I’d like to hear you answer the second part: was every human suddenly in need of a savior and deserving of damnation? If you answer “yes,” I can see how it would be a “momentous event,” peculiar and twisted, but also momentous.
Anywhere you draw the line in hominid history is arbitrary. Sure, you can say that God decided at one exact point some hominid crossed some line, but this would be the most infinitesimal move forward conceivable (this “move forward” would really be more of a curse - to be all of a sudden a wretched sinner in the eyes of God).
At this elusive point in history are the hominid’s moral faculties fully intact? I mean, most humans didn’t figure out slavery was wrong until relatively recently. Again this is such a gradual process, both before and after the supposed “first sin,” that I find it very forced and hard to believe.
I’m not the one drawing the line … God is! In the Adam and Eve story, does God ask Adam’s opinion as to whether Eve is a human? No. God is making the definitions. In the story, neither Adam or Eve have been taught about Good and Evil. So they are not the ones to ask.
God is the ultimate judge of morality, and when the first hominid qualified as a moral agent.
I get that part. God decides. So, once this infinitesimal moral advancement for some hominid takes place, was every human suddenly in need of a savior and deserving of damnation?
Ahhhhh… very good… your question shows that we are on the same page. I was loath to discuss it as long as you felt it was something Humans had to judge and decide!
The “Moment of Morality Onset” (a term I am coining for the purposes of this discussion!) is not only something applicable to the first hominid with moral agency … it is also a template for every infant who grows somewhere in the neighborhood of maturity !!! Again, it is impossible for humans or human society to define. But at some point, every infant … every toddler, every child - - achieves the moment of moral agency.
We don’t hold toddler’s responsible if they shoot a brother accidentally with a loaded weapon. And Baptists don’t have their toddlers baptized. Because they have not achieve moral maturity, right?
So, it is easy to see that everyone has his or her “Adam moment” … when suddenly the child first encounters a decision involving moral agency - - and he or she must act.
But let’s return to the specific question you asked: in a hominid group of 500 individuals… the first hominid encounters his moment of moral agency!!!
It would be my opinion that only those who encounter their own “Moment of Morality Onset” would be in need of salvation … and only when they fail that moment! But failing in moral agency is inevitable for any animal creature alive.
As this early hominid society comes to recognize the special nature of this moral hominid … or at the very least, the special nature of his or her grandchildren … eventually the hominid troop will be 100% composed of individuals who either will have their “Moment of Morality Onset” … or already have.
Why is moral failure inevitable for everyone? Because this is how God made us? Because he used evolution? It seems a little ridiculous for God to ■■■■ all these hominids to hell for being how they inevitably are. I apologize for being blunt, but the whole EC endeavor strikes me as painfully contrived.
I agree with Freddy on this point, and I also think it is a waste of time to try to turn the Adam and Eve narrative into a description of an actual historical moment in human evolution. It seems much better to me theologically to look at it as a moment in the history of God’s covenanting with humanity. Whether there actually was a historical couple or if the story represents a fictional archetype is beside the point. Trying to tie Adam and Eve to some sort of speculative dawn of humanity leads to wild conjecturing and a load of theological problems. We have enough theological problems with this whole original sin deal.
My description of Adam as an exemplar of achieving Moral Agency is hardly historical. It is a “model”. Eve isn’t essential to this example, other than it makes sense to have a woman experiencing the same thing - - since the audience for this story is not just male.
I am compelled by the logic of the Adam and Eve story:
Be it via Evolution, or by God’s creation, Adam and Eve know nothing of morality.
Then they arrive at a point where they make a bad decision, and the moral gulf they crossed is suddenly apparent to them.
Every teenager has this moment.
And theoretically speaking, we know, in God’s eyes, sommmmmmmmmmme hominid, sommmmmmmmmmme whereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee had to go through this experience.
And that’s the extent of the comparison and analogy.
You and @freddymagnanimo can reach a different conclusion if you like - - but can you dispose of the idea that there is a First Time for every human?!
And can you dispose of the idea that there had to be a first hominid who discovered his capacity for moral (and immoral) agency ?!
What’s interesting and ironic for me is the parallel between the story of Adam and Eve and our story now.
We have known for many years what we are doing to ourselves through global warming …practically cooking ourselves here on earth, and yet for all the time we’ve had, we still run around in such a big hurry to get the things accomplished that we want for ourselves (satisfy our selfish desires ) we cannot see a way to save our planet from becoming a virtual hell. We know what we should do, but we cannot do it. We hear what the scientists say, but choose to ignore the warnings. We simply travel toward our self created hell on earth.
Eternal damnation 101
We seem to have a propensity for it.
There are two Christian creation theories being debated here. One of those is the young earth story of creation. The basic gist of which is that on a Monday morning there was nothing much, but by Sunday morning everything was created by God, all wrapped up, and God was ready for a day of rest.
The other theory is that God used natural process to create this world and people over a period of millions of years.
In the end both theories do bring us to that day when God introduced himself to man, spent time in the garden with mankind, and thereby the people began to know Him. The story of Adam and Eve. The momentous moment. God gave them their choice.
I do not understand in full, the things that God has done, but even more so I do not understand why we people are so evil that we insist on harming ourselves and others in our desire to satisfy our own selfish needs. I don’t know why we are all affected by the first selfish disobedient choices of the first man/woman. Why can we not shake off that evil infected side of us? We know better.
But, Yes, I for one do believe the Bible. I believe eternal damnation is something we bring upon ourselves, individually, and that our way to peace and eternal life is through Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the response. I’m a little unclear about what you’re saying about hell. Do you see it along the lines of making life harder on ourselves here on earth? Or is it more along the lines of being kept alive forever in conscious torment?
Eternal separation from the love of God would be the definition of hell, for me.
The light and power of Gods love exists here, in the world as we know it today through the power of the Holy Spirit.
I think most of us don’t really pay much attention to that fact, or realize it, or understand the difference between what the world is like now, compared to what the world would really be like, if God removed His presence.
The Bible does speak a lot about hell as an actual place of eternal torment. I am no authority on this, but through what I have read in the Bible, I believe that Gods presence does not exist there, in hell, and so yes it has to be a very very dark, horrible place to be.
Once again, I don’t understand all of this, or even know 1% of the facts there are to know of God, (Even though I have read the Bible in its entirety) but I do believe that our destiny is completely tied to the fact that we must accept God’s provision through Christ to deal with our sinful nature (relentless selfish desires) here on earth, and His provision through Christ will eradicate sin completely in the afterlife. Evil and darkness cannot exist in the same place as God, even the smallest amount.
I get what you are saying. This line of thinking helps in answering questions like: “how can God judge a person doomed to hell, if that person has never heard of the redemptive blood of Christ?”
" when you know better you do better"
Surely God judges each person individually, based entirely on His knowledge of him/her.
This is the exact same way he wishes us to judge others.
For if mankind practiced this, it would basically eradicate racism et al
Thanks for your honesty. It sounds like you have a pretty traditional view. The first two humans disobeyed God, the entire human race was infected with sin and consequently deserving of eternal conscious torment, but the minority of people who accept Jesus will avoid this horrendous fate.
Plenty of people with a “traditional view” aren’t on-board with eternal conscious torment or the idea that only those who have accepted Christ in this life will be offered salvation. There are other Christian conceptions of final judgment that involve grace and a chance to recognize Jesus as Lord at the Resurrection and not all envision hell as a place of eternal conscious torment. Some Christians are also anihilationists. Now, how does this fact bother you? Do you think all orthodox Christians must believe in eternal conscious torment and reject all means of salvation through Christ aside from accepting Jesus of the Bible as Lord while living? Or do you hate Christianity and want to paint it in the worst light possible?
Eternal conscious torment is the traditional view of hell. I don’t think there’s much dispute there. [quote=“Christy, post:77, topic:5677”]
Some Christians are also anihilationists. Now, how does this fact bother you?
[/quote]
Yes, there seems to be an increasing number of evangelicals moving toward annihilationism. Who said this bothered me?[quote=“Christy, post:77, topic:5677”]
Do you think all orthodox Christians must believe in eternal conscious torment and reject all means of salvation through Christ aside from accepting Jesus of the Bible as Lord while living?
[/quote]
Christians can believe whatever they want. I’m not sure if you’re insinuating that getting a second chance after death is orthodox or traditional. If so, I would disagree. [quote=“Christy, post:77, topic:5677”]
Or do you hate Christianity and want to paint it in the worst light possible?
[/quote]
If restating the traditional view is equivalent to painting Christianity “in the worst possible light,” then maybe there’s a problem. I sense you might share my sentiment in finding this view abhorrent.
“Christian tradition” encompasses quite a range of views. [quote=“freddymagnanimo, post:78, topic:5677”]
Eternal conscious torment is the traditional view of hell. I don’t think there’s much dispute there.
[/quote]
I can’t back it up at the moment, but I think there might be dispute there. I grew up Baptist and attended church 3 times a week. I heard a lot of sermons and sat through a lot of Sunday School lessons. Hell was presented as eternal separation from God, not eternal conscious torment. When I read Jonathan Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” in American Lit in high school, I found it disturbing and not what I was taught.
I think eternal conscious torment is consistent with a certain systematic theology that I don’t find very preferable for lots of reasons. I wouldn’t say it’s an abhorrent view, just one that requires a lot of premises I can’t commit to based on how I personally understand Scripture.
I was just wondering where you were coming from that’s all. We get called heretics here by other Christians for being too “liberal” and we get called worse by non-believers because we still believe in the Christian God and try to honor the Bible. It is good to understand what fight people are picking It sounds like you are picking the “how can anyone believe one person’s actions could condemn billions of people to eternal conscious torment” fight. I don’t have a dog in that one, but have at it.
Edwards held to the “literal view” (actual flames), which has largely been abandoned. No doubt the trend nowadays is to use the wording of “separation from God.” It sounds much more palatable. “It’s what she always wanted – to live apart from God.” The problem is, this is the eternal conscious torment view. There aren’t literal flames, but separation from God for eternity is eternal conscious torment. Personally, I don’t see this as much of an improvement over the literal view. Whether the torment is physical or mental, both camps agree that it’s the worst possible fate to endure – and it never ends!
My “fight” is just figuring out how Christians hold the pieces together. I don’t think hell can’t be glossed over. The idea of being saved from hell is central to the gospel, and it astonishes me how often a belief this radical is soft-pedaled or ignored completely. And yes, add in the doctrine of original sin it becomes even more abhorrent and unbelievable. I apologize for the bluntness. I just think these issues are too glaringly problematic to beat around the bush.
It sounds like you are picking the “how can anyone believe one person’s actions could condemn billions of people to eternal conscious torment” fight. I don’t have a dog in that one, but have at it.