Religion pros and cons

QUOTE: "In any case, one clear implication of this research is that a person’s sense that their life is meaningful depends on their perceptions of their own significance. But a person can be significant in various ways. Hence, those seeking to lead more meaningful lives would do well to seek out ways in which they can matter – whether that means mattering to other individuals, to their communities, or perhaps even in the grand scheme of the Universe."

dhw: […] In my view it is not so much a question of my own significance, but of what is important to me. If it is important to me that I raise a happy family, enjoy my work, and my football team wins, then therein lies my “meaning”. I hope that whatever is meaningful to me will be of benefit to others, and if I’m applauded by others, then that will enhance the meaningfulness of what I do, but it still comes back to what matters to me. If it is important for someone to feel that they are important to the universe, then religion is probably the only way they’ll satisfy their self-centred desire, but otherwise the only unique “pro” that I can think of is the blind faith that enables people to believe that no matter what misery they may endure in this life, God will somehow make it all come right in the end. Such personal comfort is priceless. All the other “pros” are available outside of religion, and I should add that in view of the appalling consequences of certain religious beliefs (e.g. the Inquisition and the Crusades right through to modern terrorism in the name of God) – the article is a little short on the “cons”!

DAVID: For me the real issue is the answer to the question, 'why am I here'? Certainly, to enjoy what life offers as you note. However, there is another answer. The background of parental teaching tells me how to treat others. Now the final answer is to find the purpose behind your arrival. To contribute to others to enforce our communal interdependence. As you can see from our discussions, I look to purpose in the universe.

dhw: Enjoyment was not the only thing I noted. The question concerned the meaning of life, and my point was that this was totally subjective, and did not depend on “perceptions of [our] own significance”, but on what was important to us. If you think the purpose of life is to help others and foster social interdependence (which I too would applaud, and mentioned in my response) then that is what gives your life meaning. And you don’t need religion to do it. But if someone else thinks that the acquisition of wealth at the expense of others is the most important thing, then that will constitute his/her “meaning” or “purpose”. Purpose in the universe is certainly a province of religion but, as I pointed out above, this can lead to plenty of cons – not to mention fierce disagreements on an agnostic website!

The misuse of religion is a gross human error. But then again religions are inventions of humans. On the other hand, the overwhelming evidence of design strongly suggests Whatever is 'God' is real.

QUOTE: "In any case, one clear implication of this research is that a person’s sense that their life is meaningful depends on their perceptions of their own significance. But a person can be significant in various ways. Hence, those seeking to lead more meaningful lives would do well to seek out ways in which they can matter – whether that means mattering to other individuals, to their communities, or perhaps even in the grand scheme of the Universe."

dhw: […] In my view it is not so much a question of my own significance, but of what is important to me. If it is important to me that I raise a happy family, enjoy my work, and my football team wins, then therein lies my “meaning”. I hope that whatever is meaningful to me will be of benefit to others, and if I’m applauded by others, then that will enhance the meaningfulness of what I do, but it still comes back to what matters to me. If it is important for someone to feel that they are important to the universe, then religion is probably the only way they’ll satisfy their self-centred desire, but otherwise the only unique “pro” that I can think of is the blind faith that enables people to believe that no matter what misery they may endure in this life, God will somehow make it all come right in the end. Such personal comfort is priceless. All the other “pros” are available outside of religion, and I should add that in view of the appalling consequences of certain religious beliefs (e.g. the Inquisition and the Crusades right through to modern terrorism in the name of God) – the article is a little short on the “cons”!

DAVID: For me the real issue is the answer to the question, 'why am I here'? Certainly, to enjoy what life offers as you note. However, there is another answer. The background of parental teaching tells me how to treat others. Now the final answer is to find the purpose behind your arrival. To contribute to others to enforce our communal interdependence. As you can see from our discussions, I look to purpose in the universe.

Enjoyment was not the only thing I noted. The question concerned the meaning of life, and my point was that this was totally subjective, and did not depend on “perceptions of [our] own significance”, but on what was important to us. If you think the purpose of life is to help others and foster social interdependence (which I too would applaud, and mentioned in my response) then that is what gives your life meaning. And you don’t need religion to do it. But if someone else thinks that the acquisition of wealth at the expense of others is the most important thing, then that will constitute his/her “meaning” or “purpose”. Purpose in the universe is certainly a province of religion but, as I pointed out above, this can lead to plenty of cons – not to mention fierce disagreements on an agnostic website!

QUOTE: "In any case, one clear implication of this research is that a person’s sense that their life is meaningful depends on their perceptions of their own significance. But a person can be significant in various ways. Hence, those seeking to lead more meaningful lives would do well to seek out ways in which they can matter – whether that means mattering to other individuals, to their communities, or perhaps even in the grand scheme of the Universe."

DAVID: I skipped the research description. I think life can be meaningful without religions.
Any further thoughts?

dhw: I couldn’t agree more. In my view it is not so much a question of my own significance, but of what is important to me. If it is important to me that I raise a happy family, enjoy my work, and my football team wins, then therein lies my “meaning”. I hope that whatever is meaningful to me will be of benefit to others, and if I’m applauded by others, then that will enhance the meaningfulness of what I do, but it still comes back to what matters to me. If it is important for someone to feel that they are important to the universe, then religion is probably the only way they’ll satisfy their self-centred desire, but otherwise the only unique “pro” that I can think of is the blind faith that enables people to believe that no matter what misery they may endure in this life, God will somehow make it all come right in the end. Such personal comfort is priceless. All the other “pros” are available outside of religion, and I should add that in view of the appalling consequences of certain religious beliefs (e.g. the Inquisition and the Crusades right through to modern terrorism in the name of God) – the article is a little short on the “cons”!

For me the real issue is the answer to the question, 'why am I here'? Certainly, to enjoy what life offers as you note. However, there is another answer. The background of parental teaching tells me how to treat others. Now the final answer is to find the purpose behind your arrival. To contribute to others to enforce our communal interdependence. As you can see from our discussions, I look to purpose in the universe.

DAVID: I skipped the research description. I think life can be meaningful without religions.
Any further thoughts?

I couldn’t agree more. In my view it is not so much a question of my own significance, but of what is important to me. If it is important to me that I raise a happy family, enjoy my work, and my football team wins, then therein lies my “meaning”. I hope that whatever is meaningful to me will be of benefit to others, and if I’m applauded by others, then that will enhance the meaningfulness of what I do, but it still comes back to what matters to me. If it is important for someone to feel that they are important to the universe, then religion is probably the only way they’ll satisfy their self-centred desire, but otherwise the only unique “pro” that I can think of is the blind faith that enables people to believe that no matter what misery they may endure in this life, God will somehow make it all come right in the end. Such personal comfort is priceless. All the other “pros” are available outside of religion, and I should add that in view of the appalling consequences of certain religious beliefs (e.g. the Inquisition and the Crusades right through to modern terrorism in the name of God) – the article is a little short on the “cons”!

https://psyche.co/ideas/religion-gives-life-meaning-can-anything-else-take-its-place?ut...

"Theologians sometimes argue that, without the existence of God, life would be meaningless. Some secular people agree. For instance, in his book An Atheist’s Guide to Reality (2011), the philosopher Alex Rosenberg claims that, because the observable physical universe is all that exists, human life is meaningless. Whether you accept this philosophical claim or not, the fact that many people seem to believe that God or other supernatural entities are necessary for life to be meaningful suggests that, psychologically, there is some important connection between religious faith and the sense of meaning in life.

***

"One possible explanation has to do with the way religion tends to act like social glue, drawing the faithful into likeminded communities. People often find social support and a sense of belonging within such communities, which can be a powerful source of perceived meaning in life. Imagine, for instance, the close personal relationships that someone might find in a Bible study group. Hence, one route from religion to the feeling that life is meaningful could be through this sense that one matters to others. We can call this explanation the ‘social mattering hypothesis’.

"Another possibility is that religious faith helps people to feel that they matter not just to others, but in the grand scheme of things. The observable universe is inconceivably vast and ancient: it is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter and c14 billion years old. Against that backdrop, it’s easy to see why some regard humanity as utterly insignificant. As Stephen Hawking once put it, science tells us that humanity ‘is just a chemical scum on a moderate-size planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies’. That’s not a particularly uplifting thought.

***

"These explanations were well summarized by Rabbi Harold Kushner. Defending the importance of religion, he wrote:

"Religion offers us a cure for the plague of loneliness by bringing us into a community of people with whom we share what is most vital in our lives … [R]eligious faith also satisfies another, even deeper human need – perhaps the most fundamental human need of all. That is the need to know that somehow we matter, that our lives mean something, count as something more than just a momentary blip in the Universe.

***

"It’s worth reiterating that these studies were conducted in the US, where most religious people are adherents of Abrahamic monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Things might look very different in other cultures. But, if these findings are correct – at least in this Western context, where being religious typically means believing in a creator God – they raise the question of whether secular Western society is in a position to reproduce the existential benefits of religion.

"Unfortunately, the data suggest a pessimistic answer. If religiousness were associated with perceived meaning in life primarily because of the social resources that come from religion, then new forms of social organisation could be developed to step in for religious ones. In fact, a number of ‘atheist churches’ have already been established with this goal in mind. Such communities are likely to be very beneficial for their members. Yet our research suggests that these secular substitutes will be less powerful sources of perceived meaning than religious faith because they are unlikely to support perceptions of cosmic significance.

"Is it possible to cultivate a sense of cosmic significance without adopting religious beliefs? One might contribute to science (ie, attempt to comprehend the Universe), or work to protect Earth from the climate crisis or other global threats. These are enormously important and good things to do with one’s life. Yet the impacts of such endeavours are confined to the comparatively humble scale of our planet – which, again, is a very small part of the cosmos overall.

***

"If you’re not religious, you might side with Karl Marx, who wrote that ‘Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.’ That is, you might think that religion makes life feel meaningful by fostering positive illusions – ie, it’s consoling, but nothing more than a fantasy. On the other hand, if you are religious, you might take this research to demonstrate the importance of faith, the distinctive and perhaps irreplaceable role that it plays in making life worth living.

"In any case, one clear implication of this research is that a person’s sense that their life is meaningful depends on their perceptions of their own significance. But a person can be significant in various ways. Hence, those seeking to lead more meaningful lives would do well to seek out ways in which they can matter – whether that means mattering to other individuals, to their communities, or perhaps even in the grand scheme of the Universe.

Comment: I skipped the research decription. I think life can be meaningful without religions.
Any further thoughts?

TONY: As I said before, sometimes it is best to let the bible speak for itself...
> Romans 1:18-32-> 
>DHW: This is the sort of text which makes people sympathize with Richard Dawkins' antipathy towards religion. God's invisible qualities as manifested in the bible and the world around me are the mixture I have listed in my first post. I accept that my reasonings are empty-headed in so far as they lead me to no conclusions, but I vehemently deny that my heart has become darkened. I do not claim to be wise since I have no answers, but God so far as I know has not turned me into a rapist, a homosexual (this seems to have been an obsession among the law-givers), or a greedy, envious, murderous, deceitful, malicious, backbiting, haughty, untrustworthy, unloving, merciless candidate for the death penalty. You will of course read the text differently, but the implication that godlessness leads to sin is as obnoxious as my saying that religion leads to greed, paedophilia and war because bishops are rich, child abuse is rife in the Church, and different believers continue to wage war on each other. Human weakness is not the fault of godlessness or of religion. It's the way we are - or perhaps the way God made us.-And no one said that this condemnation applied to everyone, or even equally to everyone. Some of it will apply more to some people than to others. Perhaps, it is exactly what it said it is. That people turned away from all the teachings that are right there, the basics of love your neighbor. What I find interesting is that you SEE exactly all the things that it said would be, and we see them running rampant today, far worse than at any other point in history, and you STILL say it wrong because you don't feel it applies to you personally. I have, on occasion, been a back biter, a little haughty, occasionally greedy, and envious at times. When I was younger, there were times I was even deceitful, most especially to myself. I am not saying I am a BAD person, but I definitely can see where I have made my mistakes, and I am cognizant enough of them not to deny them.

I have no problem with free will. But your God in his infinite wisdom would have known the choice Adam and Eve would make, so why the outrage? And punishing the whole human race for a crime committed by the first humans is not my idea of justice. -That is illogical. First, it wasn't a human that defected first. Second, the two humans had been around for quite some time without making a mistake. Third, he might not have known it would be the very first generation that messed up. Had it been a member of a subsequent generation, he most likely could have punished one without punishing all. Lastly, allowing us to punish ourselves is not the same as punishing us directly.->DHW: No, I doubt your interpretation of sin and death. If I believed in God, I'd believe he created matter to be in a constant state of change. Permanence would be boring! Life, change and death are part of the endlessly shifting pattern. -No one said anything about a lack of change, only a lack of death.-
>DHW: Imagine if Adam and Eve had not “sinned!” and their descendants had lived for ever, we would now have a planet overloaded with zillions and zillions of humans. But your God knew that wouldn't happen.-Or perhaps we would have been colonizing other planets by now, you know, in that other 99.99999% of the universe that is empty at the moment.-> 
> DHW: So why this constant harping on about how bad we are and undeserving of his love? [...] 
> We're talking about sin and the sacrifice of Christ “for our sakes”, and I'm questioning the emphasis on badness and the need for redemption... If God does exist, I'm sure we'll all genuinely repent our ignorance. Otherwise my own mistakes or thoughtless, selfish actions remain on my conscience, and that's my punishment. Did Christ have to die in order for God to forgive me? -Just like any crime, there must be an equivalent punishment, a repayment. Saying that he should absolve the crimes without them having been repaid is to demand something for nothing. Certainly you don't expect something for nothing? But what can we give god? Everything we have he has given to us, everything that is apart from our freely given love, loyalty, and obedience. Our free will is the only thing that is ours alone to give. If we gave that freely and perfectly, then we wouldn't pay the price of death, but, who can say they have not sinned? Who can say they are perfect? That is why Christ HAD to die.-
>DHW:Eben Alexander was brain dead, and found himself in a world of incredible beauty, with a woman he later discovered was the sister he'd never met. Why should I discount his version of death and accept John's? -Because Alexander was not dead. He was not conscious, and he had no brain activity ,but that is much much different than being dead. Just like we have a hard time defining the moment life starts, we have an equally hard time determining where it ends. We know the difference between life and death, but the thresholds are still very much a mystery.-
>DHW: I doubt if most people's suffering has anything to do with their so-called sinfulness. In fact religion seems to have a greater hold among the suffering poor than among the rich and comfortable. But you're right, the negatives cast doubt on the rosy image.-Surely it does, their own sinfulness and the sinfulness of others. And you are right, it is easier for a poor destitute person to be wise than the rich fool. After all, the rich fool has so much more clouding his vision.-
> It's difficult to say thank you to something that might not even be there, let alone listening. Similarly, I can't condemn something that might not be there.-But even you have a hard time denying his existence. You see it and you can't turn away from it any more than I can. If you could you would be an atheist and not agnostic. You see as well as I do that the other explanations make no sense. The difference, I think, is that I embrace it, and you look for a way around it. Perhaps because some of the bitterness that you've seen or been through.

DHW:I don't take the Adam and Eve story literally, but I find its implications horrendous. Didn't God, in his infinite wisdom, know what would happen when he organized the temptation? And is it justice that we must all pay for their sin? -Consider God from the perspective of being a ruler. If he doesn't allow free will, he is a dictator. If he does allow free will, but allows for no possibility to choose something other than him, then free will is an illusion. So A) In order for free will to be possible, there had to be a choice. Breaking the law has a penalty.-
>DHW:I don't accept that we die because we're sinners. I don't believe human bodies would have survived intact for ever. -So you could believe that he could create the universe, or design intelligent cells from scratch that would make all of evolution possible, but you doubt his ability to sustain life?-
>DHW:Weren't Adam and Eve meant to have children? Wouldn't they all have grown older? -They would have matured, yes, but not aged in the terms that we think of today. They would have remained healthy and vibrant.->DHW: So why this constant harping on about how bad we are and undeserving of his love? Who spreads all this misery? If we enjoy life and do as we would be done by, why must we assume we need to be redeemed? -It is NOT just constant harping on the wrong things we do, at least not in the bible. Yes, it talks about the bad things to make them evident, much as you no doubt told your own children when they were doing wrong. It also praises the good things that are done and the people that remained faithful.--> 
> I don't believe that the zillions of humans will be resurrected (at what age and in what state?), or that we're to be killed off again afterwards.-No, most likely only about 10 Billion, realistically, not much more than what we have today. Bear in mind too that it only mentions the righteous and unrighteous, not the wicked. There is a difference. Wicked implies knowingly and willingly doing what is wrong. Unrighteous means making the honest mistakes and not knowing any better. Righteous would be those that, while making mistakes and knowing better, actively try to repent from those mistakes and knowingly follow God's law to the best of their ability. So there are likely to be a rather large number of people that will never get a second chance.-
DHW:And even if God did say to us all, “Love me or I'll kill you off again,” and in fear and trembling we replied, “I love you, God,” he'd know what's in our hearts, and he'd have known it even before resurrecting us, so what's the point?-Exactly so. Yes, he judges intent and motivation, not purely deeds. Hence the 1 Cor 13, " if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing." -
> 
>DHW: I have had a happy life. I don't think I'm a bad person, though that may sound arrogant. If I thought I might meet my darling wife again, I'd be delighted.-If she lived a life of love and truth to the best of her abilities, then yes, there is most certainly a strong chance that it would be possible. I do not think you a bad person. I don't think most people are "bad" people. I think they, like you, carry wounds, pain, suffering, doubt, and a great many other negative experiences that make it difficult for you to believe in the love and mercy of God.->DHW: If there is a God, I will gladly say a huge thank you for his marvellous invention (life), and I would also wish that others could be as lucky as me. -So thank him now, while you are still living the wonderful life. Is it so difficult to show appreciation for all the GOOD things, instead of merely condemning him for the bad things that he did not do?->DHW: why did he felt obliged to impose such bloodthirsty conditions in the first place? -Because no law, no world with intelligent creatures can exist with peace if wrongs are not righted with justice. Justice demands equal payment for damages. Even human justice, flawed as it is, recognizes that.-
>DHW: Grateful though I am for my life, I can think of far more terrible grounds for reproach than forgiving sinners without first demanding the blood of Christ. -That is because you and I are humans. His was are not our ways. -Isaiah 55-Search for Jehovah while he may be found.+
Call to him while he is near.+
 7 Let the wicked man leave his way+
And the evil man his thoughts;
Let him return to Jehovah, who will have mercy on him,+
To our God, for he will forgive in a large way.*+
 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,+
And your ways are not my ways,” declares Jehovah.
 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So my ways are higher than your ways
And my thoughts than your thoughts.+

DHW: I hope I haven't offended Casey, as she has not replied and I tend not to hold back in these discussions.-Don't be, apprehensive. I am not so easily offended. As for Casey, we have tied up in a lawsuit and she has had her hands full with that. She is not so thin skinned either. So, no worries.->DHW: (Summarized for word count) 
- Are you then saying that God will condemn everyone he dislikes not only to physical death in this world but to everlasting death, whereas everyone he likes will be resurrected after their physical death and will live for ever on Earth? -Do you share the belief of many JWs that only 144,000 will be “chosen” to do this?-First let me say that I don't expect you to take my word for anything, and God doesn't expect you to follow blindly either. (Romans 3:4; Proverbs 2:1-6; Acts 17:11)-Instead of responding to these in my own words, I would prefer to let the Bible speak for itself. However, let me make a few key points briefly, and then point you to the scriptures to back them up. -


• The Dead are conscious of nothing-(Psa 146:4; Ecc 3:19, 9:5, 10; John 11:11, 13, 14; Isa 26:14;Ps 6:5; Isa 38:18, 19;Ps 13:3;

• Resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous- 1Co 15:12-21; Revelation ch. 7 & 20;Acts 24:15;Ro 8:28-30(no natural righteousness, some 'declared righteous') 

• Judgement- (Heb 9:27; Rev 20:12-15)

• 144,000 to reign as kings and priest- Rev ch 7, Rev ch 20

• The Great Crowd to 'inherit the Earth'- Rev 7:9, 

• Earth is Restored- Isaiah 14:7


-This is just a very, very, very cursory discussion of the topic. Entire books have been written on less. And I am sorry that some are sparse, but I ran out of time. -
 
> "Christians believe that Christ died his agonizing death on the cross in order to redeem them [...] What precisely is the point and process of this “redemption”? If we are good, we will be rewarded; if we are bad, we will be punished. So where does Christ's agony fit in? Couldn't the designer have “redeemed” us without Christ's blood? -This is a wonderful breakdown of that topic.-The short version though, is no, he couldn't. What kind of ruler would Jehovah be if he broke is own laws? Let's just assume for a moment that you believe in God and the existence of other higher life forms, call them what you will. If someone challenged his right to rule, and he killed them, he would appear wrong. If someone called him a liar, and he did not allow the opportunity to prove his word true, he would appear wrong. If someone challenged his creation, and he didn't allow the opportunity for his creation to prove itself, he would appear wrong. If he did not follow his own laws, he would appear to be wrong. His law required an EQUAL sacrifice to what was lost, equal payment. Adam was sinless, until he sinned. So in order for the law of equivalence to be maintained, it required a sinless life to be given up freely in exchange. There was no other way to both maintain the law AND his sovereignty AND redeem us AND remain above reproach himself.-The 'If we are good, we will be rewarded; if we are bad, we will be punished.' Is a bit misleading though. We are all bad. We all sin. We all fall short. And because of that, we all die. -> 
>DHW: .. Why inflict such suffering? Christ and Job were presumably both "perfect and upright", so they should have been saved anyway. What need is there for Christ's blood? Will I obey the commandments simply because Christ died an agonizing death? And could I not have had faith in him anyway without such a death? -Everyone sins. We are all guilty, either knowingly, willingly, or ignorantly and unintentionally. The price for that is death. We all pay it. Christ's blood is what gives us the hope, not guarantee, of forgiveness and a second chance. There will be a resurection of the righteous AND the unrighteous. There will be a period of time where they get to learn the right way to live, and so, having experienced the wrong way and the right, they will be presented with the choice. Those that choose life by remaining faithful, gain life, those that do not, gain death. Fair is fair. (Most of this is outlined in the scriptures listed above. If you can not find references to what I am talking about, let me know and I will either look them up for you or point them out.)-
> 
> The fact is, I am no closer to "redemption" after Christ's death than I was before it. God hurt Job and Christ, then made them feel better, but that won't help the rest of us.-This is where you are part right, part wrong. God did not hurt Job, he allowed him to be tested, just as he did Christ. But notice who did the hurting: Job 1:12 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Look! Everything that he has is in your hand.* Only do not lay your hand on the man himself!” So Satan went out from the presence* of Jehovah.+ (Also see Math 4:1-11) -So to answer your question with a question: Who actually was causing harm?-Satan tested Job and Christ, one in pain and misery, the other in pain and death. Both remained faithful, and both were rewarded for their faith. That is the promise given to all of us. (John 17:3, Isa ch. 65, Nu 23:19; Heb 6:13-18)-If I can offer more clarification, or if you would be willing to read some really well researched articles on it, let me know.

• “You must not have any other gods against my face,” (Exodus 20:3)

• You must not make a carved image or a form like anything in the heavens, on the earth, or in the waters under the earth, nor are you to bow down to or serve them.Because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion.” (Exodus 20:4-6)

• “You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, (Exodus 20:7)

• "“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it sacred" (Exodus 20:8)


-
Love your Neighbor as you love yourself. (Matt 22: 39)-Under this heading we have:-

• “Honor your father and your mother,+ so that you may live a long time in the land that Jehovah your God is giving you.+

• 13 “You must not murder.+

• 14 “You must not commit adultery.+

• 15 “You must not steal.+

• 16 “You must not testify falsely when you are a witness against your fellow man.+

• 17 “You must not desire your fellow man's house. You must not desire your fellow man's wife+ nor his slave man nor his slave girl nor his bull nor his donkey nor anything that belongs to your fellow man.”+


-These were the primary principles of the law. All other laws were based upon these. -Now, the Mosaic Law was harsh in terms of punishment, and there is a notable difference between the harshness of the Mosaic Law Covenant and the forgiving nature of the New Covenant. Why? To wrap your head around this, you have to understand that there were 3 states for mankind. Initially, we were free people living under God's rulership. Adam and Eve had but one law to obey, and that was to abstain from what was not theirs to take. Literally EVERYTHING had been given to them directly save two things, immortality and perfect knowledge. (Genesis 1:28-30, 2:16-17) Life and Knowledge are the key elements. (Genesis 3:22)-When they gave in to temptation and broke the law, they figuratively sold themselves into slavery to sin. (Compare Ro 6:16, 7:14; Jas 1:14, 15) The wage that this figurative master pays, is death. (Ro 6:13) In other words, just as the instructions for life were placed within us (DNA), the instructions for living life were given to us as well. Just like mutations (failing to follow instructions) in genes lead to death, so does failing to follow God's commandments.The Law, the Mosaic Law, was designed not only to protect the civilization from corrupting practices that would hasten death, but also under the concept that as slaves to sin, the only possible punishment was death. Sin was the master, it paid the wages.-Animal sacrifice could not cover the cost. A perfect life was given up, only a perfect life could pay the price. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Jehovah even held himself to this standard. That is where Christ comes in. His death was a ransom, figuratively buying us back from our former master, sin, and placing us under the authority of our new master, God. Note the difference here. We aren't free. We are still slaves. The difference is that now that the ransom is paid and we are God's property, he can forgive sins without breaking his own laws. -Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners,+ so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous.+ 20 Now the Law came on the scene so that trespassing might increase.+ But where sin abounded, undeserved kindness abounded still more. 21 To what end? So that just as sin ruled as king with death,+ so also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness leading to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord-Romans 3:19 Now we know that all the things the Law says, it addresses to those under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and all the world may become accountable to God for punishment.+ 20 Therefore, no one* will be declared righteous before him by works of law,+ for by law comes the accurate knowledge of sin.+
21 But now apart from law God's righteousness has been revealed,+ as the Law and the Prophets bear witness,+ 22 yes, God's righteousness through the faith in Jesus Christ, for all those having faith. For there is no distinction.+ 23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,+ 24 and it is as a free gift+ that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness+ through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus.+ 25 God presented him as an offering for propitiation*+ through faith in his blood.+ This was to demonstrate his own righteousness, because God in his forbearance* was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past.