And that's a great question, TOT. We have John 3 that says that *every* one is “condemned”.
Condemned to what? Death? Everyone dies, but what else is there to threaten with?
That's the trillion dollar question. From the context I would make the argument that the answer is in fact death as it presents no other alternative and uses terms like perish and then contrasts that term with age lasting life. As you stated, we all are going to die, so if death is the "condemnation" then the quote of nonbelievers being "condemned already" is apropro.
Hey, that's my opinion on the matter and that conclusion seems to make the most sense because it doesn't appear that any alternative conclusion is presented by the text, but I could be wrong with and equiped with a faulty decoder ring
.
It seems that ‘hell’ becomes more and more important as the religion evolves. Again, how do we know what your god “really” means?
We see that JC says little about other ways, assuming that JC was real at all. We do get that bit in Matthew about how works are all that one needs, “in that you do for the least of these” but it seems that the main message from JC is that belief in him is all that matters, through Luke and John. We also get from JC that only those that he/god allows to believe can believe. Is this just or fair, TOT? Or is this back to might makes right? We see later from Paul and James that it is indeed just God’s whim that allows people to be saved, and from James that works are important. We even have from Paul that the *only* way for women to be saved is through childbirth. Must suck to be infertile, damned by your own body. Again, we see a book that is full of contradictions. If this god is some ultimate truth, funny how this changes constantly and always behind how human society has changed. It never leads but only follows, decideing that God *must* have meant the new more humane version of society.
I would agree that hell has become more of a focus and perhaps has even been redefined as the religions, both Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam have evolved.
What I have found interesting in my recent studies of the gospels is that Jesus seems to speak about eternal (age lasting) life and having a place in the Kingdom as entirely different things. For instance in John 3 Jesus is quoted as having told Nico that one must be born again of water and of the spirit in order to have a place in the Kingdom, that was supposed to have come with power in the lifetime of those to whom Jesus spoke (Luke 9:26-27). However, when Jesus was asked about what was needed for inheriting life in the age, his response with quite different. According to Luke 10:26-28, in order to be gifted with life one must
'love Jehovah your God with your whole heart, life, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.' [Apparently this love for YHWH was centered around accepting and believing in the one He sent. (John 6 delves into this idea.)]
and why does God so fail in the supposed description of "love" in his own holy book?
The concept of original sin seems very oxymoronic. If sin involves an act of disobedience, then how can someone that hasn't committed any act be guilty of it?
funny how your divinely inspired book insists that this is true. Over and over again.
Good question about the love of God. Perhaps God's love for the individual is grossly overstated?
As far as the Bible writings advocating original sin, please, do tell why you feel this way.
