Why did God forgive our sins?

Wow, what an ironic statement! Does this not go against the Christian belief of free will. You are trying to tell us that a supernatural being created human beings with the ability to free choose their eternal state i.e. heaven or hell, deliberately placing not only the choice but the instrument of their eternal destruction within their grasp and in the end he will blot out their memory of this decision by a select few as well as the eternal fate of their friends and family, many of whom will be burning in torment of hell FOR ETERNITY. Yeah, what a terrible day it will be for you? What do you think of how it would feel for all the people going to your hell?But he is a loving god! Who cares if others are going to hell as long as I get there, after all he will wipe my memory away of all the great memories of my family even if they are going to hell. Wow, you must have terrible family relations and must hate this life so much, if all that you care about is how happy you will be living your eternal life in heaven with your monster god despite the billions of people who will live in ETERNAL TORMENT!What upsets me is not that this will actually happen but that people would entertain these evil thoughts of eternal destruction and torment on the rest of society including their family and friends while you and other selected Christians live in eternal bliss. This is outright disgusting and selfish.I am sorry but even when I was a Christian, I never, ever thought along these lines. Your statement, ICANT, is probably the most self-centered, disgusting and morally repugnant remarks I have ever heard. And you really wonder why people are turned off by your religious beliefs.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Yes, it is self-centered to think that anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview is destined for eternal damnation and torment. I choose to serve no one person or entity. Been there, done that. I am a son, grandson and nephew of ordained hell-fire and brimstone Christian Church ministers. I was baptised twice, once by my Grandfather at 8 and the second at 22 years of age. I served as a home Bible group leader and personally baptized two of my friends. I have read the Bible inside and out and I know exactly what you preach. You have no clue what my background is, don't assume you do. I get sick and tired of holier-than-thou, self-righteous "Christians" as yourself, assuming that anyone who disagrees with them has no clue of what the Bible is about or what the Christian religion entails. I would venture the vast majority of those disenchanted with Christianity are previously devout "born-again" believers who have through critical thinking, logical deduction and personal research have deduced that the Christian faith (as well as many other religous beliefs) is a farse.I am just pointing out the inconsistencies and the self-centeredness of your message (i.e God wiping out the memories of those bound for heaven vs. free will). This isn't a personal attack, however, due to most Christians deeply held beliefs they treat it so.Regardless, I wish peace and good will to all humanity (including you) and hope that someday you can open your eyes to the richness this present life on Earth entails.Happy Holidays.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

The key phrase is "if the Biblical god be a true god". That is the crux of the problem. You hit the nail on the head. Do you really think anyone would willingly be damned to torment in a burning lake of fire for eternity? That is why I see the story of Lucifer so ludicrous and laughable. That someone of his intelligence and knowledge would willingly counter an all-powerful entity knowing full-well of the eternal destination prepared for him. This defies all common sense and rational thinking. Again you hit the nail on the head Buzzsaw. That is the only way to prove the validity of the Christian faith to a rational thinking person who is not swayed soley by unsubstantiated, emotional personal experiences (which have a great way of fooling the mind into believing all sorts of pseudoscientific and outright fabricated myths i.e. UFO's, astrology, ghosts, etc) but rather relies on substantiated evidence and logic to paint the picture of what reality is. If this story is even true. Ditto. There is no substantial proof how much of these stories were true or whether much of the Bible could have been rewritten, added to, etc from original historical accounts by early Jewish scholars, the early Church fathers, ecumenical councils, etc. Much speculation still surrounds the creation and canonization of the Bible both OT and NT.Even if this story was true, I would seriously doubt he (or any intelligent person) would willingly and knowingly turn in the master and creator of the universe and of determinor of his own eternal destination. It would make more sense like you said previously that he doubted his claim to be God and the savior of mankind.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Why should life be hell? It doesn't have to be hell. It is only hell because humans treat each other in this fashion.As for death, I believe it to be the end of our existence and our consciencesness which is much more of a comfort than being in agonizing torment for eternity. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Regurgitating your standard Christian dogma, stock scripture and pat answers does nothing to answer the deep philosophical questions that surround your god's motives for knowingly and premeditatedly introducing sin, strife, disease, etc into the world and sending billions of people to eternal torment in a lake of fire while favoring a select few. It absolutely makes no sense, logically and philosophically.If your god does not want anyone to perish than why did he put the temptation (of a piece of fruit) that would summarily cause the strife, torment, and damnation of billions of humans to hell within the reach of a being with no fore knowledge of what actions are acceptable (good) and which ones are not acceptable (evil), in the first place.You say it is simple but this answer opens up a whole cannery of worms. You say all who do not repent are not saved. What about children, both young and adolescent? How about the millions of people who have never heard of Jesus Christ, both past and present? What about people before Christ? How about the mass murderers who repent in their jail cell t minutes before execution? What about an atheist ER doctor who has literally saved the lives of thousands of people on a daily basis? How about the mentally handicapped? How about the insane? Where do you draw the line?What happens if you are a devote Christian have doubts and then killed in a car crash before can you fully "repent"? What about someone who is killed before following through with their a full repentance? What do you consider repentance? Even Christians themselves cannot even agree on the rules of salvation are. Do you have to be fully immersed/baptized? Can you pray your way to salvation? Is sprinkling ok? What if you are baptized as a baby? Do you have to say the words or can you just think them? Does anyone have to be around? How do you know if you are saved? Do you have to publically announce your conversion? What if you never get baptized are you still saved? Is once saved, always saved" biblical or can you "fall away" and later be restored? What happens if you fall away and die before you can get fully restored? Are Catholics saved? How about Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? Seventh Day Adventists? Scientologists? Christian Scientists? Deists? Or any other denomination except your own saved? Can an active homosexual be saved? Catch my drift?Thus the reason there are literally tens of thousands of different Christian denominations (divisions) each of which interprets the Bible and salvation differently. It is only simple if you are a simple-minded person with no intellect.Please revisit the posts original question and answer objectively: Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. Why do religious fanatics on this forum assume that anyone here who does not agree with them have had no religious experiences and have never read the Bible? I would venture to guess many on here including myself know exactly what your "message of salvation" is. We just see no evidence to back it up. BTW, this is not a proselytization "God Tube" forum it is a science/philosophy forum. Yes, yes. Tell us something we don't know. As my mother would say "If you can't say anything substantial, don't say anything at all." Or my father's favorite quote plagerized from old Abe speaks volumes: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." It seems you are a rather simple minded person.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Rgr, I apologize. I just get a little fustrated being pidgeoned holed by some religious fundamentalists as being ignorant of there own world views. I don't mind religious discussions as long as people aren't trying to convert me every 5 seconds and they drop the condescending, self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude. Maybe I am just to simple-minded.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Ah, you see. You assume that I have not had the same level of faith you may have. However, you are sadly mistaken. I do not claim to know your level of religious faith or biblical knowledge please do not assume you know mine. I understand this all too well. I just do not agree that your claim to eternal life and the blessings of God are backed up by reality. Yes, I know this. Also add Matthew 6:33 ","But seek ye first the kingdom of God,and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." to your list. Quoting scripture at someone who has studied Christian apologetics, hermenuetics, and biblical archaelogical and am critical of the authenticity of the Biblical text based on this evidence. It sure sounds that way, having been on the other side of the table myself. Respect goes both ways. Don't treat everyone here as an ignorant heathen with no understanding of the Bible.I do not wish you nor anyone on this forum from atheist to Christian ill will.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Because we can logically deduce, based on a plethera of emperical evidence, that there is a live human being on the other side of this forum typing on a computer countering your discussion points. Artificial intelligence has not yet consistently passed the Turing test and does not have the "thinking" power and programming complexity to consistently trick human beings into thinking they are talking to a real human being vice a computer especially to the degree of interaction on a discussion forum. With that said who other evidence could you provide that would indicate you are not talking to a real person?Now, how does this reflect our views on the written "word of God". The Bible like many other religious books of antiquity is subject to verbal transmission errors (long chain of people who verbally passed down stories from generation to generation as in the case of the Genesis account), written transmission errors (copies of copies of written accounts i.e. Moses to early Jewish scholars, etc), translation errors (from Hebrew to Greek, Aramaic to Greek, etc), misinterpretation and even downright fabrication and post-composition alteration (both adding to and removing from original documents) by early Jewish and Christian scholars, ecumenical councils, etc. There is no way to know exactly how much of the Bible was written by its original authors and certainly no objective method to determine if it truely is the inspired word of a supernatural omniscient being. One can only make this assumption not by using emperical evidence but solely using unsubstantiated blind faith and subjective personal experiences.If you can prove otherwise please create a new topic and we can discuss this there.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

I know this is slightly off-topic but jabs like this require a qualified answer.Does absolute morality exist even in the Biblical perspective? In analyzing all of the text of the Bible, both OT and NT, this seems not to be the case.First, we have to define terms. What is absolute morality? Basically it is the determination (regardless of by whom)that certain actions, behaviors, attitudes, etc are always right (determined to be acceptable regardless of by whom) or wrong (determine to be not acceptable regardless of by whom) regardless of the context of situation in which they are acted.So what is relative morality? Moral relativism is the position that moral truth (determination of what is acceptable/right and not acceptable/wrong) itself is derived and subject to cultural, historical, societal and personal preferences and influences and is not necessarily absolute in its scope.What is interesting is that one does not have to be religious (much less a Christian) to be a moral absolutist and not all atheists or agnostics are moral relativists. The position of atheism inherently says nothing on the subject of morality and thus leaves it adherents up to themselves to determine what system of morality they will adopt. In fact, many atheists and agnostics (like myself) are not moral relativists or absolutists but rather there is a third option, moral universalism or objectivism.So what is moral universalism? It the position that a universal system of ethics does exist which (in the case of naturalism) has evolved (and continues to evolve to grant more rights and freedoms to all human beings as our understanding of humanity and the universe around us increases) by means of human cognitive rationalism and has been accepted by the vast majority of modern society. Universalism acknowledges that certain actions are determined to be acceptable or not acceptable to all people regardless of their background, ethnicity, etc (i.e. the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights). It is also accepted (non-absolutist moral universalism) that the context of the situation (as opposed to absolutism which disregards the context) does determine the acceptance or non-acceptance of certain (though not all) human behavior i.e. is it acceptable that countries go to war for self-protection vice out of a desire to increase their power, wealth, natural resources, ethnic hatred, etc.So let's move on know that we know the ground rules of what the major divisions of moral systems are. You say that the Bible teaches absolute morality. Let's discuss that shall we.Christians (such as you) claim that God's moral dictates are perfect, immutable and absolute. Correct? Than how is it that God creates over 700 commandments for the Jews and the rules of morality outlined by Jesus and his disciples/apostles incorporating rules for slavery, stoning of children for back talking their parents, physically abusing your children, stoning criminals, ethnocide by slaughtering and pillaging their neighbors, infanticide (killing babies and young children) and other God commanded or condoned heinous acts that many modern Christians would now consider to be antiquated, barbaric, heinous and totally unacceptable in today's modern society. Why are these God given commands now unacceptable? How is your system of "absolute" rules by God in the Bible, unchanging? How is this moral system not relativistic? To me it speaks volumes that Christians cannot even decide amongst themselves, which rules in the Bible to agree should apply, yet they claim their system of morality to be absolute and immutable.Indeed, I would state that your system of morality is intrinsically more relative than the one I claim.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

That is all well and good and most decent human beings would not disagree with #2. But how do you square #1 and #3 that with these verses: And that is a mere fraction of the attrocities displayed and commanded by your loving god from the first four books of your holy book.What a loving God!!! If this is love, what is hate? Really, you have to be kidding me?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Bull shit! Any time you read a book of antiquity (in which you cannot talk to its original author/s), you interpret in your mind your own understanding of that text. Even if you analyze the text in its original language that is still an English interpretation of the original Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic text. You may agree with other peoples interpretation of that scripture, however, it still is an interpretation of it. In fact in Bible college whole courses called Hermeneutics are taught in the attempt to analyze the theories of interpretation of religious text. By analyzing the historical, societal and cultural context as well as the backgrounds of the author(s) you can attempt to get as close to the original meaning of the text as possible. However, we can never be absolutely sure of this original meaning with any type of objective certainty. Let's take a look at this shall we? Any time we analyze religious scripture we should look at the verse in context of the passage in which it was pulled from. Who was Jesus talking to? And what was its context? Well, this passage is part of Jesus famous "Sermon on the Mount" at the beginning of his public ministry in which he lays out much of his moral philosophy and teachings to a large crowd of Jews (and maybe some Samaritans and Gentiles) as well as describing the future spiritual kingdom that is coming into fruition.With this understanding lets now look at the text itself. Jesus states A more literal translation, Young's Literal Translation states: If you analyze the Greek these words translate very much word for word to the above (yes I know there is some meaning that is lost between translations but not much in this passage).So know what is Jesus trying to tell us here? What is this "gate" he is talking about? What is the "road"? What is his meaning of "life" in this passage? And what is his meaning of "destruction"? This is where interpretation of biblical scripture comes into the picture. Having been a Christian for nearly 30 years nearly everyone Christian I have met has interpreted this to mean the following. The gate is Jesus Christ himself, that is the choice to accept him as your savior or not (salvation of damnation) (see also John 14:6 “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me"). The road (either to life or to destruction) is the path of your life which leads to one of two eternal destinies, living with God for eternity in heaven or spending eternity in hell. This is also supported by other scripture such as John 10:7, 9, 11: I have studies a bit of Koine Greek as a Christian but by no means am a Greek scholar. However let's take a look at that shall we?The original Greek (from the Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents) is this: ‘ ‘ · — ‘ ‘ ‘‘ ' which litteraly translated into English as follows (you can see it here as well):‘ - enter in
- through
- the
‘ - narrow or strait
- gate
- because or for
- broad or wide
- the
- gate
- and
- broad or spacious
- the
- road or way
- the
‘ - that leads
- to
- the
- ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal) -- damnable(-nation), destruction, die, perdition, perish, pernicious ways, waste
- and
- abundant or common
‘ - are
- that
‘ - enter
- through
- it (literaly itself)Hmm, seems pretty clear to me!Furthermore, if this "destruction" is not hell than what is it? Many non-believers will live nice cushy lives in this life and never go through this "destruction" spoken about by Jesus. Thus we can logically infer (and backed up by the context of the rest of the Biblical scripture) that what he is referring to is some type of judgement and condition occurring after death. Further, his description of people choosing the "right" way as choosing the way of life indicates some sort of eternal destiny that is not destructive. Therefore, I really don't see how you can around this interpretation of this Biblical scripture.Now whether this is the correct interpretation of these scriptures, you will have to collaborate with your fellow Christians on this forum and determine but from attending litterally tens of dozens of churchs (Southern and Independent Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, Christian Church, Episopalian, etc) as well as attending Bible college and being the son, grandson and nephew of ordained ministers, I can unequivocally tell you that you are wrong in stating that Caldron is incorrect to interpret the scripture this way. It seems that you are diametrically opposed to 99% of the protestant Christian interpretation of this scripture. Just curious what sect of Christianity do you represent? Why should I trust what someone tells me? Anyone can read the Bible for themselves and look up the original Greek and interpret for themselves what Jesus is saying.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Jaywill,You are so eager to preach and proselytize that you don't even understand the context of the argument occuring between Cauldron68 and ICANT. Cauldron's argument is basically that God is a sadistic creep because the # of people in heaven will be a mere fraction of those sent to eternal torment in hell. ICANT than critiqued the Matthew 7:13-14 scripture Cauldron used to help support his claim.I was not trying to conduct some online Christian Bible study session but was only providing my own analysis of this scripture to back up Cauldon's claim. As a result everything you are talking about is really irrelevant in this discussion and only serves to pull this discussion even further off-topic.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

I gladly chose the former.What you fail to disclose ICANT, is this statement on Peter Russell's World Clock: Further more when I mouse over the question mark on the clock it states this: Now lets look and see where these past stats & estimates come from shall we?Clicking on the Data Sources and Suggestions hyperlink at the bottom of the clock shows me this: Going to Wikipedia I look for a current rate of abortions. Wikipedia states the following: This is derived from the following article (which from extensive searching on the Internet seems to contain the most up to date worldwide abortion figures): Sedgh G, Henshaw S, Singh S, hman E, Shah IH. Induced abortion: rates and trends worldwide. Lancet 2007; 370: 1338-45.So basically this data is 5 years old. It seems that the global abortion rate is slowly creeping down as both developed and developing countries institute better birth control methods i.e. contraceptives, reproductive health & education increases and family planning is encouraged. This is substantiated by the statement from the above study by the Guttmacher Institute (a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education): As a result, since there has not been a worldwide analysis of all induced abortions in the past 5 years we cannot accurately determine the current rate of induced abortion around the globe. I would venture to guess that this global rate of induce abortions will continue to decrease as less developed countries become more educated, their health systems get better, and use of contraceptives are encouraged (as long as the Catholic Church keeps their anti-contraceptive opinions to themselves-they are doing vastly more harm than good). BTW, I am not an advocate of using abortion as a form of birth control (I only see the need for this in extreme cases of incest, rape and risk to the life of the mother) however I do not think it should be illegalized due to the severe health ramifications it would cause in both developing and developed countries.Regardless, I think this is a ludicrous and almost laughable (do to its stupidity) point to make anyways. So it is ok for God to damn billions of people to hell as long as millions of unborn fetuses are in heaven with God.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

And so is your interpretation of this scripture. Now where does that get us? Further more this interpretation I quoted previously is held by the vast majority of born-again Christians.BTW, what do you think Jesus was talking about when he mentions destruction here besides the souls damnation to hell i.e. spiritual as well as physical death? You always have to look at the context of the surrounding passage to determine the exact meaning of words when they are translated from one language into another. Words in one language (especially one nearly 2000 years old) do not translate into another language with all the meaning intact. We have to infer somethings like I said previously in surround text as well as how it is used in other passages as shown below.The greek word litteraly spelled in english characters apoleian from which we derive the words appolyon and appocoplyptic litteraly translates "to destroy fully" in nearly every context it is used in the Bible.Here are some more definitions of the word from Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Well obviously it is not 1 or 2. Unless Jesus was talking about about #3 right?Also here is some other scripture that uses the word or derivitive .Again Strong's take on the word apoleia (684): Strong on the word apollumi (622): Strong on the word olethros (3639): Hmm, to destroy fully i.e. death? Where and how would that occur, I wonder? So are you still going to argue against Strong's and Thayer's translation of these words? Or against the entirity of protestant Christianity? and So again what is this "ruin" or "loss" you are talking about if not the ultimate destination of hell? Do you believe in pergatory? Again I have yet to hear from you ICANT what this passage exactly means. And if the way is wide for this ruin or loss for unbelievers and many are inflicted by it would it not stand to reason that they would be going to judgement and hell as spelled out by the verse above? You have never studies hermeneutics or linguistics have you? Translation from one language to another automatically incurrs interpretation errors. For example a Greek words such as was originally translated into English by scholars in the middle ages (and now modern scholars) both directly from Greek as well as throgh Greek to Latin translated manuscripts into Old/Middle/Modern English. When they did so they had to determine which words in English came closest to the meaning of the Greek words by determining in what context these words were used i.e. interpretation. Interpretation goes hand in hand with translation. Strong translates the word (geena) as follows: Maybe because the word is the act and is the place in which occurs as shown here: You really are stretching this out to absurdity to try to prove your illogical point.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan