Why did Jesus die for our sins?

[HotCaliGirl]

HCG, google "dante's inferno" and take the test to find out which level of hell you are destined for. I'm apparently going to limbo, which sounds not too bad a place to go if you enjoy interesting conversations in a melancholy environment.

But that's not a religious writing. (If I can get all the books I didn't get around to reading on earth, along with a comfortable chair and good lighting, I wouldn't mnd limbo either).

tip - repenting for your sins seems to be the best way of moving yourself up a couple of levels up from the fiery pits. My horrible ex is destined for the 9th level!! Hooray! Whoops...back down amongst the whips and heat I slide.

I'm not concerned for myself going to hell, or someone else in particular. That's why I stated I don't need advice on how not to go there, I am looking for info re: why a so called loving and understanding being could send people there in the first place (not how to bail out) and why jesus died for our sins. Seems contradictory how the same person who wants to "save" us sends many more to burn forever.

 

There will be more child molesters and murderers in heaven than in hell (who repent in jail or in their final hours) and a lot of genuinely good hearted people will be burning in hell with me. I don't get the logistics of it. At least I will be in good company I guess, unless it is in isolation similar to solitary confinement, not sure on the details if anyone would like to elaborate on them.

[lindya]

I am looking for info re: why a so called loving and understanding being could send people there in the first place (not how to bail out) and why jesus died for our sins. Seems contradictory how the same person who wants to "save" us sends many more to burn forever.

 

I guess people paint God in their own image? If someone's very punitive, and enjoys the idea of others frying in a hot pit, then I'm sure they'll take the view that that's what God wants too.

 

I don't think it's possible to understand and know human nature, and simultaneously believe that the word of the bible wasn't hugely influenced by the thoughts and latent desires of those who claim to have written it through divine inspiration.

[flavius]

Hey Hot One. I loved your reply to my post. You are either a disaffected church-rat or else you're just a really really smart kid. You bored down thru my redition of the simple gospel and said somthing like "but, if failure to believe = eternal torment, then the gospel really is about hell after all. Maybe it's MOSTLY about hell, since the horror of hell sounds far worse than the splendor of heaven."

 

Let me just say that Jesus' expounding of hell is not nearly so stark as that. For starters, when Jesus said "hell" the word he said was "Gehenna." Gehenna was the Jerusalem town dump which was continually smoldering. Now, the dump isn't where you send items you want to torture for eternity, is it? No! It is where you send things that are of no value. He warned that those who did not swerve off of the path of decay and death (i.e., repent) were headed for Gehenna, the place of things not worth saving. Darned unpleasant place, at that! But NOT the lake of fire that we see in the apocalyptic vision (Revelation.) But remember, while Revelation is meaningful and important, it is NOT the equivalent of the direct, explicit teaching of Jesus himself. Since here it clearly is not in sync, we must accept that (a) it addresses a different question, and (b) it is an apocalyptic (and semi-psychedelic) VISION, NOT an explicit teaching from teh lips of God. It is DELIBERATELY obscure, so how could one take IT as the definitive teaching on eternal destiny over and against what Jesus explicitly taught in person?

 

About being "saved" and "lost," these are two phrases that have taken on post-Biblical meanings as well. Just note that in John 3:16, Jesus says that "whoever believes will not perish, but will have everlasting life." The word tere for perish is nothing like "cook in an eternal rotisserie." Rather, it is PERISH. It is the word that means "to go to waste," "to spoil." that is the imagery (and the declaration) of Jesus.

 

That said, God has te RIGHT and MIGHT to do as he wishes. In fact, he is worthy to judge us because he was willing to die for us. Nevertheless, I do not find the WILL to eternally torture people who never asked to be born to begin with. Punish them in keeping with justice, yes. Big difference.

 

The Gospels (the biblical narrative about Jesus Christ) as IMAGERY, NOT TECHNICALITY. The imagery throughout the whole is about "bondage, decay, and death" versus "freedom, growth, and life" (summed up real neatly in Romans 8, if you care.) TAKEN AS A WHOLE it is NOT about heaven and hell, and it is NOT about sin and purity. Although these are issues that arise, they are not the central organizing matters in the Story of God & Man.

 

What about evil people in heaven & good people in hell? Jesus clearly taught the possibility of repentance, even for really bad folks. But that means REPENTANCE, not slipping through a loop-hole. "God is not mocked," remember? The WHOLE bible speaks of the Messiah as being the one who would bring retribution against evil and justice into the world. Any "gospel" that negates that is no Gospel at all.

[Moai]

I notice that in all discussions like this, someone will inevitably bring up the original texts, and what was REALLY meant when Jesus said "x" or whatever. None of these things really matters, because the problem is the concept.

 

What I mean to say is, no matter what the original words, or whether faith or works gets you to Heaven is irrelevant. If there is a Heaven and a Hell, why? What could possibly be the point of that?

 

I have read in some posts that a young man who looks at a young woman and thinks about having relations with her is sinning. Why? How could it possibly be that something that is necessary for the survival of our species is wrong or sinful? Sure, the Bible says it is sinful--big deal. The people alive at the time of the writing of that idea obviously were really wigged out about sex. In fact, many of the people who still live in that region are STILL really wigged out about sex.

 

There are cultures that practice female circumcision--which is horrifying. Even male cricumcision is weird. If God created us in His image, he has a foreskin, right? Or is God circumcised? Beyond that, why would God create an organ specifically for pleasure (the only such example in Nature) only to have it cause sin and require painful, dangerous "surgery" to remove it?

 

But I digress. The premise is that man is so horrible and unrighteous and sinful that we all deserve to go to Hell, and someone (Jesus, ostensibly) had to sacrifice himself to save us from this awful fate. And He didn't save everybody, He only saved those who believe in Him. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I would expect God to be AT LEAST as ethical and fair as I am, and I wouldn't consign someone to eternal torment for a thought-crime. In fact, I don't think that there is a such thing as a thought-crime.

 

That starts all the endless questions about whether Pacific Islanders heard about Jesus, and if not do they go to Hell, and blah blah blah. Some sects can get so weird they have baptism by proxy--essentially, baptising dead people. Am I the only one who thinks that is weird and stupid?

 

The Pacific Islanders were doing fine on their own (as were all the other indigenous peoples outside of the Middle East and later, Europe) and then missionaries had to come in and ruin it for them. Are the people of South America better or worse off after their contact with the West? Some would argue that they are better off because now they get to go to Heaven--but I disagree. They are heartbeakingly poor in most cases, they live under oppressive regimes, and disease is rampant.

 

Christianity has brought at least as much suffering to this planet as it has benefit--I would argue the scales are tipped toward the negative, in fact.

 

Nature shows us that we are, in fact, animals--apes to be specific. As an animal, we act according to our nature. Just like all other animals do. That doesn't make everything humans do to each other good or laudable, but that doesn't mean that everything we do is horrible and evil, either. The vast majority of people are kind and good, and help each other. If that were not true, we never would have made it this long.

[Moai]

What about evil people in heaven & good people in hell? Jesus clearly taught the possibility of repentance, even for really bad folks. But that means REPENTANCE, not slipping through a loop-hole. "God is not mocked," remember? The WHOLE bible speaks of the Messiah as being the one who would bring retribution against evil and justice into the world. Any "gospel" that negates that is no Gospel at all.

 

Ask yourself this question: Did it work? Did Jesus bring justice to this world? The only justice I see operating anywhere is that administered by men. Where was Jesus during the Holocaust? Where was Jesus when Stalin was starving millions during forced collectivisation? Where was Jesus during the Rwandan genocide?

 

Sure, maybe all these evil-doers will be punished when they die, but more likely they probably won't. Obviously Jesus didn't bring justice to this world, but rather postulated a system the implies justice SOMEDAY.

 

Above I mention horrible things that humans have done to each other. But we have done great things for each other as well. Small pox no longer exists. Polio is virtually nonexistant. The vast majority of people on Earth have access to healthy food and clean water. Thanks to technology, people have more money and free time than ever before--time to travel, to enjoy the company of loved ones--not to mention longevity. Did Jesus do this? No, humans did. Is Christianity responsible for this? No, science is. Science is a man-made construct, and has given more benefit to the human condition than Christianity ever has, or will, or can.

[a4a]

Ask yourself this question: Did it work? Did Jesus bring justice to this world? The only justice I see operating anywhere is that administered by men. Where was Jesus during the Holocaust? Where was Jesus when Stalin was starving millions during forced collectivisation? Where was Jesus during the Rwandan genocide?

 

Sure, maybe all these evil-doers will be punished when they die, but more likely they probably won't. Obviously Jesus didn't bring justice to this world, but rather postulated a system the implies justice SOMEDAY.

 

Above I mention horrible things that humans have done to each other. But we have done great things for each other as well. Small pox no longer exists. Polio is virtually nonexistant. The vast majority of people on Earth have access to healthy food and clean water. Thanks to technology, people have more money and free time than ever before--time to travel, to enjoy the company of loved ones--not to mention longevity. Did Jesus do this? No, humans did. Is Christianity responsible for this? No, science is. Science is a man-made construct, and has given more benefit to the human condition than Christianity ever has, or will, or can.

 

 

BRAVO!! And yet we choose to so easily trust and have faith in Idols or Gods.

[flavius]

What do you mean why does it matter what Jesus said? Isn't Cali's thread about Jesus, and "why he died for our sins?" Sorry, I must have been lost in all the dizzying intellect. Well, it clearly does NOT matter to a materialist what Jesus did or didn't say. But even you paused to comment on what you have heard someone else say Jesus taught about the boy who lusts for a girl, and that's okay. If I pause to explain what he actually taught, or to contextualize it, then that's cool too. This IS the religion and spirituality forum, after all.

 

Your point is relevant too. It IS valid to ask if Jesus (or any other claimant of faith) has contributed anything worthwhile to human existence. Regarding justice (e.g., "where was Jesus when...") you are correct: Christian teaching is not that Jesus defeated Stalin, but that after each has run the course of their life to its full extent, that they will receive the just recompense of their deeds, and then that Christ will ultimately return and personaly establish justice in the earth. You say the end of life is too late, and I say "okay, so then when are YOU going to get around to it?" Evil is bad and justice is good, and I say it is good for a just God to deal out justice.

 

Although it sounds pretty callous (life on Earth is hard, ain't it?) it is also important to note that although millions of people died in those events you mentioned, they each died but once, just as I will. Possibly hacked with a machete, possibly "reeducated to death," or possibly puking and gasping in a cancer ward, or bleeding on a cross -- we all die once. God, as creator and custodian of all things, is ultimately responsible for it all. I am persuaded that it is all a cosmic drama laden with meaning and transcendant purpose -- but you can take the nihilist view that all is meaningless, and that life is just a punctuation between nonexistence and nonexistence.

 

Your somewhat separate point about the net benefit of Christianity to the human race...I'd love to hear more.

 

"Science" created medicine, and I and my buddies buy it from capitalists and give it to lepers in India. My stupid Christian brother got Hepatitis (and a couple of good ass-kicking's) as his reward for collecting and stitching up African teenage girls whose labia were sliced off by their mothers and aunts, and burying the ones who bled to death or died of infection (the "cursed ones.") I guess we should be ashamed of our backward ways because you read National Geographic, right? But "nihilism" never created, redeeemed, or improved anything --you luxuriate in a cynical view from atop a great social edifice constructed by hundreds of generations of faith-folks of many sorts. Well, enjoy the view from up there! And when you look down, wave at all of us dummies down below;)

 

I am right now reading a fantastic book by Camille Paglia, my favorite pagan feminist lesbian intellectual (Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Emily Dickinson to Nefertiti especially chapter 1 "Sex and Violence, Art and Nature" which appeared first in Western Humanities Review 42:1, She argues the opposite (i.e, that "Judeo-Chrisitianity and the other male-constructed sky-cult religions" have utterly revoutionized life on Earth) so magnificently that I can hardly imagine how one would advance the idea that the net effect is actually negative. (I think you just don't like us:p )

 

I am all ears, though. Maybe a new thread is in order though. Thanks, Moai!

[Moai]

What do you mean why does it matter what Jesus said? Isn't Cali's thread about Jesus, and "why he died for our sins?" Sorry, I must have been lost in all the dizzying intellect. Well, it clearly does NOT matter to a materialist what Jesus did or didn't say. But even you paused to comment on what you have heard someone else say Jesus taught about the boy who lusts for a girl, and that's okay. If I pause to explain what he actually taught, or to contextualize it, then that's cool too. This IS the religion and spirituality forum, after all.

 

Of course it's cool, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense, nor does it make your belief system any less fallacious.

 

Your point is relevant too.

 

Thanks!

 

It IS valid to ask if Jesus (or any other claimant of faith) has contributed anything worthwhile to human existence. Regarding justice (e.g., "where was Jesus when...") you are correct: Christian teaching is not that Jesus defeated Stalin, but that after each has run the course of their life to its full extent, that they will receive the just recompense of their deeds, and then that Christ will ultimately return and personaly establish justice in the earth. You say the end of life is too late, and I say "okay, so then when are YOU going to get around to it?" Evil is bad and justice is good, and I say it is good for a just God to deal out justice.

 

Actually, I get around to it all the time. I wasn't alive during WWII, but I was alive during the Rwandan genocide, and when the reports came in I paid close attention, and actually wrote my representatives in government about it. I vote.

 

I do not assert that I am God, nor do I claim that all the world's problems are mine to solve. Jesus did, and His followers claim that was why He was on Earth. If He was/is God, He could have easily chosen to stop any of the bloodletting any time He wanted. He either couldn't, or didn't want to.

 

Although it sounds pretty callous (life on Earth is hard, ain't it?) it is also important to note that although millions of people died in those events you mentioned, they each died but once, just as I will. Possibly hacked with a machete, possibly "reeducated to death," or possibly puking and gasping in a cancer ward, or bleeding on a cross -- we all die once. God, as creator and custodian of all things, is ultimately responsible for it all. I am persuaded that it is all a cosmic drama laden with meaning and transcendant purpose -- but you can take the nihilist view that all is meaningless, and that life is just a punctuation between nonexistence and nonexistence.

 

I am not a nihilist. It is true that meaning is determined by the individual, of course. What is the transcendant purpose of innocent people being slaughtered in factories designed for that purpose?

 

Your somewhat separate point about the net benefit of Christianity to the human race...I'd love to hear more.

 

It isn't just Christianity, it is more religion in general. But Christians have doen their damage, certainly. The Inquisition, pox ridden blankets, innumerable wars, and oppression and ignorance that continues right up to this day.

 

"Science" created medicine, and I and my buddies buy it from capitalists and give it to lepers in India. My stupid Christian brother got Hepatitis (and a couple of good ass-kicking's) as his reward for collecting and stitching up African teenage girls whose labia were sliced off by their mothers and aunts, and burying the ones who bled to death or died of infection (the "cursed ones.") I guess we should be ashamed of our backward ways because you read National Geographic, right?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't read National geographic, and it is admirable that you and your relatives help others. However, no matter what fiath you and your family subscribe to, your brother brought them science--and probably religion, too. Is that why he was beaten, perhaps? I wasn't there, so I couldn't say, of course. The point is that he went there with medicine in his satchel, not just prayer. He went there with medical knowledge in saving lives--none of which is found in the Bible. Fine that it may be hois faith that leads him to do this, other religions cause similar behaviour in other cultures. That doesn't give religion a free pass. Also, because some people don't appreciate what others do for them (i.e. those who beat your brother) doesn't make your religion any more valid.

 

But "nihilism" never created, redeeemed, or improved anything --you luxuriate in a cynical view from atop a great social edifice constructed by hundreds of generations of faith-folks of many sorts. Well, enjoy the view from up there! And when you look down, wave at all of us dummies down below;)

 

I am not a nihilist, nor am I cynical. Lots of people have faith. That doesn't mean that their faith is rational, or something to admire. The man who picks up my garbage is doing me a great service (and because we live in a Capitalist system, he gets paid for it), but that doesn't mean that UFO's are real because he believes in them, or that I owe that belief a certain amount of respect because a believer does something nice.

 

I am right now reading a fantastic book by Camille Paglia, my favorite pagan feminist lesbian intellectual (Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Emily Dickinson to Nefertiti especially chapter 1 "Sex and Violence, Art and Nature" which appeared first in Western Humanities Review 42:1, She argues the opposite (i.e, that "Judeo-Chrisitianity and the other male-constructed sky-cult religions" have utterly revoutionized life on Earth) so magnificently that I can hardly imagine how one would advance the idea that the net effect is actually negative. (I think you just don't like us:p )

 

I don't read pagan feminist lesbian literature, so I wouldn't know. Christianity has certainly been a major social force in the West--but the one thing that has improved life on Earth is science. When Man began to throw off the shackles of superstition, things began to improve. And they continue to.

 

I may be wrong, but it seems that you have made some incorrect assumptions about me based on my earlier post. I am not anti-Capitalist--quite the reverse, actually. I am not a nihilist, nor am I cynical about life, or bitter at people of faith.

 

I am all ears, though. Maybe a new thread is in order though. Thanks, Moai!

 

You're welcome.

[flavius]

Yo, Mo. Back for another round. I figured your well-honed challenges are worth it. You actually state your case about as well as it can be stated. So if I argue with you, I still think you're pretty cool stuff. I've never quite figured out how you guys excerpt quotes, so I did it the hard way.

 

You said:

The premise is that man is so horrible and unrighteous and sinful that we all deserve to go to Hell, and someone (Jesus, ostensibly) had to sacrifice himself to save us from this awful fate. And He didn't save everybody, He only saved those who believe in Him. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I would expect God to be AT LEAST as ethical and fair as I am, and I wouldn't consign someone to eternal torment for a thought-crime. In fact, I don't think that there is a such thing as a thought-crime. (The Bible agrees with that, BTW.)

 

That's not really THE premise, it's just a derivative of a premise, sort of a "do you still beat your wife" scenario where you are assuming a damning premise before the conversation begins. The real Christian premise, is more like what I last said to Hot-Cali: people fall short of True Humanness (the Image of God) for which they were designed. The natural result is a veering from God, loss of Identity, loss of Humanity, and in some cases truly horrific behavior. If you read my last Cali-Girl post you see my assertion that the "lostness" of "lost humanity" (the premise, of course) is a natural and logical consequence of their self-corrupted nature and actions. People choose distance from God by choosing un-God attitudes which give rise to un-God actions. The result is an un-God self going down an un-God life-path toward an un-God destiny. Spoilage. Waste. Ruin. Death. The dump. Regardless of how you and the fundamentalists reframe that essential premise, it IS the essential story of the bible, summed up in Christ who "did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through him the world would be saved." And even if you do reject the central element of the biblical vision of life and meaning (that is, that God made you and that you are accountable to him for the life he gave you) the premise IS sensible AND reasonable AND morally sound UNTIL you put yourself in the seat of judgement. I tend to think that those on your side of the argument seize so gleefully upon the "fundamentalist premise" precisely BECAUSE it is stupid, and because it's stupid that frees you to reject the "proposition of God."

 

You say:

"Christianity has brought at least as much suffering to this planet as it has benefit--I would argue the scales are tipped toward the negative, in fact."

and

"The Pacific Islanders were doing fine on their own (as were all the other indigenous peoples outside of the Middle East and later, Europe) and then missionaries had to come in and ruin it for them. Are the people of South America better or worse off after their contact with the West? Some would argue that they are better off because now they get to go to Heaven--but I disagree. They are heartbeakingly poor in most cases, they live under oppressive regimes, and disease is rampant."

 

Pretty naive talk, there. Latin America is going thru their Industrial Revolution just as we did, and with the same social problems. Do you really believe that South America was some garden of eden? Peoples of traditional subsistence cultures were poor then and they are poor now. They migrate to the city and guess what? They're poor! But now they're poor where you can see them. The great part of having no recorded history is that 21st century eggheads can't talk about all you've done wrong. But we do know that even the idyllic Andean people were into horrific human sacrifice. (e.g., Ice-mummies of pubescent-age children pumped full of semen in every hole and tightly wrapped in a fetal position and left alive on stone mountain-top altars.) Or do you prefer their Aztec neighbors to the north? Their history is a violent hegemony with millions of their neighbors held in a thrall of terror -- terror maintained by exacting a quota of human sacrifice victims and EATING them by the thousands. The tribals of pre-Christian Europe, like the North American plains peoples, and the Siberian indigenes, were unspeakably cruel and warlike. I will grant that there are islands in the Pacific that are almost as peaceful as Minnesota farming towns, and I'm very glad for that. But to hold them up as an example of "everyplace where western civilization has not molested" is just wrong. Isolated communities that acheive such equilibrium are exceptional (but still pretty cool. ) Also, the disease issue...who are you arguing against? EVERY human migration spreads disease, just as the Black Death came from Central Asia to Europe and the Middle East and iced a third of humanity. So what's your point?

 

Even if Western Civilization WERE a vector of evil, it is still THE sole seedbed and disseminator of the judeo-christian derived liberal values your anti-western tirade is based on. Do you really believe that any non-Westernized, traditional Samoans or Tibetans or Siberians or Albanians or Yanomamis or Guineans or Palestinians give a rat's ass about injustice in the world that they cannot even see, the way you do? Well they don't. I'm a liberal, I have been there, and they DO NOT CARE. They do not project morality beyond their own clans, and most often not even across genders in their own clans. (Reminds me of a Moroccan ship's officer who told me how that his father strangled his mother for supposed adultery -- he didn't believe it -- but would serve his mother and sisters up for dessert when other seafarers came to trade.)

 

Now, I think it is not only unfair, but also silly, to cite individual and cultural SINS AGAINST the way of Christ as examples of WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WAY OF CHRIST. Is every UN-Christian act committed by anyone born in "christian" euro/america over the last 100 generations somehow the fault of Jesus Christ and/or those people who ACTUALLY DO follow his teaching and example? Is Mother Theresa responsible for the Crusades? Or did Mohammed kill the Moroccan's wife and pimp his daughters? Talk about falacy.

 

You said:

"Nature shows us that we are, in fact, animals--apes to be specific. As an animal, we act according to our nature. Just like all other animals do. That doesn't make everything humans do to each other good or laudable, but that doesn't mean that everything we do is horrible and evil, either. The vast majority of people are kind and good, and help each other. If that were not true, we never would have made it this long."

 

I'll just pass on the Ape stuff in respect to your real point: I agree, sans apes. Except that we probably would have survived, just in a socially horrible condition. I would hold that it is that Imprint of God that has allowed humans, with all our violent tendencies, to persist and even progress into the generally golden (but still too violent and unjust) age we now enjoy. That trait of true Humanity was given a huge and decisive boost by Jesus Christ, whose teachings (and supernatural endowment) have revolutionized systems of justice, race relations, and gender equality more than any other single or complex factor in human history.

 

The end.

[HotCaliGirl]

Hey Hot One. I loved your reply to my post. You are either a disaffected church-rat or else you're just a really really smart kid.

How about a former church-rat (my parents co-founded one of the biggest churches) and I'd like to think of myself at least somewhat smart

Just note that in John 3:16, Jesus says that "whoever believes will not perish, but will have everlasting life." The word tere for perish is nothing like "cook in an eternal rotisserie." Rather, it is PERISH. It is the word that means "to go to waste," "to spoil." that is the imagery (and the declaration) of Jesus.

"PERISH" doesn't make things any different or better, comparing it to burning...both are cruel and unusual punishments and I have trouble worshiping one who can deliver such a punishment upon so many humans, many such as myself who I consider good-hearted.

That said, God has te RIGHT and MIGHT to do as he wishes. In fact, he is worthy to judge us because he was willing to die for us.

Because he was willing to die for us, you say he has the right to judge. What about a fireman who enters a burning building, willing to die for us? Does that merit him a right to judge others and to choose to send them to perish?

TAKEN AS A WHOLE it is NOT about heaven and hell, and it is NOT about sin and purity. Although these are issues that arise, they are not the central organizing matters in the Story of God & Man.

I don't argue with you that heaven and hell are the sole issues, but they contribute a significant amount to become worthwhile in debating and becoming contributing factors in having faith.

What about evil people in heaven & good people in hell? Jesus clearly taught the possibility of repentance, even for really bad folks. But that means REPENTANCE, not slipping through a loop-hole. "God is not mocked," remember? The WHOLE bible speaks of the Messiah as being the one who would bring retribution against evil and justice into the world. Any "gospel" that negates that is no Gospel at all.

Reptentance becomes a secondary consideration when the issue is more of the WHY to repent to such a being, instead of repenting as a means to avoid hell. Denying heaven to good people and instead ordering that they perish, burn, whatever way you want to put it to not sound bad (other times others will make it sound worse to use as a scare tactic). It is not sensical to repent to such a being unless you have hatred lodged in your heart or else your selfishness for your own fate blinds you from the fate of others who may be better than you, but who are doomed to a perishable fate.

Where was Jesus during the Rwandan genocide? Sure, maybe all these evil-doers will be punished when they die, but more likely they probably won't.

Many of the evil-doers in Rwanda were Christians. Their victims, the Tutsis were mostly Muslim, innocent civilians who will go to hell because they did not "repent" while their murderers will be having a good time in heaven. (Same in Chechnya and other places). Prominent Christian leaders joined in the killing spree (75% of the Tutsis were butchered to death while the world watched on). Many Muslims were opening their doors to those trying to flee the knives but Christians were packing them into churches and killing them in mass numbers. They will be angels after death on judgement day because they repent and worship a God who loves them, while the innocent victims will perish once again after death. I still don't get the logic despite countless others' attempts to explain and justify God's ways. Yet people think <I'm> egotistical if I claim to have more love and empathy than God does.

 

I would give my life, and my children's if it meant all mankind would be saved, not just those who worshiped me with strict restrictions that are hard to make sense out of. I believe in freewill and love in the true sense of those words and have no place in my soul to send a single person (who is not a murderer or evil in nature) to perish or to hell or whatever you want to call it. Yet it is through worshiping this evil being that will get me a ticket to heaven? I will perish according to all Christians but until I do maybe I can find a good explanation for it.

People choose distance from God by choosing un-God attitudes which give rise to un-God actions. The result is an un-God self going down an un-God life-path toward an un-God destiny.

What is un-God? There are more "un-God" people who are just as nice and law-abiding as God-feared people, yet God will judge for them to perish. Almost EVERYONE behind bars is more "Godly" than I am, they are going to heaven, I am going to "perish" "Hell" whatever the hell you wanna call it...when I'm the one who gives to charity, who hasn't intentionally harmed another human being, who is law-abiding...just not "repentent" whatever that means at this point.

 

If all of the above is a result of Jesus dying for us, then maybe it's about time someone has the nerve to say that either a) God made a mistake or b) he is evil.

[Moai]

Yo, Mo. Back for another round. I figured your well-honed challenges are worth it. You actually state your case about as well as it can be stated. So if I argue with you, I still think you're pretty cool stuff. I've never quite figured out how you guys excerpt quotes, so I did it the hard way.

 

That's not really THE premise, it's just a derivative of a premise, sort of a "do you still beat your wife" scenario where you are assuming a damning premise before the conversation begins. The real Christian premise, is more like what I last said to Hot-Cali: people fall short of True Humanness (the Image of God) for which they were designed.

 

Exactly. And how do we fall short? Because we are sinful. I disagree that we fall short of the image of God, and that is why salvation is required. When Adam was created he was created in God's image. However, he did not have the knowledge of right and wrong--which God has--and by eating the fruit of the Forbidden Tree gained, and thus offended God. Also, it should be noted that then God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden because they would be smart enough to eat from the Tree of Life and then be immortal. It should be noted that all of this must be true, or there is no reason for Jesus.

 

The natural result is a veering from God, loss of Identity, loss of Humanity, and in some cases truly horrific behavior. If you read my last Cali-Girl post you see my assertion that the "lostness" of "lost humanity" (the premise, of course) is a natural and logical consequence of their self-corrupted nature and actions. People choose distance from God by choosing un-God attitudes which give rise to un-God actions.

 

As defined by you. I don't think that lusting is particularly ungodly. There are many attitudes that God has--the whole idea of thought-crimes and proxy sacrifice, to name two among many--I find immoral and silly.

 

The result is an un-God self going down an un-God life-path toward an un-God destiny. Spoilage. Waste. Ruin. Death. The dump. Regardless of how you and the fundamentalists reframe that essential premise, it IS the essential story of the bible, summed up in Christ who "did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through him the world would be saved."

 

I have read the book. The Bible does not support that idea. From a strictly logical standpoint is is impossible for me to do anything that God doesn't want. ALl serve God's purpose. Maybe I am the horrible person that God uses as an example for others not to follow.

 

And even if you do reject the central element of the biblical vision of life and meaning (that is, that God made you and that you are accountable to him for the life he gave you) the premise IS sensible AND reasonable AND morally sound UNTIL you put yourself in the seat of judgement. I tend to think that those on your side of the argument seize so gleefully upon the "fundamentalist premise" precisely BECAUSE it is stupid, and because it's stupid that frees you to reject the "proposition of God."

 

The fundamentalist premise, although nutty, is the only one that works. If the stories in Genesis aren't true, there is no reason for Jesus. That is why Creationists hold so tenaciously to their position: Genesis must be true or you have no religion.

 

Pretty naive talk, there. Latin America is going thru their Industrial Revolution just as we did, and with the same social problems. Do you really believe that South America was some garden of eden? Peoples of traditional subsistence cultures were poor then and they are poor now. They migrate to the city and guess what? They're poor! But now they're poor where you can see them. The great part of having no recorded history is that 21st century eggheads can't talk about all you've done wrong.

 

Thanks for calling me an egghead. South America, for example, was not a Garden of Eden, but it was much better off before Europeans came. It is you who is naive, actually. When the Portugese and Spanish arrived, they began to exploit the local populace to an horrific extent.

 

In order to be in govenrment, you had to be from the host country. So, even if you were of 100% Spanish extraction but were born in Mexico, you could not be in government. The majority of raw materials and wealth were sent back to Europe. Little or no infrastructure was put in place to benefit the local populace. For example, the railroads connect form the mines or farms directly to the ports. They did not connect villages and towns that lay in another direction.

 

To jump ahead, when the Europeans finally bailed out, they left people who had no history of governing themseslves, little or no infrastructure, and choas. You can see the results of this even now. To say that they have no recorded history is not only arrogant on your part, it is ignorant. They did have recorded history, and we learn more about it every day. Central AMerican socities were among the most advanced, and wealthy on Earth until the Europeans came. That is a fact. And, the Europeans who came were all Christians--devot Christians, in fact.

 

But we do know that even the idyllic Andean people were into horrific human sacrifice.

 

Horrific to you and me, but not to them. And why is it that when I look at actions by Europeans and call them immoral and wrong, I am an egghead and naive, but when you talk about their religious practices you are morally right and enlightened?

 

I don't like human sacrifice, either, by the way. Or diety sacrifice.

 

(e.g., Ice-mummies of pubescent-age children pumped full of semen in every hole and tightly wrapped in a fetal position and left alive on stone mountain-top altars.) Or do you prefer their Aztec neighbors to the north? Their history is a violent hegemony with millions of their neighbors held in a thrall of terror -- terror maintained by exacting a quota of human sacrifice victims and EATING them by the thousands. The tribals of pre-Christian Europe, like the North American plains peoples, and the Siberian indigenes, were unspeakably cruel and warlike. I will grant that there are islands in the Pacific that are almost as peaceful as Minnesota farming towns, and I'm very glad for that. But to hold them up as an example of "everyplace where western civilization has not molested" is just wrong. Isolated communities that acheive such equilibrium are exceptional (but still pretty cool. ) Also, the disease issue...who are you arguing against? EVERY human migration spreads disease, just as the Black Death came from Central Asia to Europe and the Middle East and iced a third of humanity. So what's your point?

 

Certainly Central American cultures did barbarous things. So did Europeans--up until the 20th century, in fact. And while we may find their behaviour shocking and horrific, the fact remains that Europeans left suffering and chaos in their wake. I am cool with that, actually, because it is the nature of things, but you cannot deny that the people who did these things were CHristians, and that one of the reasons for expansion and exploitation was Christianity. And there is a difference between disease spreading "naturally" and giving people blankets infected with small pox on purpose. And that's what happened.

 

Even if Western Civilization WERE a vector of evil, it is still THE sole seedbed and disseminator of the judeo-christian derived liberal values your anti-western tirade is based on.

 

I don't think that Western Civilization is evil. I don't think that you are discussing this with me, you are hoping to argue with the author of some book you read, or someone you heard on talk radio. I do thin kthat religion is evil, though. All of them, yours included.

 

Our liberal values are NOT derived from judeo-christian values. That is the biggest myth around today. Look at the First Amendment to the Constitution. No established religion, and freedom of speech. Then look at the first COmmandment. No other gods before me. Exactly opposite. ANd that is only one example.

 

Do you really believe that any non-Westernized, traditional Samoans or Tibetans or Siberians or Albanians or Yanomamis or Guineans or Palestinians give a rat's ass about injustice in the world that they cannot even see, the way you do?

 

I really don't care what they believe, or care about, as long as it doesn't cause them to try to come where I live and kill me. And Samoans do, actually. And Tongans.

 

Well they don't. I'm a liberal, I have been there, and they DO NOT CARE. They do not project morality beyond their own clans, and most often not even across genders in their own clans. (Reminds me of a Moroccan ship's officer who told me how that his father strangled his mother for supposed adultery -- he didn't believe it -- but would serve his mother and sisters up for dessert when other seafarers came to trade.)

 

What does this have to do with anything? I fail to see how callousness and ignorance in other people has anything to do with our discussion.

 

Now, I think it is not only unfair, but also silly, to cite individual and cultural SINS AGAINST the way of Christ as examples of WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WAY OF CHRIST.

 

Individual cultural sins? I don't know what that means. And in your mind what they did was against the way of Christ, but to them it wasn't. Why are you right and they are wrong?

 

Is every UN-Christian act committed by anyone born in "christian" euro/america over the last 100 generations somehow the fault of Jesus Christ and/or those people who ACTUALLY DO follow his teaching and example? Is Mother Theresa responsible for the Crusades? Or did Mohammed kill the Moroccan's wife and pimp his daughters? Talk about falacy.

 

Actually, yes. First off, Mother Teresa wasn't as great as she is cracked up to be, and the Crusades were a Christian event. I am sure that you disagree with Satanism, right? Let's say a Satanist is giving and helps out in his community. According to you, that is enough to make Satanism a good, viable belief system worhty of respect. Just because a large group of Satanists committed horrible acts, that doesn't mean that they are TRUE Satanists, or that ALL Satanists are bad, or that Satan is bad, right?

 

Religion is responsible.

 

I'll just pass on the Ape stuff in respect to your real point: I agree, sans apes.

 

So you don't agree that we are apes. Interesting. And I am naive.

 

Except that we probably would have survived, just in a socially horrible condition. I would hold that it is that Imprint of God that has allowed humans, with all our violent tendencies, to persist and even progress into the generally golden (but still too violent and unjust) age we now enjoy. That trait of true Humanity was given a huge and decisive boost by Jesus Christ, whose teachings (and supernatural endowment) have revolutionized systems of justice, race relations, and gender equality more than any other single or complex factor in human history.

 

The end.

 

Nope. Race relations, while better, still need much improvement. If Jesus was so great, why did it take until 50 years or so ago for blacks to be able to vote? Jefferson did more than Jesus ever did for freedom of men's minds and actions. Even if you want to give Jesus all the credit, you have to deduct some points for the 2,000 years it took to finally et anythign done.

[flavius]

I see where you're coming from, even if I don't automatically get some of the logic. Strangely I think you and I came from the same place and are not as far apart as we appear. We've both experienced a searing case of Church-Burn. I embraced Christ faith through a very independent experience (I won't bore yu with it), and never even darkened the door of a church for months. But I met a friend (who has since become a 6'6" woman, by the way ) and I wound up in the Fundamentalist-Pentecostal crowd. Not a comfortable place for an egg-head intellectual, but hey, there I was. I knew something had changed inside, and I knew I had to embrace the people of God (whom I had bitterly hated.) I just knew that God was not going to exempt me from the "love & forgiveness thing" that even I could see was a major thrust of Jesus' teaching. I knew nobody is 100% perfect or 100% right (even me), so I gave them a chance and found them to be very kind (even if they now think I'm hell-bound;) ) I knew they had studied the bible and lived with God way more than me, so I let them explain the whole way of faith to me. (I actually was a pastor for 7 years, but a constant rebel-thorn-in-the-flesh.) But I saw a different story in the book, and not a hidden one at that. I grew amazed at the lengths they would go to to make sure everyone burned in hell. Which runs SOOOO contrary to the whole story. It was like a contest to see who could say the most extreme things. A huge tapestry of moral prohibitions was woven, mostly with no basis in the Bible. Crap, Jesus NEVER ONCE rebuked anybody for ANYTHING but INJUSTICE and RELIGIOUS POWER-SEEKING, let alone for just rude behavior! And the logical contortions they would devise to make sure that anyone who was not One of Them was wrong, and I mean wrong about EVERYTHING. I think that generations of well intentioned Fundamentalists have recreated the story of God, and "re-imaged" God himself as a result.

 

So, back to hell.

 

One thing you said really struck me. That was: "PERISH" doesn't make things any different or better, comparing it to burning...both are cruel and unusual punishments and I have trouble worshiping one who can deliver such a punishment upon so many humans, many such as myself who I consider good-hearted. It seems like even you, when you hear the word "perish", can only envision something "cruel and unusual." People die -- it is the way of the Earth. Is that what you mean by the "cruel and unusual?" It sounds about as cruel as gravity to me. Death is what God warned of Eden, and it is what Jesus warned of when he pointed at the town dump (Gehenna, translated "hell".) The apostles warn of it too. (Rememeber? For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.) The concept of Hell (as it is commonly understood) comes from the Roman pagan tradition. The bible uses this ONLY when talking about the punishment of the evil people and evil spiritual beings. There it is an eternal fire, not necessarily eternal torment IN the fire. There is, I admit, one place where "eternal torment" (Rev 20:10), but that is the devil himself "who deceived them" who were destroyed.

 

This is one point whereon I differ with the Fundamentalist viewpoint. The other is the Exclusivism belief. First they extract a very narrow and specific "way to get saved." Then they narrow it further by circumscribing what you ARE when you're "really saved." The eye of a needle seems downright roomy campared to heaven's gate!

 

First, neither Jesus nor any apostle spelled out The Way of Salvation as a list of things one must believe and say (though St. Peter did say that if you "confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Christ and you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you WLL be saved. That just IS NOT a keyhole one must crawl through, it's just an answer to their question, "what must we do?") Also note that the whole Bible is addressed to Jews, who had been following the Story, and awaiting the Promise. Shoot, people today generally don't even know what "the Christ" IS like a first-century Jew.

 

This is where the Evange-mentalists peel apart Christs teachings on "salvation" from his teachings on ethics. In fact they are inseparable, as your own instinct tells you.

 

I could fill pages with all of the "Inclusivist" teachings of the bible that some just refuse to see. When you get past the Evangementalist image of a maniacal, irrational, arbitrary God, it gets easy to trust that God is good enough to do his job. I don't blame you for being anti-Christian after all. God (if he exists, right?) knows the whole story. I am convinced that He is good and just, even after all the years I ranted to the conrtary.

 

I have to go. Wow. i can't believe anybody read all this!

[flavius]

By the way, only 4.6% of Rwandans are Muslim. They're mainly foriegn traders.

 

But you're right. When people pop their corks the results can be appalling.

[HotCaliGirl]

By the way, only 4.6% of Rwandans are Muslim. They're mainly foriegn traders.

 

But you're right. When people pop their corks the results can be appalling.

Both hutus and tutsis are mostly Catholics, almost all the genocide took place in churches where the tutsis were trying to find safety but instead burned and/or butchered by their Catholic counterparts, and mostly the Muslim small minority in the country were trying to provide safety and refuge for those trying to flee. I guess my point was that more of the killed included Muslims than the killers yet they will automatically not go to heaven while their murderer who is a repentent Catholic Hutu will, as will all the other murderers (unless there were Muslims among them, not sure of that though). Hitler was a Christian too. (ok, now I have to go back and read ur long post lol)

[HotCaliGirl]

Flavius, if your version is that there is no hell, only dying/perishing in a coffin after death for those who don't repent then I agree that from your viewpoint you can't come up with the explanation I am looking for, which most Christians believe in and find in their readings of the bible. Thanks for your imput.

[flavius]

Yeah, I know. It's not a Rwandan history class, and got your point. In fact, it sent me back to your original Feb 5 post, and the other things you've said since. If I were listening instead of lecturing I would have noticed that the theme of "Bad People in Heaven and Good People in Hell" is central, isn't it?

 

Are you kind of saying then that "since Jesus dying for our sins that makes that crazy outcome possible, then why did he do it?"

 

I hope you hang in for a few more posts. I'm really intrigued.

 

(That Hitler thing...you're just trying to get my goat, aren't you? )

[ReluctantRomeo]

Hitler was a Christian too.

 

No. Hitler was either a pagan or an athiest. Or both. It's difficult to call - he mixed elements of both. Intellectual consistency was never his strong point - he appealed to raw emotion, not to the mind.

 

He could be very anti-christian in his principles - threats to liquidate all christians can be found in his speeches. So can random blasphemies.

 

However, for pragmatic reasons, he usually showed a degree of tolerance in practice. Persecution, interference with the church and bible-burning was sporadic under his rule. His priority was clearly the organised fate meted out to european jewry

[HotCaliGirl]

No. Hitler was either a pagan or an athiest. Or both. It's difficult to call - he mixed elements of both. Intellectual consistency was never his strong point - he appealed to raw emotion, not to the mind.

 

He could be very anti-christian in his principles - threats to liquidate all christians can be found in his speeches. So can random blasphemies.

 

However, for pragmatic reasons, he usually showed a degree of tolerance in practice. Persecution, interference with the church and bible-burning was sporadic under his rule. His priority was clearly the organised fate meted out to european jewry

Well, who knows I guess. With Flavius being a christian who doesn't believe in hell, and all the other differences in the religion, it doesn't seem too farfetched that they would rewrite history to say he isn't christian, when in fact there is evidence he was... He didn't go to church, but he still claimed to be a christian, never said he was an atheist. If he wasn't, then he wasn't...doesn't change any of my questions.

 

from wikipedia encyclopedia re: Hitler's religion:

"Adolf's strict Catholic upbringing was typical for the region. He served as an altar boy and sang in the choir but was not a practicing Catholic as an adult, though in public discourses he continued to frequently claim he was a Christian"

(from nonprofit website with no ads....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler)

[Bogun]

from wikipedia encyclopedia re: Hitler's religion:

"Adolf's strict Catholic upbringing was typical for the region. He served as an altar boy and sang in the choir but was not a practicing Catholic as an adult, though in public discourses he continued to frequently claim he was a Christian"

This is off the topic of jesus, but I'm amazed by how much credibility wikipedia has with people, when you consider that the info can come from armchair-know-it-alls, that in reality have had no formal education.

 

As for jesus dying for our sins.... well my answer is that modern christianity has simply misinterpreted the passage by believing that it was a literal story rather than a myth designed to teach people the path to "god".

[flavius]

I cannot tell if you're serious or if you're just tweaking our noses. If you would classify Hitler as a Christian, just how would you define a Christian? Ghandi spoke extensively about Jesus, but he wouldn't call himself a Christian. Bono doesn't speak publicly about Jesus, but does call himself a Christian. Falwell might say that HE is, but Bono isn't.

 

If someone like Hitler claims to be a Christian but devotes his full energy to conquest and violence and murder and genocide...do YOU believe that person is actually a Christian? Jesus certainly didn't, and I know of no Christian sect that would.

 

What defines a Christian to the Cali-Chick? Do you define any other concept so loosely? (For instance, if i grow up in a greenhouse and proclaim that I am a tomato, can you make salsa out of me?)

 

By the way, I never said I don't believe in hell (but I think you're probably razzing me about that too.) I DO believe in hell, just as Jesus believed and taught.

To oversimplify:

I believe that for ALL people who reject God, they simply get their wish -- separation from God. Death. Destruction. The trash pile. Non-existence.

 

But I also believe that every soul who rejects the AMNESTY of God will have to go ahead and pay up for the evil done in their life. Punishment yes, but punishment commensurate with their sin (NOT infinite punishment for finite offenses, NOT uniform treatment for small offenses and great. NOT horrific torture as a reward for a life of kindness. Jesus agrees (Matthew 25:31-46 if you care.)

 

I personally believe (though I know many who disagree) that "eternal punishment" means "punishment in or of eternity", with eternal being the opposite of "temporal", not the opposite of "temporary." It is more in keeping with the rest of the scriptures. What does seem to be both eternal and horrible is the final treatment of "the devil and his angels," whoever they may be "who deceived those who went down to destruction."

 

For what it's worth...

[HotCaliGirl]

The only reason why I brought up hitler was to give an example of christian belief. If Christians have no problem with every single serial killer, rapist and molestor going to heaven just as long as they "repent" then according to this view they wouldn't have a problem with someone up a notch more evil going there either as long as he "repents." BUT if someone is goodhearted and does not consider themselves a Christian, they have no problem that they will be going to hell. I'm not tweaking anybody's nose.

 

The only answer I get is "well, jesus died for you so if you don't repent you deserve to go to hell" but in the same breath they have no problem with someone who has killed or done damage that I haven't, that they will go to heaven.I want to say, well if that's why he died then maybe it was a mistake since it's causing more harm sending good people to hell. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

And Bogun, let's say "hitler" is hypothetical, i could say "xyz" who was a ruthless dictator and was Christian to make it less controversial. In all honesty, I don't know to the extent he was or was not Christian for a fact, just most of the material I read about him indicate he was. No tweaking.

[Moose]

The only reason why I brought up hitler was to give an example of christian belief. If Christians have no problem with every single serial killer, rapist and molestor going to heaven just as long as they "repent" then according to this view they wouldn't have a problem with someone up a notch more evil going there either as long as he "repents."

I see what you're saying. And I personally think that's what turns a whole lot of people away from God.

 

It's not so much how evil a person is, or was, or ever will be. It's more of his or her heart attitude when they did, or do indeed......repent....

 

Only God can see when a Soul confesses with the right, "Heart Attitude"....

[Moose]

BUT if someone is goodhearted and does not consider themselves a Christian, they have no problem that they will be going to hell.

That's not true. Of course we do. Some of our hearts ache because of it even.

 

When we witness these, "goodhearted', people and their true potential and ability to show others the path to eternal life......it kills us.....

[BlahBlahQueen]

I have a quick question to throw out there:

 

With all the religions in the world, why is yours the only "right one"?

 

And one more thing... DINOSAURS.

[Moose]

I have a quick question to throw out there:

 

With all the religions in the world, why is yours the only "right one"?

 

And one more thing... DINOSAURS.

I'm afraid there is no quick answer to offer for your first question. Anyway, the person I was adressing was asking about, "Christians", I happen to consider mysef one. (Now remember, even I said God only knows), I have as much of a chance as you do to inherit the Earth.

 

Dinosaurs? From what I understand, (I'm not an authority mind you), Satan has rule of this Earth for a time, with no restraints on deception. It's even written in Scripture, don't ask me to look it up.