Am I going to hell?

welkin

I'm a non-believer but I live a moral life.

Supposing I'm completely wrong and I meet God when I die.
Can he send me to an eternity of miserable suffering because I never prayed to him?

Manach

Offhand, as per the OP's original query my understanding that,overall , Christianity is the surest means of achieving salivation but living a, objectively speaking, moral life would be a means of achieving the hoped-for ends.
Again, not a scholar on these matters, but Dante had placed such in the way-station of Purgatory.

homer911

Those who have heard the word of God become responsible for their response to it. Equally if there is no condemnation for those who have never heard the gospel, then there is no motivation for Christians to evangelise.

http://www.gotquestions.org/never-heard.html

Incidentally, praying to God (in general terms) does not make you a Christian

homer911

This is a fuller response to the same question

http://www.compellingtruth.org/never-heard-Christ.html

Benny_Cake

Mod note: This isn't a thread for atheist / Christian debate, nor is it a comedy thread. Lets keep it on topic, please.

ravima

There is also a minor enough heresy - that the love of Jesus is so wide no one will be condemned to Hell.

Ash.J.Williams

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, as per the OP's original query my understanding that,overall , Christianity is the surest means of achieving salivation but living a, objectively speaking, moral life would be a means of achieving the hoped-for ends.
Again, not a scholar on these matters, but Dante had placed such in the way-station of Purgatory.

salivation?

Benny_Cake

ravima wrote: »

There is also a minor enough heresy - that the love of Jesus is so wide no one will be condemned to Hell.

That would be universalism. There was a denomination in America - the Universalist Church which held that belief, but they merged with the Unitarians back in the 1960s. There is also a small Baptist denomination in the Appalachian mountains known as Primitive Baptist Universalists (or no-Hellers). Although no other groups hold that belief as far as I know, it's likely that there are many individual Christians who do. Rob Bell created a bit of a stir about it with his "Love Wins" book a few years back.

There is also the concept of annihilationism which holds that final punishment represents the destruction of the soul (ie; non-existence). It's held by Seventh-day Adventists and a number of other groups.

martinedwards

according to orthodox Christianity, if you aren't a Christian, you don't get into heaven.

good works count for nothing.

Fanny Cradock

welkin wrote: »

I'm a non-believer but I live a moral life.

Supposing I'm completely wrong and I meet God when I die.
Can he send me to an eternity of miserable suffering because I never prayed to him?

Your post poses a lot of questions.

1) Moral by whose standard? If you answer is your own morality or society's then that doesn't get you very far if these morals are in opposition to objective morality.

2) Why do you think that being a good person is sufficient for salvation?

3) Conversely why do you think that not praying is enough to condemn you to hell (whatever we understand that to be)?

uck51js9zml2yt

if being moral and a good person was enough then Jesus needn't have died.
by the same token being religious doesn't do it either.

MrPudding

Vance Abundant Rotation wrote: »

if being moral and a good person was enough then Jesus needn't have died.
by the same token being religious doesn't do it either.

But couldn't it have been enough?

MrP

uck51js9zml2yt

MrPudding wrote: »

But couldn't it have been enough?

MrP

Jesus had to die to open the way by dealing with sin.
being good enough couldn't do it. that was why the law wasn't good enough and he came as the only one able to fulfill it and meet its demands.

welkin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your post poses a lot of questions.

1) Moral by whose standard? If you answer is your own morality or society's then that doesn't get you very far if these morals are in opposition to objective morality.

2) Why do you think that being a good person is sufficient for salvation?

3) Conversely why do you think that not praying is enough to condemn you to hell (whatever we understand that to be)?

1) I arrived at my morality through experience and reason. Of course you may not think i'm moral. Objective morality doesn't exist imo

2) If being a "good" person is satisfied I can't really see the need for any other criteria. Nit scanty not getting in upstairs cause you weren't baptised/confirmed/administered last rites or whatever.

3) By not "praying" I just meant it as a fast way of saying that i do not practice any Catholic doctrines and rituals whatsoever.

I'm just trying to figure out where I stand from a Catholic or Christian view. I know Dante said all noble pagans like Plato are on the first floor of hell but it's Hell nonetheless. But is Dante even taken seriously by Theologians?

uck51js9zml2yt

welkin wrote: »

1) I arrived at my morality through experience and reason. Of course you may not think i'm moral. Objective morality doesn't exist imo

2) If being a "good" person is satisfied I can't really see the need for any other criteria. Nit scanty not getting in upstairs cause you weren't baptised/confirmed/administered last rites or whatever.

3) By not "praying" I just meant it as a fast way of saying that i do not practice any Catholic doctrines and rituals whatsoever.

I'm just trying to figure out where I stand from a Catholic or Christian view. I know Dante said all noble pagans like Plato are on the first floor of hell but it's Hell nonetheless. But is Dante even taken seriously by Theologians?

from a Christian point of view your being a good person doesn't cut it with God.

Manach

Without a concept of objective morality, we all can slide into a utilitarian model that undercuts the bindings of society and require the state to step in to co-equate morality and law, which leading theorists have suggested is not wise.
Being good without an external yardstick to measure is now available to anyone, so long as they believed (as most of us do) we are on the side of goodness - which usual defaults to obeying whatever the current mores of society. To achieve a measure of goodness, some deeds within the Christian framework are required to reap what has been earned in life, as per St. Paul.

Fanny Cradock

welkin wrote: »

1) I arrived at my morality through experience and reason. Of course you may not think i'm moral. Objective morality doesn't exist imo

That's fine. But I thought you were asking about what God, as revealed by Christianity, might have to say on the matter rather then your own personal take on morality.

As it stands, I wonder if reason informs morality or if it is the other way around. I also wonder how experience play into morality when we cast moral judgements on deeds that lay outside the realm of our experience.

Also, I never stated my opinions on the direction of your moral compass. how could I? I don't know anything about you. But let me assure you that I think it is entirely conceivable that you as a non-Chirstian are a kinder and more caring person then myself, a Christian.

welkin wrote: »

2) If being a "good" person is satisfied I can't really see the need for any other criteria. Nit scanty not getting in upstairs cause you weren't baptised/confirmed/administered last rites or whatever.

Again, I though your were asking a question, not stating how you think it should be so. Christianity preaches a deceptively simple message - we have all missed the mark and are condemned by our sinful nature (I think any history book should provide ample supporting evidence for this claim). Moreover, it says that we cannot save ourselves or improve our standing in God's eyes by being moral, piteous and super swell people. Jesus made it clear to the religious elite that the religious laws they practised were not sufficient and that it is only through him that we are saved.

Again, as I say often here, you don't have to believe any of this to actually understand what claims are being made.

welkin wrote: »

i do not practice any Catholic doctrines and rituals whatsoever.

Well, neither do I. Nor do non-Catholic Christians.

welkin wrote: »

I'm just trying to figure out where I stand from a Catholic or Christian view. I know Dante said all noble pagans like Plato are on the first floor of hell but it's Hell nonetheless. But is Dante even taken seriously by Theologians?

Dante's Inferno should be read for what it is, a poem. It's not a theological work (though undoubtedly he was attempting to make some theological points). You might benefit from listening to this lecture series. It's long but it provides an excellent introduction to the central themes that run throughout the Bible.

Zombrex

welkin wrote: »

I'm a non-believer but I live a moral life.

Supposing I'm completely wrong and I meet God when I die.
Can he send me to an eternity of miserable suffering because I never prayed to him?

No offence, but this tread smacks of a tell-me-I'm-going-to-hell-so-I-can-be-annoyed-you-told-me-I'm-going-to-hell threads.

According to most Christian denominations nearly all humans are deserving of hell because nearly all humans have fallen short of God (ie sinned)

Christians (of which I am not one) believe that Jesus took the punishment for this sin on himself so that it would not be directed to humans. Humans can then repent and accept Jesus' gift of salvation.

If you think being told you are going to hell means that a Christian is telling you that he/she thinks you are a bad person compared to other Christians then that is a misunderstanding of what most Christian churches teach.

But ultimately as a non-believer none of this should really matter that much to you.

Akrasia

From my catholic education, I was always told that whether we went to heaven or not depended on whether or not we had been following the catholic sacraments.
If we had sinned but had gone to confession and been forgiven these sins, then they no longer count as a barrier to salvation, however, if we died without confessing and being forgiven, then we could go to hell or limbo depending on how severe the sins were.

This means that no matter how nice you are, you're not getting to heaven unless you obey the sacraments. This means Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, Confession, Marriage Holy
Orders (not applicable to most) and the Last Rites (annointing of the sick)

If you're 'living in sin' (eg having sex outside of marriage) you're not going to get into heaven unless you decide on your death-bed to repent and give confession for your sins

I always thought this was very unfair for people who died suddenly. You could be a murderer who is dying slowly of cancer and has time feel frightened and genuinely sorry for his sins and can repent and be saved, or you could be a good person with children outside of marriage who gets hit by a bus and doesn't get last rites or a chance to go to confession and she/he gets a one way ticket to damnation.

This is just one of the many injustices that caused me to reject the idea of the catholic God as was taught to me growing up.

uck51js9zml2yt

welkin wrote: »

I'm a non-believer but I live a moral life.

Supposing I'm completely wrong and I meet God when I die.
Can he send me to an eternity of miserable suffering because I never prayed to him?

on short...yes

ILoveGuinness

In response to the OP, I personally think it's pretty clear cut. Yes. You are going to hell. As a non-believer, you have not accepted Christ, which is basically question number 1 when ya get to the gates.

Benny_Cake

Mod note: I've moved some of the discussion over to the Atheism/Existence of God megathread as the bulk of the discussion seems to be going that way. Let's try and keep this focused on hell (and what Christians think hell is) specifically - thanks.

JoeB-

Some posters here are suggesting that there is such a thing as 'objective morality' Several posters have suggested it.

There is no such thing.

I will give the example of slavery. It was both practiced and considered moral in the bible and in biblical times. It is neither practiced nor considered moral today.

In a world of objective morality slavery would either be moral or immoral for all time. I would point out that it is self evidently true that if morality can change through the ages then it is not objective. So our views on slavery have changed, and what was once considered moral is now considered immoral. Hence no objective morality,.. in other words all morality is subjective. I can give many examples, from different cultures and from different times.


Catholics or Christians may believe they are operating under a fixed and unchanging morality but I'd suggest (and have backed it up with evidence) that they are mistaken. The fact that morality can change is a strong point against the existence of a God who claims to offer an unchanging morality.

tommy2bad

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Some posters here are suggesting that there is such a thing as 'objective morality' Several posters have suggested it.

There is no such thing.

I will give the example of slavery. It was both practiced and considered moral in the bible and in biblical times. It is neither practiced nor considered moral today.

In a world of objective morality slavery would either be moral or immoral for all time. I would point out that it is self evidently true that if morality can change through the ages then it is not objective. So our views on slavery have changed, and what was once considered moral is now considered immoral. Hence no objective morality,.. in other words all morality is subjective. I can give many examples, from different cultures and from different times.


Catholics or Christians may believe they are operating under a fixed and unchanging morality but I'd suggest (and have backed it up with evidence) that they are mistaken. The fact that morality can change is a strong point against the existence of a God who claims to offer an unchanging morality.

By enlarge I agree with you, I'm not so sure God offers an unchanging morality, I think it's more that we suppose that as God is unchanging then anything from Him must also be unchanging.
The non sequitur their is assuming that morality comes from God in the first place.

santing

The OP could be answered by a parallel story from the New Testament:

And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 19:16-23, ESV)

Although this relates to a rich young man, he clearly had great morals and a good standard of life - the Lord Jesus doesn't dispute it. What the Lord requires of him is that he gives it all up and come, follow me. In the end if there is anything more important in our life than following Christ, we are not truly a Christian.

Geomy

I don't think it's best to ask Christians whether you are going to hell or not...
If you are a believer only God can decide that, not his followers.

homer911

Geomy wrote: »

I don't think it's best to ask Christians whether you are going to hell or not...
If you are a believer only God can decide that, not his followers.

If you cant ask Christians, who can you ask? There is quite a difference between asking the question and someone "judging you" without you asking the question. I think its fair to say that these answers could all be prefixed with "It's my understanding, based on my knowledge of the bible, that.. "

The problem for Christians is knowing that so many wont be going to heaven, and its up to us to do something about it. At least the OP is not deluding him/herself. We cannot feed the delusion.

looksee

The existence of hell is a belief. If you believe in it then you can create hell for yourself by imaginings and contemplation of the dire consequences of not doing what you believe you should to stay out. The other side is that you won't be going to heaven either, since that is also a belief; presumably 'you' just cease to exist, or get recycled.

If you do not believe in hell, or indeed anything else that cannot be proved to your satisfaction, then there is no way you can force yourself to believe. All the arguments about who said what, or what God says also come under the umbrella of whether you believe or not and do not get you any further forward.

So really its up to you, either go with your current thinking - and of course not accepting Catholic doctrine has little to do with a belief in an after-life - or become an insurance policy Christian, or join another religion and accept their beliefs.

sligoface

OP you might find some interesting info if you research near death experiences, nderf org has stories from people of all different faiths, no faiths, etc. Spoiler alert: they rarely experience anything hellish, mostly good vibes, dead relatives, an objective, non-judemental life review, some get to hang with Jesus for a while before being given a choice to stay or go back to their human life.
As a gnostic, christian I search for my own truth though I never will know if I'm right. Even when speaking to the disciples close to him, Jesus talked in veiled parables quite often, so there is no way to know everything, and I think that is kind of the point. But why sacrifice yourself through crucifixion to expunge the sins of humankind and then send them all there anyway for being sinners?

homer911

sligoface wrote: »

But why sacrifice yourself through crucifixion to expunge the sins of humankind and then send them all there anyway for being sinners?

The Bible makes it pretty clear that the first part of your statement is correct, but not the second, at least its not stating the whole truth

santing

sligoface wrote: »

But why sacrifice yourself through crucifixion to expunge the sins of humankind and then send them all there anyway for being sinners?

That's called love at God's side and freewill on mankind's ... He loves you so much that there is no obstacle anywhere to be saved ... and He loves you so much that He is not forcing you to be saved, He respects your decision.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

That's called love at God's side and freewill on mankind's ... He loves you so much that there is no obstacle anywhere to be saved ... and He loves you so much that He is not forcing you to be saved, He respects your decision.

I don't think you followed the question.

If Jesus took the punishment for all sin, then what do I need saving from? There is no more punishment, Jesus already took the punishment for all man kind. There is nothing to choose.

Or is it that Jesus only paid the punishment for some, those that want him to pay for them?

In which case what was the point in not paying for everyone?

santing

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't think you followed the question.

If Jesus took the punishment for all sin, then what do I need saving from? There is no more punishment, Jesus already took the punishment for all man kind. There is nothing to choose.

Or is it that Jesus only paid the punishment for some, those that want him to pay for them?

In which case what was the point in not paying for everyone?

Hi Zombrex,
I did follow the question, but it might need more explanation .... The righteousness and holy nature of God sees two problems (at least) with us. One is our actions - sins - that require punishment, the other one is our nature - we are sinners. As a sinner I don't even like God's presence, I can't stand in the presence of a Holy God without feeling seriously out of place. And God cannot tolerate sinners in his presence. The death of our Lord Jesus established two things. One the payment for sins - and his death was sufficient. Secondly through the death of the Lord Jesus He offers us a new nature, which requires us to be "born again." With this new nature we are capable (and long for) fellowship with God. Without this new nature we cannot stand in His presence. To sum it up with the words of John 3:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (Joh 3:36)

tommy2bad

So redemption was conditional? Not sure that's orthodox christian thinking!
Just dump the PSA model and accept that it's wrong or more acuratly wrong if it's the only model that apply.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

Hi Zombrex,
I did follow the question, but it might need more explanation .... The righteousness and holy nature of God sees two problems (at least) with us. One is our actions - sins - that require punishment, the other one is our nature - we are sinners. As a sinner I don't even like God's presence, I can't stand in the presence of a Holy God without feeling seriously out of place. And God cannot tolerate sinners in his presence. The death of our Lord Jesus established two things. One the payment for sins - and his death was sufficient. Secondly through the death of the Lord Jesus He offers us a new nature, which requires us to be "born again." With this new nature we are capable (and long for) fellowship with God. Without this new nature we cannot stand in His presence. To sum it up with the words of John 3:

Two points.

Firstly what you say above would imply though that I do not receive punishment for my sin, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for me, but I still wind up in hell simply because I do not wish to be in heaven with God. That would seem an odd and some what unjust decision on God's part, to sent someone like myself to hell (a place of punishment) simply for not wishing to be in heaven with God. Jesus has already taken my punishment but I still wind up in a place of punishment. Would something like limbo or reincarnation or some alternative not seem more sensible? Sending someone to a place of punishment for a reason other than punishment seems, well, not very just.

Secondly, the quote from John implies that in fact Jesus does not take the punishment for everyone, that if you do not believe in Jesus you still face God's full punishment and wrath (which means Jesus did not take my punishment). As Tommy points out that seems to place forgiveness under a condition, which again causes problems for God's sense of justice

Fanny Cradock

For more on the PSA and Christus Victor models see here.

Fanny Cradock

tommy2bad wrote: »

So redemption was conditional? Not sure that's orthodox christian thinking!

I think that it is orthodox. What is your understanding of salvation and judgement?

tommy2bad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that it is orthodox. What is your understanding of salvation and judgement?

That was a fast reaction I gave, not sure redemption is the right word. I always understood that the redemption of the cross was unconditional, it happened whether we accepted it or not. The conditional part is our imposition, we can reject this but God has done His part.
I'm more of a Christus Victor inclination, it solves a lot of the problems of PSA without excluding atonement completely.
It's not one or the other anyway, a bit of both really. Damage repaired and the cost born by someone other than the vandal.

Zombrex

Can someone explain what the difference between being punished for sin and not accepting God's gift of salvation are. Both seem to end up in hell.

So I sin. Then Jesus takes my punishment. So despite being sinful I no longer deserve punishment for this sin.

Surely in that state (sinner but punishment free) I am not the in the same class as someone who is a sinner but has not had someone else take their punishment.

Christianity seems to treat these two class of people the same, which doesn't make a huge amont of sense to me.

JoeB-

Some people are saying that humans are inherently sinful. Having such a belief indicates a lack of respect for oneself, or an inferiority complex of some kind.

You are not responsible for the way you are made. Your maker is responsible for his actions and creations. If you were created as a sinful creature then that is your creators fault, i.e Gods fault. He should accept the responsibility in full for his own actions.

God is clearly not as forgiving as I am. I refuse to condemn humans for actions that they did not take. God however does insist on punishment for actions not taken. For a being of supposed infinite forgiveness that would appear to be quite a handicap. I am genuinely astonished that anyone would have a belief or a respect for God given his paradoxical teachings and ways of behaving.


It'd be correct to say that millions of humans who existed before Jesus can never get to Heaven can they?, as they cannot have complied with a message that they had never heard. Clearly these people are being punished about something over which they had no control. This indicates clearly that God is neither forgiving nor reasonable.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

Can someone explain what the difference between being punished for sin and not accepting God's gift of salvation are. Both seem to end up in hell.

So I sin. Then Jesus takes my punishment. So despite being sinful I no longer deserve punishment for this sin.

Surely in that state (sinner but punishment free) I am not the in the same class as someone who is a sinner but has not had someone else take their punishment.

Christianity seems to treat these two class of people the same, which doesn't make a huge amont of sense to me.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

If the Government announces that they have developed a cure for a plague that has been ravaging the land you, and every other citizen, still has to do something if you all want to live - namely take your medicine! Sitting back safe in the knowledge that they have the cure isn't going to do you any good if you have the plague.

What you seem to be puzzling over is in some way equivalent to the man who sits on couch, beer at the ready and remote in hand, unable to figure out why he weighs more even after watching all of Carroll Vorderman's "Get Fit With Fractions" fitness DVD's.

There are many views on atonement - here is a good place to start. The link that I provided involves a good bit of back and forth between two of the possible views.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Can someone explain what the difference between being punished for sin and not accepting God's gift of salvation are. Both seem to end up in hell.

So I sin. Then Jesus takes my punishment. So despite being sinful I no longer deserve punishment for this sin.

Surely in that state (sinner but punishment free) I am not the in the same class as someone who is a sinner but has not had someone else take their punishment.

Christianity seems to treat these two class of people the same, which doesn't make a huge amont of sense to me.

This is what makes discussions like this difficult, we don't define the terms first.
Punished imply retribution, it might be more a consequence than an imposed punishment.
Sin isn't a 'thing' or choice, it's the state we are in, we don't chose to sin, we sin because we are human, all it means is that we fall short of the mark, fail to be what God wants. We are bound to this for some reason, I haven't figured out yet. But that's what it is. Now God says "OK I can live with you humans and all your faults, just accept that I can help you be better". If we refuse then we are stuck with our sin, if we accept this offer we can change.

As to eternal punishment imposed be God? no other than the consequence of rejecting the offer.

editrice

It's no longer fashionable to talk about hell, but if you want to know the Christian viewpoint about hell, my advice would read for yourself exactly what Christ taught about hell. Jesus very clearly describes hell, and gives us a very clear understanding of it. No one spoke of or taught on Hell and Judgment more than Jesus Christ. All but two of Christ's warnings about hell in scripture were directed to his own followers.'Christians' are in great danger of going to hell, make no mistake.

Remember the name "Jesus" means "God Saves"

No one comes to the Father except through him.

tommy2bad

editrice wrote: »

It's no longer fashionable to talk about hell, but if you want to know the Christian viewpoint about hell, my advice would read for yourself exactly what Christ taught about hell. Jesus very clearly describes hell, and gives us a very clear understanding of it. No one spoke of or taught on Hell and Judgment more than Jesus Christ. All but two of Christ's warnings about hell in scripture were directed to his own followers.'Christians' are in great danger of going to hell, make no mistake.

Remember the name "Jesus" means "God Saves"

No one comes to the Father except through him.

And then theirs this; http://www.godsplanforall.com/jesusdidnotteachhell

For every opinion theirs a counter opinion.

editrice

tommy2bad wrote: »

And then theirs this; http://www.godsplanforall.com/jesusdidnotteachhell

For every opinion theirs a counter opinion.

Yes wouldn't it be great if we could pretend there is no hell, and pretend that Christ did not warn us about it, and in particular his own followers.

If someone chooses to selectively ignore what Christ said on the subject of hell in scripture, and refuse to quote it in full, then yes, of course there is always a counter opinion.

Personally I prefer Christ's full unedited opinion and words from scripture, rather than someone else's selective editing.

That's why I advised in my post, and continue to advise people to read his entire words for themselves.

After that people can take it or leave it, it matters not to me if they do or not.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They aren't mutually exclusive.

I didn't say they were.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If the Government announces that they have developed a cure for a plague that has been ravaging the land you, and every other citizen, still has to do something if you all want to live - namely take your medicine! Sitting back safe in the knowledge that they have the cure isn't going to do you any good if you have the plague.

That is an odd analogy. What did Jesus do if we have to "take the cure"? What did Jesus suffer on the cross if he wasn't suffering the punishment for all humanity? And what will "taking the cure" do for us if Jesus already took our punishment?

It is more like saying Superman has sucked up all the disease and his body will fight the entire population of bacteria for us, but we still have to take the cure. Why would we have to take the cure?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There are many views on atonement - here is a good place to start. The link that I provided involves a good bit of back and forth between two of the possible views.

Which one is the correct one

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

This is what makes discussions like this difficult, we don't define the terms first.
Punished imply retribution, it might be more a consequence than an imposed punishment.
Sin isn't a 'thing' or choice, it's the state we are in, we don't chose to sin, we sin because we are human, all it means is that we fall short of the mark, fail to be what God wants. We are bound to this for some reason, I haven't figured out yet. But that's what it is. Now God says "OK I can live with you humans and all your faults, just accept that I can help you be better". If we refuse then we are stuck with our sin, if we accept this offer we can change.

As to eternal punishment imposed be God? no other than the consequence of rejecting the offer.

Ok ... so what did Jesus do? Or what did the thing that happened to Jesus do?

My understanding of Christian doctrine was that we are all sinners and deserving of punishment. Jesus took our punishment upon himself so that we would not need to be punished by God.

So ... why are we then still punished by God and why do we need to do something to avoid that punishment.

Or if we are not still punished by God, why are we treated in a fashion that is equivalent to punishment if we no longer are punished (the you-don't-want-to-be-with-God theory.

santing

Zombrex wrote: »

That is an odd analogy. What did Jesus do if we have to "take the cure"? What did Jesus suffer on the cross if he wasn't suffering the punishment for all humanity? And what will "taking the cure" do for us if Jesus already took our punishment?

It is more like saying Superman has sucked up all the disease and his body will fight the entire population of bacteria for us, but we still have to take the cure. Why would we have to take the cure?

Which one is the correct one

The analogy is indeed at odds with reality - as most analogies are The Lord Jesus died for us while we were still sinners, enemies of God. He paid the price for our sins and offers us a new life "the cure". If we refuse the free cure and rather stay enemies of God, we can't really blame God for accepting our decision, now can we?

So we are not lost because of our sins, but because of our refusal of being saved.

hinault

Christ dying doesn't absolve each and every one of us.
To think this would be highly misleading.

Christ died to restore the Covenant between God and man.

However it is up to each and every individual to live a righteous life in order to save themselves.

When Christ died he ensured God's mercy would be extended to man. But it would be folly for anyone to assume that God's mercy is automatic.
We know that it isn't.

DarkDusk

One of the problems of religion, I'm glad I don't have to think about these things...

homer911

hinault wrote: »

However it is up to each and every individual to live a righteous life in order to save themselves.

Just to be clear hinault, living a righteous life will not ensure your salvation - even atheists can live a righteous life. You have to love God first..