On Psalm 109 and Faith

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

There's no honor to being good if you never had the option to be bad. Prisoners in solitary confinement are chaste, but we don't admire their commitment to chastity the way we do nuns.

Conversely, there's no honor in being good if you are only good because you fear the punishment if you're not. So either you can fool god by being good when you're really not and reap the rewards (in which case god is a bit of a fool) or god can separate the truly good from the not in which case the thread of eternal punishment is unnecessary (and god is just petty). (This is one thing I like from Jehovah's Witness theology: hell is simply eternal death. No painful punishment, just eternal non-existence. There was a very interesting This American Life story a couple years ago about a prominent megachurch evangelical preacher who removed hell from his theology and the rejection he faced for doing so.)

Say "you can do whatever you want without fear of punishment" then see who is good. In this regard, one could argue that me not being a murderer is more impressive than scaeagles not being a murderer. I have no fear of eternal damnation and still don't do it (we both face the same earthly justice system).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Not without sin - able to ask forgiveness without making sacrifices ourselves.

Wait, so the only thing we were absolved of through Jesus' suffering was the requirement to burn animals and grain at the altar? Or is there some other suffering that was required before Jesus was born, suffering that Jews had/have to undergo? Or maybe no one was saved before Jesus showed up?

For Jews, the reason we no longer make ritual sacrifice is simply that we don't have the Holy Temple in Jerusalem anymore, and that is the only place to do it.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I believe the reason for outreach to non-Christians, at least for those who are not interested in controlling the lives of others, is that belief and acceptance of the sacrifice made by Jesus is a prerequisite to eternal life. It isn't automatic to everyone. Just to those who acknowledge it.

I knew a girl in high school who once came up to a group of us non-christians in tears, saying "I just fully realized that all of you are not going to make it to the afterlife, it's horrible." She finally realized it didn't make sense to her.

If you really believe that all your heathen friends are going to not get afterlife (or go to hell or whatever you believe, there are so many variations), doesn't that upset you? Doesn't that make you want to save everyone? Doesn't that make you question God? Just being ok with it seems like the most creepy response in my book.

Originally Posted by Alex

But I'm trying to not debate, still curious about the "in the presence of god" part above as I'm still sure it is just a difference in word usage that has me confused.

Part of it has to do with the concept of holy places and divine intervention. God may be "everywhere" but he is purposefully there in certain places. In ancient times you removed your shoes at the Holy Temple same way Moses did at the burning bush. When the god concept is one with a mind a decisive actions, you can and will differentiate. The "hand of God" is here, the "absence of God" is there. Yes, God could watch you go to the bathroom, but he does not, and you are not supposed to bring a holy book in there either.

As others have said: Or something.

Originally Posted by Alex

(This is one thing I like from Jehovah's Witness theology: hell is simply eternal death. No painful punishment, just eternal non-existence.

They stole this from the Jews.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

They stole this from the Jews.

Yes, but you get to eat shrimp and skip company birthday and Christmas parties. So obviously they significantly improved on the idea.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Alex

Conversely, there's no honor in being good if you are only good because you fear the punishment if you're not. So either you can fool god by being good when you're really not and reap the rewards (in which case god is a bit of a fool) or god can separate the truly good from the not in which case the thread of eternal punishment is unnecessary (and god is just petty). (This is one thing I like from Jehovah's Witness theology: hell is simply eternal death. No painful punishment, just eternal non-existence. There was a very interesting This American Life story a couple years ago about a prominent megachurch evangelical preacher who removed hell from his theology and the rejection he faced for doing so.)

Say "you can do whatever you want without fear of punishment" then see who is good. In this regard, one could argue that me not being a murderer is more impressive than scaeagles not being a murderer. I have no fear of eternal damnation and still don't do it (we both face the same earthly justice system).

You say "being good when you're really not" but who we are is defined by our choices. Harry Potter is a Gryffindor, not a Slytherin, KWIM?