Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

GreatestIam

VIP Member
Jan 12, 2012
6,034
396
85
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God’s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL
 
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God’s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL


The answer is right before the verse you refer to in Romans. Read Romans 12:19 "19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Rom 12:19, NIV) Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 in that verse. Ours is to treat people as equals and with love and allow God to sort out the rest.
 
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God’s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL


The answer is right before the verse you refer to in Romans. Read Romans 12:19 "19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Rom 12:19, NIV) Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 in that verse. Ours is to treat people as equals and with love and allow God to sort out the rest.

You make my case.

You have God saying he will repay, and for here I will agree, but expect him to repay with good and not evil.

Are you saying that God should and will ignore scriptures that say he should repay with good and think he will repay evil with evil?

God can either kill or cure those he thinks evil. The moral high ground would be to cure. Why do you think God would take the moral low ground and kill?

Regards
DL
 
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God’s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL


The answer is right before the verse you refer to in Romans. Read Romans 12:19 "19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Rom 12:19, NIV) Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 in that verse. Ours is to treat people as equals and with love and allow God to sort out the rest.

You make my case.

You have God saying he will repay, and for here I will agree, but expect him to repay with good and not evil.

Are you saying that God should and will ignore scriptures that say he should repay with good and think he will repay evil with evil?

God can either kill or cure those he thinks evil. The moral high ground would be to cure. Why do you think God would take the moral low ground and kill?

Regards
DL


Personally, I don't. But you have to realize that Satan and hell were concepts that were not a part of Judaism in its original form. Those concepts were created around the time of the Babylonian exile to explain why the Jews continued to suffer. Let's go back a bit.

Initially, the Jews did not do a real good job of following the Law. They explained their suffering by reasoning that God was under no obligation to keep up His end of the deal since they were not keeping up theirs. But eventually, the Jews started following Torah very well. yet, still they suffered. Why? The only thing they could come up with was that there was a force in the world that was the opposite of God. Good and evil, therefore battled for the obedience of the people. Hence Satan was born. Centuries later it was reasoned that if heaven was the realm of God where the faithful experienced eternal joy, there must also be a place where the unrighteous went that was a place of eternal suffering. Hence, hell was created and it was the Christians who really jumped on that. So hell and Satan are man made concepts designed to explain suffering and later to terrify the peasant class into behaving the way the Church wanted them to behave.

Scripture actually says nothing about hell. The words Gehenna, sheol, Hades, and Tartaros are usually translated as "hell" in English versions of the Bible, but none of those words refer to a place of eternal punishment through suffering in their original languages. They meant very different things. Now during the Middle Ages, one must remember that it was illegal for anyone to read the Bible except royalty and the clergy. The penalty was death. At some points in time, simply knowing how to read Latin so you could read the Bible was enough to get you killed. The Church did this for a specific reason. If the peasants couldn't read the Bible they had no way to check and see if what the Church was saying was true. Frequently, it wasn't. But that created traditions that survive to this very day. When the King James was translated into English, the translators were told to be as faithful to the manuscripts as possible while maintaining the traditions of the Church. Hell is one of those traditions and so Gehenna, sheol, etc got translated as "hell" even though that's not what the scriptures actually say. There is a lot of stuff like that in English versions of the Bible, unfortunately and sadly, even though anyone can read the Bible today and see what it actually says, most people don't bother. They simply accept the traditions that their priest, pastor, parents, or whoever tell them.

The reason why I know this is because I have spent my life studying not just scripture in English, but in the original languages, combined with in depth study of Christian and Jewish history, ancient cultures, blah, blah, blah. My conclusion is that Satan and hell probably don't exist. Thus God punishes no one for disobedience by sending them to hell, because hell is something invented by human beings. Everyone goes to heaven because...frankly...there's nowhere else to go.

So there's really no scriptural contradictions there in what you are pointing to. In this case there is traditional dogma that contradicts scripture. That is very true, but not within the scriptures you refer to themselves .
 
Last edited:
Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin.

Jesus told the adulterous: Go and Sin no more.
You seem to be building a conclusion on a false premise
 
This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch

No "glitch"
Free will is free will.
Adam and Eve are responsible for planting that seed of Sin.
They were created perfect and chose sin
 
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God’s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL


The answer is right before the verse you refer to in Romans. Read Romans 12:19 "19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Rom 12:19, NIV) Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 in that verse. Ours is to treat people as equals and with love and allow God to sort out the rest.

You make my case.

You have God saying he will repay, and for here I will agree, but expect him to repay with good and not evil.

Are you saying that God should and will ignore scriptures that say he should repay with good and think he will repay evil with evil?

God can either kill or cure those he thinks evil. The moral high ground would be to cure. Why do you think God would take the moral low ground and kill?

Regards
DL


Personally, I don't. But you have to realize that Satan and hell were concepts that were not a part of Judaism in its original form. Those concepts were created around the time of the Babylonian exile to explain why the Jews continued to suffer. Let's go back a bit.

Initially, the Jews did not do a real good job of following the Law. They explained their suffering by reasoning that God was under no obligation to keep up His end of the deal since they were not keeping up theirs. But eventually, the Jews started following Torah very well. yet, still they suffered. Why? The only thing they could come up with was that there was a force in the world that was the opposite of God. Good and evil, therefore battled for the obedience of the people. Hence Satan was born. Centuries later it was reasoned that if heaven was the realm of God where the faithful experienced eternal joy, there must also be a place where the unrighteous went that was a place of eternal suffering. Hence, hell was created and it was the Christians who really jumped on that. So hell and Satan are man made concepts designed to explain suffering and later to terrify the peasant class into behaving the way the Church wanted them to behave.

Scripture actually says nothing about hell. The words Gehenna, sheol, Hades, and Tartaros are usually translated as "hell" in English versions of the Bible, but none of those words refer to a place of eternal punishment through suffering in their original languages. They meant very different things. Now during the Middle Ages, one must remember that it was illegal for anyone to read the Bible except royalty and the clergy. The penalty was death. At some points in time, simply knowing how to read Latin so you could read the Bible was enough to get you killed. The Church did this for a specific reason. If the peasants couldn't read the Bible they had no way to check and see if what the Church was saying was true. Frequently, it wasn't. But that created traditions that survive to this very day. When the King James was translated into English, the translators were told to be as faithful to the manuscripts as possible while maintaining the traditions of the Church. Hell is one of those traditions and so Gehenna, sheol, etc got translated as "hell" even though that's not what the scriptures actually say. There is a lot of stuff like that in English versions of the Bible, unfortunately and sadly, even though anyone can read the Bible today and see what it actually says, most people don't bother. They simply accept the traditions that their priest, pastor, parents, or whoever tell them.

The reason why I know this is because I have spent my life studying not just scripture in English, but in the original languages, combined with in depth study of Christian and Jewish history, ancient cultures, blah, blah, blah. My conclusion is that Satan and hell probably don't exist. Thus God punishes no one for disobedience by sending them to hell, because hell is something invented by human beings. Everyone goes to heaven because...frankly...there's nowhere else to go.

So there's really no scriptural contradictions there in what you are pointing to. In this case there is traditional dogma that contradicts scripture. That is very true, but not within the scriptures you refer to themselves .

BluePhantom

Not to put words in your mouth, but I agree that Christianity screwed things up royally when they distorted the better interpretations that Jews had for their myths.

Take Eden for instance. Jews interpreted Eden as our place of enlightenment and elevation. That made both man and God come out of Eden as winners. Christianity reversed that win win situation to man and God losing. Man due to sin and God due to being too stupid to start us up the right way.

You have made God a Universalist God by eliminating what would be an immoral construct called hell.

In my language, that makes you a Gnostic Christina like myself or close enough as your morals will be close to mine. Pleased to meet you.

I hope you have read a bit of Gnostic writings. We have strange myths but the morality we show puts Christianity and Islam to shame as we cannot be homophobic or misogynous the way they are.

Regards
DL
 
Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin.

Jesus told the adulterous: Go and Sin no more.
You seem to be building a conclusion on a false premise

If false then there should be at least some who can live without sinning and scriptures themselves tell us that there are none born out of sin. Seems you have forgotten Original Sin.

So prove my premise wrong by naming one man who has not sinned.

Not the chimera half breed Man/God Jesus. He is not a man.

Regards
DL
 
This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch

No "glitch"
Free will is free will.
Adam and Eve are responsible for planting that seed of Sin.
They were created perfect and chose sin

Scriptures indicate that what started that whole thing up was Eve being deceived.

Why did God put Satan right beside her if he did not want her deceived?

God himself is responsible for the fall and to blame mankind is hypocritical.

Here is the proof.

Eve was correct in eating of the tree of knowledge and rejecting God.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This indicates that Jesus had no choice.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women. They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

Regards
DL
 
Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin.

Jesus told the adulterous: Go and Sin no more.
You seem to be building a conclusion on a false premise

If false then there should be at least some who can live without sinning and scriptures themselves tell us that there are none born out of sin. Seems you have forgotten Original Sin.

So prove my premise wrong by naming one man who has not sinned.

Not the chimera half breed Man/God Jesus. He is not a man.

Regards
DL
The scriptures say Zechariah and Elizabeth were blameless
As a Mormon we don't believe in ordinal sin Men yield to sin, but we don't believe in the so called sin gene
AS far as God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, We believe that they are 2 separate and distinct beings like you and I. Although in the OT Jehovah uses the Fathers name as though he were the Father even though he is the Son, sorta like power of attorney.
 
Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin.

Jesus told the adulterous: Go and Sin no more.
You seem to be building a conclusion on a false premise

If false then there should be at least some who can live without sinning and scriptures themselves tell us that there are none born out of sin. Seems you have forgotten Original Sin.

So prove my premise wrong by naming one man who has not sinned.

Not the chimera half breed Man/God Jesus. He is not a man.

Regards
DL
The scriptures say Zechariah and Elizabeth were blameless
As a Mormon we don't believe in ordinal sin Men yield to sin, but we don't believe in the so called sin gene
AS far as God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, We believe that they are 2 separate and distinct beings like you and I. Although in the OT Jehovah uses the Fathers name as though he were the Father even though he is the Son, sorta like power of attorney.

I did this a while back. have a look and tell me how you can help but do evil without competing at some point in your life.


Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.

That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.

First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.

In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.

Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution And the Big Bang | Smart News | Smithsonian

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.



Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards

DL
 
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God’s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL


The answer is right before the verse you refer to in Romans. Read Romans 12:19 "19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Rom 12:19, NIV) Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 in that verse. Ours is to treat people as equals and with love and allow God to sort out the rest.

You make my case.

You have God saying he will repay, and for here I will agree, but expect him to repay with good and not evil.

Are you saying that God should and will ignore scriptures that say he should repay with good and think he will repay evil with evil?

God can either kill or cure those he thinks evil. The moral high ground would be to cure. Why do you think God would take the moral low ground and kill?

Regards
DL


Personally, I don't. But you have to realize that Satan and hell were concepts that were not a part of Judaism in its original form. Those concepts were created around the time of the Babylonian exile to explain why the Jews continued to suffer. Let's go back a bit.

Initially, the Jews did not do a real good job of following the Law. They explained their suffering by reasoning that God was under no obligation to keep up His end of the deal since they were not keeping up theirs. But eventually, the Jews started following Torah very well. yet, still they suffered. Why? The only thing they could come up with was that there was a force in the world that was the opposite of God. Good and evil, therefore battled for the obedience of the people. Hence Satan was born. Centuries later it was reasoned that if heaven was the realm of God where the faithful experienced eternal joy, there must also be a place where the unrighteous went that was a place of eternal suffering. Hence, hell was created and it was the Christians who really jumped on that. So hell and Satan are man made concepts designed to explain suffering and later to terrify the peasant class into behaving the way the Church wanted them to behave.

Scripture actually says nothing about hell. The words Gehenna, sheol, Hades, and Tartaros are usually translated as "hell" in English versions of the Bible, but none of those words refer to a place of eternal punishment through suffering in their original languages. They meant very different things. Now during the Middle Ages, one must remember that it was illegal for anyone to read the Bible except royalty and the clergy. The penalty was death. At some points in time, simply knowing how to read Latin so you could read the Bible was enough to get you killed. The Church did this for a specific reason. If the peasants couldn't read the Bible they had no way to check and see if what the Church was saying was true. Frequently, it wasn't. But that created traditions that survive to this very day. When the King James was translated into English, the translators were told to be as faithful to the manuscripts as possible while maintaining the traditions of the Church. Hell is one of those traditions and so Gehenna, sheol, etc got translated as "hell" even though that's not what the scriptures actually say. There is a lot of stuff like that in English versions of the Bible, unfortunately and sadly, even though anyone can read the Bible today and see what it actually says, most people don't bother. They simply accept the traditions that their priest, pastor, parents, or whoever tell them.

The reason why I know this is because I have spent my life studying not just scripture in English, but in the original languages, combined with in depth study of Christian and Jewish history, ancient cultures, blah, blah, blah. My conclusion is that Satan and hell probably don't exist. Thus God punishes no one for disobedience by sending them to hell, because hell is something invented by human beings. Everyone goes to heaven because...frankly...there's nowhere else to go.

So there's really no scriptural contradictions there in what you are pointing to. In this case there is traditional dogma that contradicts scripture. That is very true, but not within the scriptures you refer to themselves .

BluePhantom

Not to put words in your mouth, but I agree that Christianity screwed things up royally when they distorted the better interpretations that Jews had for their myths.

Take Eden for instance. Jews interpreted Eden as our place of enlightenment and elevation. That made both man and God come out of Eden as winners. Christianity reversed that win win situation to man and God losing. Man due to sin and God due to being too stupid to start us up the right way.

You have made God a Universalist God by eliminating what would be an immoral construct called hell.

In my language, that makes you a Gnostic Christina like myself or close enough as your morals will be close to mine. Pleased to meet you.

I hope you have read a bit of Gnostic writings. We have strange myths but the morality we show puts Christianity and Islam to shame as we cannot be homophobic or misogynous the way they are.

Regards
DL


Well I try to avoid defining myself in such ways. I usually call myself a Christian on these boards even though technically I do not fit the exact definition of a Christian. I do it because of convenience. I am close enough so it saves me the trouble of having to explain the nuances of where I differ on every thread I post on.

I am very familiar with Gnosticism and have read Gnostic scripture extensively. I love the Gospel of Phillip, BTW. It's very intellectual. I will generally agree that Christianity as we know it today is almost certainly not what Jesus had in mind. But that's what happens when you put humans into the mix and give them a shitload of power. Things get fucked up. :lol:

BTW...I did not eliminate hell. I merely pointed out that hell is an invention of man based upon history. It should have never been there to begin with. ;)
 
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God’s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL


The answer is right before the verse you refer to in Romans. Read Romans 12:19 "19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Rom 12:19, NIV) Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 in that verse. Ours is to treat people as equals and with love and allow God to sort out the rest.

You make my case.

You have God saying he will repay, and for here I will agree, but expect him to repay with good and not evil.

Are you saying that God should and will ignore scriptures that say he should repay with good and think he will repay evil with evil?

God can either kill or cure those he thinks evil. The moral high ground would be to cure. Why do you think God would take the moral low ground and kill?

Regards
DL


Personally, I don't. But you have to realize that Satan and hell were concepts that were not a part of Judaism in its original form. Those concepts were created around the time of the Babylonian exile to explain why the Jews continued to suffer. Let's go back a bit.

Initially, the Jews did not do a real good job of following the Law. They explained their suffering by reasoning that God was under no obligation to keep up His end of the deal since they were not keeping up theirs. But eventually, the Jews started following Torah very well. yet, still they suffered. Why? The only thing they could come up with was that there was a force in the world that was the opposite of God. Good and evil, therefore battled for the obedience of the people. Hence Satan was born. Centuries later it was reasoned that if heaven was the realm of God where the faithful experienced eternal joy, there must also be a place where the unrighteous went that was a place of eternal suffering. Hence, hell was created and it was the Christians who really jumped on that. So hell and Satan are man made concepts designed to explain suffering and later to terrify the peasant class into behaving the way the Church wanted them to behave.

Scripture actually says nothing about hell. The words Gehenna, sheol, Hades, and Tartaros are usually translated as "hell" in English versions of the Bible, but none of those words refer to a place of eternal punishment through suffering in their original languages. They meant very different things. Now during the Middle Ages, one must remember that it was illegal for anyone to read the Bible except royalty and the clergy. The penalty was death. At some points in time, simply knowing how to read Latin so you could read the Bible was enough to get you killed. The Church did this for a specific reason. If the peasants couldn't read the Bible they had no way to check and see if what the Church was saying was true. Frequently, it wasn't. But that created traditions that survive to this very day. When the King James was translated into English, the translators were told to be as faithful to the manuscripts as possible while maintaining the traditions of the Church. Hell is one of those traditions and so Gehenna, sheol, etc got translated as "hell" even though that's not what the scriptures actually say. There is a lot of stuff like that in English versions of the Bible, unfortunately and sadly, even though anyone can read the Bible today and see what it actually says, most people don't bother. They simply accept the traditions that their priest, pastor, parents, or whoever tell them.

The reason why I know this is because I have spent my life studying not just scripture in English, but in the original languages, combined with in depth study of Christian and Jewish history, ancient cultures, blah, blah, blah. My conclusion is that Satan and hell probably don't exist. Thus God punishes no one for disobedience by sending them to hell, because hell is something invented by human beings. Everyone goes to heaven because...frankly...there's nowhere else to go.

So there's really no scriptural contradictions there in what you are pointing to. In this case there is traditional dogma that contradicts scripture. That is very true, but not within the scriptures you refer to themselves .

BluePhantom

Not to put words in your mouth, but I agree that Christianity screwed things up royally when they distorted the better interpretations that Jews had for their myths.

Take Eden for instance. Jews interpreted Eden as our place of enlightenment and elevation. That made both man and God come out of Eden as winners. Christianity reversed that win win situation to man and God losing. Man due to sin and God due to being too stupid to start us up the right way.

You have made God a Universalist God by eliminating what would be an immoral construct called hell.

In my language, that makes you a Gnostic Christina like myself or close enough as your morals will be close to mine. Pleased to meet you.

I hope you have read a bit of Gnostic writings. We have strange myths but the morality we show puts Christianity and Islam to shame as we cannot be homophobic or misogynous the way they are.

Regards
DL


Well I try to avoid defining myself in such ways. I usually call myself a Christian on these boards even though technically I do not fit the exact definition of a Christian. I do it because of convenience. I am close enough so it saves me the trouble of having to explain the nuances of where I differ on every thread I post on.

I am very familiar with Gnosticism and have read Gnostic scripture extensively. I love the Gospel of Phillip, BTW. It's very intellectual. I will generally agree that Christianity as we know it today is almost certainly not what Jesus had in mind. But that's what happens when you put humans into the mix and give them a shitload of power. Things get fucked up. :lol:

BTW...I did not eliminate hell. I merely pointed out that hell is an invention of man based upon history. It should have never been there to begin with. ;)

Are we all saved or not?

Do we even need saving?

Regards
DL
 
How is giving people justice evil?

It is evil when it is not justice.

Why do we punish?

Ignoring plain old retaliation and revenge, to change attitudes/actions and the way of thinking from evil to good. Right?

You cannot change an attitude if you kill the soul or torture it till you finally decide to kill it.

God can cure as well as kill and it seems that you like the idea of God killing instead of curing.

What would you do to your children, that you say you love, in God's place?

Regards
DL
 
The answer is right before the verse you refer to in Romans. Read Romans 12:19 "19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Rom 12:19, NIV) Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 in that verse. Ours is to treat people as equals and with love and allow God to sort out the rest.

You make my case.

You have God saying he will repay, and for here I will agree, but expect him to repay with good and not evil.

Are you saying that God should and will ignore scriptures that say he should repay with good and think he will repay evil with evil?

God can either kill or cure those he thinks evil. The moral high ground would be to cure. Why do you think God would take the moral low ground and kill?

Regards
DL


Personally, I don't. But you have to realize that Satan and hell were concepts that were not a part of Judaism in its original form. Those concepts were created around the time of the Babylonian exile to explain why the Jews continued to suffer. Let's go back a bit.

Initially, the Jews did not do a real good job of following the Law. They explained their suffering by reasoning that God was under no obligation to keep up His end of the deal since they were not keeping up theirs. But eventually, the Jews started following Torah very well. yet, still they suffered. Why? The only thing they could come up with was that there was a force in the world that was the opposite of God. Good and evil, therefore battled for the obedience of the people. Hence Satan was born. Centuries later it was reasoned that if heaven was the realm of God where the faithful experienced eternal joy, there must also be a place where the unrighteous went that was a place of eternal suffering. Hence, hell was created and it was the Christians who really jumped on that. So hell and Satan are man made concepts designed to explain suffering and later to terrify the peasant class into behaving the way the Church wanted them to behave.

Scripture actually says nothing about hell. The words Gehenna, sheol, Hades, and Tartaros are usually translated as "hell" in English versions of the Bible, but none of those words refer to a place of eternal punishment through suffering in their original languages. They meant very different things. Now during the Middle Ages, one must remember that it was illegal for anyone to read the Bible except royalty and the clergy. The penalty was death. At some points in time, simply knowing how to read Latin so you could read the Bible was enough to get you killed. The Church did this for a specific reason. If the peasants couldn't read the Bible they had no way to check and see if what the Church was saying was true. Frequently, it wasn't. But that created traditions that survive to this very day. When the King James was translated into English, the translators were told to be as faithful to the manuscripts as possible while maintaining the traditions of the Church. Hell is one of those traditions and so Gehenna, sheol, etc got translated as "hell" even though that's not what the scriptures actually say. There is a lot of stuff like that in English versions of the Bible, unfortunately and sadly, even though anyone can read the Bible today and see what it actually says, most people don't bother. They simply accept the traditions that their priest, pastor, parents, or whoever tell them.

The reason why I know this is because I have spent my life studying not just scripture in English, but in the original languages, combined with in depth study of Christian and Jewish history, ancient cultures, blah, blah, blah. My conclusion is that Satan and hell probably don't exist. Thus God punishes no one for disobedience by sending them to hell, because hell is something invented by human beings. Everyone goes to heaven because...frankly...there's nowhere else to go.

So there's really no scriptural contradictions there in what you are pointing to. In this case there is traditional dogma that contradicts scripture. That is very true, but not within the scriptures you refer to themselves .

BluePhantom

Not to put words in your mouth, but I agree that Christianity screwed things up royally when they distorted the better interpretations that Jews had for their myths.

Take Eden for instance. Jews interpreted Eden as our place of enlightenment and elevation. That made both man and God come out of Eden as winners. Christianity reversed that win win situation to man and God losing. Man due to sin and God due to being too stupid to start us up the right way.

You have made God a Universalist God by eliminating what would be an immoral construct called hell.

In my language, that makes you a Gnostic Christina like myself or close enough as your morals will be close to mine. Pleased to meet you.

I hope you have read a bit of Gnostic writings. We have strange myths but the morality we show puts Christianity and Islam to shame as we cannot be homophobic or misogynous the way they are.

Regards
DL


Well I try to avoid defining myself in such ways. I usually call myself a Christian on these boards even though technically I do not fit the exact definition of a Christian. I do it because of convenience. I am close enough so it saves me the trouble of having to explain the nuances of where I differ on every thread I post on.

I am very familiar with Gnosticism and have read Gnostic scripture extensively. I love the Gospel of Phillip, BTW. It's very intellectual. I will generally agree that Christianity as we know it today is almost certainly not what Jesus had in mind. But that's what happens when you put humans into the mix and give them a shitload of power. Things get fucked up. :lol:

BTW...I did not eliminate hell. I merely pointed out that hell is an invention of man based upon history. It should have never been there to begin with. ;)

Are we all saved or not?

Do we even need saving?

Regards
DL

Well I suppose it depends upon who you ask. The Bible itself is actually somewhat vague on the matter With hell ruled out, we must all go to heaven because there is no where else to go, but how does that work exactly? The Bible really doesn't really say and what it does say is pretty inconsistent. So at that point it comes down to personal belief. MY personal belief (and I don't have a shred of evidence to support this :lol:) is that the choice lies with us and not God. I think when we die we go to God and God says "are you good? Did you experience what you wanted to?" and if we say "yes" then we can reunite with God. If we say "no" then God says "well ok, go do whatever you need to then" and at that point we are free to do that including living another human life if we choose. So obviously I incorporate some Hindu and Buddhism into my theology.

So are we all saved? I guess I would have to answer "yes" because of what I think you are referring to when you ask the question and my beliefs on who God is and what we are doing here, but my reasoning would be FAR different than a standard Judeo-Christian approach
 
How is giving people justice evil?

It is evil when it is not justice.

Why do we punish?

Ignoring plain old retaliation and revenge, to change attitudes/actions and the way of thinking from evil to good. Right?

You cannot change an attitude if you kill the soul or torture it till you finally decide to kill it.

God can cure as well as kill and it seems that you like the idea of God killing instead of curing.

What would you do to your children, that you say you love, in God's place?

Regards
DL


I realize you are asking this of Avatar (whom I respect greatly) but I would like to chime in if I can. IF we accept what I have posted previously on this thread as correct, then it requires the view that sin does not exist in God's view. Let's look at it logically. If there is no hell, and everyone goes to heaven for lack of anywhere else to go, then sin becomes irrelevant because there is no consequence for sin. That means that God isn't concerned with sin and consequences. Presumably, He has a grander scheme in mind than to be concerned with whether I covet my neighbor's ass. :D That necessitates the view that there is nothing we can do to offend God and therefore punishment becomes a human industry.

There is actually some scriptural evidence to support this (although it requires some arm twisting and would take so long to go into that it would be a thread unto itself), but just quickly let's look at the 10 "Commandments" as a real quick and easy example. Well when you read it in Hebrew it doesn't actually SAY they are "commandments". I mean, how could God command something and it not be so? God is striking a deal with the Israelites. "I will give you these benefits IF you do this in return". Well those aren't really commandments as much as they are the stipulations of the legal contract between God and the Jews. In other words "break them if you want but don't expect me to honor my part of the contract if you do". Now since only Jews are obligated to that covenant, the rest of us are not bound to those legal stipulations. For the rest of us they would be best referred to as "10 really good suggestions on how to live your life and avoid a lot of bullshit that will end up making you miserable". :lol:

So the concept of punishment becomes a man-made thing that is a benefit to the operation of human society but doesn't have a great deal to do with God. This creates some uncomfortable problems according to our human experience because it means that the people we view as the most evil in human history went to heaven and did not offend God. Well...that means that Ted Bundy, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, and their ilk did no real harm, did not offend God, and went to heaven. MAN! OUCH! That's a VERY tough one for me to accept because my human sense of justice wants them to suffer the consequences for their actions. But if my construct of God is correct, then I have to separate between the human experience and the spiritual goals according to that construct of God and that means that human offenses are only important in relation to the human experience and I must let the spiritual experience exist on its own.

Does ANY of that make ANY sense at all? :lol:.
 
Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

God cannot create good people who will not sin. A slight glitch in God’s creative technique that believers attribute to his giving us free will. Out our free will does not include our ability to choose not to sin. This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch. If even one of us could not sin, we would all know about it.

While reading, I came across this verse. Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell is not usually considered a good thing.

Further, we are told that we are to emulate God in all ways. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If this is so, should we, in seeking to be as perfect as God, ignore Romans 12:21 and do as God does and return evil for evil?

If God does not follow his own good advice, does that mean that we do not need to either?

Should we be following Romans 12:21 and ignoring Matthew 5:48 or following Matthew 5:48 and ignoring Romans 12:21. Clearly we cannot follow both as they are contradicting each other.

Should God return good for evil or should he return evil for evil?

Regards
DL


The answer is right before the verse you refer to in Romans. Read Romans 12:19 "19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Rom 12:19, NIV) Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 in that verse. Ours is to treat people as equals and with love and allow God to sort out the rest.

You make my case.

You have God saying he will repay, and for here I will agree, but expect him to repay with good and not evil.

Are you saying that God should and will ignore scriptures that say he should repay with good and think he will repay evil with evil?

God can either kill or cure those he thinks evil. The moral high ground would be to cure. Why do you think God would take the moral low ground and kill?

Regards
DL


Personally, I don't. But you have to realize that Satan and hell were concepts that were not a part of Judaism in its original form. Those concepts were created around the time of the Babylonian exile to explain why the Jews continued to suffer. Let's go back a bit.

Initially, the Jews did not do a real good job of following the Law. They explained their suffering by reasoning that God was under no obligation to keep up His end of the deal since they were not keeping up theirs. But eventually, the Jews started following Torah very well. yet, still they suffered. Why? The only thing they could come up with was that there was a force in the world that was the opposite of God. Good and evil, therefore battled for the obedience of the people. Hence Satan was born. Centuries later it was reasoned that if heaven was the realm of God where the faithful experienced eternal joy, there must also be a place where the unrighteous went that was a place of eternal suffering. Hence, hell was created and it was the Christians who really jumped on that. So hell and Satan are man made concepts designed to explain suffering and later to terrify the peasant class into behaving the way the Church wanted them to behave.

Scripture actually says nothing about hell. The words Gehenna, sheol, Hades, and Tartaros are usually translated as "hell" in English versions of the Bible, but none of those words refer to a place of eternal punishment through suffering in their original languages. They meant very different things. Now during the Middle Ages, one must remember that it was illegal for anyone to read the Bible except royalty and the clergy. The penalty was death. At some points in time, simply knowing how to read Latin so you could read the Bible was enough to get you killed. The Church did this for a specific reason. If the peasants couldn't read the Bible they had no way to check and see if what the Church was saying was true. Frequently, it wasn't. But that created traditions that survive to this very day. When the King James was translated into English, the translators were told to be as faithful to the manuscripts as possible while maintaining the traditions of the Church. Hell is one of those traditions and so Gehenna, sheol, etc got translated as "hell" even though that's not what the scriptures actually say. There is a lot of stuff like that in English versions of the Bible, unfortunately and sadly, even though anyone can read the Bible today and see what it actually says, most people don't bother. They simply accept the traditions that their priest, pastor, parents, or whoever tell them.

The reason why I know this is because I have spent my life studying not just scripture in English, but in the original languages, combined with in depth study of Christian and Jewish history, ancient cultures, blah, blah, blah. My conclusion is that Satan and hell probably don't exist. Thus God punishes no one for disobedience by sending them to hell, because hell is something invented by human beings. Everyone goes to heaven because...frankly...there's nowhere else to go.

So there's really no scriptural contradictions there in what you are pointing to. In this case there is traditional dogma that contradicts scripture. That is very true, but not within the scriptures you refer to themselves .

This is obvious as we are told that we are all born sinners and that all of us are condemned because of this glitch

No "glitch"
Free will is free will.
Adam and Eve are responsible for planting that seed of Sin.
They were created perfect and chose sin
That is goyim pagan concept (Christianity)

Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin

Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin | Jewish Virtual Library

Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin? | Outreach Judaism
 
So a man rapes a woman and you don't think God should give the woman justice? Should He not give murder victims justice? Why do you think God is somehow evil by holding us accountable for the bad things we do?

Especially when He gives us a way to heal from the evil we do to others, to Him, and ourselves.
 
So a man rapes a woman and you don't think God should give the woman justice? Should He not give murder victims justice? Why do you think God is somehow evil by holding us accountable for the bad things we do?

Especially when He gives us a way to heal from the evil we do to others, to Him, and ourselves.
So say a guy who can't read rapes a woman and spends the rest of his life in jail. God's going to punish him again? Isn't that against the Constitution under cruel and unusual punishment?
 

Forum List

Back
Top