• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The nature of God

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
If you accept certain presuppositions about anything, it becomes consistent and reasonable. What's your point?

I agree.

For example, here is one of them:

beefeater said:
IF God is Just and IF ALL have sinned and deserve just punishment, (sic) than punishment is all God owes to Anyone.

A lot of Christianity (and any religion, really) hinges on similar suppositions.

Here, if one accepts the first two statements, then punishment becomes allowable and heaven/salvation becomes necessary and loving/merciful. If one does not accept the first two statements, then what follows seems not only absurd but cruel.

Infinite punishment for finite sin never really made sense to me, either.

I don't think it makes rational sense either.

unless of course you assume that any rebellion or ounce of human will raised against God taints one, making them imperfect, and a perfect God cannot bear imperfection, and imperfection must be either (1) punished or (2) purified.

Even CHristians still argue about whether hell is punitive or reparative in nature... funny, huh? Just like much of our own legal system?

My favorite defense they'll use when you point out inconsistencies: "I don't make the rules; that's just how it is!", as if they're unable to pick up on the fact that my criticisms of the inconsistencies suggest that the entire system is nonsense.

you know the answer to that, dude:

It ranges from either people assume their POV is correct to start with, or they have had certain life experiences/insights that suggest to them it is reasonable to accept that premise.

Just because you feel indignation when people see things differently with you doesn't mean you don't need to try to better consider their stance and/or argument.

Of course, consistency isn't the point. It's not supposed to make logical sense, because that would defeat the purpose of faith.

No, it CAN make logical sense; it's just irrelevant either way in the long run since nothing can ever be perfectly known, although consistency of any sort buttresses faith claims when faith wavers.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well sure; that argument is valid. Nobody is arguing the fact that that conclusion would follow from those premises; this is a question of soundness because there's no particular reason to believe any of those premises to be true.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well sure; that argument is valid. Nobody is arguing the fact that that conclusion would follow from those premises; this is a question of soundness because there's no particular reason to believe any of those premises to be true.

That's actually where I think most arguments fail -- a mistake (purposeful or not) in the premise(s). Which basically means disagreement not necessarily being hostile in nature but deriving from different perceptions and demanding different responses.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
unless of course you assume that any rebellion or ounce of human will raised against God taints one, making them imperfect, and a perfect God cannot bear imperfection, and imperfection must be either (1) punished or (2) purified.

I don't think it makes rational sense that I'm the queen of England. Unless of course you assume that I am the queen of England, in which case the conclusion that I'm the queen of England makes perfect sense.

The problem, of course, is that the initial assumption that I'm the queen of England is erroneous, so anything else that follows from that assumption is also erroneous.

Even CHristians still argue about whether hell is punitive or reparative in nature... funny, huh? Just like much of our own legal system?

How can it be reparative if it's infinite? You don't exactly get another chance to make it right. With our prison system (excepting the death penalty), you can make an argument for a reparative function because people get a chance to try again when the finite punishment is over. I'm not aware of any religious sect that considers Hell temporary or finite.



you know the answer to that, dude:

It ranges from either people assume their POV is correct to start with, or they have had certain life experiences/insights that suggest to them it is reasonable to accept that premise.

Sure.

Just because you feel indignation when people see things differently with you doesn't mean you don't need to try to better consider their stance and/or argument.

I do try whenever someone offers some kind of argument I haven't heard before. The best argument I've found for faith thus far is that the end result is more important than the consistency of the process used to reach it.

I think that's good for a lot of people. Obviously, to many people, having a stable "map" by which to orient life and personal values is more important than maintaining logical consistency, so they have faith. In this way, faith is very useful, but still not logically consistent.

Fair enough--that isn't what makes me indignant. I feel indignation when people go a step further and insist that not only is faith useful, but that it also makes perfect logical sense, because it doesn't.

I've learned to move beyond believing that anything illogical is totally useless/worthless, and I have you (partially) to thank for that. There are many good reasons outside of logic to have faith, but that doesn't actually make faith logical in a vacuum. I feel like people who make this argument want to have their cake and it eat it too, and it doesn't hold up.



No, it CAN make logical sense; it's just irrelevant either way in the long run since nothing can ever be perfectly known, although consistency of any sort buttresses faith claims when faith wavers.

I don't understand how faith can be logical. This doesn't mean I don't see any value in it at all...we've been over that. But how can choosing to accept something arbitrarily and without evidence be logical? If you could reach that conclusion with pure logic, you wouldn't need faith. The fact that it's not logical is the very reason faith becomes necessary, isn't it?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't think it makes rational sense that I'm the queen of England. Unless of course you assume that I am the queen of England, in which case the conclusion that I'm the queen of England makes perfect sense. The problem, of course, is that the initial assumption that I'm the queen of England is erroneous, so anything else that follows from that assumption is also erroneous.

Still at work, so my responses are rather thin right now.

Looking at this one briefly:

Is it equivocal to compare your Queen of England example to the other example about God being just?

Some issues here:
1. You are tangible and identifiable; it can easily be verified that your claim of being Queen of England is dead wrong. Nothing can be verified in regards to the God/just argument.
2. One can make circumstantial cases, based on other metaphors from living in human society about the nature of justice, how authority acts, etc., that the assumption about God is a possibility even if it cannot be shown to be true and in the end is assumed. I daresay one couldn't even make a circumstantial case that you are the Queen of England unless you're far more wrinkled than I have imagined.

How can it be reparative if it's infinite? You don't exactly get another chance to make it right.

That's the problem, and it's why some Christians nowadays (and actually over the centuries as well) have argued for the existence of a purgatory state, or even that hell is not infinite. While the main belief is still that hell is forever, a lot of people seem to rebel against that especially where themselves or others they love are involved... or they are far more particular in who they think is actually sent to hell (i.e., only the most deserving and unredeemable).

The assumption here is that a loving God would not eternally condemn someone and would always be working to restore them. The point is made that there is a clash between aspects of God's nature -- it doesn't make sense to many for an eternally loving God to condemn.

(The only reasonable compromise I have imagined is the premise that people are in hell because they choose to not be in the presence of God. That way, "free will" -- whatever that means -- at least to some degree coexists with the supposed love of God; God would save them if they would let him, but he lets them leave his presence if they so desire because they'd rather be elsewhere.)

With our prison system (excepting the death penalty), you can make an argument for a reparative function because people get a chance to try again when the finite punishment is over. I'm not aware of any religious sect that considers Hell temporary or finite.

Really? I read about this all the time even in American evangelistic circles. It's one of the current arguments. There's also a battle over the nature of Christ and whether he was salvific in nature or whether he served another purpose. It's a pretty horrific fight, too. As you can expect, it creates a HUGE shift in the doctrine and rattles everything if you suggest that men are not inherently evil and/or did not necessarily need to be saved from hell. (I bet Peg could probably contribute more on it, he's well-read; I don't have the time right now to flesh it out.)


...bbl.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Still at work, so my responses are rather thin right now.

Looking at this one briefly:

Is it equivocal to compare your Queen of England example to the other example about God being just?

Some issues here:
1. You are tangible and identifiable; it can easily be verified that your claim of being Queen of England is dead wrong. Nothing can be verified in regards to the God/just argument.
2. One can make circumstantial cases, based on other metaphors from living in human society about the nature of justice, how authority acts, etc., that the assumption about God is a possibility even if it cannot be shown to be true and in the end is assumed. I daresay one couldn't even make a circumstantial case that you are the Queen of England unless you're far more wrinkled than I have imagined.

Well, in my religion, it's a well-known fact that everyone else on the planet misunderstands the true meaning of the phrase "queen of England." You heathens probably think it means something about a political figurehead on some distant European island, but faith tells me that "queen of England" actually means "simulatedworld." Therefore, it's obvious I'm the queen of England. :hi:

Is it equivocal for you to critique the validity of my argument after my concession that most pro-God arguments are, in fact, valid? Let me remind you that my issue here is with soundness--I don't question the fact that religion's conclusions follow from its premises. I just don't see any reason to accept most of the premises (like that a conscious force with a specific moral agenda actively governs the universe, for instance) are true.

So if you want to respond equivocally, why don't you direct your responses toward defending the soundness of religion's premises, rather than the validity of its conclusions? The latter is not in question here.

Except oops--then we run into the whole problem with several of the premises being totally unverifiable. This is where faith enters--logic alone may be enough to accept the validity of religion's conclusions given that its premises are true, but it doesn't allow us to infer the truth value (or lack thereof) of the premises themselves.

In fact, scientific inquiry has shown us that most of popular religion's premises are most likely not true. While we don't know this 100%, it's a clear logical mistake to assume that <100% certainty implies that all imaginable possibilities are equally likely.


That's the problem, and it's why some Christians nowadays (and actually over the centuries as well) have argued for the existence of a purgatory state, or even that hell is not infinite. While the main belief is still that hell is forever, a lot of people seem to rebel against that especially where themselves or others they love are involved... or they are far more particular in who they think is actually sent to hell (i.e., only the most deserving and unredeemable).

The assumption here is that a loving God would not eternally condemn someone and would always be working to restore them. The point is made that there is a clash between aspects of God's nature -- it doesn't make sense to many for an eternally loving God to condemn.

Hmm, that IS a tough problem, isn't it?

(The only reasonable compromise I have imagined is the premise that people are in hell because they choose to not be in the presence of God. That way, "free will" -- whatever that means -- at least to some degree coexists with the supposed love of God; God would save them if they would let him, but he lets them leave his presence if they so desire because they'd rather be elsewhere.)

I've heard that argument before. I have a hard time with it because I can't imagine anyone, upon learning for certain that God actually exists, choosing to be outside his presence. Who would stick it out in Hell for all eternity instead of just admitting he was wrong and coming back to God? Dying and finding out firsthand that Hell is actually there would be pretty undeniable proof of God's existence.

If I died, went to Hell and realized I'd been wrong about God my whole life, I'd pretty quickly repent and want to come back into God's presence. The only reason anyone would "choose not to be in God's presence" would be due to erroneous disbelief in God--a finite sin and an honest mistake for which an eternally loving and forgiving God would surely forgive all of us misguided atheists (once we reached the afterlife and realized we'd been wrong all along.)

Come to think of it, isn't belief/disbelief involuntary? I've never seen anyone successfully argued into or out of belief in God because it's an experiential thing that can't be explained in purely logical terms. In fact, if I could, I would probably choose to believe in God because I imagine it would make my life feel more purposeful.

Unfortunately, I can't do that, because God simply doesn't make coherent sense to me. If I don't even have voluntary control over whether or not I believe, how can I be morally judged for disbelief and sent to Hell?

Really? I read about this all the time even in American evangelistic circles. It's one of the current arguments. There's also a battle over the nature of Christ and whether he was salvific in nature or whether he served another purpose. It's a pretty horrific fight, too. As you can expect, it creates a HUGE shift in the doctrine and rattles everything if you suggest that men are not inherently evil and/or did not necessarily need to be saved from hell. (I bet Peg could probably contribute more on it, he's well-read; I don't have the time right now to flesh it out.)


...bbl.

That sounds like a pretty outlandish fringe argument, as far as Christian circles go. Suggesting that man is not inherently sinful and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins, contradicts the most basic fabric of the Christian faith. I'd hesitate to call such a belief system "Christianity" at all.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
If I may interject.

Maximal punishment is just punishment for doing something that it's maximally clear ought not to be done.

Fair enough--that isn't what makes me indignant. I feel indignation when people go a step further and insist that not only is faith useful, but that it also makes perfect logical sense, because it doesn't.

I like a good challenge. Want to hit me with your best shot?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
If I may interject.

Maximal punishment is just punishment for doing something that it's maximally clear ought not to be done.

Disagreed 100%.



I like a good challenge. Want to hit me with your best shot?

I'll leave that up to you. Show me an argument for faith's logical consistency and we'll talk.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Disagreed 100%.

What about this?

If it were maximally clear that act x is unethical, then anyone who xed would be without excuse: he'd have no rational defense for his xing.

I'll leave that up to you. Show me an argument for faith's logical consistency and we'll talk.

As I define it, faith is understanding, and nothing inconsistent is capable of being understood. This is why I asked you to take your best shot: you seem like a bright fellow; explaining how Christian doctrine is consistent in the face of critical inquiry forces me to grow in my understanding, and therefore it would increase my faith. (Or cause me to abandon it could you show that it was truly inconsistent).

It's 3:40 AM here, and I need to get some sleep, so I'm logging off. (I'll check this thread tomorrow). Goodnight, and peace be with you.
 

Hirsch63

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
524
MBTI Type
IS??
That sounds like a pretty outlandish fringe argument, as far as Christian circles go. Suggesting that man is not inherently sinful and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins, contradicts the most basic fabric of the Christian faith. I'd hesitate to call such a belief system "Christianity" at all.

As would I, but for one thing...are you working from the premise of a post Nicean Creed Christianity? Co-opted Christianity? If so, fine. I just wanted to understand the framework you're working within. All "christian" faith is not encompassed by that premise. No more than all experiences involving a Creator are limited to talmudic descriptions.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
...I like a good challenge. Want to hit me with your best shot?

wow, dude... you're awesome. :) Glad you are in this conversation, you have such a quietly strong but good-natured way about you.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I've heard that argument before. I have a hard time with it because I can't imagine anyone, upon learning for certain that God actually exists, choosing to be outside his presence. Who would stick it out in Hell for all eternity instead of just admitting he was wrong and coming back to God? Dying and finding out firsthand that Hell is actually there would be pretty undeniable proof of God's existence.

Think outside your frame for a second, okay?

To whit: What if you find an eternity Hell more palatable to you than being eternally in proximity with God?

According to basic Christian scripture, God is like an all-consuming fire. He does not foster lies or illusion. He is merciful but also just, terrifyingly so. All of your pretenses are stripped bare in the presence of such a person. You see yourself exactly as you are, and any lies you have fabricated about yourself, to make you smarter, stronger, wiser, more loving, kinder, better than you are, will all be immediately burned away in the flames of such a bright and perfect holiness. And it's going to hurt; I am not kidding about how painfully searing it will be. I've experienced a lot of psychological growth and increasing awareness in my life and it was absolutely painful for me to confront these things in me; it was very much like getting burned.

Can you accept being an imperfect, flawed, puny, senseless, limited, sullied human being next to a being so bright... or would it be something you would loathe and despise because you are unwilling to be honest about who you are and what you can NEVER be regardless of your petty aspirations? Knowing you are not in charge of your own fate and that your life rightfully belongs to someone other than you and you really "can't" be "your own person"?

(note: "you" meant in the general sense, I'm making a case here...!)

I've mentioned before that the simplest analogy I've seen occurs at the end of CS Lewis' "The Last Battle," where Narnia is destroyed. All creatures are streaming through the final door, where Aslan sits, and when the creatures look at him, one of two things happen: Either they look upon him and respond with love and longing and those creatures enter the door into paradise; the others look upon Aslan with fear and hatred because he threatens everything they are and instead run off into the dark never to be seen again.

The answer to your question, in a nutshell, of "Who would ever think to reject heaven and embrace hell?" is "People who would see the true heaven AS Hell and the true Hell as Heaven in comparison." That's who.

People who do not get a good sense of who they are in this life and end up finally face to face with God have a lot to process in the blink of an eye, as all of their illusions are stripped bare. if God has become the antithesis of all you are as a human being, then you're going to reject him even if you SEE him... and perhaps ESPECIALLY because you've seen him.

If I died, went to Hell and realized I'd been wrong about God my whole life, I'd pretty quickly repent and want to come back into God's presence.

You would, if your decision was entirely rational.
But it's not.
It's going to be a heart decision, not a head decision.

Can you spend eternal proximity to God or to Hell?
Which one will be more palatable?
As I said, if you're not aligned with God in your heart and center of your being, Hell might easily be more palatable.

The only reason anyone would "choose not to be in God's presence" would be due to erroneous disbelief in God--a finite sin and an honest mistake for which an eternally loving and forgiving God would surely forgive all of us misguided atheists (once we reached the afterlife and realized we'd been wrong all along.)

If someone has trouble finding God during their human life because of an honest matter of intellectual integrity, I would expect God to be big enough to handle... and the truth is evident when they finally DO see God... much as Thomas doubted but then as soon as he got the data he needed, he knelt before Jesus and said immediately, "My lord and my God." His heart was right, so when his head caught up, his true affections were evident.

Come to think of it, isn't belief/disbelief involuntary? I've never seen anyone successfully argued into or out of belief in God because it's an experiential thing that can't be explained in purely logical terms. In fact, if I could, I would probably choose to believe in God because I imagine it would make my life feel more purposeful.

:)

Now you are getting into the meat of it.

Christianity states both -- it tries to hold people accountable for their beliefs (in terms of doling out punishment), while at the same time there are doctrines that state that without God influencing them, no one can come to him. We even see this embodied in the person of Pharaoh, who hardens his heart against Moses and God and yet whose heart God then hardens so that Pharaoh might not "wimp out later" just out of fear. Elsewhere the Scripture talks about various leaders to be "raised up" merely so that God's power could be wielded against them later; they sound like strawmen God created just to knock them down at his convenience and for his purposes.

Martin Luther made a big deal of this end of the doctrine and it was involved in the split between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Unfortunately, I can't do that, because God simply doesn't make coherent sense to me. If I don't even have voluntary control over whether or not I believe, how can I be morally judged for disbelief and sent to Hell?

That's one of the arguments on the side of "I can't be God's puppet, or it wouldn't be fair for me to be damned to hell."

That sounds like a pretty outlandish fringe argument, as far as Christian circles go. Suggesting that man is not inherently sinful and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins, contradicts the most basic fabric of the Christian faith. I'd hesitate to call such a belief system "Christianity" at all.

How immersed are you in the church and popular religious discussion? You sound like you have not been doing a basic cursory reading.

Christianity Today has covered aspects of that ongoing debate periodically in the last ten years.

It does sound like you comprehend what a BIG deal it is to the faith, however, if some people would push that not all men are "inherently sinful" and thus don't NEED a savior to avoid being damned.

In any case, you know as well as I that the definition of Christianity is determined by whoever has control over the doctrines.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
What about this?

If it were maximally clear that act x is unethical, then anyone who xed would be without excuse: he'd have no rational defense for his xing.

Except it's not maximally clear that some things (which would presumably result in eternal damnation) should be avoided. For instance, disbelief in God--if it were maximally clear that everyone should believe in God, everyone would believe in God because failure to do so would be obviously and incontrovertibly ridiculous.

And even if this supposed person had no rational defense for x-ing, it's still impossible for x-ing to constitute infinite sin; therefore, I cannot rationalize infinite punishment. What grounds have you to declare anything "maximally clear", exactly?


As I define it, faith is understanding, and nothing inconsistent is capable of being understood. This is why I asked you to take your best shot: you seem like a bright fellow; explaining how Christian doctrine is consistent in the face of critical inquiry forces me to grow in my understanding, and therefore it would increase my faith. (Or cause me to abandon it could you show that it was truly inconsistent).

I didn't say that religion's arguments are inconsistent; I said that the premises upon which they're based require arbitrary acceptance of numerous ideas for which there's no discernible evidence. Again I'm questioning soundness, not validity. If you accept the presupposition that God exists and that we all need his forgiveness, Christianity's basic suppositions are clearly consistent--but that's not where I'm taking issue.

My issue is with how we can arrive at those presuppositions in the first place. The only way seems to be through an arbitrary leap of faith in the total absence of any meaningful evidence, which I cannot accept because it would be equally reasonable to make an arbitrary leap of faith to accept any number of other total absurdities. (Flying spaghetti monster, dragon in my garage, etc. etc.)

Also, do you mean to say that anyone who believes he understands anything is, by definition, being reasonable? I really can't agree with that either. Charles Manson "understood" that the Beatles had written secret messages in their music instructing him to kill people. Even if his argument for this proposition was valid, it was unsound because the Beatles did not actually write any such messages into their music; thus, at least one of his premises was false.

Not to say that the average Christian is comparable to Manson, of course :)

But when you take something on faith, you're conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits. You're implicitly admitting that there's no rational reason to believe it, but you do anyway. How am I to accept the premises upon which religion is based if I do not experience or "feel" God the way religious people claim to? I cannot arrive at any such conclusion purely through logic, and I have not had any direct experience to convince me of his presence.

It's my contention that faith is illogical because it can't be explained adequately without said direct experience.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
It's my contention that faith is illogical because it can't be explained adequately without said direct experience.

Faith is a feeling, therefore illogical but the reason why people experience that feeling can come from using logic.

Like faith in gravity before being able to mathematically explain it. There was still a reasoning behind it first.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Think outside your frame for a second, okay?

To whit: What if you find an eternity Hell more palatable to you than being eternally in proximity with God?

According to basic Christian scripture, God is like an all-consuming fire. He does not foster lies or illusion. He is merciful but also just, terrifyingly so. All of your pretenses are stripped bare in the presence of such a person. You see yourself exactly as you are, and any lies you have fabricated about yourself, to make you smarter, stronger, wiser, more loving, kinder, better than you are, will all be immediately burned away in the flames of such a bright and perfect holiness. And it's going to hurt; I am not kidding about how painfully searing it will be. I've experienced a lot of psychological growth and increasing awareness in my life and it was absolutely painful for me to confront these things in me; it was very much like getting burned.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Hell was defined as the worst possible suffering imaginable. After so many years of suffering and still never approaching any sort of end (this is eternity we're talking about), you'd think everyone would eventually accept his faults and choose to be with God--since Hell, by definition, must be even worse.

I've experienced some of this sort of thing too, and I'm sure I have a lot left to go through in the future. Funny thing about it, though, was that I didn't need to imagine a conscious entity with an arbitrary moral agenda actively governing the universe in order to look for things I can improve about myself and work on personal growth.

Can you accept being an imperfect, flawed, puny, senseless, limited, sullied human being next to a being so bright... or would it be something you would loathe and despise because you are unwilling to be honest about who you are and what you can NEVER be regardless of your petty aspirations? Knowing you are not in charge of your own fate and that your life rightfully belongs to someone other than you and you really "can't" be "your own person"?

I do accept being imperfect and flawed...but I don't accept that anyone else is in charge of my fate. If I died and found out I was wrong about this, maybe I'd spend some time in Hell being in denial about it, but since I'd have all eternity to spend there and think about it, eventually I'd have to come around and see the light.

I could see Hell as a temporary state, but the concept of people being stuck there for eternity based on how they behave in a brief ~80 years on planet Earth is still ridiculous.

(note: "you" meant in the general sense, I'm making a case here...!)

I've mentioned before that the simplest analogy I've seen occurs at the end of CS Lewis' "The Last Battle," where Narnia is destroyed. All creatures are streaming through the final door, where Aslan sits, and when the creatures look at him, one of two things happen: Either they look upon him and respond with love and longing and those creatures enter the door into paradise; the others look upon Aslan with fear and hatred because he threatens everything they are and instead run off into the dark never to be seen again.

Well, if those creatures realize their errors (which they inevitably would given infinite time to figure it out while rotting away in Hell), surely an eternally forgiving God would allow them into his presence. It's just the "Hell is infinite and permanent" part that bugs me.

The answer to your question, in a nutshell, of "Who would ever think to reject heaven and embrace hell?" is "People who would see the true heaven AS Hell and the true Hell as Heaven in comparison." That's who.

Well, then aren't those people actually in Heaven, then? If this is all up to perception and you prefer Hell to Heaven, you're not really actually in "Hell", are you?

People who do not get a good sense of who they are in this life and end up finally face to face with God have a lot to process in the blink of an eye, as all of their illusions are stripped bare. if God has become the antithesis of all you are as a human being, then you're going to reject him even if you SEE him... and perhaps ESPECIALLY because you've seen him.

Sure, you might reject him for a while, but given infinite time to burn in Hell and think about your mistakes, eventually you'll come around. Hell as a reparative place where people have to stay until they learn to accept and embrace God makes waaaaay more sense than Hell as a permanent and infinite punishment that nobody ever leaves after entering.



You would, if your decision was entirely rational.
But it's not.
It's going to be a heart decision, not a head decision.

Can you spend eternal proximity to God or to Hell?
Which one will be more palatable?
As I said, if you're not aligned with God in your heart and center of your being, Hell might easily be more palatable.

Already responded to this.



If someone has trouble finding God during their human life because of an honest matter of intellectual integrity, I would expect God to be big enough to handle... and the truth is evident when they finally DO see God... much as Thomas doubted but then as soon as he got the data he needed, he knelt before Jesus and said immediately, "My lord and my God." His heart was right, so when his head caught up, his true affections were evident.

Right, I could see that. It's just the whole "you are permanently stuck in Hell forever if you don't accept God during your life on Earth" thing that I find absurd. The reparative Hell you describe seems much more like purgatory.



:)

Now you are getting into the meat of it.

Christianity states both -- it tries to hold people accountable for their beliefs (in terms of doling out punishment), while at the same time there are doctrines that state that without God influencing them, no one can come to him. We even see this embodied in the person of Pharaoh, who hardens his heart against Moses and God and yet whose heart God then hardens so that Pharaoh might not "wimp out later" just out of fear. Elsewhere the Scripture talks about various leaders to be "raised up" merely so that God's power could be wielded against them later; they sound like strawmen God created just to knock them down at his convenience and for his purposes.

Martin Luther made a big deal of this end of the doctrine and it was involved in the split between Catholicism and Protestantism.

k

That's one of the arguments on the side of "I can't be God's puppet, or it wouldn't be fair for me to be damned to hell."

Which is still an issue for me.

How immersed are you in the church and popular religious discussion? You sound like you have not been doing a basic cursory reading.

Christianity Today has covered aspects of that ongoing debate periodically in the last ten years.

It does sound like you comprehend what a BIG deal it is to the faith, however, if some people would push that not all men are "inherently sinful" and thus don't NEED a savior to avoid being damned.

In any case, you know as well as I that the definition of Christianity is determined by whoever has control over the doctrines.

I was always under the impression that "Jesus is your lord and savior and he died on the cross to pay for your sins" is the most fundamental basis of Christianity. People can debate that all they want, but imho, if you don't believe that, you're not a Christian, end of story.

I'm reminded of an earlier discussion I had about the definition of religion, where I was talking about "spiritual" people who make up whatever beliefs they feel like and then continue calling it "Christianity" no matter how heavily it differs from Christian doctrine out of fear of breaking from the tradition they were raised with.

If I tell people I'm a Nazi, I shouldn't be surprised when they assume the worst. I could make up my own belief system called "Nazism" where we believe in free love and world peace, but that's clearly not the connotation associated with that belief system, so if I'm going make shit up and redefine the term however I feel like (as do a number of "Christians", like the ones mentioned above), it'd probably be best for me to choose a term that doesn't already near-ubiquitously mean something completely different.

In any event, you've convinced me that Hell could work as a reparative process where people's souls are condemned until such a time as they learn to accept and embrace God.

Unfortunately this still doesn't do anything about the problem of faith's irrationality. Why do you as a person of faith not also have faith in lots of other arbitrary ideas for which there is no evidence? I suppose this is because you've had some kind of unique personal experience that convinced you there is a God.

But I don't see this as logical, really. If I hallucinated a dragon in my garage, I'd be more inclined to contact a psychiatrist immediately than to believe dragons actually exist. The fact is, I still can't accept God because I haven't had whatever personal direct experience seems to convince people of his existence; belief in God only occurs as a result of direct experience. If you've directly experienced God in some way, do you really even need "faith"? It would seem that this kind of experience would give you direct evidence, which negates the need for faith.

Ergo, faith in God is illogical. That's really my only point here.
 

incubustribute

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
297
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Ergo, faith in God is illogical. That's really my only point here.

Of course it is :)

As a Christian myself, I would not see any reason to debate this point any further. You mentioned Martin Luther, who argued that reason and faith are enemies to the nonbeliever. I've been reading this thread and been hesitant to offer my input (getting between two NTP's discussing religion is not my cup of tea :newwink:), but I want to offer a quick point.

Simulated: why does this process of proving/disproving everything logically really matter in the eternal perspective? Sure, it's useful for dissecting arguments and understanding contrary belief systems and communication, etc. But at the end of your life when you are on your death bed, will you honestly be all that concerned with your arguments and your knowledge, or will you be concerned more with the people you leave behind and how you've affected them? Not trying to undermine your value system on life, I just want to offer you a new perspective that perhaps you haven't considered before. I see all this arguing about the nature of God, and I have to wonder if it's really all that important or even relevant to reduce something as infinitely complex and wonderful as God to a true/false logistical structure.

I think :jesus: might be :rolli: if he read a lot of this :D
 

incubustribute

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
297
MBTI Type
ISFJ
According to basic Christian scripture, God is like an all-consuming fire. He does not foster lies or illusion. He is merciful but also just, terrifyingly so. All of your pretenses are stripped bare in the presence of such a person. You see yourself exactly as you are, and any lies you have fabricated about yourself, to make you smarter, stronger, wiser, more loving, kinder, better than you are, will all be immediately burned away in the flames of such a bright and perfect holiness. And it's going to hurt; I am not kidding about how painfully searing it will be. I've experienced a lot of psychological growth and increasing awareness in my life and it was absolutely painful for me to confront these things in me; it was very much like getting burned.

Can you accept being an imperfect, flawed, puny, senseless, limited, sullied human being next to a being so bright... or would it be something you would loathe and despise because you are unwilling to be honest about who you are and what you can NEVER be regardless of your petty aspirations? Knowing you are not in charge of your own fate and that your life rightfully belongs to someone other than you and you really "can't" be "your own person"?

I love this! Another view of God that is similar to this, and yet more down to earth is in this video (which you may or may not have seen):

YouTube - God's Chisel - The Skit Guys
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Simulated: why does this process of proving/disproving everything logically really matter in the eternal perspective? Sure, it's useful for dissecting arguments and understanding contrary belief systems and communication, etc. But at the end of your life when you are on your death bed, will you honestly be all that concerned with your arguments and your knowledge, or will you be concerned more with the people you leave behind and how you've affected them?

Yes, I will be much more concerned with how I've affected people. Much more concerned with that than whether or not my life has pleased an imaginary deity. :)

Not trying to undermine your value system on life, I just want to offer you a new perspective that perhaps you haven't considered before. I see all this arguing about the nature of God, and I have to wonder if it's really all that important or even relevant to reduce something as infinitely complex and wonderful as God to a true/false logistical structure.

I think :jesus: might be :rolli: if he read a lot of this :D

Well, the problem is that I can't consider God to be "infinitely complex and wonderful" without hearing a reasonable justification for his existence in the first place. Since I haven't had any direct experience with God convincing me he exists, I'm forced to rely on logical analysis, which leads me to believe that his existence is unlikely enough to not warrant serious consideration.

From my perspective, the only evidence I have is people telling me to take their word for it. It's very hard to accept something like this without having a so-called "religious experience."
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Unfortunately this still doesn't do anything about the problem of faith's irrationality. Why do you as a person of faith not also have faith in lots of other arbitrary ideas for which there is no evidence? I suppose this is because you've had some kind of unique personal experience that convinced you there is a God.

But I don't see this as logical, really. If I hallucinated a dragon in my garage, I'd be more inclined to contact a psychiatrist immediately than to believe dragons actually exist. The fact is, I still can't accept God because I haven't had whatever personal direct experience seems to convince people of his existence; belief in God only occurs as a result of direct experience. If you've directly experienced God in some way, do you really even need "faith"? It would seem that this kind of experience would give you direct evidence, which negates the need for faith.

Ergo, faith in God is illogical. That's really my only point here.

And this why my comments about epistemology, a priori synthetic statements and metaphysics are so important. Of course people barely heeded me... :D

If I had an experience of my car being literally "moved" to avoid driving off the road (like a time/space bending experience mind you), it still wouldnt say *anything* about metaphysics. It would be postriori synthetic evidence (content derived from experience with a predicate induced as relating to the subject) that, "My car moved in ways that physics say it doesnt". It would provide *no comment* about a priori synthetics like "all physics defying movements are related to the christian god's intervention".

This why personal stories, as simulatedworld pointed out, really have nothing to say about the validity of any truly metaphysical worldview (as apposed to psudo-scientific world views). Even if the car story was 100% true, it would not support an a priori synthetic. All truly metaphysical statements require a priori synthetic knowledge. This is knowledge that is not transferable because its perception dependent. Its rational and logical as long as it remains as metaphysical knowledge. The moment its purported as being prescriptively true for other people without sharing the same perception, it becomes psudoscience. Psudoscience is in some sense the attempt of proving metaphysical ideas with postriori synthetic evidence, which is impossible.

When metaphysical beliefs are personal, not depending on experience (the car example) and are understood as non-transferable, then they are perfectly rational.

To answer simulated worlds question, "why would people adopt rational metaphysical beliefs over other equally rational metaphysical beliefs?":
A. Because we can and we must
B. there is no point in anything if it does not make you happy
C. believing in "2 + 2 = 4" would be pointless if it didnt make you happy (though a belief in math tends to bring more sound reasoning and happiness)
D. thus people have a right (a logical and philosophical right) to believe in what is necessary for happiness
E. we as humans question and wonder
F. the one area of knowledge that we cannot transfer is metaphysical knowledge
G. humans demand knowledge and answers to our questions and wonder
H. though we could all logically have our own metaphysical answers, there is likely more happiness in the collective belief (as it will then unite many under similar codes of society and happiness)

So the nature of God, under the most intense scrutiny of epistemology, is that the nature of God is whatever the individual needs him to be in order to be happy.

The following poster has a perfectly logical belief in God. What underlies his particular metaphysical beliefs about god are admittedly (by him) unimportant. Whats important is that he has metaphysical beliefs that aid in his search for happiness. Because what would be the point in fulfilling a religion if it didnt ultimately make him happy?

Of course it is :)

But at the end of your life when you are on your death bed, will you honestly be all that concerned with your arguments and your knowledge, or will you be concerned more with the people you leave behind and how you've affected them? Not trying to undermine your value system on life, I just want to offer you a new perspective that perhaps you haven't considered before. I see all this arguing about the nature of God, and I have to wonder if it's really all that important or even relevant to reduce something as infinitely complex and wonderful as God to a true/false logistical structure.

I think :jesus: might be :rolli: if he read a lot of this :D
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Except it's not maximally clear that some things (which would presumably result in eternal damnation) should be avoided. For instance, disbelief in God--if it were maximally clear that everyone should believe in God, everyone would believe in God because failure to do so would be obviously and incontrovertibly ridiculous.

Here you assume that people desire to conform their beliefs to that which is maximally clear. (I recognize that "maximally clear" has not here been defined. I'll expand on that below). People ought to desire this; it's intuitive that this should be so, but according to Christian theism people don't desire this. But Christians didn't get this belief out of thin air. It can be discovered by observing how people behave. What do people read? (Do they read?) Do people pursue understanding, or do they pursue pleasure, power, and money? The actions of people speak louder than their words, and the actions of the masses show that understanding is among the least of their concerns.

And what if one's beliefs were obviously and incontrovertibly ridiculous? In order to hold to obviously and incontrovertibly ridiculous beliefs, one would have to be committed to ridiculous doxastic practices. On what grounds could such a person recognize sound doxastic practices? The degree to which they were committed to their ridiculous practices would occlude their ability to recognize the sound.

And even if this supposed person had no rational defense for x-ing, it's still impossible for x-ing to constitute infinite sin; therefore, I cannot rationalize infinite punishment.

I don't like the word "hell." (The familiar doctrine of hell is a false doctrine that perverts the justice of God). I prefer the term "spiritual death," because it doesn't have the connotations associated with "hell".

The punishment of spiritual death is self-inflicted. In fact, it's something the spiritually dead person wants. At any moment, if the spiritually dead person wanted to repent and enter the kingdom of heaven, God would surely let him in: God is merciful, and the atonement was of infinite value. The consequences of sin are everlasting because we make it everlasting. God doesn't have a private torture chamber where he everlastingly tightens the screws on the unrepentant; we pull away from him, and he lets us go.

What grounds have you to declare anything "maximally clear", exactly?

In the ethical domain, something is maximally clear if one is without rational excuse for failing to know it. For the moment, I'll use the rough and ready definition of knowledge as justified, true belief--and the nature of the justification has to be such that it rules out the possibility of a plausible, contradictory, rational alternative to the object that is maximally clear.

I didn't say that religion's arguments are inconsistent; I said that the premises upon which they're based require arbitrary acceptance of numerous ideas for which there's no discernible evidence. Again I'm questioning soundness, not validity. If you accept the presupposition that God exists and that we all need his forgiveness, Christianity's basic suppositions are clearly consistent--but that's not where I'm taking issue.

Oh, when you said that faith made no logical sense, I thought you meant that anything taken on faith couldn't be logically consistent. (Perhaps you can forgive this mistake; it was easy enough to make in view of how I define faith).

My issue is with how we can arrive at those presuppositions in the first place. The only way seems to be through an arbitrary leap of faith in the total absence of any meaningful evidence, which I cannot accept because it would be equally reasonable to make an arbitrary leap of faith to accept any number of other total absurdities. (Flying spaghetti monster, dragon in my garage, etc. etc.)

Good. This means you're not all dead. Were you all dead, there'd be only one thing we could do: rummage through your pockets and look for loose change.

The kind of faith you speak of above is abhorrent. If the different versions of Christianity were different persons, the forms of Christianity that incorporated this definition of faith would be persons without brains. Like I said earlier: faith is understanding, and as such it's precisely that which appeals to our cognitive functions.

Also, do you mean to say that anyone who believes he understands anything is, by definition, being reasonable? I really can't agree with that either. Charles Manson "understood" that the Beatles had written secret messages in their music instructing him to kill people. Even if his argument for this proposition was valid, it was unsound because the Beatles did not actually write any such messages into their music; thus, at least one of his premises was false.

Not to say that the average Christian is comparable to Manson, of course :)

Oh, dear God. Far be it from me to ever assert such a thing. To replace true understanding with a phenomenological feeling of understanding is to reverse the order of authority. The mind should lead the feelings, not the other way around.

But when you take something on faith, you're conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits. You're implicitly admitting that there's no rational reason to believe it, but you do anyway. How am I to accept the premises upon which religion is based if I do not experience or "feel" God the way religious people claim to? I cannot arrive at any such conclusion purely through logic, and I have not had any direct experience to convince me of his presence.

It's my contention that faith is illogical because it can't be explained adequately without said direct experience.

Natural religion is the study of what can be known of ultimate reality on the basis of general experience--that experience which is common to all men, at all times, in all places. If faith as understanding does not include the potential to know that God exists based on this common experience, then Christianity would make no sense.
 
Top