the creation of the universe. Not
> > because I existed in any way then. But because he is omniscient. I'm
> > not sure what you are giving me a way out of?
>
> Simply the notion that you existed before you were conceived.
I do not believe that to be the case. Only that an omniscent God knew
that I would come along before creation. I don't believe he caused me
specifically though or that any of my actions are pre-ordained. I have
a free-will and am responsible for my actions.
Agreed. The law in them is not the Old Testament Mosaic law. It is
their conscience which only deals with basic right and wrong.
> > The second saws that were there is
> > no law, sin is not taken into account. When does a conscience develop
> > in a person? Is it before birth, at birth, as an infant, sometime
> > later? Again let me state that this is not a position that I am very
> > dogmatic about, but I do believe that children are not help accountable
> > for their actions until they reach some level of maturity.
>
> The foregoing discussion should suggest that there is a distinction
> between what the Jewish law required and what an individual conscience
> requires. Moreover, the law, being something theoretically objective
> (because it is formalized and written down), exists independently of
> conscience. Consequently, it cannot be said, for example, that, if a
> given person's conscience does not tell him that something is wrong,
> there is no law. Because the Gentile's concience does not tell him to
> honor the sabbath day does not mean there is no law requiring the
> honoring of the sabbath day. Again, I think you need to read Paul more
> carefully: "Before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is
> not taken into account when there is no law." What precisely he means
> by that is not clear to me, but it is fairly clear that he is trying to
> address the time before the Jewish law even existed, not after (e.g.,
> the time before Moses brought the Ten Commandments down from Mt.
> Sinai).
I disagree. Paul was putting the Jews under the law and the Gentiles
under the law of conscience at the same time. The issue of the
gentiles conscience does not predate the giving of the law. I do agree
though, as stated above, that the Mosaic law and the conscience are not
the same thing. The requirements of the Mosaic law were much more
detailed. The is no way to know you should honor the sabbath or not
sow a field with two kinds of seed based on conscience. But you can
know the simple rules for getting along with others.
> At times, Paul simply appears to babble -- that's why it's possible for
> you to deny the doctrine of Original Sin while quoting approvingly from
> the very passage in which that doctrine originated.
I do not disagree with the idea of original sin. What I disagree with
is that I am being punished for Adam's sin rather than my own. And
yes, Paul can be difficult to follow sometimes.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> OldMan wrote:
> > Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> > > What Paul said is not what Jesus supposedly said, however. I have
> > > quoted to you what Christ is supposed to have said, and it directly
> > > conflicts with your belief that you are "no longer under the law but
> > > under grace." I'd say you face a bit of a dilemma here. Should you
> > > listen to Paul, or should you listen to Jesus?
> >
> > Why could they not both be correct? The purpose of the law still
> > stands and it will not pass away. Yet the purpose of the law was to
> > bring me to Christ. Once that has happened the purpose of the law has
> > been accomplished. I realize that is pretty simplistic but I am on my
> > way out for a couple of days. I can go into greater detail later if
> > you like.
>
> The purpose of the law could not have been to bring people to Christ,
> because (a) the law existed before Christ did, and (b) very few people
> come to Christ by way of the law. In fact, I would say that no one
> comes to Christ by way of the law. I can't imagine anyone deciding to
> believe in Jesus as a divine savior because the law says to honor the
> sabbath day. Observant Jews who do their best to follow the law do
> not, as a general rule, morph into Christians as a result.
Let me be more precise. The law set a standard for obtaining
righteousness before God. It was a standard that no one managed to
live up to. It demonstrated that it was impossible for me, through my
own efforts, to be good enough. It is only when a person comes to that
place in their life that they recognize they can't do it by themselves
that they can accept what Jesus has done for them.
That's fine. I do too. Your question asked why I didn't follow the
Old Testament law to the letter. And I believe I have responded to
that. I can't honestly say I see much point in continuing to respond
to this. We could continue to go back and forth but what would be
gained by it?
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> > OldMan wrote:
> >
> > > I do not mean to dispute that sin entered the world through 'Adams
> > > sin'. Nor would I dispute that my nature at birth is sinful. The
> > > argument I was making was that I am responsible for my own sin, not
> > > Adams. I have sinned and fall short of God's glory, not Adam sinned
> > > and caused me to fall short of God's glory.
> >
> > Therefore, when you said "If you have sinned, and the Bible says that
> > we all have, then you fall short of what God wants from you," you
> > misspoke. You are now saying that the Bible does not say that we have
> > all sinned. We have only sinned if we have sinned.
>
> I'm not sure what is so difficult here. I think you are starting to
> play with words. When I choose to disobey God I sin. It is a choice
> that I make. Do I have to? No. But everyone does. 'If you have
> sinned' is somewhat retorical.
I'm not sure what is so difficult here either. On the one hand, you are
saying that everyone has sinned. On the other hand, you are saying
that not everyone has sinned (e.g., "unborn children" have not sinned).
Now, since it is possible for an unborn child to fail to make it to the
status of a born child (because of a miscarriage or an abortion), would
it not be possible in your view for a person (an "unborn child") to die
without ever having sinned?
> > Yet even if we have not sinned, we have a "sinful nature." That part
> > escapes me.
>
> I have a nature that is opposed to God. That does not automatically
> mean that I am forced to sin.
What does it mean to say that you have a "nature that is opposed to
God"? Does it mean anything other than that, at least sometimes, you
are tempted to commit this or that particular sin?
[snip]
> > At times, Paul simply appears to babble -- that's why it's possible for
> > you to deny the doctrine of Original Sin while quoting approvingly from
> > the very passage in which that doctrine originated.
>
> I do not disagree with the idea of original sin. What I disagree with
> is that I am being punished for Adam's sin rather than my own. And
> yes, Paul can be difficult to follow sometimes.
How are you being punished for your sin?
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>responsible for creating the rebellion?
What I'm saying is that if I were God I would not have created a sinful
man. I would have started with the "new perfect place".
Michael - your answers on this topic are weak. If this is the best
Christians can do to address the critical topic of justice and hell
then I am very unimpressed.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>author's basic argument, he's suggesting that God is merciful because
"He will mercifully shield them from full exposure to Himself".
Apparently, full exposure of God to the unbeliever is a bad thing. But
is it worse than Hell?
Further, God is just in that He would not let the non-believer spend
eternity wrongly thinking that God does not exist. The author writes:
"Perhaps, then, God could simply not reveal himself to the ungodly. But
in that case they could go on denying Him for eternity, and God is just
and will not permit any lie to endure forever."
If I have interpreted the author correctly on these two central points,
I offer the following arguments against this thinking.
1. First, as always, there is no evidence that ANY of this stuff even
exists. Why talk about it? Why debate something where there is no
evidence for one side of the debate? There is no hell. There is no
evidence for a God as described.
2. You must twist the meaning of the words "just" and "mercy" in order
to make the author's argument. It is not possible for an eternal,
torturous existance - under any circumstances - to be described as
just or merciful. The author's attempt to twist this into place fails.
3. When one considers all the possibilities available to an
all-powerful God - and then recognizes that God chose the eternal
hell/damnation approach - one has to wonder why? There are so many
other ways to create a universe, and yet God chose a way that includes
a "fallen man" who will be subject to eternal torture (and the
Christian dogma doesn't just includes these elements, but they are
central to it).
Even if one were to accept the author's argument in the absence of
evidence, one must twist and spin the meaning of common English words
like Justice and Mercy in order to find a way for it to make sense.
And even then, it does not make sense.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> OldMan wrote:
> > Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> > > OldMan wrote:
> > >
> > > > I do not mean to dispute that sin entered the world through 'Adams
> > > > sin'. Nor would I dispute that my nature at birth is sinful. The
> > > > argument I was making was that I am responsible for my own sin, not
> > > > Adams. I have sinned and fall short of God's glory, not Adam sinned
> > > > and caused me to fall short of God's glory.
> > >
> > > Therefore, when you said "If you have sinned, and the Bible says that
> > > we all have, then you fall short of what God wants from you," you
> > > misspoke. You are now saying that the Bible does not say that we have
> > > all sinned. We have only sinned if we have sinned.
> >
> > I'm not sure what is so difficult here. I think you are starting to
> > play with words. When I choose to disobey God I sin. It is a choice
> > that I make. Do I have to? No. But everyone does. 'If you have
> > sinned' is somewhat retorical.
>
> I'm not sure what is so difficult here either. On the one hand, you are
> saying that everyone has sinned. On the other hand, you are saying
> that not everyone has sinned (e.g., "unborn children" have not sinned).
> Now, since it is possible for an unborn child to fail to make it to the
> status of a born child (because of a miscarriage or an abortion), would
> it not be possible in your view for a person (an "unborn child") to die
> without ever having sinned?
I would agree that an unborn child has probably not sinned. That is
just my opinion though.
>
> > > Yet even if we have not sinned, we have a "sinful nature." That part
> > > escapes me.
> >
> > I have a nature that is opposed to God. That does not automatically
> > mean that I am forced to sin.
>
> What does it mean to say that you have a "nature that is opposed to
> God"? Does it mean anything other than that, at least sometimes, you
> are tempted to commit this or that particular sin?
A nature opposed to God is one that chooses my way over God's way. I
do not see temptation as being sin. Sin comes when I choose to act on
that temptation either internally or externally.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > At times, Paul simply appears to babble -- that's why it's possible for
> > > you to deny the doctrine of Original Sin while quoting approvingly from
> > > the very passage in which that doctrine originated.
> >
> > I do not disagree with the idea of original sin. What I disagree with
> > is that I am being punished for Adam's sin rather than my own. And
> > yes, Paul can be difficult to follow sometimes.
>
> How are you being punished for your sin?
Let me rephrase that to "I would be punished for my own sin rather than
Adam's". Christ has paid the penality for my sin so that I do not have
to.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>infer some things that aren't stated explicitly in the Bible.) I'll try to
keep theological terms to a minimum.
* God knows all -- past, present and future.
* God wanted to create people with a free will... a will that is capable of
acting completely independently of his own will. (Why? What pleasure would
there be in a planet of pre-programmed robots.)
* God must have known ahead of time the choice man would make, but he made
them with moral free will anyway. (Why? Because the alternative was: don't
create, or make them without completely free will. For reasons I don't
pretend to fully understand, neither of those choices were real options. See
previous point.)
* Rather than destroy creation (which effectively eliminates free will), God
made a way to restore creation. (Enter: Jesus Christ.)
* In keeping with his strict "free will" rule, God does not force his
"restoration" on any free-willed human. (Enter: faith.)
* At a time only he knows, this sinful will be destroyed and a new earth
will be an eternal paradise for those who didn't reject God's restoration
plan.
* Benefits of this plan: Free will was left completely in tact. Many are
saved and restored to a healthy relationship with the Creator... which is
the purpose for which God made man.
* Problems with this plan: None. By their own choosing, many people will not
live with the Creator they rebelled against. God's not happy about this, but
won't overrule the free will he created in man. He is not to blame for the
rebellion of man. That he would restore even one person would already be
mercy. That many will be restored is great mercy.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>1. First, as always, there is no evidence that ANY of this stuff even
>exists. Why talk about it? Why debate something where there is no
>evidence for one side of the debate?
to discuss that the Christian God appears unjust, and that hell and mercy
cannot be reconciled. You can't start a discussion, and then when a point is
raised suddenly say, "I decided that this discussion which I started is not
worthy of discussing." Maybe Accidental can pull a term from his "logic"
arsenal that describes the logical fallacy of your first point.
>2. The author's attempt to twist this into place fails.
Rather than merely declaring that his attempt fails, perhaps you could
explain how it fails.
>3. When one considers all the possibilities available to an
>all-powerful God - and then recognizes that God chose the eternal
>hell/damnation approach - one has to wonder why?
moral free will remains complete intact. Also keep in mind the eternal
nature of the soul as you think up your scenario.
>And even then, it does not make sense.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>repeating my caveate to this entire argument - the same basic
qualifying statement I have made on at least two previous posts (see
Oct 11, 9:59 PM and Oct 12, 12:45 PM posts from Wiseclam). I don't
believe any of it and you have shown no evidence for it - and yet I am
politely continuing the debate. That is all point #1 was about.
On #2, it is my opinion that the author used the words "justice" and
"mercy" in ways that are antithetical to their common English meaning.
Consider the basic definition of "Mecy":
mer·cy
1. Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power;
clemency.
2. A disposition to be kind and forgiving: a heart full of mercy.
In my mind, it is a logical impossibility to describe a being with
power over man to be "merciful" when we know that being created a place
of eternal torment.
Consider the word "just" or "justice":
jus·tice
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
Again, you must twist the meaning of these words to be able to use them
to describe an all-knowing, all-poerful God who created hell.
On #3, I have already offered the UC Constitution and the US system of
jurisprudence as a better model for "mercy" and "justice".
Perhaps you can explain how the "eternal nature of the soul" impacts
this issue? Also note, I will probably reply to your next post on this
subject reminding you that there is no proof that a soul even exists,
so don't get too worked up about it.
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>Perhaps you can explain how the "eternal nature of the soul" impacts
>this issue? Also note, I will probably reply to your next post on this
>subject reminding you that there is no proof that a soul even exists,
>so don't get too worked up about it.
with your disclaimers about not believing this stuff. I know that. Everyone
knows that. For that matter, you can even call the Genesis account an
"account" or a "story" rather than always using the word "myth". I know
perfectly well you believe it's a myth. I don't believe you need to remind
everyone of this fact continuously. Alright... got that off my chest.
My point about the eternal soul is simply this: if the soul is immortal (as
the Bible teaches), and if the reward is eternal (as the Bible teaches),
what is left for those who don't receive the reward? An eternal non-reward,
you might say. This is merely to address the "eternal" nature of the
punishment. I don't know how it could be otherwise. (By the way, that's why
I asked you just how "long" Hitler would have to be in your penalty box
before he could enjoy the eternal reward.)
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>this stuff" is important. Re-stating this prevents us from heading
down a path of serious debate about something that isn't even known to
exist. I want you to know that I am merely engaging in this discussion
for the sake of argument. In no way do I think there is any real value
in debating the rules of hell and the Christian God's "just" and
"merciful" ways. To me (and perhaps to other atheists) it's like
debating how Santa can get around the whole earth in such a short
period on Christmas eve. So, I think this is very important for us
atheists to restate this point, despite the frustration is may cause
you.
Regarding the immortal nature of the soul, I think this "fact" only
makes the question regarding God's "mercy" and His "justice" that much
more critical. If you do believe humans have an eternal soul then you
must explain how *eternal* punishment can ever be just and merciful
(especially when the punishment is tortorous).
You have to explain how it is *fair* that the Nepalese 12 year old, who
died without even hearing the Jesus story, will spend eternity in hell.
You have to explain how the otherwise good atheist *deserves* eternity
in hell, simply for thinking that stories of the bible are silly, and
look a lot like the stories from other religions.
You have to explain how the mass murderer who finds Jesus at the last
minute (despite having led a horrible life) spends eternity in heaven,
without a single moment of punishment, and how this is *just*.
How are these things "fair"? Where is the "mercy" - the understanding
- from God in any of this?
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>answer yours.
You object to the eternal nature of the punishment. Then what is "fair" in
your opinion? A "time out"? How "long" should the eternal soul get that
"time out"?
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>questions? I've answered all of your questions. Perhaps just not to
your satisfaction? Or perhaps I gave answers you don't like?
Again, a "fair" punishment must be in proportion to the crime. And as
I have said repeatedly, there is no circumstance in which an eternal
punishment (i.e, an infinite punishment) can be "just" or "fair".
Further, since we know this punishment from God is a tortorous
punishment, there is no circumstance in which the word "merciful" is
appropriate to describe the punishment or the God who created it.
A fair punishment, for actively rejecting the Jesus story, might be
separation from God (i.e., not being allowed to be with God in heaven)
for a period of time equal to that of the human life in question. It
should not be eternal - and it CAN NOT be tortorous. But again, this
is more debate about angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Perhaps you'll make the argument that the *crime* in this case is
infinite. That rejecting God and the Christian story, specifically
that Jesus died for your sins (one has to reject - or be ignorant of -
the Jesus story) is an infininte crime deserving of infinite
punishment. Are you making this argument?
Please advise me if you feel have still not answered this question.
I'd like to move on to finally get you to answer the question about the
12 year old Nepalese boy...
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>Let me summarize what I hear you saying:
The crime is not believing in Jesus. The punishment for not believing in
this farfetched story is eternal torture. Did I forget anything?
You're missing the point. The crime is not what you think it is. What does
God demand of every single person on the planet? Faith? That they try to be
good? Pray 3 times per day? No. No. And no. God demands absolute, moral
perfection in thoughts, words and actions. "Be holy, as I the Lord your God
am holy." (Lev. 19:2). Or, if you prefer a New Testament passage: "Be
perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Mt. 5:48.)
Perfection is the standard by which every person will be measured. Are you
less than perfect? Then you are unsuitable to live with the perfect God.
You're guilty a million times over (assuming you just commit 5 sins per day
and have an average life span.) Is the 12 year old Nepalese boy perfect? I
don't know him, but if he is, he'd be the first perfect 12 year old I ever
met. Whoever doesn't measure up to God's standard (perfection) is unsuitable
to live with the perfect God. And it just so happens that living separated
from the source of *all* that is good can't be anything but tortuous.
What can we do? There are only two possible options:
1) Be perfect from birth.
2) Trust that God can somehow declare you to be perfect.
I don't know anyone who has accomplished (1). Christianity is all about (2).
the Giant Space Mantis
<samdegraff@gmail.com>I have a quick question. How did Adam and Eves sin 'infect' their
offspring? Why are we condemned to live out their sinful existance?
To put it bluntly, How do we inherit their sin?
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> What can we do? There are only two possible options:
> 1) Be perfect from birth.
> 2) Trust that God can somehow declare you to be perfect.
>
> I don't know anyone who has accomplished (1).
So a person who is born but dies within 24 hours dies sinful and
imperfect?
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>zero'd in on the critical question, so now we can address it.
My "crime" is imperfection. I am not perfect. No human being is
perfect. We're all "criminals" in this regard. The only way to
salvation is to be perfect - or (since no one can be perfect) accept
the truth of the Jesus story so that God will "declare you to be
perfect". I think your point is really starting to sink in for me.
So, let's revisit some previous discussion points with this new
understanding in mind...
God is "just" and "merciful". He demands perfection from all humans,
and if they cannot achieve perfection (and He knows they can not,
because He knows all) then they are to be punished. A "just" and fair
punishment for not being perfect is eternal torture. This is God's way
of showing His "mercy".
A person who is never told of the Jesus story has two major
difficulties with God's perfect justice: First, he is imperfect as God
created him (and as God intended?), so he cannot escape hell unless he
accepts Jesus. Second, and this is the tough part, he cannot accept
Jesus because he's never told of the story. The poor bastard never has
a chance. And God knows it (and has known it all along).
How does this make sense to anyone?
How can a God that demands perfection from me be described as "just"?
Is this "just" in anyone's definition of the term? And not only must I
be perfect, but if I am not perfect I get tortured for etrenity. And
this is called "mercy". Oh yeah. The person who never gets the chance
to earn the "get out of jail free card" by believing the Jesus story...
they are tortured for eternity as well. And this, too, is called
"just". This is "mercy".
The irony here should be obvious to everyone. I (and other atheists)
will reject this religion because it is so rediculously silly and
illogical, and yet if it is true we get punished for eternity.
On a side note... I think God is really going to reward the critical
thinkers and punish (for eternity?) those that were gullible enough to
believe incoherent drivel.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>offspring? Why are we condemned to live out their sinful existance?
>To put it bluntly, How do we inherit their sin?
think the Bible directly answers that question. In Romans it says sin
"entered the world" through a man, and through Christ sin is removed.
I imagine sin as a squirt of food coloring in an aquarium of clean water.
Add another drop of clean water to the aquarium, and it's instantly tainted
by the food coloring too. The only way to get rid of the colored water is to
dump it all out, clean the tank and start over again.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>difficulties with God's perfect justice: First, he is imperfect as God
>created him (and as God intended?), so he cannot escape hell unless he
>accepts Jesus.
sin. Sin "stained" the world and everyone after was in Adam's image... by no
fault of God. God didn't want man to sin, but gave him a free choice in the
matter. I still don't agree with the argument that God is the source of
rebellion (and therefore imperfection) just because he allowed them to
choose.
>Second, and this is the tough part, he cannot accept
>Jesus because he's never told of the story. The poor bastard never has
>a chance. And God knows it (and has known it all along).
gave man a perfect place to live and every conceivable blessing. To put it
mildly, man responded by spitting in God's face (and continues to do so.)
Tell me, wiseclam, what does God "owe" man? How would you feel if you really
put yourself out to do every good thing for someone... you literally shower
them with love, attention, gifts and kindness. Then they maliciously knee
you in the groin and walk the other way. What continuing "debt" do you have
to such a person? *Every* sin a person commits (no matter how "small" you
rank it) is a slap in the face to God and a rejection of his wisdom and
authority. What does God owe anyone?
This is why I said in another thread that if God chose to somehow forgive
and save only ONE person in all of history, that would be mercy. That he
provides a way for *every* human being is unimaginable mercy. That some do
not hear is a great tragedy, but ultimately sinful humans are to blame.
Trace history back to creation, and you'll see someone somewhere dropped the
ball in passing along a true knowledge and faith in the one living God. It's
not God's fault! We're back to God's apparently immutable law of human free
will, aren't we?
>If I am not perfect I get tortured for etrenity.
You keep going back to this statement (for its emotional appeal, I imagine)
in spite of repeated attempts to show you that the nature of hell is
separation from God. I concede, separation from the source of Good is
torture. How could it be anything but? However, if someone in their life
refuses to submit to God, do you think it's just to force them to submit for
eternity? Living in heaven is an eternity of willful and joyful submission
to God. Tell me, wiseclam, do you want to go to heaven? Would you think it
fair if God forced you to go there?
>On a side note... I think God is really going to reward the critical
>thinkers and punish (for eternity?) those that were gullible enough to
>believe incoherent drivel.
capacity, and thinks they know more than the Creator... everyone who lives
according to their own logic and rules instead of by the will of the
Creator... such a person will receive a rich reward from the God they mocked
and rejected. I just don't get that logic.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>imperfect?
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>What are the possible relationships the baby can have with the Savior?
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Michael Ewart wrote:
> >I have a quick question. How did Adam and Eves sin 'infect' their
> >offspring? Why are we condemned to live out their sinful existance?
> >To put it bluntly, How do we inherit their sin?
>
> That's a good question. Maybe OldMan can help me with this, but I don't
> think the Bible directly answers that question. In Romans it says sin
> "entered the world" through a man, and through Christ sin is removed.
I doubt that I can offer a satisfactory answer either but will give it
a shot. And I have no doubt that my answer will raise many more
questions as well.
I believe that man has an eternal spiritual component. Without that
spiritual component, man is purely a temporal, physical creature and
sin is of no consequence and this discussion is meaningless. In the
Genesis account God breathes into man and he becomes a living soul.
This is something distinct from the other acts of creation recorded. I
believe this is God giving a spirit to man. Man is then given a choice
to disobey God with the consequence that when he disobeys he will die.
Obviously he did not physically die when he disobeyed. So what
happened? It is commonly thought that the death he experienced then
was spiritual, separation from God. Afterwards, when each of Adam's
decendants are born, they are born in a state of separation from God,
AKA original sin or with a fallen nature. That fallen state is not
what condemns me though. It is my own sin that I am responsible for,
not Adam's. The new birth that Jesus talked about with Nicodemus in
John 3 was the countering of what happened in the fall, a spiritual
restoration between man and God.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>> I believe that man has an eternal spiritual component. Without that
> spiritual component, man is purely a temporal, physical creature and
> sin is of no consequence and this discussion is meaningless. In the
> Genesis account God breathes into man and he becomes a living soul.
> This is something distinct from the other acts of creation recorded. I
> believe this is God giving a spirit to man. Man is then given a choice
> to disobey God with the consequence that when he disobeys he will die.
> Obviously he did not physically die when he disobeyed. So what
> happened? It is commonly thought that the death he experienced then
> was spiritual, separation from God. Afterwards, when each of Adam's
> decendants are born, they are born in a state of separation from God,
> AKA original sin or with a fallen nature. That fallen state is not
> what condemns me though. It is my own sin that I am responsible for,
> not Adam's. The new birth that Jesus talked about with Nicodemus in
> John 3 was the countering of what happened in the fall, a spiritual
> restoration between man and God.
You begin by saying that "man has an "eternal spiritual component.
Without that spiritual component, man is purely a temporal, physical
creature...." But then you go on to say, "Man is then given a choice
to disobey God with the consequence that when he disobeys he will die.
Obviously he did not physically die when he disobeyed. So what
happened? it is commonly though that the death he experienced then was
spiritual, separation from God." The problem is that this "spiritual
death" of which you write cannot be the "death of the spirit" if the
spirit is eternal. Otherwise a man would be a temporal being (having
not only a temporal beginning, but a temporal end), which you deny that
he is.
Defining spiritual death as you do as "separation from God," the
paradoxical conclusion one arrives at is that, when a man is born, he
has an "eternal spritual component" and is spiritually already dead --
at one and the same time. Moreover, he is born spiritually dead
despite having (or so I understand your position to be) not actually
committed any sins.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Gary Charbonneau wrote:
>
> You begin by saying that "man has an "eternal spiritual component.
> Without that spiritual component, man is purely a temporal, physical
> creature...." But then you go on to say, "Man is then given a choice
> to disobey God with the consequence that when he disobeys he will die.
> Obviously he did not physically die when he disobeyed. So what
> happened? it is commonly though that the death he experienced then was
> spiritual, separation from God." The problem is that this "spiritual
> death" of which you write cannot be the "death of the spirit" if the
> spirit is eternal. Otherwise a man would be a temporal being (having
> not only a temporal beginning, but a temporal end), which you deny that
> he is.
>
> Defining spiritual death as you do as "separation from God," the
> paradoxical conclusion one arrives at is that, when a man is born, he
> has an "eternal spritual component" and is spiritually already dead --
> at one and the same time. Moreover, he is born spiritually dead
> despite having (or so I understand your position to be) not actually
> committed any sins.
Nowhere did I say that spiritual death was the same as ceasing to
exist. It was described as separation from God.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>Given that the word "death' connotes and usually denotes "ceasing to
exist", I'd say that the phrase "spiritual death" is therefore
obfuscatory rather than enlightening. Moreover, the phrase "separation
from God" itself is not exactly self-defining. What does it mean?
What do you think it means?
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>Gary Charbonneau wrote:
> OldMan wrote:
> > exist. It was described as separation from God.
>
> Given that the word "death' connotes and usually denotes "ceasing to
> exist", I'd say that the phrase "spiritual death" is therefore
> obfuscatory rather than enlightening.
Granted. It is one of those highly technical term used by use churchy
types who assume everyone else understands what we mean.
> Moreover, the phrase "separation
> from God" itself is not exactly self-defining. What does it mean?
> What do you think it means?
Being separated from God deals with relationship. The human spirit,
initially connected to God no longer is. It is operating independantly
of God rather than in harmony with him.
Gary Charbonneau
<charbonn@indiana.edu>OldMan wrote:
> > Moreover, the phrase "separation
> > from God" itself is not exactly self-defining. What does it mean?
> > What do you think it means?
>
> Being separated from God deals with relationship. The human spirit,
> initially connected to God no longer is. It is operating independantly
> of God rather than in harmony with him.
What does "operating independently of God rather than in harmony with
him" mean? Sin?
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>I am not going to argue words with you. I can not see that it has any
value even if I had the time. I may be wrong and apologize if so, but
you frequently appear to be trying to twist my words and expressions
and I have no interest in playing that game with you.
the Giant Space Mantis
<samdegraff@gmail.com>I can see why you'd think that about what Gary said, but you have to
understand from a perspective of logic, clarity of terms is very
important. I think anouther way to ask his question would be, "How do
you define the separation from god? what do you mean by separation?
and what is it to be connected to god?" basically I think he's asking
what the separation is, remeber that the answer may seem obvious to
you, but it is not to someone of an non christian view.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>the Giant Space Mantis wrote:
> OldMan
> I can see why you'd think that about what Gary said, but you have to
> understand from a perspective of logic, clarity of terms is very
> important.
That may be the case. But I have had several 'discussions' with Gary
and they always seem to digenerate into an endless series of questions.
I do agree that a precise definition of terms is important and I have
no issue with that. I also realize that, as much as I would like to, I
do not always have that 'good' definition.
> I think anouther way to ask his question would be, "How do
> you define the separation from god? what do you mean by separation?
> and what is it to be connected to god?" basically I think he's asking
> what the separation is, remeber that the answer may seem obvious to
> you, but it is not to someone of an non christian view.
So how to define separation from God? Let me try to create an analogy
that may help. Please recognize this as only a crude example and not a
perfect analogy.
In real life I am a computer programmer by trade and am old enough and
experienced enough that I have been pushed into project management.
Imagine I am assigned a project as well as a development team to work
with me. Picture my team being composed of new programmers who have
had a single programming class in BASIC. So I give them a book on web
programming using C#, provide them with a high level overview of what
we are trying to produce, divide them up into teams and then send them
off to work. As a project manager I understand the tools being used,
the environment they are working in, the detailed requirements of the
application and am available for assistence. So what will happen? I
find that some of them will spend a lot of time at my desk asking
questions, trying to understand what needs to be produced and the
proper way to do that. Others will disappear for a long time, working
in isolation and asking few if any questions. And others will fall
somewhere in between the two extremes. So what is the outcome? The
ones who question and, more importantly, listen to my instructions will
produce a desirable product. At the other end, the ones who worked in
isolation may or may not produce something, but I have yet to see them
produce anything that resembled what was being asked for.
Separation from God is similiar to the programmer that attempted to
produce a product in isolation from the one who understood what needed
to be done and how to do it. Their only chance for success was to be
in communication with me, but they opted to operate independantly,
separated from the project manager. Man, in general, is similiar to
that programmer operating independantly of the one who knows best the
requirements and how to accomplish them. And as a result, we fall
short of accomplishing what he has given us to do.
Does this help?
Bob
<ju.ding@btopenworld.com>people that work for me are able to take my guidance, understand the
objectives and go with it. I'm happy to give support and correction
when needed, but if they get on with the job then great. The more
successful they are in their own terms, the happier I am. Those
concerned also take pride in the fruits of THEIR work and self
management.
Why can't God let go of his people?
the Giant Space Mantis
<samdegraff@gmail.com>Ok, I'm going to ask you something. Now this is for OldMan, but if
anyone lese wants to step in, I can't stop you.
Under the model or analogy you have presented, I am Communicating with
God. In fact, I talk to him all the time, and he answers back.
Sometimes not directly, but he does answer. What I have never got from
him is a call or push towards Christianity. Or any religion to be
honest. I've even apologized to him for being an idiot, not jokingly,
but actually rather tearfully. He's even apologized to me on occasion.
I'm even beginning to understand my role in this world because of it.
My question is how would you explain my experiences in your worldview?
I am not trying to bait you into something, but I will point out
problems, if I see them in your position. But I ask mainly out of
curiousity, and interest in your views.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>My analogy was only to demonstrate a single point and should not be
streched to far. Still, those that you are pleased with are the ones
who are doing the work expected of them, not going their own direction.
That is why I specifically used novices in my example. The analogy
does not work as well with experienced programmers.
> Why can't God let go of his people?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. In my understanding, the whole
purpose for the creation is to call us into relationship with him.
What do you mean by letting go?
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>the Giant Space Mantis wrote:
If I understand you question correctly I think it would be best to
abandon this analogy and deal with the question directly. Let me try
to state what I think you are asking. Please correct me if I have
misunderstood.
What about the person(s) who sincerely believes in X, praying to
him/her and honestly attempting to do what they believe X requires of
them. And they have even had experiences that give every indication to
them that X occasionally responds to them. What is their position
before God? What will God do with them in the end? Is this close?
the Giant Space Mantis
<samdegraff@gmail.com>Kind of, I was mainly relating my own personal experiences to you, and
wanted to know your take on them. As in, could it be God as you
imagine him communicating, if there has been no attempt to point
towards christianity? Or perhaps to put it abnother way, could Gods
plan, as it were, include someone outside of christianity?
I guess I'm laying myself out for ridicule here, but no problem, I
know how it sounds to tell someone I talk to God and he talks back to
me.
Hopefully that clarified things.
OldMan
<edjarrett@msn.com>the Giant Space Mantis wrote:
I believe I understand what you are asking now. Hopefully I can
provide a response that will make sense. First of all let me tell you
that I believe that God will 'communicate' with those who have not
accepted him for who he is. But I believe that communication will
always be toward bringing them into relationship with him, John 16:7-11
is an example of this. Can a person be in relationship with God apart
from Christianity? That really depends on how you define Christianity.
If you think only of the organized churches that are scattered about
the world I would say that it is not necessary. But if Christianity is
a relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, which I believe,
then I believe that communication with God would be leading you in that
direction.
the Giant Space Mantis
<samdegraff@gmail.com>Interesting, because in my experience it has lead me to try and learn
from all the teachers. But basically the points you made in the Email
were kind of what I was looking for. What I have always found is you
have to go with what you feel is right. When you feel like you are
'running clean'. both physically and mentally, you are on the right
path. there s no other indicator that has more authority, because if
you decide not to listen to what you feel is the right way for you,
that voice of concience, you cannot view anything as authority. Even
when you put your faith in another, it is still faith that YOU have
made the right choice. Mainly I am interested in others choices so i
can reflect on them, and learn. Thank you for indulging me.
Bob
<ju.ding@btopenworld.com>point of that if He, after all, has His own agenda which we are
supposed to follow.
It's like saying 'do what you like folks, so long as it's what I like.'
I know it's been said before, but surely Man should be striving to
achieve independence of either a real or imaginary God? Others might
put it as 'recognise the God within'. Maybe that's even God's purpose,
rather than having us tied to his shirt tails for all eternity?
Antonio, If you read this, I am waiting for your usual damning of 'Man
as rationalist' comments (and I probably deserve it!)
wiseclam
<wiseclam@earthlink.net>of all humanity that has ever lived and ever will lived suffer eternal
torture (it's not emotion appeal, its a term we discussed and agreed
upon in a prior thread) - this would be just and merciful.
Without addressing the remainder of your post - and ignoring your
strawman arguments - I will simply say that I don't get it.
Also, I couldn't help but notice, Michael, that you have yet to comment
on (never mind answer) the question about the human who is never
exposed to the Jesus story. How is this person "spitting in God's
face"? What did this person do to deserve the "fair" and "merciful"
punishment of eternal hell? Is it simply being human? Is that their
sin?
I might someday understand the mechanics of this kind of thinking, but
I will never consider it logical, reasoned or supported by any
evidence. It is crazy talk.
Sketch System
<sketch.system@gmail.com>Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>>Also, I couldn't help but notice, Michael, that you have yet to comment
>on (never mind answer) the question about the human who is never
>exposed to the Jesus story. How is this person "spitting in God's
>face"? What did this person do to deserve the "fair" and "merciful"
>punishment of eternal hell? Is it simply being human? Is that their
>sin?
your questions, including the ones you just repeated here. If there was a
particular part of my answer you didn't understand, I'd be happy to clarify.