searching soul
New Member
^Although I see I still can't spell it.
Well, it's more like 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1, in most Christians' minds. I'm working on a slightly different model myself.
Some people translate the Bible's 'Son of God' as 'slave/servant of God'. I'm considering this possibility too, but I still consider myself a Christian, i.e. I believe in the Crucifiction and Resurrection, and that it paid for our sins.
:salam2:
Well there was a verse in KJV that did:...
...So we see that even the bible tells us this!
I'm considering this possibility too, but I still consider myself a Christian, i.e. I believe in the Crucifiction and Resurrection, and that it paid for our sins.
The idea is, no one deserves salvation on their own merit. Sin is just evidence of underlying evil in all of us. However many good deeds we do won't change what we essentially are. If we were truly good, we would do good all the time, instead of whenever we had something to gain from it (including personal satisfaction, in my opinion). Evil doesn't enter Heaven unless 'clothed' with faith - I believe it's Paul who describes it as 'clothing' of the sinners. Faith in God* is the only way we can get into Heaven. Why is not made clear. Perhaps that's just the way God chose to select people. Perhaps it's His personal or practical preference for who He'll share eternity with. Maybe it's a reward for pleasing Him in this way. This is my interpretation, anyway. There is massive variation between denominations and individuals.With every respect, and I hope I am not offending you, but the "Original Sin" theory does not make sense to me. If Jesus Christ (pbuh) already did the hard-work for us and payed with his life for our sins, then life is meaningless. Why do we still have to prove ourself to God?
Secondly, it doesn't make sense because when I go to the bank, I can withdraw funds only from my own account. I will find available what I have saved only. Nobody, including the rich federal-reserve, is going to mysteriously replenish my savings account.
The same principle applies in life. We will be judged in the hereafter for our own actions. We will get credit for the good deeds we have done, and lose points where we had failed and made bad choices. It's a better system of justice, and it makes lots of sense.
.The idea is, no one deserves salvation on their own merit. Sin is just evidence of underlying evil in all of us. However many good deeds we do won't change what we essentially are
.If we were truly good, we would do good all the time, instead of whenever we had something to gain from it (including personal satisfaction, in my opinion)
I think that there are exceptions shown to that principle in the Bible, suggesting that that interpretation is flawed, and I find philosophical problems with defining Jesus in the first place.
The idea is, no one deserves salvation on their own merit. Sin is just evidence of underlying evil in all of us. However many good deeds we do won't change what we essentially are. If we were truly good, we would do good all the time, instead of whenever we had something to gain from it (including personal satisfaction, in my opinion).
There is massive variation between denominations and individuals.
Babies, I'm not sure about. The Bible doesn't mention what happens when they die, or whether they deserve punishment before they've demonstrated sin. It also doesn't mention the fate of the severely mentally retarded, or of less intelligent species, but then if none of these will read and understand the Bible, there's no need for it to. If we know that God is always either just, merciful or gracious, that's all we should need to know with regard to the fairness of everyone's fate. My personal opinion is that we aren't evil because we sin, we sin because we are evil. If we haven't yet been able to harm anyone else, that doesn't mean that we wouldn't if given the chance, and that we aren't more concerned with our own welfare than others'. If people aren't sent to Hell because they are evil, why are they? Because they sin, even though they aren't evil? To me, this is what doesn't seem fair, because if you don't define sin as an expression of selfishness (evil) then people are being punished for breaking arbitrary rules, which may be more difficult for some to keep than others, due to life experiences and understanding..
I believe in the goodness of people and I don't think we are inherently evil. Have you ever looked at the face of a baby? How can such innocence be evil?
I don't really understand your point. But, I do disagree that it's necessary to know evil to know good, e.t.c. The problem is one of semantics. The definition of 'know' would have to change in the course of an argument for this in order for it to work. If you never saw evil, you wouldn't have a word for it. You would also not have a word for good or discuss it in relation to evil. You would experience good and may understand its processes. In this sense you would 'know' it. However, you wouldn't think about it in the way that we can, because it would be all you could imagine. It would be as difficult as trying to think about consciousness as a pure, abstract concept. We subjectively experience only consciousness, wherever it is directed or whatever occupies it. We don't subjectively experience unconsciousness. Therefore we can't imagine pure consciousness, without sensory experiences, thought, emotion e.t.c., unless we've experienced it.If that was the case, the test would not be fun. How are we to know what's good, if we don't see what is evil? And what's beautiful, if we never saw what is terribly ugly? The two extremes are necessary for it all to make sense.
Thank you.I salute your quest for the truth. You will get there eventually. It's a great sign that you are questioning your beliefs. That's the first stage to find the ultimate truth. We will be here for you in case you have questions. Peace.
The only one who deserves the positive side of justice is God. For this reason, He is justified in not delivering the negative side of justice to those who actually deserve it, when it pleases Him not to. If He were to deliver justice to everyone, we'd all go to Hell. We've all been selfish, although this has expressed itself in different ways because we've all had different sets of temptations. We seem to measure 'levels' of selfishness and evil by how severe the consequences of these temptations are on others. This is irrational. No soul chooses which temptations they get - they seem to arise from a mixture of genes and life experiences. If we're fortunate enough to have never experienced the need to end another life in order to get our fix of pleasure or release of pain, it's not to our credit. All that's to our credit is how we deal with the temptations we are faced with. If your temptations are petty and you give in to them, you're not necessarily better than someone who equally gives into their, more consequential temptations, as you both understand that it is selfish. Also remember that some temptations are stronger than others, regardless of their nature. One person may have to experience much personal suffering in order to forsake the same sin that another could forsake relatively easily. Only God knows what we've sacrificed to do the right thing, so only God should judge. He has, and His word is that 'none is good, not even one'.That means that I can be a mass murderer and accept Christ on my deathbed and still get the same reward you'd get in Heaven? That's not justice. Yes, I would be evil, but my evil would be "clothed" with faith.
Why assume that God would make it so easy for us? There are also denominations within Islam, I believe. It doesn't seem to matter to God in the Bible so much whether most people get every little detail right, or as you say, they would be made less ambiguous. The ambiguous nature of some parts does result in us (those who are serious and not just cultural Christians) reading the Bible very carefully and thoughtfully. I actually prefer school teachers and lecturers who let you be unsure for a while. When you do understand, you've got a better understanding of the general subject because you've thought, compared and contrasted and discovered the principles in a way you aren't forced to if handed the correct conclusion on a plate.Why? There are different Muslim sects only because of the Hadith and not because of the Literal Word of Allah (the Qur'an). But, in Christianity, every sect is divided because of the Bible. Why wouldn't God make it more clear when it comes to such ground-shaking beliefs such as the Trinity, the iterpretation of the Old Testament/New Testament, etc.?
Salam.
Yea but what if there's a christian that doesn't take Isa as god? Does he also go to hell?