Random Religious Thoughts

[meowzician]

It was almost 35 years ago that I read the book—I was 13 at the time. While the particulars of the book don’t feel very accessible to me anymore, I can say that the perspective presented there inspired a deeper and more intentional commitment to my faith, at the time.

It was influential largely because while I was “committed to following Jesus”, it was an initiation into theology. And discovering theology lit up parts of my brain that I didn’t know were there.

Anyways, as best as I can recall, the themes centered around the holiness of God, the grace of God through redemption, and the importance of obedience, discipline, and integrity.

I mentioned the book because I thought it would likely align well with @QuickTwist’s framework.

Thank you.

 

[Fruiteloop]

No one is good, everyone is bad?

I don't understand.

I thought love was supposed to turn you into a good person.

Only if you are a good person can you love others.

Bad people don't love others.

So it is a contradiction to say good people do not exist.

(why this obsession with people being bad? are you actually trying to change them or not?)

I feel like I am going to be attacked for this.

 

[Erik Alberto]

@QuickTwist, the general sense I get from @Fruiteloop ’s response to some of your posts is that he is responding to a perceived assertion that “everyone is bad.” (I’m not sure I’ve followed the back-and-forth between you two closely enough to fully understand.)

I’m wondering if the general place you’re coming from in this perceived assertion that “everyone is bad” is a theological one. Are you making reference to scriptures that support the interpretation that man is born into a state of separation from God because of a nature that is essentially evil? Or are you saying something else that has more to do with your experience of people, their selfishness, or their motivations—a sort of feeling you’ve always had about people that has been reinforced by negative experiences?

I think clearly establishing whether you are talking about doctrine here could clear up a lot of misunderstanding. What I mean is that, if you’re talking about doctrine, this isn’t personal but rather your interpretation of scripture. And because you see the Word of God as infallible and representative of truth and reality as they are, I wonder if perhaps where you are coming from is a humble and loving place—in the sense that what you are really trying to point to is that, if the nature of man is evil, it is not hopeless, because that is precisely what Jesus died and was resurrected for.

Is that not what you’re really getting at? God’s redemption and heart for a fallen people?

I can also imagine that it might be frustrating for you, @QuickTwist, that when people bring up ideas like “God is love,” or point to experiences of goodness, virtue, and love in human beings, if it feels to you as though those things are being presented in a way that contradicts doctrines concerning God’s holiness and man’s fallen nature. I don’t know if that is part of what is happening for you here, but I wonder if it might be.

Because if that’s the case, then perhaps what we’re talking about is a matter of tone rather than intention or meaning. It would be a matter of saying, “This doesn’t come from me—it comes from God.” It wouldn’t be personal, but rather an impersonal assertion of a fundamental theological stance of yours.

Does this make sense to you both?

Then what I’m hearing from you, @Fruiteloop, is that it feels like @QuickTwist is completely dismissing the presence of real and genuine love in humanity that is free of ulterior motives, such as the kind of love and nurturing seen in a healthy mother of an infant.That to dismiss the presence of any and all virtue as even a possibility within humanity would be, in fact, preposterous and completely misguided.

Is that where you’re coming from?

Perhaps you can both agree that there are instances where humanity displays genuine virtue, but that there are different perspectives on the nature of man—whether it is essentially good or evil.

And then we can establish whether you guys are simply coming from different assumptions about the nature of humanity, and agree to disagree on that theological difference.

So, I’m curious to hear where you’re both coming from—for your own sakes, certainly, but also for the trajectory of the genuine contribution this thread can make to our community.

 

[meowzician]

the general sense I get from @Fruiteloop ’s response to some of your posts is that he

Wait.... "He"??? I have been assuming that Fruiteloop is a she because the avatar is Joy from Inside Out. @Fruiteloop are you a he or she?

 

[Erik Alberto]

I love that he chose that Avatar.

 

[meowzician]

I love that he chose that Avatar.

I LOVE the Inside Out flicks. I went with the granddaughter to see the second one, and just cried as the transformation took place. So deep. So beautiful. Some of our best wisdom literature is disguised as children's stories.

 

[TomasM]

Can there truly be a response to a random thought that isn’t also random?

If it is random does that also make the religious context more philosophical than theological?

Does my cat have a soul? I think so, but I wonder if it turns on only on odd or even days.

See what I mean.. Random.

 

[QuickTwist]

@QuickTwist, the general sense I get from @Fruiteloop ’s response to some of your posts is that he is responding to a perceived assertion that “everyone is bad.” (I’m not sure I’ve followed the back-and-forth between you two closely enough to fully understand.)

I’m wondering if the general place you’re coming from in this perceived assertion that “everyone is bad” is a theological one. Are you making reference to scriptures that support the interpretation that man is born into a state of separation from God because of a nature that is essentially evil? Or are you saying something else that has more to do with your experience of people, their selfishness, or their motivations—a sort of feeling you’ve always had about people that has been reinforced by negative experiences?

I think clearly establishing whether you are talking about doctrine here could clear up a lot of misunderstanding. What I mean is that, if you’re talking about doctrine, this isn’t personal but rather your interpretation of scripture. And because you see the Word of God as infallible and representative of truth and reality as they are, I wonder if perhaps where you are coming from is a humble and loving place—in the sense that what you are really trying to point to is that, if the nature of man is evil, it is not hopeless, because that is precisely what Jesus died and was resurrected for.

Is that not what you’re really getting at? God’s redemption and heart for a fallen people?

I can also imagine that it might be frustrating for you, @QuickTwist, that when people bring up ideas like “God is love,” or point to experiences of goodness, virtue, and love in human beings, if it feels to you as though those things are being presented in a way that contradicts doctrines concerning God’s holiness and man’s fallen nature. I don’t know if that is part of what is happening for you here, but I wonder if it might be.

Because if that’s the case, then perhaps what we’re talking about is a matter of tone rather than intention or meaning. It would be a matter of saying, “This doesn’t come from me—it comes from God.” It wouldn’t be personal, but rather an impersonal assertion of a fundamental theological stance of yours.

Does this make sense to you both?

Then what I’m hearing from you, @Fruiteloop, is that it feels like @QuickTwist is completely dismissing the presence of real and genuine love in humanity that is free of ulterior motives, such as the kind of love and nurturing seen in a healthy mother of an infant.That to dismiss the presence of any and all virtue as even a possibility within humanity would be, in fact, preposterous and completely misguided.

Is that where you’re coming from?

Perhaps you can both agree that there are instances where humanity displays genuine virtue, but that there are different perspectives on the nature of man—whether it is essentially good or evil.

And then we can establish whether you guys are simply coming from different assumptions about the nature of humanity, and agree to disagree on that theological difference.

So, I’m curious to hear where you’re both coming from—for your own sakes, certainly, but also for the trajectory of the genuine contribution this thread can make to our community.

I think, largely, people don't understand their own depravity. They think they are "good enough," or whatever. But real love is sacrificial. Necessarily, love is self-sacrificial.

It's very easy to love people when it is convenient. Most people run from helping people when it costs them something, especially strangers, and everyone has their limit of what they would do for a stranger, except Christ, that is.

 

[Erik Alberto]

I think, largely, people don't understand their own depravity. They think they are "good enough," or whatever. But real love is sacrificial. Necessarily, love is self-sacrificial.

It's very easy to love people when it is convenient. Most people run from helping people when it costs them something, especially strangers, and everyone has their limit of what they would do for a stranger, except Christ, that is.

Oh, okay. That helps clarify things.

What I’m hearing is that you’re speaking less from a particular doctrinal claim and more from your observations about human nature.

Then you two are squarely at odds.

 

[QuickTwist]

Oh, okay. That helps clarify things.

What I’m hearing is that you’re speaking less from a particular doctrinal claim and more from your observations about human nature.

Then you two are squarely at odds.

I think Agape love requires sacrifice.

 

[just me]

Does a sin make a person bad?

 

[John K]

I think Agape love requires sacrifice.

I think this needs some qualification, but it may be only a matter of semantics. Agape love is not dependent on sacrifice, in the sense that there can be no such love without such sacrifice. It certainly involves a willingness to sacrifice, but if no sacrifice is necessary there can still very much be this love.

But there is a risk in expressing such ideas in absolute terms without looking hard at the practicalities of putting them into practice. This is very topical on an INFJ site, because our type is notorious for trying to rescue others and putting out rescuer vibes. This can attract people who suffer from narcissistic and other problematic tendencies and can lead to the transfer in Jungian terms. The INFJ sacrifices themselves, but far from doing good the other can become dependent on them in an unhealthy way and the INFJ person can be driven into mental health and identity problems. Perhaps more spiritually problematic is that some INFJ folks can become dependent on being needed this way and it can become an attachment as significant as any materialistic indulgence.

So yes, as stated here, with the qualification I made, I would agree that this is quite right as a Christian principle. It would also appear in a similar form in Buddhism - I'm not sure about the other Abrahamic religions. But it is not always easy to understand how to help others in the best way, or whether we have the personal ability to do so - and we have to avoid the helping itself to become a subtle sort of pride and indulgence in its own way.

 

[regrat]

Does a sin make a person bad?

Martin Luther concluded that we are all simultaneos sinners by nature, but justified in the eyes of the Lord. Because of Jesus redeemed us with dying on the cross.
Because we can't be without a sin, we should repent again and again and try to sin as less as possible.
What is actually the criteria to label a person as "bad"? Does the sin makes you feel bad?
If you commit a crime, than the judge will tell you that you are bad by sending you to prison.

 

[meowzician]

Martin Luther concluded that we are all simultaneos sinners by nature, but justified in the eyes of the Lord. Because of Jesus redeemed us with dying on the cross.
Because we can't be without a sin, we should repent again and again and try to sin as less as possible.
What is actually the criteria to label a person as "bad"? Does the sin makes you feel bad?
If you commit a crime, than the judge will tell you that you are bad by sending you to prison.

To the best of my knowledge, Christianity is the only religion that claims a single infraction of the law makes one a bad person.

Since we are sharing our opinions, in Judaism the dividing line between the righteous and wicked is repentance. The righteous sin but repent.. The wicked do not repent.
Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man falleth seven times, and riseth up again, but the wicked stumble under adversity.

 

[meowzician]

If you commit a crime, than the judge will tell you that you are bad by sending you to prison.

If you speed on the freeway and get caught, the penalty is a modest fine. If you steal a piece of pizza from a vendor, you likely will not go to jail; it's far more likely you will pay a fine, go on probation, or do community service. If you are arrested for being drunk or high in public, you very likely will be sent to rehab, not prison.

Since we are all sharing, the Torah clearly sees various sins as being on different levels. Sometimes the recommended consequence is execution. Sometimes its a fine. Sometimes there is no penalty at all.

 

[Misty]

Martin Luther concluded that we are all simultaneos sinners by nature, but justified in the eyes of the Lord. Because of Jesus redeemed us with dying on the cross.
Because we can't be without a sin, we should repent again and again and try to sin as less as possible.
What is actually the criteria to label a person as "bad"? Does the sin makes you feel bad?
If you commit a crime, than the judge will tell you that you are bad by sending you to prison.

As a Christian I think you’re spot on here.

I usually veer away from anything Gemini / Ai spits out but it quoted here some rather good info that is biblically accurate from a reputable site:

• • Mercy over condemnation: Jesus shows deep compassion to people caught in sin, such as when he forgives the woman caught in adultery (John 8:11) and tells her, "Go and sin no more". [1]
  • A medical analogy: He describes himself as a doctor for the spiritually sick, stating, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). [1, 2]
  • Authority to forgive: He routinely startles listeners by forgiving people's sins directly, demonstrating that he has the authority on earth to grant forgiveness (Matthew 9:6). [1]

The Remedy for Sin

• • Repentance: Jesus calls people to turn away from wrong behaviors and change their hearts.
  • His sacrifice: At the Last Supper (Matthew 26:28), he speaks of his blood being poured out "for the forgiveness of sins". [1, 2]

 

[regrat]

To the best of my knowledge, Christianity is the only religion that claims a single infraction of the law makes one a bad person.

Since we are sharing our opinions, in Judaism the dividing line between the righteous and wicked is repentance. The righteous sin but repent.. The wicked do not repent.
Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man falleth seven times, and riseth up again, but the wicked stumble under adversity.

Some congregations put too much burden to people with focusing on sin, what causes fear and moralization instead focusing on thr Lord's love and grace.
Psalm 145:8 says:
"The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love."
145:14 "The Lord support all who fall and lifts up all who ate bowed down."
145:20 "The Lord watches all over who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy."
Native speakers will better understand the difference between words "bad" and "wicked".

When a woman was cought in adultery, (notice that they wanted to punish only the woman) Jesus tenderly said to her to go and not to sin anymore (John 8:11)

So, the Lord doesn't wait for us to commit a sin and punish us, He is more like a safety net to catch us and when we slip

 

[Fruiteloop]

I aways view'd it as a comprehension disorder that people don't understand the simple logic.

God creates humans because he wants creatures made in his image to worship him in a relationship.

But people reject God cannot be with God because of sin.

Yet the person with the comprehension disorder cannot understand that a person and the sin are not the same thing.

If the human being = sin itself it be impossible for the human being to ever be with God so why would God create something that is just purely sin at the core that can never be with him?

Humans are not sin at the core. Sin attaches itself to the person by the person's character when they do bad things.

If a person does bad things this is not the same as being a substance that does bad things like poison is purely bad.

A person has the tendency to do bad things by the way they are wired up like a dog with rabies does to harm others.

But at the core of the human being is not poison analogues to sin, they just have a sick character.

Humans are in God's image and Gods image is not sin but some reason this is not comprehended.

So the logic is that Humans must be like God but not the same as God otherwise God be evil or humans be evil which is not the case at all.

For some reason some people must believe humans are corrupt to the core but not corrupt at the same time because God saves them.

But this makes no sense, Humans are not sin at the core they just are sick in character.

God does not save sin he saves the human so the sin and the human cannot be of the same essence.

The humans spirit is of God as Gods essence or it would be impossible to save.

Why people have this inability to comprehend I just don't know. They hate people in general I guess?

They say you are evil, a sinner and that you must turn to God, but that be impossible if at the core the humans being was not in Gods image. Its simple logic. Humans cannot at the core just be sin in essence. They Have Gods image. So they can be saved.

 

[regrat]

God creates humans because he wants creatures made in his image to worship him in a relationship.

This is what islam teaches: That God would not be seen if He didn't create people to worship Him.
Christianity teaches that God created World and Humans from love and if He hasn't done it, would still remain God.
Furtermore, God created humans to His own image, but gave them freedom to choose between good and evil, i.e.freedom to reject Him. God didn't create puppets on the string and programmed them to worship Him, because He isn't some narcissist who needs to be worshiped. He wants the relationship with humans based on their FREE CHOICE and mutual love. And through Christ we are adopted God's children and we can call Him 'Father'.
Evil is actually egoism, putting ourselves before God, instead relying on God. The core of sin is greed, lust, hunger for power=self-idolatry=putting yourself before God, your Creator.

 

[Fruiteloop]

This is what islam teaches: That God would not be seen if He didn't create people to worship Him.
Christianity teaches that God created World and Humans from love and if He hasn't done it, would still remain God.
Furtermore, God created humans to His own image, but gave them freedom to choose between good and evil, i.e.freedom to reject Him. God didn't create puppets on the string and programmed them to worship Him, because He isn't some narcissist who needs to be worshiped. He wants the relationship with humans based on their FREE CHOICE and mutual love. And through Christ we are adopted God's children and we can call Him 'Father'.
Evil is actually egoism, putting ourselves before God, instead relying on God. The core of sin is greed, lust, hunger for power=self-idolatry=putting yourself before God, your Creator.

I was not necessarily saying the relationship did not involve love.

So do you believe being human only involves sin?

If you do then how is a relationship with God possible?

Also I did not say humans have no free will, for some reason you think I did?