A religious question

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

God teaches forgiveness above all things, and yet we are still born with sin even to this day because of a mistake made by the very first humans all those millennia ago. If humans are sinful by nature then we can't be faulted for the sinful things we do, surely he understands that. Why doesn't he forgive that original sin instead of making us beg for forgiveness over and over and over again? He keeps Satan around for what? To settle some kind of divine bet about the true nature of humanity?

― markj, Friday, 3 March 2006 20:33 (nineteen years ago)

God is not real. Sin all you want, if that's the life you want.

― Dave will do (dave225.3), Friday, 3 March 2006 20:35 (nineteen years ago)

Well, it's too late to forgive the original sin, now it's out of the bag. I always wonder why they make such a big deal of Christ's suffering, he didn't really have it all that bad. It was all over in a day or two, it's not like he worked in Khmer Rouge camp or anything.

― andy --, Friday, 3 March 2006 20:37 (nineteen years ago)

http://images-partners.google.com/images?q=tbn:zsURqouFU0IEqM:www.dsokids.com/art/instruments/photo1200cymbals.jpg

― Dave will do (dave225.3), Friday, 3 March 2006 20:39 (nineteen years ago)

I never said I was a believer. I just want to understand how Christians view this.

― markj, Friday, 3 March 2006 20:39 (nineteen years ago)

Well someone once tried to explain to me (mainly on the basis of Job from recollection) that Satan is actually G-d's prosecuting barrister in the original Hebrew mythology. Far from representing evil, he punishes evil on G-d's behalf.

― ratty, Friday, 3 March 2006 20:44 (nineteen years ago)

Everyone will give you a different answer because when you take the scripture literally, it makes no sense and you have to fill in the holes with whatever fits your reality.

― Dave will do (dave225.3), Friday, 3 March 2006 20:44 (nineteen years ago)

A. Nairn to thread

― elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Friday, 3 March 2006 20:50 (nineteen years ago)

You're not describing a Christian view so much as a hodge-podge picked up from television or who knows where. Original sin is not uniquely, originally, or universally Christian -- the same is true of the other statements you make or imply.

Wikipedia is probably your best bet. It's very difficult to come up with a theological question that hasn't been asked before, and without some sort of basic understanding, it's nearly as hard to ask one that isn't full of unnecessary assumptions.

― Tep (ktepi), Friday, 3 March 2006 20:50 (nineteen years ago)

wikipedia = the New, NEW Testament

― andy --, Friday, 3 March 2006 20:52 (nineteen years ago)

yeah... original sin is hardly a universal doctrine, etc, etc.

to me the point has less and less to do with sin, hell, satan, and all that. the point is to strive for love. (a catch all justice, mercy, grace, humility.)

all the punishment stuff i think is more referring to consequences in the here and now... in life... AND a bunch of it is a gross misreading of the bible. you might even call it a form of control. "listen to me and what we're preaching or you might go to hell." or a justification for ignoring some of the hardest parts... loving eachother...including the dregs of society... including our enemies. it's easier to say, "oh those people are horrible or godless, they're going to hell, screw them!" i think it's no mistake that you tend to hear more fire and brimstone in more politically conservative churches. it really backs up a politically conservative viewpoint quite well.

not all of us jesus freaks are like that.
m.

― msp (mspa), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:08 (nineteen years ago)

Are people ignoring the giant glittering joyful returning elphant in the room for fear we might scare it away? Or has it been there for ages without me noticing?

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:26 (nineteen years ago)

"do not be feeding peanuts to my God!"

― msp (mspa), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

The question originates from improper understanding of reality and a brief glimpse of an extremely complex religion. There is no such thing as a literal Satan for one thing. It is personification of man's ability to desire. Through suffering caused by desire is also the key to liberation. It is something each person must come to realize for himself, which is why basically all religions have such a hard time convincing anyone, truly changing or enlightening anyone.

― Joseph Campbell, Friday, 3 March 2006 21:41 (nineteen years ago)

Also, please keep in mind that there are many 'devils' with subtle differences.

Lucifer =! Satan =! Beelzebub.

― elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:49 (nineteen years ago)

giant glittering joyful returning elphant
http://www.sjc-serbia.com/download/ganesha.jpg

― Jaq (Jaq), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:52 (nineteen years ago)

dammit, i need to find those "Power of Myth"/Bill Moyers transcripts

― kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:53 (nineteen years ago)

dear markj

grow the fuck up

love, god

― Raw, Uncompromising, and Noodly (noodle vague), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:06 (nineteen years ago)

what the fuck is that supposed to mean? am I not allowed to ask questions about things I don't understand?

cunt.

― markj, Friday, 3 March 2006 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

xpost I've always loved this from Joe Campbell: "Well, I'm not a mystic, in that I don't practice any austerities, and I've never had a mystical experience. So I'm not a mystic. I'm a scholar, and that's all. I remember when Alan Watts one time asked me, 'Joe, what yoga do you practice? I said, 'I underline sentences.' And that's all I'm doing. I'm no guru or anything of the kind. I've just had the great good fortune to find this golden world of myth..."

― andy --, Friday, 3 March 2006 23:56 (nineteen years ago)

"what the fuck is that supposed to mean?"

http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/noodledoodle1024_768.jpg

― seehowitruns, Monday, 6 March 2006 08:00 (nineteen years ago)

I have been wondering whether casual discrimination of the religious has become the new 'acceptable' form of social exclusion.

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Monday, 6 March 2006 11:03 (nineteen years ago)

seems reasonable

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 6 March 2006 11:07 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.