The Awful Nature of Sin

Ok then, let us say He has provided a track prepared or available for forgiveness in His loving kindness. Would this be just according to a reasonable human understand of what a loving being is?

And would that track prepared, be according to our own judgment of what it ought to be, or His? Presuming He knows what will reconcile the difference, and therefore it would require His choice for that path.

If we are imperfect, by design or not by design.

Then would there be the need for a promise of mercy, that can not be reversed? Presuming that we are imperfect.

That's more like what I'm looking for. What I want religious people to discuss is which is more important -- how we treat each other as an end unto itself versus how much we worship God.

And like I've said, if religious belief and love of God can motivate people to do truly horrible things, then I'm not sure how we can argue that religion is somehow necessary for people to do truly good things. I think we have good and evil within us as humans -- religious people use religion to justify their acts, and non-religious people use other rationale.

Doctrinally speaking, we could not presume to speak for his ways and logic, right? But if his system is unpredictable to us, then how on earth could we know good from bad in God's eyes?

If you believe that God designed us, and that he intentionally gave us limited knowledge but on the other hand allowed free will, then he intentionally designed us to act imperfectly -- because our knowledge is far more restricted than our ability to act. Which means that any judgement God imposes on our action is based on our ability to pass some kind of test of his, and in-so-doing either really win or really lose the eternal lottery.

If god has truly created a place such as this, then he surely is a god of hatred and malice, and not the god of love and forgiveness that the bible tells us he is.

"To be honest, I personally still don't feel like I have very strong convictions about "how God will judge", so the best I can do is let you in on what I'm thinking on the subject at the moment... (Warning: To I'm going to have to get a bit theological...) At the heart of God's "law" is to not place oneself at the center of their own universe. I think it really is the traight behind all of the qualities that we feel are "good". So a person being selfless and loving is God's "law" that He wants us to follow. So when a person acts out of true love, they are submitting to God's law whether they know it or not. Thus God's will is accomplished in that situation, even if the person thinks that they are acting out of their own goodness to correct God's flaws. But how does God judge such an action? Jesus taught that if a person does a "good" action because they know that they will be naturally rewarded, then that natural reward is all they will get (God isn't impressed). The "natural reward" could be recognition, self-righteous feelings, repayment, etc. If on the other hand they do it sincerely, God will reward them. So what about a sincerely good action done with no thought of God... And what about a "good" action done in defience of God... I'm stumped. I'll have to leave that for God."

I'd say thats a rather sound argument, at least from a natural point of view (ie God doesn't acutally exist or interact). The Christian perspective would be a bit different- that people and humanity need help to some degree, and that God offers it.

I do have a question about the Person 3. Would this person be of the mindset that if (if!) that person came to the realization, through whatever means, that God really does exist, that He is good and holy and worthy of worship, and that all His actions were 100% justified and moral, and that their own actions had not been as perfect as they thought... would they at that point submit to such a God?

I can't understand how a god that has created us to live on the earth that he has created solely for the purpose of us to live in, a god of love that is...would create a receptacle of punishment that would last for an infinite amount of time based on
our choices that we have made in a finite amount of time in a world that obviously has difficulty grasping the situation.

If I gave you a hundred years to live...of which the first 5 were learning to read and write, the next 10 are based on maturing to the point of making decisions for yourself based on little to no experience of the real world...then another 50 years just trying to mete out a meager existence for yourself and perhaps your family, top it off with the last 10 years of your life just trying to maintain a grasp on yourself as your mind slips away while you age to death...you're really only given about 25 years to redeem yourself according to the standards given to you that you will probably reject, since they involve a great amount of discipline and sacrifice.
I don't see how an eternity in a fiery pit of torture is fair punishment for any failures that you could make in such a short period of time.

Which brings me to my own personal opinion of what mankind has come to label as Hell:

If god has truly created a place such as this, then he surely is a god of hatred and malice, and not the god of love and forgiveness that the bible tells us he is.

I do believe that God's will is subject to interpretation, as is everything else we experience, but that our chosen interpretation does not change what God's will really is/was, just as our interpretation doesn't change any other part of reality. Personally, I think it's in people's best interest to do their best to understand God's will (or reality in general) as it really is, and live according to that understanding. That's obviously a judgment call on my own part...

First, my use of the word natural was not meant to be an insult, I was just trying to distinguish points of view. I was taking a decidedly "Christian Theological" one, and felt like you were coming from another one... And from what I know, I don't think you like to be pegged as an athiest, so I was just trying to find a nuetral way of noting a difference I thought I saw. Hope that sounds fair enough...

One reason why I would say we're coming from a different perspective is that I assume that you assume (alot of asuming!) that all the good that we see in the world was in fact inspired by humanity. I wouldn't believe that all of it did, so that's a little different starting point, which IMO made a difference.

our chosen interpretation does not change what God's will really is/was

Example: If someone wrongs me, and I want to hate them and get even, but I choose to forgive them because that is what the Bible clearly teaches I should do

so it can become a (difficult) test of character that forces me judge my own motivations behind what I choose to believe.

And out of curriosity... What if (for the sake of the discussion), Person 3 died, and found that they are now confronted with the situation I described in the afterlife? (but are still able to choose)

But my points of view in this thread, and the propositions I've offered, really only exclude one viewpoint, which is blind faith that lacks any self-doubt.

Or you could just forgive them because you feel sympathetic.

The difficult test of character is not whether or not you abide by the Bible. It's whether you're selfless when it would be easier to be selfish, and whether you're kind when it would be easier to be irate. It doesn't matter what the Bible says about it -- because that would be true even if the Bible were silent on this subject.

Doesn't that miss the entire point of my question?

If I've portrayed myself to be without self-doubt, then I've don a poor job!

Lets just assume I don't feel very sympathetic in the situation... Then I hope what I said makes more sense.

4.Philosophy. a.the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual. b.the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

5.Theology. a.the doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation. b.the doctrine that natural religion is sufficient for salvation.

I've felt like those, in some ways at least, are a decent description of how I've experienced your world view... If you don't feel like they do justice, I'll try to find a better way to talk about it.

So you're crediting God with inspiring you to offer a token of begrudging, unsympathetic forgiveness? That doesn't strike me as very sincere.
Paul

Would you also say that every time you're about to kill someone in cold blood it's your inspiration from God that stops you? Or do you recoil at the idea of ever doing that to begin with, God or not? I mean do you really think you'd be killing and stealing were it not for God? How many crimes were you about to commit that belief in God prevented?
Paul

You assume that natural and supernatural are the only ways of describing things, and you assume that there is something unnatural about spirituality. You assume that one who accepts the great epistemological impact of scientific inquiry would outright reject the possibility of discussing things that are moral, spiritual, or meaningful. You reject the possibility that a phenomenon can be understood at BOTH a natural and "supernatural" level if one is open minded enough. You're painting a black and white picture here with which I simply cannot agree.

I do assume that there can be something unnatural (nonmaterial?) about some parts of what I would call spirituality. I think you would asssume the oppostie?

And yes, I do assume that there are things that can not be understood (or explained, experienced, etc.) solely from a natural (or material) perspective, because they don't have their origin in the natural (or material). I think you would assume the oppoite?

I am a big believer in a scientific understanding of things. I don't in any way think science can explain EVERYTHING. But I also don't think that the things exempt from science are supernatural or unnatural or miraculous.

So you and I are not opposites here, because we're not even having the same conversation.

Is there a label or short way of describing this view point that would feel appropriate to you?

Agreed! I think that's inevitable when different (not opposite) world veiws interact on a subject that involves some of their differing pressupositions... So I think we're on the right track by trying to acknowledge our individual perspectives rather than just our conclusions.