How can a benevolent God stand for the existance of a hell with eternal suffering?

[Didums]

He'd probably respond with Proverbs 24:7 "Wisdom is too high for a fool to understand."

Yes but too bad that God knowingly created him as a fool so the fool is justified in being so.

 

[Sniffles]

I fully expect you to be struck by lightning soon sassafrassquatch.

 

[SillySapienne]

I fully expect you to be struck by lightning soon sassafrassquatch.

What perfection, really, how your posts pretty much embody what I view to be the AWESOMENESS of the Catholic faith!

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Wow. That's a stretch.

Paul wasn't necessarily trying to offer a proof of whether there's eternal damnation, he was just setting up a comparison/contrast pair here (rom 6:23) of how sin results in death versus Jesus embodying life. You can't abscond with it to say specifically what sort of death is being discussed.

This is why I generally hate discussing Bible passages. They're taken out of context to prop up concepts that the writer probably wasn't even considering at the time.

I hate it when people take texts out of context too. (Although for me it's because I always look the texts up anyway to see if I can trust them.) However in this case she has a point.

If you look at the context two deaths are being referenced in this chapter: Christ's literal death and the believer's metaphoric death. (The metaphor being a changed life on earth, rather than something in the afterlife.) However in the case of Christ's literal death the passage has meaning relevant to our conversation. Christ paid our penalty for us. What is the penalty he paid? Death. Therefore death is the penalty for sin. If eternal suffering is the penalty for sin, then Christ would need to suffer forever to be a suitable substitute. However the penalty that Christ actually paid is death. This is the penalty we should assume is due everyone, because Christ is a suitable substitute.

So the one specific verse is summing up an idea that is prevalent throughout scripture: the contrast between life and death. (Note that the words "Heaven" and "Hell" are never used in contrast like this.) For the believer while they deserve a life of "dead" works, God has graciously given them a life of sanctifying works and this leads to "life". However this metaphor is compared to the literal death and resurrection of Christ. And Christ had to die, because the penalty for sin is death.

 

[Owl]

Some of what's below may seem a bit harsh, but you asked, so I figure you wanted honest answers.

Im just struggling with the idea that this infinite God, would let an arbitrary barrier of this split second of peoples lifetimes (in a cosmic sense) be the last bell? Like why can't he continue to fight for your soul in the afterlife? why does he give up in the afterlife?

God doesn't give up. Jennifer gave a good description. God lets people go to 'hell' because they'd rather be there than spend an eternity with him.

I thought God was great because he was unquantiable, or infinite. We loosely define his infiniteness as love. well how does he suddenly stop loving us when we die just because we did what he programmed us to do?!

im tired of semantics games played by apologetics: [...poor to middlin' apologetic...]

am i going insane!??? how is this the most loving God? Am i the only one who reads this apologetics person as playing semanitcs and side stepping the obvious moral questions?

Might does not make right. The very fact that I can imagine a more loving God myself, makes we wonder how this is the most loving god possible?

What is love? What is God? The meaning you attach to these words isn't the meaning given them in classical theism. It's obvious you don't understand what the apologist above was saying, but, before you dismiss him as merely playing semantic games, at least try to understand what he is saying and why. This way, if you decide to reject what he is saying, you can really reject what he's saying and not a straw-man.

What are the obvious moral questions? Can you give rational justification for why the moral questions you grapple with are obvious? Can you show that all other competing moral systems are inconsistent or subordinate to the questions you regard as obvious? If you can't, then in what sense are your moral questions obvious?

I just feel like im loosing my mind. punishment should either A) teach a lesson. or B) protect people from dangerous parties. How is this all fitting into God pre ordaining who will be saved from the very start? why would he give up on that 1% chance of his children if he has all of eternity to try and visit them in hell.

Is God not free to create vessels of dishonor and wrath in order to reveal his justice? Would you rather God not be just, or would you rather be ignorant of God's justice?

You wrote that the absence of God would be a form of torture, but God is omnipresent--you can't get away from him. However, you can choose not to seek to understand. The natural consequence of not seeking is not finding. And this is the justice of God: he allows those who choose not to seek understanding to remain ignorant.

why is it so much nobler to believe in the resurection 2000 years later without any appeal to the 5 senses? In fact God should know exactly what it would take for each person to be saved based on their skepticism that he created them with!? Why couldnt a person who came to believe by witnessing God/jesus in person during the afterlife come to "believe"?

The existence of God is clear from the things that have been made so that men are without excuse. One needn't see God in order to know God exists. Indeed, God is a spirit whom none have seen nor can see. The only way to remain ignorant of the existence of God is to deny that which is clear, and thereby deny the possibility of understanding. Once one has denied the possibility of understanding, there is nothing that can be said to convince him that understanding is possible; e.g., if someone thought it was possible that A=~A, then it would be impossible to convince him that necessarily A=A; it would literally take a miracle for him to change is philosophical position.

...

i dont get this. I figure that logically, me hating God isn't an option! If he is so great and benevolent and powerful, what possiblie being could be dumb enough or hatefull enough to reject him? It seems more about him being able to prove to us he exists in the firstplace, never mind if we reject him or not. Its like his big goal is to prove his existence without ever providing proof!!!! ahhh im going insane!


if he exists and these are his laws then clearly he IS the benevolent one! I engage in testing the logical benevolence possibilities to test among the different religions in diff points in my life. honestly its only ever been christian variations, but thats not the point. the point is that the religion should stand on its own! if it has to quote its own book with, "if you dont like it, tough". then im not sure why i should believe the religion valid. I cant cite a made up paper i wrote to convince the science community of anything of importance..can i?

1. you cant believe in something to be true just because it "feels right":

"it just feels so right! we have to have a savior!?" "life would be pointless without a God, it just wouldnt FEEL right"

the feels right method of guide fails. If it were right, then that girl i had a crush on in 8th grade would be with me simply because...drum roll.... "it just FEELS so right! {nothing physical implied!}"

2. so if we can't get there on feelings... well then were do we go? to reason...

problem is exactly what you just said: we often just create logical arguments for what we already hold to be true to us.... so this often breaks down into:

"well theres both a descent proof AND refutation... FOR BOTH SIDES!"

3. So then from reason/philosophy we go to naturalism and the 5 senses... but then we are left with:
"is this really all there is?" if all there is is finite quantifiable stuff, then how does the concept of "love" and other unquantifiables exist in the universe? if love is just a chemical reaction...well how do i feel about the ramifications of this????

I guess i could reconcile atheism if i was certain of it (ok obviously not 100%). I guess atheism isn't THAT repulsive if i knew it was the truth. the butterfly effect would give me comfort: a butterfly flapping its wing can affect the path of a hurricane many years after the butterfly is dead many miles away.

I just can't commit to this one out of the fear of being wrong.

4. so then we go to just wild imagination...where literally the craziest shit of molding together string theory and God, aliens and god, chia pets and God, or any other crazy molten theory of religion that has no previous basis besides you thought it up and it seems to work???


So what am i left with??? Im coming to the sad realization that we basically know nothing...somehow a bunch of dead philosopher guys would disagree with me.... but im not sure if IIIII can ever know anything

in which case this horrible reality unfolds:

what if i am not sure enough to ever truly believe in Chirst, but too fearful of the consequences to be an atheist. so then i possibly get no everlasting life AND i didnt get to go wild in an atheist life.... ....having a world view like this would seemingly torture me....

^I love this post.

You're right.

If it is clear that God exists, then it is absurd not to love God.

One cannot appeal to scripture without first showing the necessity of scripture; scripture, as special, redemptive revelation, assumes transgression, and so the law that is transgressed must be knowable apart from scripture.

Neither are feelings or intuition a source of truth; they are a source of data.

And reason can be a source of skepticism when it is used only constructively--i.e., when it's used to merely build upon uncritically held assumptions.

And empiricism always leads to skepticism, which is exactly where you currently are in your philosophical journey--toying with the absurd and flirting with nihilism. The denial of the possibility of understanding.

Is knowledge possible, and what is the nature of authority?

 

[Venom]

What is love? What is God? The meaning you attach to these words isn't the meaning given them in classical theism. It's obvious you don't understand what the apologist above was saying, but, before you dismiss him as merely playing semantic games, at least try to understand what he is saying and why. This way, if you decide to reject what he is saying, you can really reject what he's saying and not a straw-man.

What are the obvious moral questions? Can you give rational justification for why the moral questions you grapple with are obvious? Can you show that all other competing moral systems are inconsistent or subordinate to the questions you regard as obvious? If you can't, then in what sense are your moral questions obvious?

classical theists claim to have quantified God as being omnipotent, omni benevolent and omniscient. I am simply claiming that at least to myself, God is unquantifiable. Maybe he revealed himself to the originals in a quantifiable way as already stated. However, to someone that he is un revealed, i can't really think of a better description other than he is unquantifiable. That is the most basic difference between God and this world as far as we can gather. humans are finite, quantifiable in existence; God is not finite and is unquantifiable. Do you not agree that that sums up the communication problems beautifully?

Is God not free to create vessels of dishonor and wrath in order to reveal his justice? Would you rather God not be just, or would you rather be ignorant of God's justice?

Im willing to admit i dont quite understand. are you saying, "and why cant God use beings destined to be unjust as proof of his justice?" i guess you avoid the cruelty because he wont torture, only destroy the unjust.... i guess if you accept that dichotomies can only be understood when compared with their binary, then yes maybe God HAS to create evil in order to create good. i dont doubt that this may be logical. im just not sure if i can grasp the values behind it...i am yet a mere mortal.

You wrote that the absence of God would be a form of torture, but God is omnipresent--you can't get away from him. However, you can choose not to seek to understand. The natural consequence of not seeking is not finding. And this is the justice of God: he allows those who choose not to seek understanding to remain ignorant.

so i guess your arguing that there is no torture in hell, because you simply couldnt live apart from God. hell therefore must be your complete death...lack of existence. we wouldnt perceive it. this makes much more sense than there being a hell.

The existence of God is clear from the things that have been made so that men are without excuse. One needn't see God in order to know God exists. Indeed, God is a spirit whom none have seen nor can see. The only way to remain ignorant of the existence of God is to deny that which is clear, and thereby deny the possibility of understanding. Once one has denied the possibility of understanding, there is nothing that can be said to convince him that understanding is possible; e.g., if someone thought it was possible that A=~A, then it would be impossible to convince him that necessarily A=A; it would literally take a miracle for him to change is philosophical position.

so men are without excuse? the God of the Gaps seems like a weak argument. The world around us awe inspiring, but we have abstractions and explanations that dont NECESSITATE a PERSONAL God. One of the best cosmological arguments ive read was that the universe IS math. The symbols we use for math is our best ability of describing what actually is: i giant math structure. we can explain what happened in less than a second after the big band up to the creation of the earth....a small gap...then we have from cells all the way to us. sure there ARE gaps...but there have always been gaps and the gaps keep getting smaller.

Even if God is evident in the creation around us, i dont see evidence of a PERSONABLE God, who has a personality and like can actually 'talk to me' if he wants to....

^I love this post.

You're right.

If it is clear that God exists, then it is absurd not to love God.

One cannot appeal to scripture without first showing the necessity of scripture; scripture, as special, redemptive revelation, assumes transgression, and so the law that is transgressed must be knowable apart from scripture.

Neither are feelings or intuition a source of truth; they are a source of data.

And reason can be a source of skepticism when it is used only constructively--i.e., when it's used to merely build upon uncritically held assumptions.

And empiricism always leads to skepticism, which is exactly where you currently are in your philosophical journey--toying with the absurd and flirting with nihilism. The denial of the possibility of understanding.

Is knowledge possible, and what is the nature of authority?

wait so, what is your opinion of my "flirtation with nihilism"? atheism does not inherently mean nihilist...although i guess secular humanism to some just means avoidance of eventual nihilism...

am i going insane?

knowing anything about God seems to be impossible. Feelings can't get us there, logic can't either. Imagination cant get us there, and 5 sense naturalism cant either.

seriously, how can we ever really get anywhere without making an irrational jump? believers keep telling me that "well obviously you eventually have to make a jump of faith..."

but if its just a "feeling"...a "faith"....then how can i know its the right one!?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

am i going insane?

knowing anything about God seems to be impossible. Feelings can't get us there, logic can't either. Imagination cant get us there, and 5 sense naturalism cant either.

seriously, how can we ever really get anywhere without making an irrational jump? believers keep telling me that "well obviously you eventually have to make a jump of faith..."

but if its just a "feeling"...a "faith"....then how can i know its the right one!?

It's true that you can't get anywhere without first making an irrational jump. Not only is this true with God, but it is true in any type of understanding. All assumptions are fundamentally irrational, but we have to make assumptions in order to reach conclusions. The freedom in making an assumption is that if you find the path you are on unfruitful, then you can always go back and make a different assumption and try a new path.

 

[Venom]

It's true that you can't get anywhere without first making an irrational jump. Not only is this true with God, but it is true in any type of understanding. All assumptions are fundamentally irrational, but we have to make assumptions in order to reach conclusions. The freedom in making an assumption is that if you find the path you are on unfruitful, then you can always go back and make a different assumption and try a new path.

i just read "Reason" s thread on Criticalism. It wages that the problem with justificationism is well... hold on (the bolds are mine):

Criticalism is the presupposition that all knowledge is conjectural, and that no belief can be certified, verified, validated, confirmed or in other way be justified.
......

For the criticalist, the standard justificationist method of criticism, where any claim to knowledge can be criticised by asking for its justification, loses all force. If there are no justified beliefs, then we cannot choose between competing conjectures for being justified or unjustified. Further, this can be generalised to all expressions of doubt, possible falsity, or insufficient proof, since every conjecture is doubtful, possibly false and insufficiently proven. In other words, to effectively criticise a conjecture, it is necessary to actually form an argument or perform a test, not merely express uncertainty.

so relating with your above response...

and with this gem from Jennifer on making jumps in reasoning (the bolds are mine):

You have to take calculated risks, just as you might when you try to cross a stream balanced on random rocks scattered throughout the water. Think about it. The further the distance you have to jump, the more risk and the less likely it is for you to take that route. But each person has a different margin of risk they are able to accept. So you can't predetermine the "risk limit" up front. Some people will take bigger leaps... and might even succeed, depending on their individual characteristics and fortune... but the odds were definitely lower and those rocks were riskier.

You'll see the same behavior in thinking/belief as well. Some people need the rocks to be close together and are more concerned about avoiding error; others are willing to try to leap far distances because they like what's on the other side more than they fear the risks. and then you even get some people who don't see the danger and make jumps that might dump them in the water but still have thought them (illogically) to be easy jumps.

....and combine this with BlueWing's conjectures (the bolds are min):

There could be a reasonable jump and an unreasonable. An example of a reasonable jump is 'I establish the premise that I have a hand in front of me because I see it'. Cannot completely deduce this, as this is merely a piece of factual information in front of me. Common-sense aside, we can conjure plenty of good reasons to believe in this.

...

Logic is the study of objective patterns of reasoning. There simply will never be a time when we know for something to be true, yet cannot make a good argument for it. Such an attitude is incompatible with the sciences or philosophy.

Bridging the gap with 'faith' means simply believing in something because we want to believe in it, not because there is any good reason to do so.

This is the essence of the very essence of Fideism. Mere self-deception.

There have been philosophers who have achieved similar results as the fideists, namely attunement with ideas that gave a 'spiritual' meaning to their lives with no tomfoolery. Spinoza is the case in point.

My best attempt at synthesizing these is as follows:

1. We cannot avoid making "irrational jumps". Nothing is 100% self evident. Even the idea that your hand is well... *there*.

2. So, to ever "get anwhere", we are going to have to START somewhere, even if the premise isn't 100% "justified". Some jumps or premises are going to farther than others. The idea that "this is in fact my hand in front of me", can be understood as less of a jump in reasoning than say "these Bose headphones are in fact worth $300,000".

3. The veracity of these "facts" lies in arguments. Some arguments are simply going to be perceived as better than others.

I cant 100% justify this is my hand, but I have no history of hallucinations, am legally sane, and I am right now perceiving my hand with all 5 senses (faculties that are quite close with my brain). I can see, taste, touch, smell and hear (the sounds i can make with them) my hands. Neither this nor $300,000 valued Bose headphones are 100% justified. But we can compare their veracity based on arguments. The arguments I just presented for my hands are "better" and more testable than the arguments for $300,000 Bose headphones: maybe these headphones were originally of someone famous, my friend can show me a letter from this person, a picture of him/the celebrity and the headphones. Finally we can test the $300,000 claim by testing the claim in the real world: we can try to sell them.

4. Beyond the veracity of my hands and $300,000 headphones, we can now move onto more substantial arguments. Even though one "can" ask for the justification of the existence of these two items, we move on with the understanding that there are "good enough" arguments for there existence.

5. Now we can include these two items in our premise for bigger arguments. Now we can judge the bigger arguments not based on the "justification" for the premises, but on the utility of the bigger arguments.

a) the utility: how useful is the knowledge this argument presents? Does it allow us to make consistent and logical explanations for different "stuff" that the argument tries to explain?

ex: Evolution allows scientists a framework that explains the different depth/locations of specific fossils while being logical and consistent with geological theories (which hopefully have their own "good arguments").

The reason why scientists joke about a "pre-cambrian rabbit", is because it would it be a piece of empirical evidence that would be difficult to fit into the theory of evolution. It wouldn't allow "evolution" to make consistent and logical explanations for ALL stuff (if we ever found a "pre-cambrian rabbit").

b) Some theories provide a great deal of utility, for example String Theory. String theory would provide a great deal of utility in explaining the universe consistently and logically. However, it doesn't necessarily make it "the truth". Whats missing for String Theory, is what evolution has. A "degree of" testability and empirical evidence to organize and/or "test".

c) Both evolution and String theory are far from being 100% "truth". Both provide a great deal of utility. Here's the kicker: both have premises that don't
"need" nor can be justified. Both have great utility. Why is one more widely believed than the other? One is more testable and has more data to 'prove itself' with.

6. So to review. Premises need to have reasonable arguments, but need not be justified. The argument is judged not by its premises (assuming they are reasonable), but by the utility and testability of the bigger argument.




...............finally.....how can we apply all of this...........






7. So when judging something like the Bible:

a) how reasonable are its premises?
I. Is the bible accurate in a historical sense? Can we find other evidence that the people/events described actually existed?
II. Is it logical? Are there contradictions to its claims? Does the bible give contradictory commands? Does the bible describe actions that violate the personalities attributed to an infinitely loving/just creator?
III. If the Bible claims to be the word of God, how can we be certain that we still have the uncorrupted word? If the Bible is the literal word of God, how can we explain the obvious difference in personality depending on the human author? Does it matter that the personality of author effects "infallable" words of God?
IV. Does a 2000 year old book, sound like something reasonable to attribute to an all supreme God's great plan? If the plan claims to be "the only way of salvation for mankind", is a 2000 year old book a reasonable attempt at communication for an all supreme God?
V. Does it matter that Might Makes Right when concerning the Bible? Is it ok that actual mechanisms of atonement (legalistic vs substitution, annihilation vs eternal hell etc...) aren't described? Is it reasonable to accept a book simply on a "you need to do this...dont ask how it works" basis?

b) how much utility does it provide in explaining our world?
I. Are there descriptions of nature, meant to be literal, that violate our own views of nature? Do these views provide any greater utility in describing data not discussed by the bible?
II. How much utility do the morals espoused in the Bible provide? If it they are not of great utility, then we have to ask how good of arguments they are. Does a moral system that asks us to ritually sacrifice animals, stone children and kill foreigners provide much utility?

c) how testable is it? If we were to gain new data, how would this theory handle or not handle it?
I. If we get to a certian level of understanding with regards to evolution or the nature of the universe (regarding physics/time etc), what would that do for the Bible? could the bible handle these? Would the bible still provide utility if it couldnt handle the new data? If a person were to say reasonably be convinced of the existence of Ghosts (by experience) how would the Bible handle this new data?
II. Can we find any empirical evidence for the claims of the bible not relating to historical data (already covered)? What empirical evidence do we have for a personal God? Has God ever made audible voice conversation with you? Have you ever witnessed an obvious miracle? Can we discern between coincidence (say you got a great Job after praying about it) and coincidence (lots of people have prayed about something and not gotten it)?


Wow. I'm sure my little expose could use some tweaks. At the very least I feel like I am finally getting somewhere! Half the battle in seeking truth is asking the right questions. I think I may be finally on to asking the right questions.

 

[Totenkindly]

If you look at the context two deaths are being referenced in this chapter: Christ's literal death and the believer's metaphoric death. (The metaphor being a changed life on earth, rather than something in the afterlife.) However in the case of Christ's literal death the passage has meaning relevant to our conversation. Christ paid our penalty for us. What is the penalty he paid? Death. Therefore death is the penalty for sin. If eternal suffering is the penalty for sin, then Christ would need to suffer forever to be a suitable substitute. However the penalty that Christ actually paid is death. This is the penalty we should assume is due everyone, because Christ is a suitable substitute.

I think this is part of my issue with discussions of particular passages.

There are various levels of nuance with which a text can be read. What was the level of detail within the author's mind when he wrote this? We don't know the answer to that.

I remember when I was younger in the faith and ended up tearing apart verses as a Bible study leader and even analyzing the use of the word "the" rather than the word "a" in a particular verse and trying to read meaning into that... as if the writer had some special meaning for doing that. Later I realized that was a dreadful mistake. I was hinging more importance than warranted on a particular word choice or perceived "logical balance" in a particular passage.

But that balance, that particular need for that level of detail, was a requirement I (the reader) was foisting on the text. It was not necessarily inherent in the writer's mind at the time... even if such a reading might seem more pleasing to ME.

So you seem to fail to recognize how your perceived interpretation is really just a product of your own particular requirements for the text and not necessarily inherent to the text in question.

This reality of communication is what creates a lot of ambiguity at times over what the author intended in a passage, and why we have to be careful about noting our own assumptions when we view a passage.

 

[Totenkindly]

Is God not free to create vessels of dishonor and wrath in order to reveal his justice? Would you rather God not be just, or would you rather be ignorant of God's justice?

True. God could do whatever he wanted. And if all structure / justice is descended from him (as the "source" of all), then it's probably a matter of us not being aligned with him, since he would be our source as well, rather than him not being "just."

You wrote that the absence of God would be a form of torture, but God is omnipresent--you can't get away from him.

Very nice.

Except for those in hell.

Which leads to this question: Is God present even in hell? (Sorry. Just came to mind. ) if so, then the people in hell simply have chosen not to perceive him even if he is there... which means they have placed themselves in hell. And even hell is illusory in terms of reality, although very real to those suffering the self-imposed illusion.

And this is the justice of God: he allows those who choose not to seek understanding to remain ignorant.

I like that.

The existence of God is clear from the things that have been made so that men are without excuse. One needn't see God in order to know God exists. Indeed, God is a spirit whom none have seen nor can see. The only way to remain ignorant of the existence of God is to deny that which is clear, and thereby deny the possibility of understanding. Once one has denied the possibility of understanding, there is nothing that can be said to convince him that understanding is possible; e.g., if someone thought it was possible that A=~A, then it would be impossible to convince him that necessarily A=A; it would literally take a miracle for him to change is philosophical position.

It always left me wondering how people truly change, if they believe one thing. Can they ever truly believe anything else, without some sort of divine intervention to break the mindset?

We like to consider ourselves autonomous and able to choose freely between alternatives, but so often it seems that we are fated to believe one thing because of our natures and personalities and history and culture... unless something inexplicable changes us. Odd.

 

[Venom]

I think this is part of my issue with discussions of particular passages.

There are various levels of nuance with which a text can be read. What was the level of detail within the author's mind when he wrote this? We don't know the answer to that.

I remember when I was younger in the faith and ended up tearing apart verses as a Bible study leader and even analyzing the use of the word "the" rather than the word "a" in a particular verse and trying to read meaning into that... as if the writer had some special meaning for doing that. Later I realized that was a dreadful mistake. I was hinging more importance than warranted on a particular word choice or perceived "logical balance" in a particular passage.

But that balance, that particular need for that level of detail, was a requirement I (the reader) was foisting on the text. It was not necessarily inherent in the writer's mind at the time... even if such a reading might seem more pleasing to ME.

So you seem to fail to recognize how your perceived interpretation is really just a product of your own particular requirements for the text and not necessarily inherent to the text in question.

This reality of communication is what creates a lot of ambiguity at times over what the author intended in a passage, and why we have to be careful about noting our own assumptions when we view a passage.

I literally brought up that example about "Christ is not burning in hell for eternity, therefore I can't see how our punishment would be eternity in hell..." to a pastor who has studied in theology at a graduate level (i cant say how much credibility this gives him)

He gave me a weak argument in return: "God can't be in the presence of imperfection, because his standard and he in turn, IS perfect. therefore there must be bloodshed. This is how sacrifice worked out in the OT and how Christs bloodshed was good enough in the NT....but yes there is a heaven, there must be a hell...a suitable dichotomy."

My confusion lies then on: why wouldn't our own bloodshed be enough then? sure, our bloodshed can't be enough for all mankind like Christ's was, but why not our own bloodshed for our own sins? There are plenty of passages in the bible that claim we will not pay for the sins of our fathers. If the bloodshed of an animal were enough for the Jews not to go to Hell, then why isn't our own bloodshed?


Part of my critisism of the Bible is exactly what you talk about Jennifer: its so hard to read it correctly! If this is God's all important message couldn't he have communicated it better? Why would he limit himself to a 2000 year old book?!

 

[Venom]

True. God could do whatever he wanted. And if all structure / justice is descended from him (as the "source" of all), then it's probably a matter of us not being aligned with him, since he would be our source as well, rather than him not being "just."

does Might make right? (im honestly not sure either way)

It always left me wondering how people truly change, if they believe one thing. Can they ever truly believe anything else, without some sort of divine intervention to break the mindset?

We like to consider ourselves autonomous and able to choose freely between alternatives, but so often it seems that we are fated to believe one thing because of our natures and personalities and history and culture... unless something inexplicable changes us. Odd.

this leads me to this:

its one thing to believe in a God...
...quite another to then make the jump to a personable God
...and then ANOTHER jump to WHICH personable God...which one you end up believing in seems to have more to do with your personality, culture, and history as you point out.

 

[Totenkindly]

does Might make right? (im honestly not sure either way)

I am not discussing "might" (in the sense of "might" begin a conscious application of power/potency). I am simply noting that if God is the source of all, if everything is derived from him, then his creation will reflect his essence.

(Just like a parent's nature reflects how they parent.)

If God defines ALL of reality, then whatever is "right" is whatever reflects God truthfully.

So if you're not aligned with God, you'd be "wrong."
(unless of course God defined you to be someone not aligned with him. Then you'd be "right" in your "wrongness." )

this leads me to this:

its one thing to believe in a God...
...quite another to then make the jump to a personable God

Do you mean "personal"?

...and then ANOTHER jump to WHICH personable God...which one you end up believing in seems to have more to do with your personality, culture, and history as you point out.

I think we should remain acutely aware of how our understanding and perspective to things depends on what information has been accessible to us in our lives.

This is a foundational point of my belief structure. If God is universal, he must be discernable even without the conventional means.

Holy text, a published manuscript, is great... but if God is not going to be elitist, he's going to have to be just as accessible by people in any culture, over any time, of any literacy or intelligence, of any mental ability.

It can't be based on "what we know," since what we know is never ensured. Somehow our participation in any kingdom of God has to transcend/bypass specialized or localized knowledge.

 

[Venom]

I am not discussing "might" (in the sense of "might" begin a conscious application of power/potency). I am simply noting that if God is the source of all, if everything is derived from him, then his creation will reflect his essence.

(Just like a parent's nature reflects how they parent.)

If God defines ALL of reality, then whatever is "right" is whatever reflects God truthfully.

So if you're not aligned with God, you'd be "wrong."
(unless of course God defined you to be someone not aligned with him. Then you'd be "right" in your "wrongness." )




Do you mean "personal"?



I think we should remain acutely aware of how our understanding and perspective to things depends on what information has been accessible to us in our lives.

This is a foundational point of my belief structure. If God is universal, he must be discernable even without the conventional means.

Holy text, a published manuscript, is great... but if God is not going to be elitist, he's going to have to be just as accessible by people in any culture, over any time, of any literacy or intelligence, of any mental ability.

It can't be based on "what we know," since what we know is never ensured. Somehow our participation in any kingdom of God has to transcend/bypass specialized or localized knowledge.

1. I did mean a relational God...personable might of been the wrong word....sorry

2. "If God is universal he must be discernible even without conventional..."-- this is my main criticism: why would God limit himself to a 2000 year old book...just because someone might be able to discern there is a God from i guess Nature...how does that person make the leap that the Bible is the correct version of his communication?

what about the people who lived before the printing press? before the bible was translated into their language? is retarded by medical standards, yet sill somehow sins? what about people who are illiterate but still sin?



3.

So if you're not aligned with God, you'd be "wrong."
(unless of course God defined you to be someone not aligned with him. Then you'd be "right" in your "wrongness." )

This goes along with my "how is it someone fault to simply be what God created them to be? He created them knowing they would sen, so in effect he created that person to sin! The fundies respond that "its God, he can do what he wants to demonstrate his justice". To me that IS a "Might equals Right argument"..."he who has the power makes the ethics"...to those of us who find ethics as objective and independent of observation, creation etc. That is uncomfortable...






totally random, by my latest conjecture is that proving or understanding the Bible actually lies in Judaism. Seriously, Pastors shouldn't be convincing me of the veracity of Jesus, but the truth of Judaism! They never try to, I guess because they know the exodus is as shaky as they claim evolution is, because no modern Jews still sacrifice animals or refuse to wear certain clothing as in Leviticus.

I mean seriously, if they can't completely prove the OT. then whats the point in even bothering with Jesus?!???? The idea that 99% of fundies focus on Jesus and not the OT is highly disturbing to me... My search for truth will focus on the OT until i can come to some conclusions on it.

Ponder this: many ancient cultures were egocentric in believing that "their God" was the God who had chosen their leader and blessed them. Egypt to China...The Jewish story is NO DIFFERENT! All of these old cultures wanted to make their origins supernatural. Christianity has essentially hijacked Judiasm. I say hijacked because they really aren't that many practicing everything orthodox jews left....if THEY dont believe in literal OT...then how or why do the Christians???

 

[Totenkindly]

1. I did mean a relational God...personable might of been the wrong word....sorry

'kay.

2. "If God is universal he must be discernible even without conventional..."-- this is my main criticism: why would God limit himself to a 2000 year old book...just because someone might be able to discern there is a God from i guess Nature...how does that person make the leap that the Bible is the correct version of his communication?

I don't know. That's one of the apparent fallacies. You can't say there's a God just from looking at nature and conclude it must be the Christian JUST because there must be a God due to nature.

3. This goes along with my "how is it someone fault to simply be what God created them to be? He created them knowing they would sen, so in effect he created that person to sin! The fundies respond that "its God, he can do what he wants to demonstrate his justice".

Well, that particular argument is unsatisfying and pathetic, it seems to be arguing "after the fact" to support a prior conclusion.

How much choice do we have? (We are drifting back into determinism versus free will here.)

I think the fundies would be very unhappy if they found out they had been created as targets for God's justice, to make it plain and simple. They would change their argument quickly, I am sure.

To me that IS a "Might equals Right argument"..."he who has the power makes the ethics"...to those of us who find ethics as objective and independent of observation, creation etc. That is uncomfortable...

For the fundies, it's a "might makes right" argument. I was speaking from a broader perspective, where it's not might makes right -- what is right simply is whatever God is, and he doesn't really determine that. It just flows from him and is a given.

I have to run, so I will look at the rest later.

 

[swordpath]

God is holy in ways we are not. I believe He's benevolent and kind, but there's another aspect of Him that makes Hell necessary? I grapple with this.

I too grapple with this concept. What confuses me and is the crux of my doubt on the topic of "God" is that if he is indeed a loving, benevolent force and has us, his creation in his best interest, how can he expect us in our limited knowledge and ability to understand the complexities of this universe, to understand this issue? We have the ability to think, analyze and doubt and I find myself doing this a lot. God encourages/forces/prods us to "live by faith" and just accept that there's a way we can't understand but to be ok with that.

How can I be expected to blindly accept that or be damned if I don't? For me, it's not a choice, it's an inability to understand. From what I've always been told and from all I can gather is that that isn't good enough and hell still awaits me and my heresy. If there is a god, I'm angry at him for that. That "system", if you will, isn't one of a humane beholder of justice.

 

[reason]

To know that the God of The Holy Bible exists is easy. The sentence 'the God of The holy Bible exists' is true, if and only if, the God of The Holy Bible exists. That is, if someone thinks that the sentence 'the God of The Holy Bible exists' is true and it actually corresponds to the facts (or accurately describes reality), then that someone knows that the God of The Holy Bible exists. Nothing else matters.

The traditional definitions of 'knowledge' have surprisingly little to do with the facts or the truth, and can be safely ommitted without important consequence. There is no practical difference between conjecturing, "knowing", or even pretending that an idea is true. A person who "knows" that a sentence is true is not going to be any more successful than a person who conjectures the same, and so even if such "knowledge" is attainable, it doesn't do anything.

In some cases, where "knowledge" does not gaurantee truth, a true conjecture is superior to false knowledge i.e. you would rather not know and be right, than know and be wrong.

 

[swordpath]

So you're saying it doesn't matter what we know or think we know.

How does that work? Then how are we saved? It has to be a choice of our own volition, meaning what we are willing to accept and what we choose to "know." No?

 

[Usehername]

I too grapple with this concept. What confuses me and is the crux of my doubt on the topic of "God" is that if he is indeed a loving, benevolent force and has us, his creation in his best interest, how can he expect us in our limited knowledge and ability to understand the complexities of this universe, to understand this issue? We have the ability to think, analyze and doubt and I find myself doing this a lot. God encourages/forces/prods us to "live by faith" and just accept that there's a way we can't understand but to be ok with that.

How can I be expected to blindly accept that or be damned if I don't? For me, it's not a choice, it's an inability to understand. From what I've always been told and from all I can gather is that that isn't good enough and hell still awaits me and my heresy. If there is a god, I'm angry at him for that. That "system", if you will, isn't one of a humane beholder of justice.

I can really relate to your thoughts here, Beat. Now, I'm a Sunday-School-Teaching, Former-Worship-Leading Christian... but that certainly doesn't mean I'm comfortable with what I read in the Bible or what I'm told to believe by so many well-intentioned but unnerving Christians I interact with.
I used to believe things on the basis of rationalization then acceptance (I didn't take the Bible to be correct until I could understand what God's POV was and identify a logical reason for any command/biblical assertion). That is a slow, labourious, disconcerting and time-consuming process. It alienated me from Christians who were puzzled by my inability to see God's word as literal (or close to) and it alienated me from some atheist friends who didn't understand how I could search for someone intangible.
I've learned just these past few years, even this past year, that it's more of a win-win all around if I take a different approach.
Now, I recognize that my time is a precious commodity. It doesn't do the world much good if I spend it in my bedroom deeply analyzing profound theological material for the sake of my inner contentment. I've learned to live in a world of Holding Things In Tension: I put my faith out there that God knows what's going on, that He is primarily a God of relationships and love, and that He's got my best interests in mind. Now, I want to clearly assert that this doesn't mean i learn to live with things uncomfortably and just deal--my favourite gift that God has given me is the gift of a brain that is capable of at least some level of cognition and searching and understanding.
I think any Christian who isn't attempting to further their knowledge and wisdom is not being very God-honouring at all. It means I spend more time in prayer, asking for wisdom and understanding, it means I spend more time interacting with people who see the world in different ways than I do, and it means I pray for more soul-understanding and faith from God.
I ask for these things in prayer because they don't come naturally to me. And every once in a while, I am gifted with a profoundly new understanding of one of his teachings in a way that settles nicely with my insides--well thought out and reasoned theology that I can identify as coming from a God who loves me and cares for me, but also that makes logical sense.

I think unsettling Biblical things are partly unsettling for the sole purpose of us searching for deeper understanding--to go deeper means to attempt to build a more real relationship with God. Where you ask the hard questions and demand answers because you're so frazzled and stuck with something... it fosters real relationship. Just like our interpersonal relationships: the more you deal with the bumps and walls, the stronger your bond becomes. You understand someone better when you're been through hard times with them--I'm sure you know this just as well, if not better, than I do due to your military commitment.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I think this is part of my issue with discussions of particular passages.

There are various levels of nuance with which a text can be read. What was the level of detail within the author's mind when he wrote this? We don't know the answer to that.

I remember when I was younger in the faith and ended up tearing apart verses as a Bible study leader and even analyzing the use of the word "the" rather than the word "a" in a particular verse and trying to read meaning into that... as if the writer had some special meaning for doing that. Later I realized that was a dreadful mistake. I was hinging more importance than warranted on a particular word choice or perceived "logical balance" in a particular passage.

But that balance, that particular need for that level of detail, was a requirement I (the reader) was foisting on the text. It was not necessarily inherent in the writer's mind at the time... even if such a reading might seem more pleasing to ME.

So you seem to fail to recognize how your perceived interpretation is really just a product of your own particular requirements for the text and not necessarily inherent to the text in question.

This reality of communication is what creates a lot of ambiguity at times over what the author intended in a passage, and why we have to be careful about noting our own assumptions when we view a passage.

This is a valid point, but to go to the level of detail and rigor required for a careful interpretation is beyond the discussion of an online forum.

For example John's Gospel uses the term "eternal life" or simply "life" many times, and if you read the passages carefully you will detect layers of meanings to this word, i.e. multiple meanings at once. To see this clearly one needs to study the whole Gospel and identify the main themes, and then study in detail the relevant passages in John. Instead of overanalyzing one passage, the context of the whole writing should be taken into account.

And furthermore John is much easier on the ears than Paul is. People often find John enjoyable to read just for aesthetic of the poetry. This is not true of Paul. Paul can be difficult to grasp in a variety of passages.

So for someone who isn't familiar with the text, it's usually easier and more effective to give a person a single verse. The main message of the new testament is essentially summed up in John 3:16. So instead of having people understand every part of the new testament they say, "here memorize John 3:16". It's a simplification, but it's effective and not meant to be misleading. (The bad part is when other people come in using the same tactic and they are trying to be misleading. )