christianity, afterlife, and original sin

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

I already said what I had to say about it really; it didn’t seem to matter much.

But if you want, I can break it down again.

More exactly, the idea is not to focus or worry about it so much.

The Bible is riddled with stories of the Pharisees, which in the Bible were the highest example of having the wrong motives for the actions.

  1. Christianity require one to ignore rewards and punishment?
  2. Motives Count
  3. Therefore: Christianity behaves like a Christian because of fear.

Your statement 3 contradicts your statement 1.

Dramatic over-cooking of the situation.

You are still focusing on only Calvinistic-based Christianities.
Fear powered sects, aside from the Catholic Church (which is now pretty wimpy itself these days), aren’t all that popular of a movement anymore and are dying faster all of the time.

The idea of only applying to the religion out of fear of Hell, or concentrating on Hell so much that it shocks a person into behaving properly like a Christian is not something you will actually find in most modern Churches.

What you will find heavily still, is a rampant fear of Satan and an impression that there is a war to be waged to ward off Satan.
But there’s no fear of Hell to stay a Christian.
There’s fear of being taken over by evil, even personally.

But this to, is starting to lose footing slightly.

That’s a dangerous game to play…I wouldn’t allow myself to hold the power of condemnation like that.

22

facepalm.jpg

23
24

Ok. But what if I’m not disposed to do evil shit?
But what if I’m not disposed to do evil
what if I’m not disposed to do
if I’m not disposed to
I’m not disposed
not
?

25

…and also disposed to do good shit? Then Christianity and other religions are unnecessary. Smiley face.

26

You pose to me frustration as if I do not understand what you are writing, yet you consistently start with the idea of original sin, which is a pretty exclusive concept not widely accepted my most protestant sects in modern western Christianity.

Most modern Sects now have to accept multiple parallel sects that believe a different form of Christianity, and as such have had to come to grips with one central damning question:

If we are to help all in need with the compassion of God, and there are those in need in the world that will never have the chance to hear the way to God, then is our compassionate God willing to damn them to Hell for never being Christian?

Secondly, and by extension:
If we are compassionate, as Jesus showed us and professed of God, and we believe that our belief is the correct and true belief of Christianity as opposed to other forms of Christianity, then are all of the other people in the world trying to follow after Christ’s footsteps in misguided or wrong belief’s damned to hell?

Unlike the older days of exclusive Roman Catholic Christianity, modern Western Christianity is born out of the acceptance of Protestantism, which by extension over time, is forced to deal with a mind-numbing amount of variations of it’s own religion. In fact, one could arguably state that modern Christianity has more variations than any other singular religion in recorded history.

This, unlike the older Christianity, means that the newer Christianity MUST address the issue of exclusivity versus tolerance in regards to acceptance into Heaven.

Older Christianity could outline an exact rule and line that determined eternal salvation and damnation, and did.
However, if newer Christianity sects wish to continue to have growing followers then they cannot all continue to outline exact rules and lines and then cast out every sect and damn them to Hell for not following.

This first occurred in America on the north-east as countless congregations originally did exactly this; damn each other.

Now, they have grown more intelligently and accepting of each other, and as such, have, by extension, had to address issues like Original Sin and Salvation through Fear.

They simply cannot rule and guide through fear, as fear requires an exact rule or line which is to be feared crossing, and since they cannot do so without damning all other congregations, this concept is simply not something you will find prevalent in today’s modern Western Christianity.

27

I think of most religions with a promise of an afterlife as life-long colleges. I mean people go to college and they bust their ass, and generally speaking have a shitty time for those 4-or so years, but they go through with it because they know they’ll have it easier once they get out. With religion, the college lasts for one’s entire life, and the good times to be had come after death. So what motivation does someone prereligious college have to go into that college? Is religion profitable in of itself while one is still alive? The answer is no. Original sin isn’t even needed for my argument to work. All that’s needed is the a period of ‘pre-religious college’ to exist in every man’s life, and this isn’t anything controversial. People aren’t born as christians, and their move into christianity is done because of a loss/win rationale. What you have in most cases is a kid who sees a goal, heaven, and he sees what he has to do to get to this goal…become a christian. And the kid might even succeed. He might change his own character in such a way that it is eligible for heaven, but my point is that this character is a tool, an effect, of a non-christian who just wants to increase his pleasure and diminish his suffering. Was something other than becoming a christian required of the kid, like, let’s say, killing babies, then the kid would have done that.

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.

What you wrote, while interesting, is wholly irrelevant.

28

It’s actually directly relevant as you are asserting belief through fear, and I am explaining that, while a personal level of the fear of the afterlife is inevitably present in every person that thinks there is an afterlife; the fear of the unknown, the religion of Christianity that you are looking to to convert and empower through fear simply doesn’t have the luxury to do so in this time period that we live in.

That, I think, is directly relevant.

29

Either you don’t get my argument, or you’re too deep for me to get. Whichever is the case, I’m no longer going to continue this correspondence.

Does anybody else have anything to say at this point?

30

Also,

I disagree on this completely.

Actually, I couldn’t disagree with anything about religion more than this concept.
The very core of my personal belief in religion rests on the assertion that many people understand religion for the wrong focus and reasons.

For instance, most of Jesus’ messages were on focusing on the now and not concerning about the future; Siddhartha has much of the same messages.

Religion is something that is profitable in and of itself because if one uses it as a tool, like any other faculty of growth such as college’s for the mind or gymnasiums for the body, then one is able to exercise and refine their compassion and devotion with a reverence and respect for something of which they will accept as innumerably larger than themselves in a compelling urge to be like their examples of better men. This is felt to be the essence of one’s soul.

It is an aspiration towards a better life as a person and to others.

The afterlife is a leftover remnant from the early days of religion when religion’s defining role was to explain all that could not be explained.
Now, this isn’t so much the need, and religion has turned to becoming a form of Philosophy instead of a form of Science.

Therefore, any explanation of the afterlife is, regardless how possible or real the idea, a Philosophical representation of the person that holds the belief and their direct outlook on life; to include what they expect life to be for them and what they expect from others.

A religion of fearing death eternal and striving to hold to life eternal which is held to be easily lost, for instance, would indicate a person that holds life as cruel and hard; fierce and not compassionate. They would hold others to not be concerned, and that there is but one, or only a few, approaches to most things in life that truly matter and that all of which disagree with the few correct approaches are going to die in the worst way; eternally.

Power is a role for this mentality, as they hold the correct information that rescues them from eternal death unlike all of the greatly mistaken. Their most hated rival is going to be anyone opposing the accuracy of fearing eternal death, and they will likely see them as arrogant and potentially as corrupted by evil; that is to say, corrupted by thoughts that lead to eternal death. They will then consider these to be non-savable and dangerous people that need to be fought against to make certain that the thoughts of the eternally doomed don’t corrupt more souls.

By contrast, a religion of not fearing the afterlife, but embracing it as a natural extension of life is completely different. For instance, this mentality will hold that the afterlife may not be so definite and one is not exclusively damned based on only what occurs on Earth. This mentality will see the afterlife as another life, and not a retired result of a collegiate effort and win at the game of eternal life.
They will see the world with more compassion than the first as they will see more forgiveness in the afterlife, which indicates less desperation in their view on life itself.

They will see life as being some form of process and an ongoing opportunity to be part of the compassionate experience of another; this by extension of the idea of life and the afterlife being part of an experience of which bother or wondrous gifts.

Respect, instead of power, is the most highlighted attribute for this mentality as it is their highest concern for without need to worry about afterlife as eternal death, they only need concern with the morality towards other men; respect.
This indicates that their rivaling enemy, so to speak, is going to be the completely disrespectful to humanity; for instance, Hitler is more evil and vial to this mentality than to the first mentality.
This is because, for the first mentality, Hitler was the rival evil; a force to be expected and fought against. By contract, for the second mentality, Hitler is a vial sickening example of the defilement of the sacredness of human life; Hitler is not expected, but abhorred in shock.

I point these to broad examples of two directly different concepts on the afterlife and how they affect the person’s life while the person is alive; not simply once they die.

These two examples, as well, are both capable of being Christian. This shows the diversity of the religion that I mentioned previosly.

31

How is it difficult to understand?

You’re entire argument requires religion from fear.
I am asserting such fear is not the prevailing case at this time in history.

32

Now, however, if you are wanting to concentrate on the merit of motive as a defining factor of ones eternal existence regardless of their actions and reconciliations on earth, then there is very little to say expect that you simply defined Calvinist predetermination.

This is the idea that states that whether you act well or not, God has already counted the number of souls that will honestly be given heaven for their pure motive.
This, however, is contradictory to your original quandary as this explanation is also from the same school of thought that places pressure on every soul to behave as pious as possible or suffer eternal damnation which is surely waiting close-by for your soul.

33

i apologize if this has already been mentioned, but unless i am entirely wrong (which i may easily be), isnt the only credible mention of hell originating from jesus, as he describes gehenna? and gehenna is nothing more than a totally normal, burning trash pile near jerusalem?

and perhaps the entire concept of christian hell originates from a slightly sarcastic, off hand comment from that clever fellow? “if YOU want to be that kind of person, then go ahead and sweep trash in the popularly familiar trashpile (gehenna), residents of which we all know are… YA know trash pile people!” professor god man (who i totally believe existed) said these words among his friends, referring to a certainly real place possibly less than ten miles from his current position at the time.

then, over a thousand years later, dante writes a book about italian nobles and his hatred for them, and it gets blown out of proportion. this is how i understand the story of how the modern understanding of hell came to be. or else it came from non biblical bible wannabes who are not in the cannon, and are, therefore, obviously, irrelevant.

obviously i can not possibly respect this ridiculous story.

what have i learned wrong? i read the inferno, it was an extremely transparent political critique of contemporary italian nobility (like 1400 i think?). they deserved it, dont get me wrong. but it was written more than a millenium after god junior died, with no claim to being divinely inspired.

hell is fake. anyone who says hell is real is wrong. unless its limbo, or like living as a low class person in a dead end job sweeping trash into the trash pile IN “GEHENNA”.

sorry if im in the wrong thread, im quite drunk.

what are the bible quotes from gods mouth? all i know is a vague understanding of how it can easily be interpreted as nothing more than the commonly known trash pile outside of town known as gehenna.

34

Y’know x, if I may call you x, it’s like I’m in a recovery program. Not that I’ve ever been in a recovery program. Not that I don’t need one, mind you…

35

,…nevermind…

36

Actually, the concept of Hell as we know it doesn’t exist that well in the Bible at all, but mostly derives from later writers in the Church deriving what Hell is by interpretive inferences through the Bible.

The hell we know today is largely a combination from Platonism and Mazdaism by the early Gnostics which essentially shunned the material world for the spirit world unlike previous Christians who saw their resurrection as literal resurrections with bodies.

The difference in the Hebrew mind is that there are roughly three stages; these roughly equate to limbo, hell, heaven.

Unlike the Catholic variation, in the Judaic belief, “limbo” is a waiting spot for the resurrection and has been defined a few different ways, but hell and heaven have been pretty consistent.

In the Judaic faith, every soul will experience both heaven and hell, as what is done in this life is replayed in the afterlife with more intensity; so the bad parts of life will be experienced as hell and the good parts of life as heaven.

After this cleansing, then a soul is ready for it’s place in the new paradise, which is the resurrection of the dead.

It is important, too, to note that the Judaic belief holds to a pre-existent soul that comes to earth to inhabit a body, similarly to the LDS concept.

So hell does exist the Bible pretty consistently, but the idea of what that Hell is changes over time.

37

pardon my presumption [help is there a jew in the house!] but it was a shadowy place called sheol pretty nondescript; the concept of hell came only after milennarianism anxiety, influx of other religious influences & the 2nd temple destruction with the development of rabbinic judaism along with rise of christianity [which was more heavily influenced by greek philosophy than they care to admit]. it was augustine that introduced concupiscent sin hence the beginning of infant baptism absent till then; hypocrite since he had a mistress [mind you that was when he was an ardent manichean so may have gotten his ideas on sin via mani].

38

Sheol is the “limbo” I was describing above in the Jewish religion.
It is akin to Hades.

To be more exact…it’s not so easy to coin Sheol, to be fair.
I coin it as limbo because the dominant first occurances of Sheol are of a Hades type environment.

Later, when resurrection was brought into the Judaic faith to make up for the unfinished justifications for things in life that had not been balanced, the concept of Gan Eden and Gahinnom were brought in.
(Judaic faith concentrates more on reward and punishment in life and not as much in the afterlife, but in the early versions of Judaism, there simply was nothing judged, damned, or rewarded in the afterlife; all was to be balanced and justified in life. However, over time people found this simply didn’t seem to occur all of the time, and therefore integrated resurrection for further justification.)

So…it goes something like this (very roughly, as the afterlife is left much to opinion of the individual in Judaism [almost kind of like Shintoism] )
(Oh, and they believe in pre-life, this is why they believe in resurrection)

So basically…this is the full line-up, and then many variations of Judaism cut out different sections; for instance, some combine Sheol and Gehinnom, some say that all go straight to Gan Eden instead of waiting for Olam Ha-Ba to occur, others stick to a Hades-like She’ol only and reject everything else.

So, this is the full line if one accepts every variation that has hit Judaism over time (which is also a major variation)

Pre-life - > Life → Death → She’ol → Olam Ha-Ba → Gehinnom → Gan Eden

Pre-life: pretty explanatory
Life: obvious
Death: obvious
She’ol: limbo until Olam Ha-Ba; some variations hold a miniature heaven/hell here of righteous waiting in peace with Abraham and the others in darkness.
Olam Ha-Ba: “The World to Come”; the coming of the messiah (also triggers the mass resurrection; not all variations take this approach)
Gehinnom: Hell; the place of purification that lasts a maximum of 11 to 12 months (some prayer rights for the dead include praying for this length for safe passage through Gehinnom; these do not accept She’ol as limbo commonly) [also picked after a place, not where garbage was originally thrown, but some pagan neighbors sacrificed babies at for their gods. Later it was used to store human death waste during the Romans’ occupation]
Gan Eden: “Garden of Eden”; Paradise reborn for the righteous after Olam Ha-Ba (or in other forms already existent and where the righteous go)

Hope that helps some.

39

thanks stump for that, l knew it would be diverse; so does pre-life mean a sort of reincarnation?

40

In short, yes, Judaic faith in that form is classed as a form of reincarnation mysticism.
However, it should be noted that the early Judaic followings only believed in a resurrection of the body; as one’s body was tied to it’s soul; they could not be separated.

So it wasn’t a reincarnation in the transient spirit sense.
That idea came later in Judaism and isn’t still greatly elaborated on very concretely one way or the other; in fact, like I said before, Judaism allows for the individual to have allot of leg room with a personal belief and take on the afterlife.

Personally, I think this is due to necessity; early Judaism had several splinters or sects of itself all rivaling to be the primary following of Judaism.
However, in modern times, those remnants of the early sects that still exist are simply tolerated under the same roof of Judaism.
I believe this is simply because the Jewish culture has had to bond together and unite because they have had a modern era struggle that has persisted from outside of their people, so struggling within their culture on-top of the outside threats would be extremely dangerous and destructive.

For this reason, I think this is why one can find so many interpretations of Judaism in the same synagogue/temple. This is contrast to Christianity, which currently enjoys the luxury of nit-picking relentless levels of separation amongst itself, thus showing it’s own security.