christianity, afterlife, and original sin

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I came up with this in the hall of questions threat.

Doesn’t Christianity require that people be of the disposition to act like a christian even if their actions are neither rewarded nor punished? Don’t motives count for anything? If they do, and if I’m right in thinking that the average person behaves in a christian manner because of fear of the stories of afterlife if he does not act in the ways required, then is not the religion fundamentally terrorism? And even if God and the afterlife do exist, then won’t God consider these people unfit for heaven?

Consider this.

Suppose Hitler never went through with what he did during WWII because he was afraid that he would be punished after death. He really wanted to, and would have gone ahead with what he wanted to do were he not convinced that he would suffer for it after death. Suppose further that instead of becoming fuhrer he became a priest and only acted in good ways to better please god. Naturally he hates it, but he believes he’ll be rewarded in the afterlife for it, so it’s the rational thing to do for hitler to suffer a bit here on earth and then spend the rest of eternity in heaven. Would God judge Hitler* the same as he would someone who’s character disposition is Jesus-like just because they both acted in ways deemed good by god?

I know what you’ll say, so I’ll take this further. Suppose then that Hitler thought the same thing you are now. He meditates, and over time manages to get enjoyment out of being Jesus-like. He molds himself into a decent person. So how about now? Yes…? But remember, this decent character is the product of a sinister character who saw that the only way to not suffer for eternity was to start behaving in a particular fashion. This same sinister character would have crushed millions of babies’ skulls were he to have thought that was the way to heaven…it was only coincidental that he choose to become a good guy. In other words, someone who transforms himself into a christian as a way to get into heaven would be willing to transform himself into something entirely different, a cannibal or something, if that’s what was required. Obviously where what’s at stake is eternity, nothing is too hard or not worth it.

Clearly people mustn’t become christians beause of what it’ll get them in the afterlife. The obvious conclusion here is that God would not allow Hitler* into heaven. But if you accept this, then you must accept that anybody who is not naturally inclined from birth to act like a christian won’t get into heaven either. And if we take the christian hypothesis that we are all born with original sin to mean that we all naturally disposed to want to do evil shit, then it follows that none of us are inclined from birth to be christians, and hence it follows that the gates of heaven are closed to everybody.

What say you?

2

That in a nutshell was what nudged me out of Theism. I reasoned that, if thereis a God, and that God is worthy of my respect, then he would most surely not respect me if I was acting simply out of some reward-response conditioning framework. Indeed, I reasoned, I ought not even acknowledge His existence, so as to keep things pure between us. But rather, attempt to “do good”, in christ-like fashion, if you like, independent of any motivation other than the soiled and earthy ones I confront and feel daily. I soon (well, a few years) found I had no need for God, even in times of deep tragedy. And so far I haven’t killed a single person!! =D>

3

XZC,

I like it. To summarize, the Pascal’s Wager Christians are destined for hellfire simply because of their reasons for belief, as well as the other Christians who legitimately believe, but only do so out of fear of damnation, does that sound about right?

(The above statement, by necessity, is made provided the God exists per the Christian definition)

4

Oughtist,

Not even one?! You are a saint. :open_mouth:

Pav,
That’s a good summation. Here’s another one since reading back my OP it looks all muddy. I could have sworn it was clear as I wrote it and rewrote it…anyhow, a few bandaids aren’t going to salvage it now, so I’ll reiterate, and this time hopefully I’ll be easier to understand.

If we are all stained with original sin, and further if this means that we are all disposed to want to do evil shit, then it follows that the journey from a regular man to a christian man is a hard and arduous one. One would need some powerful motivators to go through with it. Without heaven or hell, it wouldn’t be worth it to become christian, because becoming a christian is psychologically tough, i.e., it means suppressing alot of emotions, and being a christian often times gets one in serious trouble in life, i.e., being fed to lions. Being a christian almost always means living a shitty life, and if this shitty life isn’t balanced out by an eternity in heaven, then it’s not a rational thing to do to become a christian. SO, I’ve hopefully shown that most christians, if they are rational, become christians because of the stories about heaven and hell. They, at the beginning, while still stained with original sin, see that it is beneficial to become a christian, and detrimental to not become a christian, and then use this motivation to go through with the becoming and finally being a christian in this life.

Some might say that it’s not that easy. To be a christian, and hence worthy to go to heaven, one must not only act virtuously but also get enjoyment out of acting virtuously and be of the disposition to act virtuously even if there was no reward or punishment. But, as I’ve said before, people aren’t born with these dispositions. This type of person, i.e., a christian, must be created, and it must be created by the non-christian original sin stained person. In other words, one must ultimately make himself a christian. But what does this mean?

It means that the virtuous person who enjoys acting virtuously regardless of whether it gets him heaven or hell is the product of a sinful selfish egoistic man who just wants to get to heaven, e.g., my Hitler* example. God wouldn’t judge such a person in a timeless vacuum. God would see that this virtuous person who would act virtuously even if there was no heaven or hell is not disconnected from that selfish individual who saw that he had to change himself into another type of person. God would see that this good virtuous person before him is just a tool; a tool that would have been completely different if it’s producer (the original sin stained man) had thought the tool needed to be different.

I’m basically saying that all Christians play pascals’ wager, and because they do, that heaven might not be available to them anyhow. I’ll see you in hell, suckers.

5

Your entire premise is that God is not involved with our faith. It is a mystery and a scriptural truth that we are drawn to God as His children not simply by happen stance or impeded by the rudimentary laws of the world and understanding. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that we find our way and hear His voice. By mans wisdom and device they limit themselves to a mindset of probability and fairness according to their earthly wisdom and peculiar circumstance finding fault and never coming to the understanding of the truth. The truth of the Bible is to be found within its covers and not born of the wisdom of man.

John 6
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

John 10
27My sheep listen to my voice; I (Jesus) know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one."

Romans 9
15 For he (God) says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

Ephesians 1
4 For he (God) chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love

6

XZC,

That makes sense to me. I mean, I can still understand stuff like not killing anyone, but am I really going to go to church two times a week for three excruciatingly boring hours each time to listen to the ramblings of a guy who knows not about religion, but about how to memorize and quote statements from a book he has read?

Why endure it if there is no potential for reward?

Would you contend that the average Christian is such because he/she desires the reward of Heaven, or fears the punishment of hell? I guess you could argue that they are the same thing, in a sense, but I’d still like to see what you think.

I’ll give you my personal answer by taking one out of each equation.

Hell vs. Nothing After You Die

-In this event, I would rather be a Christian to prevent myself from facing Hell as described. Even though the only reward in this scenario is that there is no punishment.

Heaven vs. Nothing After You Die

-I might make a modicum effort to get into Heaven in this scenario, but I’m not going to work too hard for it. I refer you to the quote in my signature as to why such is the case.

Essentially, in this scenario, if there is something the Bible says I cannot do, but I really want to do it NOW, I’m just going to say screw it, it’s not like the alternative is really that bad.

If you concur, then we have established that religion may prey upon fear.

7

maxtormaxtor,

So what if God communicates with you? Don’t you still need to have some motivation to transform yourself from an original sin stained man to something else?

If God spoke to me, a person stained by original sin, and said, “Behold my son, I am really really real,” and then continued by saying, “I am here to ask of you to follow these set of laws, which are totally hard to follow. If you follow them, you won’t get any pleasure out of it, and your life will probably suck, because you’ll have to be poor, and not fight for your life or your family’s life when they’re endangered. Oh, and I don’t want you just dragging your feet while doing this. I want you to transform yourself into a person who gets sincere enjoyment out of it.”–I’d tell God, “Why in the fuck would I go to the trouble of doing that? I like what I’m doing now. It brings me happiness while still alive.” I’d say that because I’m a typical non-christian, you understand, and because there would really be no reason for me to start living in this completely different way if I didn’t stand to win or lose something. And God would end up by saying, “…or else.” And then we’re back to my problem.

Basically, even if you hear voices in your head, you still need some motivation to transform yourself from the type of person who enjoys the things an original sin stained man would to the type of person who enjoys the things talked about by Jesus.

A god without the, “…or else” would quickly be ignored, and not without good reason.

p.s. Welcome to the boards. I’m honored that you made your first post in my topic.

p.p.s. Pav, I concur.

8

Not quite.

Hebrews saw themselves as the chosen race of God. (not all that uncommon, Greeks did too, just not by one god, but by many)

However, they saw their lives as always capable of losing this favor that God had given the Hebrews.
To the Hebrews, you were the only person that could screw yourself out of Heaven because for every Hebrew, Heaven was a given upon birth and/or circumcision (depends which period you look at).

Satanel was a tester of everyone’s faith to see if you would screw up and fail to keep your place in Heaven.

Then you get Christ who really only concerned himself with Hebrews, and actually told his disciples not to bother with anyone else.
Again, the same supposition is held.
That all are inherent residents of Heaven.

This is similar to real life.
You are alive inherently by being born and the only method by which you can die (granted, after some maturity…back then, around 5 to 8 years old) is by your own poor choices, regardless if you are attacked by someone else or random happenstance kills you.
The perspective back then was more related to the animal world.

Life is yours, protect it or you will lose it.

This is the same that applies to their idea of Heaven.
This is also the same ideal that Christ walks around with and discusses assuming.

It is only the Pauline concept of Christianity that starts flipping things on an awkward head because the Pauline Christianity has to figure out how people other than the race of God (Hebrews) are allowed Heaven.

In so doing, it has to assume that everyone is damned first and saved second, unlike the Hebrews.
This is because, by logic, if one is not a Hebrew, one is not a race of God, and thereby not originally granted Heaven by birth-right, but must convert and become worthy of accepting Heaven.

This single perspective royally screws up the entire concept held on the original belief structure that was in place.

This is where all of the damnation theologies start to spawn from; for instance, Catholicism and Calvinism.

9

Point taken, but I wasn’t talking about Hebrews. What do you think of my point concerning christianity, and especially those sects that accept original sin?

10

I think it’s a developmental comparison. It’s just a matter of fact that children, and the, ah, children-at-heart can’t conceptualize right and wrong apart from a notion of risk/reward. Sorry, that’s how we operate. If you can do so (and I mean really, not just pay lip service to the notion), then you’ve already given the matter more reflection than most ever will. I think you’ll find that there’s plenty of justification for right and wrong in Christian theology if you look for it, but if that’s all there was, then the criticism would instead be that Christianity is an unnecessarily obtuse religion that isn’t good for anybody but an ethicist.

11

Kudo’s for them; has nothing to do with me.

If they need the world to exist through extension of the necessities that Paul found need for in crude form, then so be their need, and thankfully there is food for their hunger.

12

:-k What?

13

Which part?

14

This part for instance. I have no idea how this applies to anything I said.

Or this…Not sure to what part of what I’ve said this is a response to. Or…what it even means, to be honest.

You see, I’m a simple man. I like clear answers that address the problem directly. That paragraph you quoted is more or less irrelevant to my argument here. I’ll reiterate my conclusion, and if you’re interested you can go over my argument for it. I’d look at my Tue Feb 24, 2009 post, because the OP is convoluted.

I concluded that according to the ontology of Christianity, or Paulism if you’d like, even a good Christian wouldn’t get into heaven.

I’m confused by what ucci said, too. Not sure it said anything about my argument, and if it did, then I didn’t understand it.

15

It is my opinion Hitler could have been saved. Paul was one of the biggest denouncers and killers of Christians, yet he turned out to be one of God’s greatest proponents. The change has to be wanted in an honest humble sense. The same could be said for all of the heinous acts commited by people ever since they inhabited earth. There is nothing really hard to understand…a true repentant heart and turning away from sin is the saving grace for all mankind.

16

It has to be wanted at first by a non-christian, the OSSM, and the OSSM can only think about doing things in terms of profit and loss.

The turning away from sin is the decision of an original sin stained man (OSSM) who just wants to get into heaven and avoid hell. Were you to make the conditions for getting into heaven different, the OSSM would have no problem going that route. You, growing up as a kid fearing hell and liking heaven, would have stomped on babies heads if that’s what was required. I mean, you were at that point still a human with a dirty soul…there would be nothing stopping that person from killing babies.

17

xzc…

The following is a summary.

Your original sections said:
“Doesn’t Christianity…?”

To which I said, “Not quite, here’s why…”

To which you replied, “OK, but what do you think about the Christianity that does match my point?”

To which I replied, “Great for them, they have nothing to do with me.”

This essentially means that I think that concepts like original sin are overly dramatic and needlessly depressive in an age of existentialism where man needs no reminder how he is not a special cosmic diamond demi-god over Earth, but if people feel that they need such components in their belief structure to feel a connection to their belief or gods, then all be it for me to condemn them for their beliefs; regardless if I think the belief itself doesn’t hold merit.

You originally asked, “Doesn’t Christianity?”

I gave my answer and you seemed satisfied with it as far as it stands as my perspective.
I cannot answer on behalf, or in mind, of people that hold a faith that I do not.

18

I’m taking the notion of original sin for granted as a premise in a much bigger argument. The conclusion of which is no man can get into heaven. My argument which concludes to that is what I want the conversation to be about.

19

Sure, but you are also taking a specific group of Christianity and applying it to all Christianity, and that’s actually just not the case.

20

I’m really not. I contend that my conclusion holds only for those sects that have original sin as a tenet. So, do you have anything to say about my argument? Do you understand it?