Is hell a good representation of Romans 12:21?

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

It is for sure but lest we forget, Christians love to hate all those not of their ilk.

You and I do not.

We apply logic and reason to our hate. Christians just hate on faith.

This link shows that fact quite well.



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


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:.

Absolutely, from an individual human POV and not God's.

I pulled two of your sentences to speak to.

"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."

"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!"

First. sin, or crime in non-religious terms does exist and a God would not like it.

Now, to the evil that you see Ted Bundy, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler doing, who exactly should God punish for those crimes?

Those bastards were not born to be bastards. They, like you and I, are products of our environment and were created by others.

For the real justice that Avatar thinks punishment is, God would have to spread the punishment given to those you named to their parents and all those who contributed to making those normal people into the bastards they became. All those who facilitated their actions and contributed to their character, would have to be punished.

Now expand that thinking to all of us and you will recognize that we all deserve to be punished as we all contribute to making us all the way we are be we bastards or good people.

That is why God must, to a Gnostic Christian like me, be a Universalist and not punish anyone. Justice to us says that we are guilty so God would have to either punish all of us or forgive all of us.

The God we follow is Good and Good forgives us all.

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 .

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

Not fair to use an intelligent moral theology against the immoral Christian theology.

You do not want to take away the Christian excuses for their hate of Jews. Without Christian thinking the holocaust would not have come to pass and that was such a great thing that humanity would miss it.

Pardon my attempt at cynicism and humor.

Go get em my friend.

Regards
DL
 
guno

As an aside for us. Compare this first quote to what Gnostic Christian Jesus said and one might conclude that Moses was closer to being a Gnostic Christian than a Christian.

…if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law; if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear it, that we may do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say: “Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it?” The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

(Deuteronomy 30:10-14)

---------------

From the Gospel of Thomas.

Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

----------------

guno

Perhaps this type of belief system is why Gnostic Christians and Jews always got along while Jews and Christians never really got close.

Regards
DL
 
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.

Please read post 22. In it I try to show God's justice.

Man seeks revenge and retaliation for crime, and that is quite alright, but that is not how God must look at it.

"Especially when He gives us a way to heal from the evil we do to others, to Him, and ourselves."

Do you really see God promoting the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty to forgive man instead of just forgiving us outright?

I do not think that any God would be such a vile prick.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL
 
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?

To those who believe in hell, logic and reason does not apply.

Right or wrong, whatever God does is right. Faith makes a theist believe his own lie.

Regards
DL
 
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.

Please read post 22. In it I try to show God's justice.

Man seeks revenge and retaliation for crime, and that is quite alright, but that is not how God must look at it.

"Especially when He gives us a way to heal from the evil we do to others, to Him, and ourselves."

Do you really see God promoting the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty to forgive man instead of just forgiving us outright?

I do not think that any God would be such a vile prick.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL
"Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral."
So it was immoral for Jesus to die on the cross for my sins? Sheesh, you guys should get your stories straight. :D
 
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.

Please read post 22. In it I try to show God's justice.

Man seeks revenge and retaliation for crime, and that is quite alright, but that is not how God must look at it.

"Especially when He gives us a way to heal from the evil we do to others, to Him, and ourselves."

Do you really see God promoting the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty to forgive man instead of just forgiving us outright?

I do not think that any God would be such a vile prick.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL
"Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral."
So it was immoral for Jesus to die on the cross for my sins? Sheesh, you guys should get your stories straight. :D

Are your sins not your own ands should you not step up to the consequences of them?



I often ask Christians to debate substitutionary atonement but they never do. I expect the same think here.

That tells me that they know that they are following an immoral tenet.

-------------------


Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.


Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.


Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.


The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]


Regards
DL
 
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.

Please read post 22. In it I try to show God's justice.

Man seeks revenge and retaliation for crime, and that is quite alright, but that is not how God must look at it.

"Especially when He gives us a way to heal from the evil we do to others, to Him, and ourselves."

Do you really see God promoting the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty to forgive man instead of just forgiving us outright?

I do not think that any God would be such a vile prick.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL
"Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral."
So it was immoral for Jesus to die on the cross for my sins? Sheesh, you guys should get your stories straight. :D

Are your sins not your own ands should you not step up to the consequences of them?



I often ask Christians to debate substitutionary atonement but they never do. I expect the same think here.

That tells me that they know that they are following an immoral tenet.

-------------------


Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.


Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.


Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.


The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]


Regards
DL
Jesus died on the cross for my sins. That debt is paid, as Johnny Cash might say.
 
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.

Please read post 22. In it I try to show God's justice.

Man seeks revenge and retaliation for crime, and that is quite alright, but that is not how God must look at it.

"Especially when He gives us a way to heal from the evil we do to others, to Him, and ourselves."

Do you really see God promoting the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty to forgive man instead of just forgiving us outright?

I do not think that any God would be such a vile prick.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL
"Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral."
So it was immoral for Jesus to die on the cross for my sins? Sheesh, you guys should get your stories straight. :D

Are your sins not your own ands should you not step up to the consequences of them?



I often ask Christians to debate substitutionary atonement but they never do. I expect the same think here.

That tells me that they know that they are following an immoral tenet.

-------------------


Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.


Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.


Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.


The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]


Regards
DL
Jesus died on the cross for my sins. That debt is paid, as Johnny Cash might say.

Believe that lie all you want.

If someone rapes you, do you think justice is done if an innocent man is punished and the perpetrator is left to go free?

Would that give you closure?

Regards
DL
 
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.

Please read post 22. In it I try to show God's justice.

Man seeks revenge and retaliation for crime, and that is quite alright, but that is not how God must look at it.

"Especially when He gives us a way to heal from the evil we do to others, to Him, and ourselves."

Do you really see God promoting the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty to forgive man instead of just forgiving us outright?

I do not think that any God would be such a vile prick.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL
"Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral."
So it was immoral for Jesus to die on the cross for my sins? Sheesh, you guys should get your stories straight. :D

Are your sins not your own ands should you not step up to the consequences of them?



I often ask Christians to debate substitutionary atonement but they never do. I expect the same think here.

That tells me that they know that they are following an immoral tenet.

-------------------


Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.


Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.


Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.


The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]


Regards
DL
Jesus died on the cross for my sins. That debt is paid, as Johnny Cash might say.

Believe that lie all you want.

If someone rapes you, do you think justice is done if an innocent man is punished and the perpetrator is left to go free?

Would that give you closure?

Regards
DL
Wow, this conversation turned pretty quickly to cornholling!!! :lol:

Just curious, why would an innocent man be punished?
 
Please read post 22. In it I try to show God's justice.

Man seeks revenge and retaliation for crime, and that is quite alright, but that is not how God must look at it.

"Especially when He gives us a way to heal from the evil we do to others, to Him, and ourselves."

Do you really see God promoting the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty to forgive man instead of just forgiving us outright?

I do not think that any God would be such a vile prick.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL
"Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral."
So it was immoral for Jesus to die on the cross for my sins? Sheesh, you guys should get your stories straight. :D

Are your sins not your own ands should you not step up to the consequences of them?



I often ask Christians to debate substitutionary atonement but they never do. I expect the same think here.

That tells me that they know that they are following an immoral tenet.

-------------------


Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.


Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.


Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.


The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]


Regards
DL
Jesus died on the cross for my sins. That debt is paid, as Johnny Cash might say.

Believe that lie all you want.

If someone rapes you, do you think justice is done if an innocent man is punished and the perpetrator is left to go free?

Would that give you closure?

Regards
DL
Wow, this conversation turned pretty quickly to cornholling!!! :lol:

Just curious, why would an innocent man be punished?

I do get to the bottom line quickly don't I.

But to your last.

In the case of Jesus, Christians assert he had to die for us to reverse God's/his own judgement and condemnation of all humanity.

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


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:.

Absolutely, from an individual human POV and not God's.

I pulled two of your sentences to speak to.

"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."

"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!"

First. sin, or crime in non-religious terms does exist and a God would not like it.

Now, to the evil that you see Ted Bundy, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler doing, who exactly should God punish for those crimes?

Those bastards were not born to be bastards. They, like you and I, are products of our environment and were created by others.

For the real justice that Avatar thinks punishment is, God would have to spread the punishment given to those you named to their parents and all those who contributed to making those normal people into the bastards they became. All those who facilitated their actions and contributed to their character, would have to be punished.

Now expand that thinking to all of us and you will recognize that we all deserve to be punished as we all contribute to making us all the way we are be we bastards or good people.

That is why God must, to a Gnostic Christian like me, be a Universalist and not punish anyone. Justice to us says that we are guilty so God would have to either punish all of us or forgive all of us.

The God we follow is Good and Good forgives us all.

Regards
DL


Well I think your explanation is kind of similar to the majority view of Christianity in that society itself is to blame for the evil humans do, therefore all of us are guilty as hell. :lol: I think Christians would agree with that actually, although they would probably use a different argument to support the conclusion.

I agree that most people are products of their environment, but some aren't. Let's use a great example that I have done a lot of research about because it was important to understand when I was teaching: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. This is a great nature vs. nurture comparison because they did the same thing but for totally different reasons. First, let's get the bullying myth out of the way. They were not bullied. That explanation for why they engaged in that mass killing is total bullshit.

Eric Harris was a clinical sociopath. His diaries are clear as a crystal ball that his brain simply didn't operate the same way everyone else's do. As a sociopath, he had absolutely no understanding of nor had the capacity to empathize with another person or recognize their intrinsic human value. For him to kill a person was about as relevant as swatting a fly is to us. It's annoying, we kill it, and continue on with our day thinking nothing of it and it evokes no feelings of any kind within us. It's completely irrelevant. That was how Eric Harris viewed killing human beings in a nut shell. What annoyed him, like a fly buzzing around his face, was society's refusal to recognize his superiority.

Dylan Klebold, on the other hand, wasn't a sociopath. He could empathize with people and understand their emotions. People had value to him. But he was a clinical depressive. So he had this approach to the world that life sucks, the world sucks, people suck, society sucks, and everything is miserable. With treatment, Klebold probably would have been able to live a relatively normal life. Unfortunately, he ran into Harris and Dylan Klebold was a gold mine for Eric Harris. Harris was able to motivate Klebold into the massacre because in Klebold's mind life wasn't worth living and he was actually doing his victims a favor by sparing them the misery of existence.

So what we have here is nature giving us the perfect killer in Eric Harris due to a mental defect, and nurture giving us another killer in Klebold who was influenced by a psychopath. For Eric Harris, the point was to force society to recognize his superiority. For Dylan Klebold...in his mind it was almost an act of mercy. I am very confident that in Klebold's mind he had convinced himself that he was sparing these people from a life of pain and misery. So I do think that some people are simply born to be killers. I think it's rare, but it does happen. Far more, I would agree, are the product of their environment.
 
Last edited:
Just as a quick follow upto further illustrate the difference between the two, if Harris and Klebold knew that today we think of them as "school shooters" instead of great serial killers of the highest degree and reputation, they would likely react very differently. Both would be horrified at the idea of them being victims of anything, let alone bullying. Getting bullied is a sign of weakness to people of their mind and for someone so convinced of their own superiority, it would be completely unfathomable to Harris that anyone would think he was being bullied. Harris would be appalled and enraged that after all that, people still don't recognize his greatness. He would likely fly into a rage about how fucking insignificant and stupid people are for failing to grasp the point he was trying to make.

Klebold on the other hand would probably just shake his head, roll his eyes, and say "pfft.....typical. Why am I not surprised?"
 
Last edited:
Thanks for these.

My bottom line is that all serial killers are insane.

That is environmental as they would have been born that way and their genes where part of the environment that created them.

You cannot take nature out of the equation when looking at insanity.

All you have shown is the differences between insane people or different types of insanity.

Regards
DL
 
Thanks for these.

My bottom line is that all serial killers are insane.

That is environmental as they would have been born that way and their genes where part of the environment that created them.

You cannot take nature out of the equation when looking at insanity.

All you have shown is the differences between insane people or different types of insanity.

Regards
DL


I prefer to call them school shooters. I would rather not give them the satisfaction of elevating their status to that of "serial killers". :lol: As if one is somehow better than the other, I suppose, but I hope you get my drift.

Yeah I can see your argument. You are opting not to distinguish between mental defects and emotional defects. Both are defective and therefore equal. I get your point about environmental influences according to the gene pool, but there's no way to really prove it was genetic. It could have been some form of abnormality that occurred as a result of improper development of the brain as a fetus. Who knows? We'll never know. I think a major point though is that for one of them (Klebold), it could have been avoided. For the other (Harris), I really don't think it could have been. Eric Harris would have killed someone at some point in his life no matter how society tried to intervene. For me, that's enough to draw a distinction, but I can understand how one might choose not to draw that distinction.
 
Thanks for this.

We have no argument but I wanted to speak to this.

"but there's no way to really prove it was genetic."

Unless insanity can be found in the donor, it follows that some kind of genetic mutation or damage caused the insanity.

We are all the sum total of our genes and DNA. We are our DNA and genes.

Insanity can be caused by the environment in the form of chemistry that effects the DNA.

I am no expert but I think that that is how our bodies work.

I had a friend who inspected a pipe in the petro-chemical business that had a minute amount of poisonous chemical in it and it attacked his DNA and killed him.

Regards
DL
 
Thanks for this.

We have no argument but I wanted to speak to this.

"but there's no way to really prove it was genetic."

Unless insanity can be found in the donor, it follows that some kind of genetic mutation or damage caused the insanity.

We are all the sum total of our genes and DNA. We are our DNA and genes.

Insanity can be caused by the environment in the form of chemistry that effects the DNA.

I am no expert but I think that that is how our bodies work.

I had a friend who inspected a pipe in the petro-chemical business that had a minute amount of poisonous chemical in it and it attacked his DNA and killed him.

Regards
DL


Yes that is true as well. A simple tooth abscess can spread to the brain and cause insanity or death. In fact in Biblical times a tooth abscess was a leading cause of death for that very reason and they didn't have the medical ability to kill the infection. So sure...insanity can be caused for a lot of reasons. Is insanity that comes from an infection that spreads to the brain natural or environmental though? It could be strongly argued both ways and as a combination of both.

Anyhow, I think we are kind of splitting hairs here and discussing points that are incredibly minute. It seems we are largely in agreement
 
I bet Hell is a lot like living at GreatestIam's house.
 

Forum List

Back
Top