Quick Links

Quick Links

Seattle Traffic Cams (DOT)
Spam Arrest
Washington State Lottery
Internet.com
TV Guide Local Listings
Campsite Reserve
eClasses
informIT
Peachpit Press
.NET Link »
AllRecipes
Premera  
Doom9.net
Critical Thinking On The Web
Color Hex 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 ·
Color Hex Explained
Special HTML Characters »

Preterism

Universal Salvation

The Problem of Evil

Quick Links

Belief is Easy - Truth is Hard
UBI DUBIUM IBI LIBERTAS (Latin: "Where there is doubt, there is freedom")

Don't believe just because it's easy. Seek truth because it's the right thing to do. Start by asking tough questions, hard questions, difficult questions, ticklish and uneasy questions, even painful and frightening questions. Test everything, especially your own belief system. Make a list of all your belief assumptions. Be completely honest with yourself. If you are unsure what "belief assumptions" are or what assumptions you're making, start reading books about Critical Thinking. Do you know why you believe the way you do? Do you believe only because it was what you were taught? By your parents, your church, your culture, your country? What if you had been born anywhere else? In Italy? Iraq? China? Russia? Would you be as certain of your beliefs there as you imagine you are here and now? Why do you believe the way you do? How do you believe? Where did your beliefs come from? Did you choose your beliefs or were they imprinted upon you at an early age before you knew how to think critically or ask rational questions? What criteria do you use to justify your beliefs? What are your reasons? What are your real reasons? Do you believe the things you do out hopefulness, wishful-thinking, or moral concerns, or are your reasons attributed to your emotions, the way you feel, or to self-preservation and self-interest, fear of punishment or fear of death? Are you placing your emotions and fears above reason and intellect? Do you believe because you want something to be true rather than wanting to know the truth even though it may be discomforting? Have you examined your beliefs rationally and logically? Have you researched your belief system, studied it's history or read contrary points-of-view? Have you tested your beliefs, or have you been lazy and complacent? What do you really feel deep down inside? How much of those feelings are you willing to admit to? If you're afraid, what are you afraid of? And why? Are you willing to risk everything, even your salvation, eternal life, for the sake of love and truth? Are you willing to forfeit your heavenly reward and take another's place in hell without asking anything in return? Not even recognition of the sacrifice you made? Not even a word of thanks? For the sake of love are you willing to surrender your place in heaven and give it freely to another with no strings attached? If you're unable to do this, what does this say about you? If you are able to do this, what does this say about your God?

The true measure of a loving god is not merely showing compassion for one's friends (any mortal can do that), but unconditional compassion for one's enemies.

So, is your god a loving god or have conditions been placed on the distribution of love, compassion, and grace? If so, is just such a 'conditional' god any kind of god at all?

Perhaps your image of god is way too small...

Original Sin: Theological Queries

QUERY (1)

According to the Apostle Paul (e.g, Romans 5:12), the inheritance of a sinful and inherently evil human "nature" is universal and unconditional (every human being is automatically marked by sin and death at birth because of the original disobedience of Adam thousands of years ago and that's just the way it is, so quit your whining), however God's Plan of Salvation is not unconditional and universal (you're not automatically saved, because you need to do something to make it happen—you need to repent, accept Jesus, be "born" again, become baptized, etc). It seems, therefore, that human depravity (by way of Adam's "Original Sin") is somehow stronger and more powerful than Jesus's ability to save (since salvation is conditional and not universal). My having to ask to be saved is a condition of my salvation, but I didn't have to ask or do anything at all to be branded by sin and death. In other words, sin is unconditional, but salvation is not.

As such, is the curse of Original Sin more powerful than the sacrificial death of Jesus? Is the unconditional curse of sin stronger than the conditional power of salvation? If I am born depraved because of the unpetitioned stain of Original Sin, why would I (or how could I) ever petition to be saved? Wouldn't my very depravity actually prevent me from ever pursuing the right thing (e.g., accepting Jesus)? According to Pauline doctrine, I am born accursed with spiritual blindness by no fault of my own and then damned because I am spiritually blind. Is being born with this blindness my fault? If it is, then why? If it isn't, then whose fault is it? Who, really, is to blame for keeping this curse alive?

Either help me safely across the street or push me gleefully into onrushing traffic, but don't threaten me with damnation to an Eternal Hell because I was 'created' already cursed with spiritual blindness. Either the concept of Original Sin is a false and interpreted doctrine or it is a Zen-like stepping stone used to measure one's true spiritual journey. If God is love, why am I going to Hell? If you're so spiritual, how can you casually accept the idea of Eternal Damnation? Wouldn't an ethical person reject his-or-her own salvation strictly on moral principles? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? To stand up to God and consciously choose to become "dead again" after becoming "born again" or at least try to rally the troops to storm the gates of Hell in order to free those in endless bondage? I'd rather spend eternity in Hell knowing I did the right thing in voicing my disgust at the concept of an Eternal Hell than one second in Heaven knowing I did nothing at all because I was selfish, complacent, or fearful of punishment. In the presence of the doctrine of Eternal Damnation, isn't seeking one's own salvation ultimately a cowardly and immoral act? Isn't rejecting the author of Eternal Damnation as reprehensible and deplorable actually the more ethical and moral choice?

QUERY (2)

• God created Adam and Eve already cursed by death. How do we know this? Because, according to Genesis 3:22-24, in order to "live forever" they would to have had to have eaten from the Tree of Life. Since they did not eat from the Tree of Life this means they followed their "natural" state and eventually succumbed to death. In other words, Paul is wrong in Romans 5:12 because death did not enter the world "through sin" since death was already in the world prior to the so-called sin. Eating the fruit from the Tree of Life would have reversed the already-present state of death and God elected to prevent this by casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden before they have a chance to eat the magical fruit. Even though they were instructed to not eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil lest they die, they were going to die anyway since they would have had to have eaten from the Tree of Life in order to not die.
• God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:16-17). In other words, since Adam did not have the knowledge of Good and Evil before eating the fruit any action he took prior to this eating was neither an act of obedience or disobedience since both require the knowledge of good and evil (i.e., right and wrong) in order to make sound and informed choices. In our contemporary legal system, if a person does not have the knowledge of good and evil (i.e., cannot determine right from wrong) and commits a crime they are not punished for this crime by "reason of insanity." If Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil before he "disobeyed" God and ate the fruit to acquire the knowledge of good and evil, then his punishment is farcical and ultimately immoral because he would have needed the knowledge of good and evil to make an informed decision to disobey. To put it bluntly, without the knowledge of good and evil any act that Adam committed was a legally insane act. Since God created Adam without the knowledge of good and evil, God created Adam legally insane.
• According to Christian doctrine, God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), all-loving, and merciful. What does this all mean when considering the creation of Adam and Eve and the notion of Original Sin?
  • Since God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) He knew Adam and Eve's fate before He created them, the world, the universe itself.
  • God created Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil (they would need to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to acquire this knowledge).
  • God created Adam and Eve already doomed to die (they would need to eat from the Tree of Life in order to "live forever").
  • God created the Garden of Eden with the world's most-hazardous tree within quick reach all the while knowing in advance that this easy access would doom all of mankind.
  • God created the serpent "more crafty than any of the wild animals Yahweh had made" (Genesis 3) and placed this talking(!) tempter smack-dab in the middle of the Garden knowing in advance that it would bait Eve into eating of the fruit while also knowing that Eve would entice Adam into eating of the fruit as well.
  • Knowing all this, God punishes Adam (and, according to Pauline doctrine, all mankind until the end of time) for an act of disobedience that was not disobedience since a disobedient act requires the foreknowledge of good and evil, something Adam acquired only after the act. [NOTE: Eve's enticing of Adam to eat the fruit is a different kettle of fish entirely since at this time she did possess the knowledge of good and evil even though Adam did not.]
  • Knowing all this, God also punishes the serpent who was "more crafty than any of the wild animals Yahweh had made" (Genesis 3) for beguiling Eve with it's silver tongue.
  • Knowing all this, because of Adam's "original sin" God punishes the entire human race (according to Pauline doctrine) through a proclamation that every infant born into the world is born into sin, accursed by the so-called "disobedient" act of Adam.
  • Finally, knowing all this, God gives human beings an escape clause through Jesus (who himself laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens according to Hebrews 1:10). All that men and women have to do to be "saved" from God's judgment is rise above their inherent sinful natures and ask to be saved by-way-of Jesus's fabulous escape clause.
• Perhaps we might better understand the above scenario this using an analogy:
  • I am a father of two very young children, perhaps two and three years old.
  • I tell them that they can play with anything in the house but they are not to play with the book of matches that I leave laying on the coffee table in the living room.
  • I tell them I am going to go away for awhile but that I will be back shortly.
  • Before leaving I take a gallon of gasoline into the house and empty it on all the living room furniture.
  • I leave my two young children in the care of my teenage son who I know is "more crafty than any of the children I have made."
  • I also know that this teenage son has a nasty habit of convincing others to play with matches.
  • When I return I discover that the house is burning and my two young children are trapped inside. Outside, my teenage son is gleefully watching the flames.
  • I stand beside him and watch the house burn while listening to the screams of my two young children. I refuse to go into the house on my own accord and save them. I will stand back and allow them to burn alive unless they first ask me to save them. If they don't ask me to be saved it is entirely their fault that they are being burned alive.
  • I am a wise and merciful father who is allowed to treat his children any way I like because I, after all, created them. Without me they wouldn't be here, now trapped inside a burning house.
  • I am a loving father because I have given my children an escape clause. Even though I constructed the whole scenario knowing full well the outcome would mean me standing outside watching my children trapped inside a burning house, I was loving enough to give them an escape clause. Of course, this clause only works on the condition that my children ask to be saved. Until they do that, I will stand back and allow them to burn. I will not raise one finger to help them unless I hear them ask. My love knows no bounds.
• My question is this: If I behaved in this manner with my own children would I be considered the type of father worthy of love, admiration, and respect? Or might I be looked upon as a sick, cruel, psychopathic, and heartless monster deserving only derision, loathing, disgust, or pity? Would my actions be considered moral or immoral, my underlying intentions kind or malign? Is my offering of a so-called "escape clause" really demonstrating mercy or does it entail something else altogether, something darker, more self-serving, egocentric and selfish? Finally, am I demonstrating unconditional love with this type of behavior or only that when push comes to shove I really don't give a damn about anyone else's feelings but my own?

Personal Statement

Great doubt: great awakening.
Little doubt: little awakening.
No doubt: no awakening.
— Zen Maxim