Forgiven for what, eactly?

[tsig]

There's two interrelated issues here. One is with the responsibility for our actions. You still haven't given any possible way that god isn't responsible for everything we do since they are the direct result of his creation of the universe and he knew and controlled the exact conditions required for these events to take place.

The other is with the fairness of the judging us for that. Let me try it this way: I'm declaring a new religion. The truth has been revealed unto me. The big core truth is that humans must be tortured forever for god's amusement unless while still on Earth they are able to create peanut butter and jelly sandwiches using only lead and the power of thought. Since nobody can do this, I have made a loophole - you can also avoid the endless torture if you say "I believe in the divinity of sanwiches" and MEAN IT.

Is that fair?


EDIT: I was going to fix the typo above, but then I realized that as the leader of a religion that wouldn't be right. So, yeah, you have to say you believe in the divinity of SANWICHES. Whatever those are. It's a mystery of faith, and will be explained when you die.

I believe in sanwiches. I saw plenty of them the last time I was in San Francisco.

 

[SOdhner]

Only the grace of God, in the sacrifice of His Son, can save us.

But you already said it's possible for a human to go through life without sin, so for those people they don't need the grace or sacrifice parts. Right?

Also, not surprisingly you've completely failed to address all the previous stuff about the lack of free will due to all events being deliberately created by god along with the rest of the universe.

I believe in sanwiches. I saw plenty of them the last time I was in San Francisco.

First hand knowledge? You could be a prophet. But you do have to specify that you believe in the DIVINITY of sanwiches, not just that you believe in the sanwiches themselves.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But you already said it's possible for a human to go through life without sin, so for those people they don't need the grace or sacrifice parts. Right?

Right.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I believe it because of what is said in Hebrews 4, along with the many Gospel passages that talk about how difficult it was for Him -- the weeping, the praying, the close temptations, and especially the begging His Father to change His mind and cancel the Crucifixion. That, to me, underlines the actions of a Mortal shouldering a huge burden, rather than an impassive omnipotent God.

That does rather depend on which gospel you are reading, doesn't it?

I'm no expert, but I thought that in Luke, at least, he was rather comfortable with what had to be done. All part of the plan.

(Please don't make me read them again to find quotes supporting the above. The writing, it hurts . . .)

 

[Sun Countess]

But neither faith in Christ nor good deeds can save a human being. Only the grace of God, in the sacrifice of His Son, can save us. So the faith/deeds dichotomy (in addition to being a false dichotomy in the first place) is entirely beside the point.
Our actions condemn us. God's actions save us. Chrisitianity doesn't save us through our free will; Christianity saves us through our acceptance of Christ's actions.

Why do people need saving? Saved from what? Or saved for what? There's something in the whole philosophy that I'm missing.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The Bible does not teach that we are burdened with sin at birth; the Bible teaches that we are burdened with sin the first time we individually make a choice that is sinful.

Without getting to the heart of your argument, what about pre-biblical Christians? I mean there were over 300 years between the death of Christ and something resembling the current collection of books you refer to as the Bible. Surely the pre-Biblical Christians were not bound by what would later be deemed the Bible by some Pope?

To carry that a bit further, the idea of original sin pre-dates the Bible by a century or so. (Something about arguing with Gnostics.) So, Christians who were closer to Christ (and Paul) in time and had more materials to draw from than we will ever have, thanks to the ravages of time, thought this was important before the Bible was even codified and you want to challenge this based on what exactly?

Hubris is a very Christian thing.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Jesus was not omniscient.

Don't believe in the Trinity, then. Got it.

Exactly how much of the plan He knew, and when, is a matter of some debate.

No, it's not a matter of debate, it's a matter of which gospel you are reading.

That they tend to disagree is fine for those of us who don't see them as the inerrant word of god. The "debate" is just cover for the fact that four different stories are being told through the same characters.

 

[SOdhner]

Right.

Thanks for confirming that, it's interesting to me because a lot of the overtly Christian people I know are what I refer to as fundies, and all of the fundies I've met would differ from you in this area. So that's something educational for me.

Anyway... being an awful sinner myself, how would I go about asking for salvation? The problem is that I don't believe as you do and so anything profession of faith I make will be a lie and that seems unlikely to do the trick. Now that I have the stain of sin on me my understanding is that being good from here on out isn't enough, and so if no theists (sorry, none of the CORRECT theists) can convince me I'm kinda hosed... forever.

The problem gets worse, though, because the idea of a loving god that tortures people for all eternity seems so absurd to me that I find it impossible to imagine any argument that would convince me (that's not to say I've written the possibility off - I am a deist so you've already got me on some vague, useless level). So because I don't believe I'm going to hell, and because of hell I don't believe.

This seems like an unfair position.

Then on top of all that, there's the aforementioned fact that god PLANNED for me to not believe - he knew prior to making the universe that he was going to make it in a way that included me not believing and made the choice to do so - so it's not my free will, it is only god's will.

So... yeah.

 

[soylent]

Why do people need saving? Saved from what?

Presumably saved from being tortured forever by god's lackey or non-existance, depending on which stance on hell the christian you are taking to has taken.

 

[154]

I have explicitly said, more than once on this thread, that I do not believe in original sin. The Bible does not teach that we are burdened with sin at birth; the Bible teaches that we are burdened with sin the first time we individually make a choice that is sinful.

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

It is the human condition. No exceptions.

But you already said it's possible for a human to go through life without sin, so for those people they don't need the grace or sacrifice parts. Right?

He's got you there Av, which is why your argument is wrong.

All men are sinners. No exceptions. Any who would deny it, the truth is not in them. We are inheritors of our human condition.

 

[bruto]

Avalon, you are simply wrong about original sin and the Bible:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
(Rom. 5:12).

(edited to add....) Sorry, 154, I did not see your post above, but I guess we can agree on what's in the bible even if we can't agree on what to do about it!

 

[Elizabeth I]

Why does God care whether people believe in him or not?

Low self esteem.

I think it's because if you don't believe in such entities they fade away.

 

[I Ratant]

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

It is the human condition. No exceptions.


He's got you there Av, which is why your argument is wrong.

All men are sinners. No exceptions. Any who would deny it, the truth is not in them. We are inheritors of our human condition.

.
Low self esteem, as mentioned.

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm interested in hearing what Avalon XQ has to say in rubattal to 154, and, no, this isn't just to see two fundies fight. Avalon XQ, much as I hate the doctrine of Original Sin, it does seem to me that Paul espouses this view in a number of his epistles.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I'm interested in hearing what Avalon XQ has to say in rubattal to 154, and, no, this isn't just to see two fundies fight. Avalon XQ, much as I hate the doctrine of Original Sin, it does seem to me that Paul espouses this view in a number of his epistles.

I don't know what else Paul said about it, but this just seems to say, as I think Genesis does, that man has been mortal since the fall. It does not say anything about punishment.
Is there a reason to believe Paul believed in eternal punishment?
Where does that doctrin come from?

 

[Hellbound]

I don't know what else Paul said about it, but this just seems to say, as I think Genesis does, that man has been mortal since the fall. It does not say anything about punishment.
Is there a reason to believe Paul believed in eternal punishment?
Where does that doctrin come from?

Well, technically, mortality was the punishment for Adam, and it's been passed down to all of us (at least from a literal biblical reading).

 

[AvalonXQ]

I don't know what else Paul said about it, but this just seems to say, as I think Genesis does, that man has been mortal since the fall.

That really is what the passage means. It's a parenthetical in the middle of an analogy, and very widely misinterpreted to support the doctrine of Original Sin -- because this Scripture really is the closest thing to the doctrine anywhere in the Bible. And it still fails.

 

[Hellbound]

That really is what the passage means. It's a parenthetical in the middle of an analogy, and very widely misinterpreted to support the doctrine of Original Sin -- because this Scripture really is the closest thing to the doctrine anywhere in the Bible. And it still fails.

Can you elaborate? Because, frankly, I don't agree.

Is, or is not, mortality the consequence (i.e.-punishment) for Adam's sin (eating the fruit)?

Is it not true, according to the Bible, that humans would live forever before Adam partook of the fruit?

Isn't eternal life the goal/reward of Heaven, and it's absence the punishment of Hell?

So, Adam's punishment was the removal of imortality, something which is still with us. We have given up our claim on eternal life because of Adam's sin.

While I agree that the traditional doctrine of foriginal sin is incorrect (that we are responsible for the sins of our fathers), I disagree that it is entirely incorrect, as we are obviously still being punished from Adam's mistake (we are denied eternal life because of him, and have to "re-earn" it).

 

[AvalonXQ]

Can you elaborate? Because, frankly, I don't agree.

Is, or is not, mortality the consequence (i.e.-punishment) for Adam's sin (eating the fruit)?

Is it not true, according to the Bible, that humans would live forever before Adam partook of the fruit?

Isn't eternal life the goal/reward of Heaven, and it's absence the punishment of Hell?

So, Adam's punishment was the removal of imortality, something which is still with us. We have given up our claim on eternal life because of Adam's sin.

While I agree that the traditional doctrine of foriginal sin is incorrect (that we are responsible for the sins of our fathers), I disagree that it is entirely incorrect, as we are obviously still being punished from Adam's mistake (we are denied eternal life because of him, and have to "re-earn" it).

You've hit the nail on the head -- that's a very reasonable interpretation of what Paul is saying in that part of Romans, and I don't immediately see anything in what you said that I disagree with.
We do suffer the material consequences for the sins of others. But our own eternal destination is based on our choices, and no one else's.

 

[SOdhner]

All men are sinners. No exceptions.

There it is! Thanks for backing me up, 154. (Saying that feels strange!) That's the dominant view in my experience among fundamentalist Christians. Nobody can make it through life without sin. A variation that I've heard is Jesus... some say he had no sin but was a special case, some say that he did have a little bit of that inherited sin and because of that went to hell when he died, but then... uh... escaped. Or something. Either way the rules work differently for that guy which I suppose makes sense.

We do suffer the material consequences for the sins of others. But our own eternal destination is based on our choices, and no one else's.

But if you believe (as I'm guessing you do) that redemption is available until death but not after then this is a very big problem. Because god made Adam eat the fruit I get infinitely less time to learn and repent and stuff. In fact, since death didn't come to the world until then hell would still be empty had god not planned that whole drama out.

So it's not just death - hell itself is a consequence of that original "sin".

Also, obviously, you are still avoiding any reply to the points I made previously showing that god is responsible for all actions in the universe thus removing any responsibility or free will from the individual beings within it, but I'm used to that by now.