Heaven/Hell/Purgatory

robindch

Brian wrote:

The understanding I have of God comes to us via His communications through teh Bible.

No, you don't understand how your own beliefs operate. You should rewrite that sentence as "The understanding I have of God comes to me via my understand of what I believe to be His communications through the translation of the Bible that I use".

You are ignoring the fact that this is a belief, and that you do not know this to be true, any more than the pope or a muslim knows that his belief is true too.

Brian wrote:

If you reject God's deal and spend your life serving yourself, or anyone else, you get an deternity without God (which many posters here have freely said that it is their will) and that place is called Hell and is described in the pages of teh Bible.

Nope. I'm not rejecting god's deal, because I have no reason to assume that the deal (such as it is) comes from god, and I have many reasons to suspect that it doesn't. I gave some of these reasons this a day or two back somewhere, but there are plenty more that I could have added. In short, I'm rejecting your interpretation of what you refer to as "god's deal".

Brian wrote:

I fail to see arrogance.

I say arrogance because you write implicitly assuming that you are both able and permitted to speak on god's behalf, in condemning me to an eternity burning in hell. I can't think of any polite word other than "arrogant" to describe believing oneself to be speaking with the authority of the creator of the universe.

I hope that's a bit clearer?

PDN

djpbarry wrote: »

But is the concept of original sin not derived from Adam's actions? If so, then the Christian God is holding me responsible for his actions.

That sounds like the defence of, "I was just obeying orders". It didn't cut much ice at Nuremberg.

kelly1

djpbarry wrote: »

Not sure about that analogy - I am not endangering anyone's life by not subscribing to Christianity.

You are certainly endangering your eternal life by not believing in Christ and keeping His commandments. You also set an example for others by declaring that you don't follow Christ which itself is a negative influence.

djpbarry wrote: »

And how exactly am I "stubbornly attached to sin", bearing in mind that my definition of sin is likely to be different to yours?

I'll let you be the judge of that by asking yourself, do you keep the commandments? Do you love God will all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength? Do you love your neighbour for the sake of God? Do you fornicate or take drugs or use foul language etc, etc? Do you ask God to forgive you your sins? Just some things to ask yourself.

djpbarry wrote: »

But then, you don't know what god's definition of sin is, so that doesn't really matter seeing as he's the one who is ultimately going to judge us (apparently), which doesn’t really make sense actually.

Doing something which is contrary to God's will is sin. What God wants from us is clearly written in scripture.

djpbarry wrote: »

Let’s assume for a second that a god exists. Let’s also assume that she is perfect in every way. So, one day she decides to create humans. Seeing as god’s perfect, she could have chosen to make a carbon copy of herself, but she chose to create an infinitely inferior model. She also decides that when humans die, only those who have lead lives morally comparable to her own may enter Heaven. But, she also knows that this is totally impossible, given our infinitely inferior understanding of the universe. Consequently, all humans are damned to Hell.

SHE??? You're just taking the p*ss now!

PDN

robindch wrote: »

.I say arrogance because you write implicitly assuming that you are both able and permitted to speak on god's behalf, in condemning me to an eternity burning in hell. I can't think of any polite word other than "arrogant" to describe believing oneself to be speaking with the authority of the creator of the universe.

I hope that's a bit clearer?

It's clearer, but still not convincing.

If someone sincerely believes that God has given a revelation, then you can argue that they are mistaken, but that doesn't make them arrogant for stating said belief.

For example, let's say that I believe the speed limit on Irish motorways is 120 kph. I state that some of my relatives regularly break the speed limit. Am I thereby being "arrogant" by believing myself to speak with the authority of the civil authorities in this country?

It doesn't matter if I am mistaken or not in my belief about the speed limit. Maybe my copy of 'Rules of the Road' contained a misprint and the limit is really 240 kph. Either way, I may be mistaken, but I am not being arrogant.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The bad news is that a lot of people would rather reject his kind offer and instead spend their time whining about how unfair the whole process is.

It takes all sorts.

"Kind offer" according to who exactly?

When ever I hear something like this I am reminded of the American settlers "kind offer" to civilize the native Americans.

No doubt the American settlers, just like you, couldn't fathom why anyone would actually reject such a patient and kind offer. The settlers could after all have just shot the natives. It must have been bewildering to them that the natives would not only reject this offer but complain about it as well. The native Americans were uncivilised. They needed to be civilised. This is just the way it was. There is no debate over this. The settlers were offering to do this, all the natives had to do was to submit to this process.

The native Americans were, strangely, whining that it was rather unfair that the settlers were there in their land trying to civilise them in the first place. The patience that the settlers must have had to put up with this ungrateful attitude must have been quite impressive.

It takes all sorts I guess ...

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

"Kind offer" according to who exactly?

When ever I hear something like this I am reminded of the American settlers "kind offer" to civilize the native Americans.

No doubt the American settlers, just like you, couldn't fathom why anyone would actually reject such a patient and kind offer. The settlers could after all have just shot the natives. It must have been bewildering to them that the natives would not only reject this offer but complain about it as well. The native Americans were uncivilised. They needed to be civilised. This is just the way it was. There is no debate over this. The settlers were offering to do this, all the natives had to do was to submit to this process.

The native Americans were, strangely, whining that it was rather unfair that the settlers were there in their land trying to civilise them in the first place. The patience that the settlers must have had to put up with this ungrateful attitude must have been quite impressive.

It takes all sorts I guess ...

Thank you for that analogy.

If the settlers had created the continent and the natives in the first place then it might even make sense,

Nerin

"Kind offer" according to who exactly?

When ever I hear something like this I am reminded of the American settlers "kind offer" to civilize the native Americans.

No doubt the American settlers, just like you, couldn't fathom why anyone would actually reject such a patient and kind offer. The settlers could after all have just shot the natives. It must have been bewildering to them that the natives would not only reject this offer but complain about it as well. The native Americans were uncivilised. They needed to be civilised. This is just the way it was. There is no debate over this. The settlers were offering to do this, all the natives had to do was to submit to this process.

The native Americans were, strangely, whining that it was rather unfair that the settlers were there in their land trying to civilise them in the first place. The patience that the settlers must have had to put up with this ungrateful attitude must have been quite impressive.

It takes all sorts I guess ...

i thought it was a very good analogy

PDN

nerin wrote: »

i thought it was a very good analogy

Indeed, which may tell us more about you than it does about the analogy.

Nerin

em,ok, its not a personal argument, i just think it was a valid point.

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

That sounds like the defence of, "I was just obeying orders". It didn't cut much ice at Nuremberg.

It wasn't a defence, it was a question.

kelly1 wrote: »

You are certainly endangering your eternal life by not believing in Christ and keeping His commandments.

One life of finite length is enough for me, thanks all the same.

kelly1 wrote: »

You also set an example for others by declaring that you don't follow Christ which itself is a negative influence.

I see. I did not realise I was so influential, or that the people around me were so easily influenced. Besides, I do not think it is for you to decide whether my influence on other people is positive or negative, thank you very much.

kelly1 wrote: »

I'll let you be the judge of that by asking yourself, do you keep the commandments?

Eh, some of them (I think).

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you love God will all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength?

No, I don't have much time for dictators.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you love your neighbour for the sake of God?

Why "for the sake of God"?

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you fornicate or take drugs or use foul language etc, etc?

Fornicate?!? Seriously?!?

kelly1 wrote: »

Doing something which is contrary to God's will is sin.

And how is it that you are aware of God's will?

kelly1 wrote: »

SHE??? You're just taking the p*ss now!

Careful now, that looks like foul language to me.

Presumably, being immortal, God would be asexual, so "she" is as accurate a description as "he".

PDN

djpbarry wrote:

But is the concept of original sin not derived from Adam's actions? If so, then the Christian God is holding me responsible for his actions.

djpbarry wrote: »

It wasn't a defence, it was a question.

It was a question followed by a defence. If it was a question then you would have used a question mark in the second sentence and placed the verb before the subject - ie "If so, then is the Christian God holding me responsible for his actions?"

Nerin

in fairness pdn i think youre nitpicking

PDN

djpbarry wrote: »

Presumably, being immortal, God would be asexual, so "she" is as accurate a description as "he".

It is a matter of supreme indifference to me whether you choose to talk about God as 'he', 'she', or 'it'. However, I have an annoying habit of picking people up on random and illogical statements.

'Immortality' means not to be subject to death. How is this related in any way to gender? Is there some obscure definition of immortality that says a male or female entity cannot be immortal?

PDN

nerin wrote: »

in fairness pdn i think youre nitpicking

But maybe I was only asking a question?

robindch

PDN wrote:

If someone sincerely believes that God has given a revelation, then you can argue that they are mistaken, but that doesn't make them arrogant for stating said belief.

I see nothing at all humble about somebody thinking that they speak on behalf of the creator of the universe. I see it as delusional and immensely arrogant. But in this we disagree, possibly because you believe that you speak with this authority too?

PDN wrote:

I state that some of my relatives regularly break the speed limit. Am I thereby being "arrogant" by believing myself to speak with the authority of the civil authorities in this country?

Your analogy is very poorly chosen. For the written law of the land, there is no doubt about its authority, stemming as it does from the Constitution. It's written mostly in clear English, in black and white and is, almost completely unambiguous. We know who wrote it and when they wrote it. We can change it if we want to or leave the country and go somewhere else if we find it intolerable. We know who it applies to and under what conditions it applies. We can stand for election and write the law. We can drive down the road and see the police administering it. We can go to the courts and see it being applied. We can go to a prison and see people suffering the consequences of being caught in contempt of it. And when their time is done, they are released and considered forgiven.

In every one of these points, your analogy fails, sometimes amazingly so.

PDN wrote:

Either way, I may be mistaken, but I am not being arrogant.

A bit of honorable humility like you've written here, but with respect to religious beliefs, would go a long way.

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

It was a question followed by a defence.

No, it was a question followed by a conclusion. A defence would imply that I am defending a certain position, which I am not; I do not feel the need to defend my actions to a being in which I do not believe.

Anyway, enough of this grammatical nonsense...

PDN wrote: »

'Immortality' means not to be subject to death. How is this related in any way to gender? Is there some obscure definition of immortality that says a male or female entity cannot be immortal?

nerin is right - you are nitpicking :rolleyes:.

Well, seeing as I am not aware of any immortal beings, I do not have a frame of reference for this. But, in my opinion, an immortal would be a being that lives forever and would not reproduce as mortals do (presumably). As such, I would imagine they would have little need for different sexes.

Anyway, this is way OT.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I see nothing at all humble about somebody thinking that they speak on behalf of the creator of the universe. I see it as delusional and immensely arrogant. But in this we disagree, possibly because you believe that you speak with this authority too?

Can you point to one post, on this or the A&A board, where I have ever claimed to speak on behalf of God?

Can you not see that there is a world of difference between saying, "Robin said x" and saying, "I declare, speaking on Robin's behalf, that x"? If I believe that God has spoken in His Word, and I tell others what God has said (and what they can go and check for themselves in any Bible) that is totally different from making any statement I wish and claiming to speak on God's behalf.

My analogy holds in its central point, namely that it is not arrogant to tell others what an authority figure has said if you sincerely believe that said figure has made a public statement. Everything else you raise is irrelevant to this point, something I suspect you are intelligent enough to be fully aware of.

A bit of honorable humility like you've written here, but with respect to religious beliefs, would go a long way.

I would refer you to the threads discussing Truth and the Catholic Church. I have clearly stated, much to the annoyance of some Catholics, that no church or individual (myself included) are 100% in their beliefs. Like almost every poster on these boards I certainly believe my own opinion to be true in respect to the matter under discussion - after all, if we thought our opinions were wrong we would hardly hold them or express them, would we? Therefore I think your implied accusation is a bit ad hominem.

PDN

nerin wrote: »

in fairness pdn i think youre nitpicking

Not at all. It is a fairly common trick in debating to frame a point in question form, then if your opponent responds you dismiss their response by claiming you were just asking a question. For example, I could post: "But aren't all atheists child abusers anyway?" Then, when my opponent indignantly responds, I can say, "Calm down, I was only asking a question."

Do you see what I have done? I have tried to dodge the implications of my loaded question, and I am attempting to paint my opponent as oversensitive.

Such a tactic is superficially clever but easily spotted by anyone who thinks about posts for more than three seconds. However, I must admit that this is the first time I have actually encountered someone who tried to use the "I was only asking a question" trick when the statement in question wasn't actually a question. Truly stunning.

Excelsior

robindch wrote: »

I see nothing at all humble about somebody thinking that they speak on behalf of the creator of the universe. I see it as delusional and immensely arrogant.

It is delusional to think that PDN has spoken as a claimed voice of God and hugely condescending (which is a close cousin to arrogance).

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

However, I must admit that this is the first time I have actually encountered someone who tried to use the "I was only asking a question" trick when the statement in question wasn't actually a question. Truly stunning.

The statement in question was, quite clearly, a question:

djpbarry wrote: »

But is the concept of original sin not derived from Adam's actions?

Note the use of the question mark.

I find it amazing that one would spend so much time and energy pointing out perceived flaws in my grammar rather than addressing the rather simple question that was posed.

kelly1

JACK BE NIMBLE wrote: »

Kelly1, I am extremely serious, did you read it?
I would be very interested to know your thoughts on this

If there ever was an article straight from the pen of the devil, this has to be it!

Just to point out a few error in the article:

Regarding the doctrine of Hell in the O/T, before the resurrection of Christ, everyone who died went to Sheol which is mentioned numerous times in the O/T. According to Luke 16:19-31, Sheol was divided into two halves. The just resided in "Abraham's Bosom" awaiting their redemption and the rest lived in a place of torment.

Hell is also alluded to in a few places:

Isiah 33:14 The sinners in Sion are afraid, trembling hath seized upon the hypocrites. Which of you can dwell with devouring fire? which of you shall dwell with everlasting burnings?

Isiah 66:24 24 And they shall go out, and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched: and they shall be a loathsome sight to all flesh.

Jeremiah 15:14 And I will bring thy enemies out of a land, which thou knowest not: for a fire is kindled in my rage, it shall burn upon you.

Judith 16:20 Woe be to the nation that riseth up against my people: for the Lord almighty will take revenge on them, in the day of judgment he will visit them. 21 For he will give fire, and worms into their flesh, that they may burn, and may feel for ever.

Hell is without question mentioned loads of times in the NT.
In the online Douay bible, Hell is mentioned 24 times and fire 77 times (not all in reference to Hell). One example:

Matt 25:41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

See also:

Hell
----
Matt 5:22-30
Matt 10:28
Matt 11:23
Matt 16:18
Matt 18:9
Matt 23:15,33
Mark 9:42,44,46
Luke 10:15
Luke 12:5
Luke 16:22
Acts 2:24,27,31
James 3:6
2 Pet 2:4
Rev 1:18
Rev 6:8
Rev 20:13-14

Fire
----
Matt 3:12
Matt 7:19
Matt 13:40,42,50
Matt 18:8
Matt 25:41
Mark 9:43-48
Luke 3:9
Luke 3:17
John 15:6

This is article is so full of holes I'm really not inclined to go refuting all of it. It's straight out of the devils handbook on how to seduce souls to their destruction!

God bless,
Noel.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Can you point to one post, on this or the A&A board, where I have ever claimed to speak on behalf of God?

Rolling back two hours or so on this thread, you posted this, in which you asserted rules for who was going to hell and who wasn't. In your religion, I understood this was god's job, and not yours.

In your work, you also appear to have made yourself responsible for spreading the message you believe came from him. I think it's reasonable to conclude from this that you probably believe that you are speaking on his behalf -- your job would make little sense if you didn't -- and that's why I asked you if you actually believe that you are. I'd like to know.

PDN wrote:

My analogy holds in its central point, namely that it is not arrogant to tell others what an authority figure has said if you sincerely believe that said figure has made a public statement. Everything else you raise is irrelevant to this point, something I suspect you are intelligent enough to be fully aware of.

Unfortunately, everything I raised is entirely relevant to your poorly chosen analogy, all the more so because you insinuate that I am being dishonest about it. It would be ungentlemanly of me to suggest that you are doing this intentionally.

Anyhow, given that there is some debate about whether or not the rules you assert are actually the rules of the creator of the universe, I must ask how much time you devote in your efforts to propagate the message, to the idea that you could be wrong. Is it 5%, 10%, 50%? Certainly, around here, it's virtually nil.

PDN wrote:

I have clearly stated, much to the annoyance of some Catholics, that no church or individual (myself included) are 100% in their beliefs.

You're not 100% sure that you're right? Ok, great! So, in that case do I understand correctly that (for example) in the post above about who's going to hell and who's not, that you're not actually sure about it? And that you might be completely wrong?

robindch

Excelsior wrote:

It is delusional to think that PDN has spoken as a claimed voice of God and hugely condescending (which is a close cousin to arrogance).

Um, I didn't say that he was. I asked if he believed he spoke on behalf of god.

And I'll be thrilled to hear an answer!

.

TheThing!

JACK BE NIMBLE wrote: »

.
Then one of you family members dies who has murdered or done some other extremely unchristian act and being totally unremorseful for what he/she has done.

God is torturing that person (yes I do mean torturing, punishment is a penalty for breaking rules, everlasting hell with no chance of redemption is torture) for existing. If somebody commits a murder, it is their circumstances that are to blame. So if you were looking at them from heaven you would have every right to feel the most terrible anger towards god and the deepest pity towards your family member. But if heaven is a perfect place, surely no negative emotions can exist there, especially not anger towards god. This is just another failing of the whole christian belief system which its followers ignore. Intellectual dishonesty is too small a word

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

You're not 100% sure that you're right? Ok, great! So, in that case do I understand correctly that (for example) in the post above about who's going to hell and who's not, that you're not actually sure about it? And that you might be completely wrong?

This reminds me of the post where some people demanded from others (no names mentioned) for their thoughts on whether the OP's recently deceased father was, in their opinion, going to hell or not.

Run_to_da_hills

Agent J wrote: »

I didnt realise that people could second guess the Christian God and could tell what memembers of their own family are on the way to Hell. That almost sounds prideful doesnt it?

Its the truth, You are told present tence that you are condemed already. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God". John 3 vs 18

You seal your destiny in this life. I know well that my brother is on the road to hell because he is an athiest and denies Christ as his saviour, his only way out of it is to repent in this life.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its the truth, You are told present tence that you are condemed already. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God". John 3 vs 18

You seal your destiny in this life. I know well that my brother is on the road to hell because he is an athiest and denies Christ as his saviour, his only way out of it is to repent in this life.

Does this affect your relationship with your brother?

BrianCalgary

djpbarry wrote: »

But is the concept of original sin not derived from Adam's actions? If so, then the Christian God is holding me responsible for his actions.

The concept is derived from that. Adam and Eve commited the first and original sin. We in turn continue to sin.

And as stated God is holding you responsible for YOUR actions, no one elses.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

How certain are you?

Say God exists but the Bible isn't anything to do with him (the real God). How certain are you that this is not the case

BTW I don't necessarly agree with Robin that you are arrogant, I'm simply explaining the issue. Rejecting God and rejecting the Christian interpretation of how God wants us to be are not actually the same things.

Because there is no where else that God communicates with us, except through the Bible.

I don't think robin thinks I'm arrogant either.

JoeB-

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And as stated God is holding you responsible for YOUR actions, no one elses.

How true can that be?

Until recently un baptised babies were not allowed go to heaven, is this a fault or a failing of the babies?

What crime did tribal people commit? The crime of being born into a place where Gods word isn't mentioned so they idolise false Gods and so end up in hell, how are they to blame?

What crime did people commit before the time of Jesus? Yet they too won't be in heaven?

What crime did the people living in Muslim countries commit? Been born into a Muslim country?

What crime have I commited? Using my brain?... surely not to use it would be a bigger crime?

What crime do atheists commit? Failing to believe in a fantastical story equivelent to fairies and magic?

I wonder how Jesus would have got on if he had been in the position of most humans, i.e requiring faith? He clearly wasn't born as man, he seemed to have direct knowledge of his father, this is something none of us have. It would be funny indeed if Jesus had been born ignorant like us, had failed to believe in the tyrannical God of the old testament and God had been forced to send one third of himself to Hell for ever.

A poster made the excellent point that hell is torture, so god is clearly not forgiving, he is a terrorist and a torturer, a dictator and a bully... how is that attractive?

I feel sorry for people who refuse to see the truth...

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Rolling back two hours or so on this thread, you posted this, in which you asserted rules for who was going to hell and who wasn't. In your religion, I understood this was god's job, and not yours.

This is getting rather surreal. In that post, on a forum devoted to the discussion of Christianity, you have a Christian explaining Christian teaching concerning salvation. In my religion it is perfectly acceptable for people to explain Christian teachings to others and, contrary to your misconceptions, God has not demanded that he alone is allowed to offer such explanations.

In your work, you also appear to have made yourself responsible for spreading the message you believe came from him. I think it's reasonable to conclude from this that you probably believe that you are speaking on his behalf -- your job would make little sense if you didn't -- and that's why I asked you if you actually believe that you are. I'd like to know.

Nice try, but let's stick to the subject under discussion, shall we? We are discussing whether posters on this board are being arrogant due to their believing the Bible's teaching that those who deliberately reject Christ go to hell. If you want to discuss whether preachers are arrogant or claim to speak on God's behalf then maybe you should start a thread on the subject.

I have already stated that, in giving my opinions and beliefs on these boards, I have never claimed to speak on God's behalf, nor, I believe, have Brian or any of the other Christian posters.

Unfortunately, everything I raised is entirely relevant to your poorly chosen analogy, all the more so because you insinuate that I am being dishonest about it. It would be ungentlemanly of me to suggest that you are doing this intentionally.

OK, so you don't like my analogy. I am sorry if I insinuated dishonesty in that I thought you were too intelligent not to see that your objections failed to address the my central point. I am happy to accept that you do indeed believe that they addressed my central point.

Anyhow, given that there is some debate about whether or not the rules you assert are actually the rules of the creator of the universe, I must ask how much time you devote in your efforts to propagate the message, to the idea that you could be wrong. Is it 5%, 10%, 50%? Certainly, around here, it's virtually nil.

I think the pot is calling the kettle black. Robin, in all your posts I have seen on any subject I can confidently state that you devote virtually no time to the possibility that you might be wrong. The same would go for every other poster (except one or two very diffident individuals). That is the way of things on these kind of fora.

You're not 100% sure that you're right? Ok, great! So, in that case do I understand correctly that (for example) in the post above about who's going to hell and who's not, that you're not actually sure about it? And that you might be completely wrong?

I don't believe anyone can be 100% sure about anything, not even Descartes thinking that he was.

Of course I may be completely wrong. All I am doing is explaining the Christian teaching on a subject as I understand it to be revealed in the Bible. If you are looking for us Christians, alone on boards.ie, to be the only group who are not allowed to express our views without always having to qualify them by saying, "Well, I might be wrong about this, but ..." then I think you are likely to be disappointed.

It is not arrogant for posters on the Soccer forum to state that Cesc Fabregas is the best midfielder in the Premiership this season. They are not claiming to speak on behalf of the Premier League and are not being arrogant.

It is not arrogant for posters to state that a particular scientific theory has demonstrated certain results. They are not claiming to speak on behalf of science and are not being arrogant.

It is not arrogant for a poster on the Motorcycle forum to state their belief that the police will not prosecute motorcyclists who fail to display insurance discs. They are not claiming to speak on behalf of the police and are not being arrogant.

But when a Christian, on the Christianity forum, states their opinion then they are accused of being arrogant and of claiming to speak on God's behalf.

PDN

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Until recently un baptised babies were not allowed go to heaven, is this a fault or a failing of the babies?

No - until recently the Roman Catholic Church taught such a nonsensical doctrine. Since Brian is not a Catholic then why do you want him to address this? Baptising a baby has no bearing on whether it goes to heaven.

What crime did tribal people commit? The crime of being born into a place where Gods word isn't mentioned so they idolise false Gods and so end up in hell, how are they to blame?

I, as a Christian, do certainly not believe that anyone is sent to hell for not hearing the Gospel. Nor would any Christian ever see it as a crime to be born in one place rather than another.

What crime did people commit before the time of Jesus? Yet they too won't be in heaven?

I have never met any Christian, or heard of any version of Christianity, that taught that no-one who lived before the time of Jesus won't be in heaven. Where are you getting this nonsense?

What crime did the people living in Muslim countries commit? Been born into a Muslim country?

Again, no-one will be sent to hell because they were born in a Muslim country (although living in a Muslim country might indeed seem like hell).

I feel sorry for people who refuse to see the truth

Ah! Now, at last, you have hit the nail on the head. This whole issue of hell is not about baptism, or about the time and place you were born. It is about refusing to see the truth - a deliberate rejection of the Gospel.

Yes, Joe, I too feel sorry for those who refuse to see the truth.

djpbarry

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The concept is derived from that. Adam and Eve commited the first and original sin. We in turn continue to sin.

And as stated God is holding you responsible for YOUR actions, no one elses.

But if I am tainted with original sin, then am I not being held accountable for Adam's actions?

PDN wrote: »

It is not arrogant for posters on the Soccer forum to state that Cesc Fabregas is the best midfielder in the Premiership this season. They are not claiming to speak on behalf of the Premier League and are not being arrogant.

That is quite different - they are quite clearly expressing an opinion. Such a statement can be nothing more than an opinion.

PDN wrote: »

It is not arrogant for posters to state that a particular scientific theory has demonstrated certain results. They are not claiming to speak on behalf of science and are not being arrogant.

Well, if I quote a particular theory, then yes, I am speaking on behalf of science.

PDN wrote: »

But when a Christian, on the Christianity forum, states their opinion then they are accused of being arrogant and of claiming to speak on God's behalf.

That is because their "opinion" is rarely stated as such. For example, RTDH has repeatedly asserted that his friends and family are going to Hell. That is not an opinion; as far as (s)he is concerned, that is a fact.

PDN wrote: »

Again, no-one will be sent to hell because they were born in a Muslim country (although living in a Muslim country might indeed seem like hell).

Please refrain from throwing insults at people whose beliefs differ from yours.

PDN

djpbarry wrote: »

But if I am tainted with original sin, then am I not being held accountable for Adam's actions?

Not at all. Adam is held accountable for Adam' actions. djpbarry is held accountable for djpbarry's actions.

Please refrain from throwing insults at people whose beliefs differ from yours.

What insult? My experience of visiting Muslim countries (including time spent with people who have been beaten up and imprisoned for their faith) leads me to suggest that living in such a country might seem like hell. How is that insulting?

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Adam is held accountable for Adam' actions. djpbarry is held accountable for djpbarry's actions.

Ok, now I'm confused . So the concept of original sin is meaningless?

PDN wrote: »

What insult? My experience of visiting Muslim countries (including time spent with people who have been beaten up and imprisoned for their faith) leads me to suggest that living in such a country might seem like hell. How is that insulting?

You are generalising. There is no such thing as a "Muslim country" any more than there is such a thing as a "Christian country". As it happens, my wife is Pakistani and she gets back to Lahore as often as she can - I don't think she considers it to be Hell.

PDN

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, now I'm confused . So the concept of original sin is meaningless

Yes, you are confused. No, the concept of original sin is not meaningless.

Most Christian traditions agree that Adam's sinful nature is inherited by all human beings. However, that does not necessarily mean that we are accountable for Adam's sin. I believe we are accountable for our own sins, nobody else's. For example, when I was a baby I had a sinful nature, even though I was too young to act in accordance with that nature. If I had died as a baby then I would have committed no sin and therefore would deserve no punishment. As I grew older my sinful nature manifested itself in the sins that I committed - sins that I, and nobody else, am accountable for.

You are generalising. There is no such thing as a "Muslim country" any more than there is such a thing as a "Christian country". As it happens, my wife is Pakistani and she gets back to Lahore as often as she can - I don't think she considers it to be Hell.

No such thing as a Muslim country? I think the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, or indeed the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the official name of your wife's country) might beg to differ.

Your wife may not consider Pakistan to be hell, but plenty of others do. The fact is that many of the posters who cry on this board about how intolerant Christianity is know that they would rot in a prison cell if they tried airing their atheist views in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

BTW, as a staunch advocate of secular government I think any attempt at a Christian country would also be like hell.

That is quite different - they are quite clearly expressing an opinion. Such a statement can be nothing more than an opinion.

And that's all any of us can express on this board - our opinions. Unless, of course, old Benedict is posting on here under an assumed name. This is a discussion board where people express their opinions - nobody is pretending to speak on God's behalf, the government's behalf, or anyone else's behalf. It's called free speech and, like it or not, we Christians are just as entitled to participate, and to air our opinions, as anyone else.

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

No such thing as a Muslim country? I think the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, or indeed the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the official name of your wife's country) might beg to differ.

What I was trying to say is that every country is different, irrespective of religious beliefs. For example, there is a world of difference between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

PDN wrote: »

Your wife may not consider Pakistan to be hell, but plenty of others do.

I'm going to have to ask you to back that up with something. I cannot imagine there are “plenty” of people who consider Pakistan a hellish place, any more than there would be a large number of people who would consider, say, the US as a hellish place.

PDN

djpbarry wrote: »

What I was trying to say is that every country is different, irrespective of religious beliefs. For example, there is a world of difference between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Ah, that is a different issue entirely. Plenty of places can be different from each other while still sharing common characteristics such an adherence to Islam.

I'm going to have to ask you to back that up with something. I cannot imagine there are “plenty” of people who consider Pakistan a hellish place, any more than there would be a large number of people who would consider, say, the US as a hellish place.

I don't see what relevance the US has to whether Pakistan is hellish or not - although US foreign policy may contribute to Pakistan's hellishness. I am no defender of the US, as a frequent visitor I find parts of the US very hellish indeed (Las Vegas springs to mind).

Homosexuals in Pakistan would probably find it pretty hellish that they face the death penalty if they act upon their sexual orientation. According to this link: http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/05/18/gays-in-pakistan.htm
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan denies that any of its citizens are gay. Coincidentally, the Islamic Republic of Iran makes a similar claim.

I would also have thought that a poster with your signature line might be aware of the Ahmadis. Amnesty International highlights persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan
Life in Pakistan sounds pretty hellish for them, doesn't it? Or maybe Amnesty are just making it all up?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Thank you for that analogy.

If the settlers had created the continent and the natives in the first place then it might even make sense,

Why?

I really can't understand this attitude that because God created us he can basically do what ever he likes with us.

Do you guys really believe that?

Leaving aside the question of if he would or not, if God tortured me for no reason would that be ok because he humans? That is a serious question, because I'm trying to establish if you guys consider any action by God to humans to be moral no matter what that action is.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Most Christian traditions agree that Adam's sinful nature is inherited by all human beings. However, that does not necessarily mean that we are accountable for Adam's sin. I believe we are accountable for our own sins, nobody else's. For example, when I was a baby I had a sinful nature, even though I was too young to act in accordance with that nature. If I had died as a baby then I would have committed no sin and therefore would deserve no punishment. As I grew older my sinful nature manifested itself in the sins that I committed - sins that I, and nobody else, am accountable for.

Who is accountable for you having a "sinful nature" in the first place? Who's fault is that? God's? Adam's? Mans? Yours?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

I really can't understand this attitude that because God created us he can basically do what ever he likes with us.

Do you guys really believe that?

Leaving aside the question of if he would or not, if God tortured me for no reason would that be ok because he humans? That is a serious question, because I'm trying to establish if you guys consider any action by God to humans to be moral no matter what that action is.

No, I don't believe that God has the right to torture us. I don't see hell as God torturing us at all. I see hell as giving to us exactly what the Indians asked of the settlers - to be left alone.

I envisage hell as a place where people get to live for ever and are able to do whatever they want with each other. Given that I believe hell will be populated by immortal versions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, Pope Urban II, Pol Pot, and (if she fails to repent) Paris Hilton then it should be clear that any activity of God could not make such a scenario any more torturous.

Do I see it as moral that God allows those who reject him to live forever in such company - yes, absolutely.

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

Homosexuals in Pakistan would probably find it pretty hellish that they face the death penalty if they act upon their sexual orientation.

This gentleman would appear to disagree:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4583911.stm

And besides, it was the British who criminalised homosexuality in Pakistan - it had little to do with Islam.

PDN wrote: »

the Islamic Republic of Pakistan denies that any of its citizens are gay. Coincidentally, the Islamic Republic of Iran makes a similar claim.

Pakistan is not an Islamic Republic, it is a federal democratic republic.

PDN wrote: »

Or maybe Amnesty are just making it all up?

I am well aware of human rights abuses that take place in Pakistan, but most have little to do with religion.

Anyway, this is all way OT.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Who is accountable for you having a "sinful nature" in the first place? Who's fault is that? God's? Adam's? Mans? Yours?

I believe it is Adam's fault that I inherited a sinful nature. I am not accountable for my sinful nature. I am accountable for the sins I have chosen to commit. Having a sinful nature, or a propensity towards sin, does not alter the fact that I have free will and could choose to resist any individual temptation. Therefore I am accountable for my choices. It's simply taking responsibility for our own actions, hardly a shocking concept, I would have thought.

PDN

djpbarry wrote: »

This gentleman would appear to disagree:

And besides, it was the British who criminalised homosexuality in Pakistan - it had little to do with Islam.

So, one guy's experience (who freely admits he is 'an exception') makes Pakistan's homophobia OK? The British did indeed pass Section 377 of the Penal Code which prohibited homosexuality and stipulated a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. However, it was not the Brits who added the death penalty or that of public flogging - that was due to sharia law. Do you want to argue that sharia has little to do with Islam?

Pakistan is not an Islamic Republic, it is a federal democratic republic.

The country's official name is 'The Islamic Republic of Pakistan'. The fact that it is democratic or federal is irrelevant as to whether it is Islamic or not.

I am well aware of human rights abuses that take place in Pakistan, but most have little to do with religion.

The human rights abuses against the Ahmadis, according to Amnesty International, are entirely due to their religion. And those human rights abuses make the Islamic Republic of Pakistan a hellish place for those who are being abused.

Anyway, this is all way OT.

You were the one that wanted to make an issue of it.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I believe it is Adam's fault that I inherited a sinful nature.

So to clarify, you believe that you being effected by the punishment by God for Adam's failing was Adam's fault

Did Adam understand that this would be the inevitable consequence of his action of eating the fruit?

Was it the inevitable consequence of his actions in the first place? Could God have chosen to punish Adam in a different fashion that didn't effect the rest of humanity?

Do you think this punishment was fair?

And finally do you understand why someone would think that it isn't fair?

PDN wrote: »

I am not accountable for my sinful nature. I am accountable for the sins I have chosen to commit. Having a sinful nature, or a propensity towards sin, does not alter the fact that I have free will and could choose to resist any individual temptation.

Yes but is it fair that God placed those temptations in you to begin with, as a punishment for Adam's actions? From the point of view of free will this clearly wasn't necessary, since Adam existed without this sinful nature and had free will, even the free will to sin.

So the ultimate question is what purpose does God putting the temptation to sin inside you serve? It was a punishment given to Adam, but why extend it to the rest of humanity?

You might say you don't know nor care, God did it so it must have been a good reason. But can you at least understand why this idea would trouble others like myself?

PDN wrote: »

It's simply taking responsibility for our own actions, hardly a shocking concept, I would have thought.

No, the bit that is shocking is that God would place this temptation to sin into all of humanity to punish one person.

If I was addicted to heroin that is not an excuse to rob someone for heroin money. That is bad, and it is still bad even if I am having a really hard time resisting the temptation of the heroin.

But that does not mean that if you got me addicted to heroin in the first place against my will, you wouldn't share some of the responsibility.

God placed the temptation to sin inside humanity as punishment for Adam. And you are quite right that that does not absolve us from taking responsibility for our own actions, in the same way a heroin addict must still be responsible for what he does. But the act of placing temptation inside is is still something that God can and should be held responsible for, in the same way that someone secretly injecting the heroin addict so they become addicted should be held responsible for.

No doubt you will say that we are God's creatures to do so as he wishes. If he wants to inject temptation into us he can, he can do what he likes with us.

But do you at least understand why people would have a problem with this?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't believe that God has the right to torture us. I don't see hell as God torturing us at all. I see hell as giving to us exactly what the Indians asked of the settlers - to be left alone. I envisage hell as a place where people get to live for ever and are able to do whatever they want with each other. Given that I believe hell will be populated by immortal versions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, Pope Urban II, Pol Pot, and (if she fails to repent) Paris Hilton then it should be clear that any activity of God could not make such a scenario any more torturous.

Well hell is describe many times in the Bible as being a place of suffering

So I'm not sure how Biblically supported your concept of hell is. If that is actually what hell is I would much prefer that than heaven.

But that wasn't actually the point of my question. The point was to decide do you think there exists some things that it is immoral even for a god, to do to his creations?

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

However, it was not the Brits who added the death penalty or that of public flogging - that was due to sharia law.

Pakistan was founded as a secular nation. Shariah law was introduced by one man, Zia-ul-Haq, and has since been gradually rescinded.

PDN wrote: »

The country's official name is 'The Islamic Republic of Pakistan'. The fact that it is democratic or federal is irrelevant as to whether it is Islamic or not.

No it is not irrelevant - it is not an Islamic state that practices Shariah law. Would Benazir Bhutto have been Prime minister if that were the case?

Pakistan only uses the "Islamic" name on its passports and visas. All government documents are prepared under the name of the Government of Pakistan.

Zombrex

Actually your comment on hell got me thinking PDN.

Hypothetically, if hell is a place created by God of eternal suffering and punishment, do you agree with atheists/skeptics like myself that the set up is ultimately unfair?

I ask because if you do then we both basically agree, and arguing this point is well pointless, because the difference is what we understand "hell" to supposed to mean, not our conclusion on the morality of God.

kelly1

Hello Wicknight, you've asked some important questions and I understand where you're coming from.

I don't know or understand why we inherited tendency to sin from Adam but I trust that it's somehow for our own good. It's part of God's plan. I believe God's love for us is beyond words. He did after all send His only Son in the flesh to die for our sins. We just don't have the wisdom to understand God's ways.

When God created Adam, he was just in the sight of God and worthy of Heaven and union with God. Adam was created with sanctifying grace in His soul making His soul like God (created in God image and likeness etc).

Adam's first sin destroyed the grace in his soul leaving him unfit for Heaven and union with God. So the question is why have we inherited the faults which Adam created in himself. It's a very good question which I'm going to research.

What I do know is that original sin is a privation rather than a burden we are given. We are born deprived of sanctifying grace and the grace which prevents us from sinning. Baptism restores sanctifying grace but we are still left with a moral weakness and a tendency to sin. I also know that God doesn't tempt us beyond our limit to resist. Any time we sin, we will find if we look honestly at ourselves, there was consent given to the sin. We chose the sin over God.

God can and does use temptation to make us realize that we need His grace in order to be holy. When we sin, we realize that our own efforts alone aren't sufficent. We depend on God entirely in order to be good (according to God's standards).

God bless,
Noel.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

What I do know is that original sin is a privation rather than a burden we are given. We are born deprived of sanctifying grace and the grace which prevents us from sinning.

To me the ultimate question though is why did God design the universe like that in the first place?

For example, why do we need sanctifying grace to prevent us from sinning?

Understand I'm not asking how sanctifying grace prevents us from sinning, but rather why is the whole system created this way in the first place where we will be tempted to sin without grace.

It seems to me what you are saying is that God created humans with a sinful nature and then gave Adam grace so he wouldn't be tempted down that path.

He then removed that grace as punishment, and as such his offspring did not inherit this grace because it didn't exist any more. God doesn't insert the temptation to sin, he removes his grace and we revert to our true original nature. That is interesting because I've not encountered that explanation before.

To me though the question remains why set things up like this. Why give humans a sinful nature at all that requires grace to be nullified? The question becomes even more interesting when one factors in that God knew Adam would disobey and that God would remove his grace when designing the first humans.

kelly1 wrote: »

God can and does use temptation to make us realize that we need His grace in order to be holy.

Again the question to me would be why did he design us so that we need His grace to be holy?

I'm thinking of this from the point of view of a computer programmer. As a programmer nothing is in the program without me deciding that it will go into the program. Not only do I have complete control over the program, but more importantly the program won't write itself. I have to decide to design something some way or it doesn't get designed at all.

I'm saying this because there seems to be an assumption among a lot of theists (and I'm not apply this to you, just explaining my issue with the whole "answer" as given by Christianity in general), that these things are just givens. Of course we need God's grace to be holy! How else could we be holy?

The actual fact is that any infinite number of other ways.

God, just like an good programmer, must have picked this specific way for a reason, it didn't just happen on its own.

To me the reasons given so far don't make sense given what God is supposed to be.

I actually respect your stance "I don't know" more than theists who attempt to explain to me that this is the best way it could be or that God meant to do this or that.