A dangerous worldview...

[Beerina]

Was listening to a preacher on the radio last night (just scanning through AM stations looking for radio plays, sigh, what a life.)

Anywah, this preacher is going on about Nazis and how evil that part of WWII was, how horrible what they did to the Jews was, etc.

After a few minutes of this, he goes on that "Humans are evil. But not that evil," and describes the devil's influence on all this, how the devil caused much of it.

And I could just listen in disbelief. Neglecting the idiocy of a supernatural entity roaming around doing such horrible things (and the further idiocy of an infinitely good one "letting" him) I thought, "It's very dangerous to have a worldview where humans were incapable of doing this on their own."

Relying on that in your worldview would lead to repeating the problems of the Nazis or worse since humans are completely capable of this on their own (whether a devil or god exist or not.)

[rats]

I find this to be one of the most frustrating aspects of religious people*, that they cannot accept responsibility and consequences. It is a very dangerous world view, one that seems to be becoming more prevalent.

* My term ‘religious people’ includes scientologists, followers of astrology, and many others. If it isn’t a deity’s fault, it’s because of a past life or Venus being in Uranus (OK, limited knowledge of astrology here!).

[drkitten]

Neglecting the idiocy of a supernatural entity roaming around doing such horrible things (and the further idiocy of an infinitely good one "letting" him) I thought, "It's very dangerous to have a worldview where humans were incapable of doing this on their own."


I'm afraid that I don't see the danger. If anything is a "standard" Christian doctrine, it includes the idea of temptation, that Satan "tempts" people to act in evil ways that they would be incapable of doing on their own.

"On their own," people would not have sinned at all and we would still be living in a presumably-rather-crowded Garden of Eden.

That's why it's so important to monitor your own behavior and thoughts for signs of such temptation, so that you can identify the evil behavior to which you are being led and avoid it through your God-given gift of free will.

[Anacoluthon64]

It seems also that something in our human nature compels us to avoid blame or responsibility for our actions that have gone wrong or were wrong to begin with. In this regard religion often provides an excellent shield for the individual against the consequences of an inappropriate choice. As I think you attempt to point out, feeling thus absolved, the person learns little, if anything, of real value from the experience, and may be more prone to repeating it.

The devil made me write this.

'Luthon64

[FreakBoy]

I agree whole heartedly, though with a little extra. Just as the supernatural Satan is responsible for all that is bad, so is "God" responsible for all that is good. It always seemed to me to be a displaced, two-way street. People all too often shift the burden of responsibility from themselves to "Satan" (or "satin" depending on their ability to use a dictionary ;) ) and likewise ignore their own ability to perform well in life by attributing it all to "God"

Me, "God is the crutch on which the religious support their ego."

[Perihelion]

I have often contemplated these sorts of arguments, and have even gotten into a few of them myself. I must agree with the premise, though, that this is a dangerous worldview. Fortunately, few people actually buy into it fully; i.e., they may say that the Devil is responsible for the actions of evil humans, but in day-to-day life, most of them would never accuse the drunk driver of anything other than doing something stupid and illegal.

However, there does still exist a great number of people who actually believe that the Devil forces and guides some people to do evil acts. At this point, I have to question their primary belief in the first place. If people are incapable of making their own decisions, then who can anyone trust?

[veggie doll]

However, there does still exist a great number of people who actually believe that the Devil forces and guides some people to do evil acts. At this point, I have to question their primary belief in the first place. If people are incapable of making their own decisions, then who can anyone trust?

Only God.

[FireGarden]

"It's very dangerous to have a worldview where humans were incapable of doing this on their own."

It's bad generally to have an inaccurate world-view. But why is this dangerous? Good people will still fight evil. If they were to limit that fight to prayer, then that's dangerous. But I don't think they will.

[Beerina]

It's bad generally to have an inaccurate world-view. But why is this dangerous? Good people will still fight evil. If they were to limit that fight to prayer, then that's dangerous. But I don't think they will.

It's bad because people who think God is on their side, or guiding them, or who they support, may think they cannot fall into such an evil trap.

Of course, nobody believes their evil, believing in god or otherwise, so in practice I doube it might have much effect, but for people who think Jesus is on their side to think they cannot commit such atrocities because of supernatural involvement could be dangerous indeed.

[fuelair]

It's bad because people who think God is on their side, or guiding them, or who they support, may think they cannot fall into such an evil trap.

Of course, nobody believes their evil, believing in god or otherwise, so in practice I doube it might have much effect, but for people who think Jesus is on their side to think they cannot commit such atrocities because of supernatural involvement could be dangerous indeed.

German Army belt buckles (Nazi era anyway) read Gott Mit Uns (God is with us!)

[empeake]

German Army belt buckles (Nazi era anyway) read Gott Mit Uns (God is with us!)
I always thought that God was on the winner's side. :)

In war (sports, everyday life, etc.), losers never blame God for their defeat, and victors always credit God for their triumph. The enemy is always Satan's puppet, until the enemy wins, writes the history books, and portrays itself as the righteous instrument of God's will.

I, for starters, will start blaming Satan for my credit history. :mad:

[FireGarden]

It's bad because people who think God is on their side, or guiding them, or who they support, may think they cannot fall into such an evil trap.

But isn't the real trap the US/THEM devide? Which can blind us to truth whether we think "they" are in league with the devil or acting on their own.

but for people who think Jesus is on their side to think they cannot commit such atrocities because of supernatural involvement could be dangerous indeed

If you believe it is God who decides what is good/bad, and that God is on your side, then you believe you can't be bad.

OK. That is dangerous.

As an answer to the "devil made the Nazis do it" argument, have you tried quoting Milgram's Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)?

People can do evil without being evil themselves.

[blutoski]

People can do evil without being evil themselves.

I think the expression is that it takes secular laws to make an evil man do good, but only religion can make a good man do evil.

[Katana]

"On their own," people would not have sinned at all and we would still be living in a presumably-rather-crowded Garden of Eden.

That's why it's so important to monitor your own behavior and thoughts for signs of such temptation, so that you can identify the evil behavior to which you are being led and avoid it through your God-given gift of free will.

The concept of original sin negates the existence of free will, particularly any of a God-given type. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418:

"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called 'original sin'.

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called 'concupiscence')."

[FireGarden]

I think the expression is that it takes secular laws to make an evil man do good, but only religion can make a good man do evil.

Yeah, I've heard things like that attributed to Mark Twain and Blaise Pascal. But Milgram's experiment shows that most people (all if the threshold of wrong doing is low enough) are obedient to authority.

Milgram's Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 67.5 percent (27 out of 40) of experimental participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were quite uncomfortable in doing so; everyone paused at some point and questioned the experiment, some even saying they would return the check for the money they were paid. No participant steadfastly refused to give further shocks before the 300-volt level.

Take a look at the variations section. If I were the paranoid type, I would say this kind of experiment will make it easier for authorities to be authorities.

Reminds me of the CS Lewis "Abolition of Man" debate on this board a while back.

[blutoski]

Yeah, I've heard things like that attributed to Mark Twain and Blaise Pascal. But Milgram's experiment shows that most people (all if the threshold of wrong doing is low enough) are obedient to authority.

Take a look at the variations section. If I were the paranoid type, I would say this kind of experiment will make it easier for authorities to be authorities.

While I agree with most of what you say, I'm always reluctant to use the Milgram experiment as evidence of anything.

Two legitemate critiques of the experiment are that 1) it was done decades ago, in a very different cultural envirionment (particularly, vis a vis respect to authority and scientific expertise in particular) and 2) it was never replicated.

Many experiments considered 'classic' are known to be somewhat bogus (the best example is the Little Albert experiment, which has been exaggerated beyond all recognition).

[FireGarden]

Certainly Milgram's experiment was done decades ago. But has society changed so much?

There are ethical considerations regarding repeating it. Those involved were subjected to considerable stress. I don't know if I saw the original or a re-enactment, but some participants were in tears as they obeyed orders.

However, asked afterwards, most involved said they were glad to be involved.


I found this interesting (again from wiki):

[In a letter to Milgram]

While I was a subject [participant] in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority.

[Katana]

Two legitemate critiques of the experiment are that 1) it was done decades ago, in a very different cultural envirionment (particularly, vis a vis respect to authority and scientific expertise in particular) and 2) it was never replicated.



You right about #1, but, with regard to #2, the experiment is now considered to have been somewhat unethical and borderline cruel to the subjects. I don't think you'll see too many people trying to replicate it get it past their institutional review boards.

[stamenflicker]

I'm afraid that I don't see the danger. If anything is a "standard" Christian doctrine, it includes the idea of temptation, that Satan "tempts" people to act in evil ways that they would be incapable of doing on their own.

"On their own," people would not have sinned at all and we would still be living in a presumably-rather-crowded Garden of Eden.

That's why it's so important to monitor your own behavior and thoughts for signs of such temptation, so that you can identify the evil behavior to which you are being led and avoid it through your God-given gift of free will.

But you've missed the whole point of Genesis then. It's pretty clear from the story that the authors were not pointing to the serpent so much as the inability of human beings to accept personal responsibility.

Eve-- blames serpent
Adam -- blames Eve (and God)
Cain -- blames God

etc. etc.

Everything you need is right there in the story.

[stamenflicker]

The concept of original sin negates the existence of free will, particularly any of a God-given type. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418:

"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called 'original sin'.

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called 'concupiscence')."

Most Christians I know would define original sin as "the predisposition to be selfish."

But then again, I don't hang with the fundi crowd, so I can't speak for them.

[FireGarden]

But you've missed the whole point of Genesis then. It's pretty clear from the story that the authors were not pointing to the serpent so much as the inability of human beings to accept personal responsibility.

That's certianly something you can read in. But I think Dr Kitten's reading is more common.

And if the bible is all about accepting responsibility, then why does Christ die for our sins?

[Katana]

That's certianly something you can read in. But I think Dr Kitten's reading is more common.

And if the bible is all about accepting responsibility, then why does Christ die for our sins?

The Bible isn't about accepting responsibility.

Having said that, in this context, that's a great question.

[drkitten]

But you've missed the whole point of Genesis then. It's pretty clear from the story that the authors were not pointing to the serpent so much as the inability of human beings to accept personal responsibility.

Well, that's an interpretation, certainly. It's not one that I've seen any mainstream theologian espouse, and it makes no sense in light of the rest of Catholic doctrine, including the idea of "free will" (if we have no responsibility for our actions, then what's the point of "free will"?).

So I guess my quick response is that I stand by my interpretation.

[drkitten]

And if the bible is all about accepting responsibility, then why does Christ die for our sins?

The reason that Christ dies for our sins is because "the wages of sin is death." The wages must be paid, even if one recognizes the sins and repents for them.

C.S. Lewis has a good analogy (as usual, if you want to discuss apologetics, look at the master). If someone gets himself into serious financial trouble, he may learn from the experience, he may regret his foolishness -- but the debt still exists and still has to be paid. Often the burden of paying the debt will fall on a kind friend, who pays the debt out of his (the friend's) own resources.

Christ has "paid our debt" for the burden of original sin incurred by Adam. He will also pay our debt for any other sins that we ourselves incur, so long as we repent, believe, and ask for His grace.

[Katana]

Well, that's an interpretation, certainly. It's not one that I've seen any mainstream theologian espouse, and it makes no sense in light of the rest of Catholic doctrine, including the idea of "free will" (if we have no responsibility for our actions, then what's the point of "free will"?).

So I guess my quick response is that I stand by my interpretation.

I guess I'm confused about what you're saying. Do you believe in the "free will" of man or not?

[drkitten]

I guess I'm confused about what you're saying. Do you believe in the "free will" of man or not?

My personal beliefs are irrelevant, since we're discussing mainstream Christian theology.

Since Christians do believe in free will (see any published catechism) and in personal responsibility ["work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12)], any interpretation that contradicts these aspects of Christian theology is wrong under the standards of mainstream Christian theology.

[Katana]

My personal beliefs are irrelevant, since we're discussing mainstream Christian theology.


The relevance of your beliefs w/r to my question are suggested by your own words (my bold):

Well, that's an interpretation, certainly. It's not one that I've seen any mainstream theologian espouse, and it makes no sense in light of the rest of Catholic doctrine, including the idea of "free will" (if we have no responsibility for our actions, then what's the point of "free will"?).

So I guess my quick response is that I stand by my interpretation.



Since Christians do believe in free will (see any published catechism) and in personal responsibility ["work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12)], any interpretation that contradicts these aspects of Christian theology is wrong under the standards of mainstream Christian theology.

And I stand by a prior post (again, bold added):

The concept of original sin negates the existence of free will, particularly any of a God-given type.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418:

"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called 'original sin'.

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called 'concupiscence')."

[drkitten]

And I stand by a prior post (again, bold added):


The concept of original sin negates the existence of free will, particularly any of a God-given type.

Except that you're wrong. Under Christian theology, the concept of original sin does not negate the existence of free will.

Your quotation from the catechism does not support this:


By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called 'original sin'.

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called 'concupiscence').


Note that he loses "the original holiness and justice," but not free will.

The Catechism is explicit on this (1730-1732):


ARTICLE 3
MAN'S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."

N.b. -- this refers only to the creation and is written in the past tense, it does not exclude the possbility that man lost this "free will" at the Fall. However, this is explicitly excluded by the next three and a half statements (emphasis mine).



Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.


1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.


Adam lost his original "holiness," but he (and his descendants) retain " the possibility of choosing between good and evil" and are explicitly judged on these choices, which are "the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach."

1734-6 is more explicit still:


1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author.

That's why the notion of "temptation" is so important. Adam was tempted to eat of the Forbidden Fruit, but nevertheless made the choice willfully to do so. He was not ignorant of the fact that it was forbidden, yet he chose to disobey. He was not under duress, but merely under persuasion. He did not do it inadvertantly, but willfully. As such, he's responsible for his voluntary yielding to temptation.

The key aspects of temptation is dealt with rather thoroughly in 2847:


2847 The Holy Spirit makes us discern between trials, which are necessary for the growth of the inner man, and temptation, which leads to sin and death. We must also discern between being tempted and consenting to temptation. Finally, discernment unmasks the lie of temptation, whose object appears to be good, a "delight to the eyes" and desirable, when in reality its fruit is death.

God does not want to impose the good, but wants free beings. . . . There is a certain usefulness to temptation. No one but God knows what our soul has received from him, not even we ourselves. But temptation reveals it in order to teach us to know ourselves, and in this way we discover our evil inclinations and are obliged to give thanks for the goods that temptation has revealed to us.

Our moral responsibility does not arise from temptation, but from how we respond to it. And getting back to the original post -- the evil that men do arises originally (under this theological framework) from the Devil. Man cannot invent such evils for himself, but he can consent to such evils suggested to him by the Tempter.

[Katana]

Christ has "paid our debt" for the burden of original sin incurred by Adam. He will also pay our debt for any other sins that we ourselves incur, so long as we repent, believe, and ask for His grace.

Further evidence, as provided by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (my bold):

And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.[287] Scripture and the Church's Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history:

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."[289]..."Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."[290]

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".[291] Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.[292]

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".[293] By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[294] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.


Your quotation from the catechism does not support this:


Yes. It does.

not only for himself but for all human beings


Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin

Sin that was not the result of an act of volition flies in the face of free will.

He was not under duress, but merely under persuasion. He did not do it inadvertantly, but willfully. As such, he's responsible for his voluntary yielding to temptation.

I wasn't debating whether Adam was acting of his own free will, but, evidently, he was the last one to do so.

Our moral responsibility does not arise from temptation, but from how we respond to it. And getting back to the original post -- the evil that men do arises originally (under this theological framework) from the Devil. Man cannot invent such evils for himself, but he can consent to such evils suggested to him by the Tempter.

However, it is his tendency to choose evil that we have Adam to thank for (same source):
It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence.

Being born into a state of having a "contracted" sin due to the actions of someone else and then forever having a propensity for choosing evil as a result undermines the principles of free will. Acting with free will means that one is responsible for one's own actions and not the actions of someone else.

[stamenflicker]

And if the bible is all about accepting responsibility, then why does Christ die for our sins?

Because we won't.

[FireGarden]

Because we won't.

We won't die for our sins? Or because we won't take responsibility?

I think Dr Kitten's (CS Lewis's) answer is much better:

Christ has "paid our debt" for the burden of original sin incurred by Adam. He will also pay our debt for any other sins that we ourselves incur, so long as we repent, believe, and ask for His grace.

Paid our debt to whom, though? Those we hurt commiting our sins? or God?

And more to the point,
Christ is dead whether or not the sinner has repented. To follow Lewis' analogy, the debt has been paid back by a friend whether or not the debtor has learnt from and regrets his foolishness.

[Beerina]

I think the expression is that it takes secular laws to make an evil man do good, but only religion can make a good man do evil.

Religion, or tne new quasi-religion of politics.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis


Hmmmmm. Religion and politics. I wonder what they have in common? This is your thought for the day, grasshoppers.

[Beerina]

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called 'concupiscence')."

Are unprovable threats of massive punishment the logical, proper, and good (in the sense of opposite of evil) way to deal with this, Yahweh?

[Beerina]

Christ has "paid our debt" for the burden of original sin incurred by Adam. He will also pay our debt for any other sins that we ourselves incur, so long as we repent, believe, and ask for His grace.

I.e. God sacrificed Himself to appease His own infinite wrath. He jumped pointlessly through a hoop only He cared about in the first place.

[drkitten]

Christ is dead whether or not the sinner has repented. To follow Lewis' analogy, the debt has been paid back by a friend whether or not the debtor has learnt from and regrets his foolishness.

And as a result, if we were able to remain pure and without sin ourselves, we would be freed from the burden of Original Sin and able to still enter heaven. Few people -- depending upon how literally you take the Pauline letters, no people -- are able to meet this strict burden.

But again, there's a solution in classical theology -- Dante described the doctrine of the "virtuous pagans" and the "harrowing of Hell" quite accurately. Upon his death (having "paid the debt"), Christ went down to Hell and freed those who had been damned through no fault of their own, but only through Adam's. The kind friend has paid the debt without even being asked-- but that doesn't keep you from racking up more debt on your own.

[drkitten]

I.e. God sacrificed Himself to appease His own infinite wrath.

Well, this gets back to the nature of Sin and of God. Christian theology -- at least since Thomas -- accepts that even God is limited by the meaning of words; He can't create a four-sided triangle, not because he's not omnipotent, but because the definition of triangle precludes it. As Lewis almost put it, "a meaningless sentence will not gain meaning simply because someone chooses to prepend to it the phrase 'God can.' And it is meaningless to speak of creating a four-sided triangle."

The most common and nuanced interpretation of "the wages of Sin is Death" is not as a statement of God's wrath, but as a definition; since sin is most broadly defined as a separation from God's grace, one who sins separates himself from God's grace and therefore confines himself to Hell (because that's, by definition, where God's grace is not present). If you choose to walk west while I choose to walk east -- we will not end up in the same spot unless either you or I change our direction. God's sacrifice is simply walking westward to find everyone walking in the wrong direction.


He jumped pointlessly through a hoop only He cared about in the first place.

If you don't care about separation from God's grace, then you've more or less damned yourself already. "Wrath" doesn't enter into it.

[I less than three logic]

If you choose to walk west while I choose to walk east -- we will not end up in the same spot unless either you or I change our direction. God's sacrifice is simply walking westward to find everyone walking in the wrong direction.

Well, since east and west only make sense when talking about directions while on an object (the Earth for example), theoretially if you walked west and I walked east on the same plane long enough we'd run right into each other. :)

[Katana]

Are unprovable threats of massive punishment the logical, proper, and good (in the sense of opposite of evil) way to deal with this, Yahweh?

Have you received an answer yet?

[Beerina]

The most common and nuanced interpretation of "the wages of Sin is Death" is not as a statement of God's wrath, but as a definition; since sin is most broadly defined as a separation from God's grace, one who sins separates himself from God's grace and therefore confines himself to Hell (because that's, by definition, where God's grace is not present). If you choose to walk west while I choose to walk east -- we will not end up in the same spot unless either you or I change our direction. God's sacrifice is simply walking westward to find everyone walking in the wrong direction.

At this point, one wonders what "Hell" is supposed to be, then. Is it literally a place of fire and brimstone and wailing and gnashing of teeth, or is it merely just being "without God hanging around"? And if the latter, is it miserable because there are all sorts of evil demons (or humans, for that matter) running amok making things miserable?

That life with a god might be unimaginably fantastic, and relatively speaking, current life is akin to hell, that does not mean current life is unappealing as if stereotypical hell would be.


If you don't care about separation from God's grace, then you've more or less damned yourself already. "Wrath" doesn't enter into it.

We won't get into the bizarre nature of re-gaining grace as I've brought that up enough in other threads ("what is the metaphysical value in belief without proof"). I would merely point out that if Hell isn't such a bad place in absolute terms (just being without God) then the need to be in grace seems to evaporate. And if being with God is so gosh-darned-awesome-o, then salvation's impetus operates around God-as-sugar-daddy, and thus loses any moral lustre, if you ask me. And if being saved is a filter God applies to find "good-ish" people, then why the importance of belief without proof, which has absolutely nothing to do with being "good-ish"?

If God walks in one direction, and it's an extremely bizarre direction, and few people walk with him, that's fine, but there's nothig particularly moral about that direction, nor immoral about other directions. God is just a thug who creates ("fires and forgets") billions of people and leaves them to beat on each other. Not particularly moral.

[Katana]

And as a result, if we were able to remain pure and without sin ourselves, we would be freed from the burden of Original Sin and able to still enter heaven. Few people -- depending upon how literally you take the Pauline letters, no people -- are able to meet this strict burden.

So attaining a state free of sin is a carrot dangled in front of us to chase and never reach.


But again, there's a solution in classical theology -- Dante described the doctrine of the "virtuous pagans" and the "harrowing of Hell" quite accurately. Upon his death (having "paid the debt"), Christ went down to Hell and freed those who had been damned through no fault of their own, but only through Adam's. The kind friend has paid the debt without even being asked-- but that doesn't keep you from racking up more debt on your own.
Solution to what? Again, to the fact that these people were punished for a sin they didn't commit? The whole premise defies any sense of justice and personal responsibility...then again, perhaps it appeals to you on those grounds.


The most common and nuanced interpretation of "the wages of Sin is Death" is not as a statement of God's wrath, but as a definition; since sin is most broadly defined as a separation from God's grace, one who sins separates himself from God's grace and therefore confines himself to Hell (because that's, by definition, where God's grace is not present).
So, putting this all together, everyone (or everyone but a small minority) is going to hell.

In order to go to heaven, you need to be free from sin, but being free from sin is all but impossible but we expect you to keep trying to be free from sin so we can remind through your life that you're a sinner. :rolleyes:

[empeake]

Christ has "paid our debt" for the burden of original sin incurred by Adam.
If Christ did pay the debt of the original sin, then why, according to the Catholic faith, newborns have to be baptized to cleanse them of this sin? If a newborn dies with being baptized, he/she can't go to heaven, but is condemned to spend eternity in Children's Limbo.