board77

Sister Magpie wrote:

It seems to me there's only one way God would get the kind of love that's being described here, and that's to do it exactly as people do it: find a person whose will and preferences you didn't create, let them get to know you, and then take your chances. If they grow to love you, be happy. If they don't grow to love you you just wish them the best.

In other words, God would have to be a typical, normal, modern human. It seems to me that anthropomorphisizing (good lord that's a long word!) God causes a lot of the problems in trying to explain him. Whenever you try to treat God like some really good guy, his actions come off very poorly. Christianity wouldn't have all these problems answering these questions if it had maintained a more abstract and mystical conception of God.

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

Cerin wrote:

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

Ah, but my argument is that a belief in the Islamic, Jewish, Sikh, ect, concept of God would feel no different to a belief in the Christian concept of God.

Yes, I understand. I disagree.

Can you provide evidence for that?

No, I don't think so. A muslim's anecdotal testimony of their religious experience might well sound to an objective listener, very much like my anecdotal testimony of my life as a Christian.

Quote:

But below you say that God has given us evidence of His nature, and if we have an attitude of humility before God, we will eventually come to recognize the truth. Is there evidence and objectivity or not?

There isn't evidence that would satisfy your standard of evidence; it is not evidence that proves the existence of God, which is what you seem to be wanting. If the existence of God were a matter of proof, it would not be a matter of faith to believe in Him.

Quote:

You’re starting to sound like Tuor now.

Not the poster I would most care to emulate. I'm sorry, I'm giving you the best answers I know how to give.

Quote:

If there is no objective argument to make me believe that one religion is correct over the other, then salvation is left to chance.

Salvation is left to God, and to you, in your response to Him (IMO).

Quote:

I cannot reconcile the idea of a loving God leaving salvation to chance.

Nor can I. I'm afraid I'm not quite connecting with you on this idea of salvation as a matter of chance. I feel confident that every human being will be given a chance to respond to the grace of God and be saved.

Quote:

What is the evidence of his nature and why do 75% of the world’s people not see it?

My understanding of this evidence, based on verses from Romans and the Psalms, is that the creation declares the glory of God, and that a humble attitude allows us to apprehend the presence and nature of God in the world around us.

Quote:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

because what may be known of God is evident among them, for God has shown it to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and divine nature, so that they are without excuse,

because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom. 1:18-21

When we continue in a humble awareness of God, we are receptive to His truth, in whatever way it may be brought into our lives. Going back to the idea presented in the Narnia passage, this would mean that a heart attitude of salvation is possible even if a person has not heard the message of salvation through faith in Jesus, and is outwardly worshipping a false god. So if that is correct, then it isn't necessarily 75% of humanity that hasn't seen the evidence of God.

Quote:

But could you stop believing in the Christian concept of God and immediately change to the Hindu concept of God?

I could make the same choice to stop believing, that I made to believe. This would not be like brainwashing, but would be in the nature of a willful turning away from something I had previously embraced. Something like, perhaps, you having a change of heart about a person you once admired, but now think badly of and choose not to associate with.

yovargas wrote:

The problem is that you're saying he didn't want an essentially compulsory choice brought about by an internal predisposition.

If we were pre-disposed to obey (like being pre-disposed to be attracted to females), obedience wouldn't be an occasion for choice at all, it would be our natural inclination.

Quote:

But what he's given instead is much worse - an external compulsion presented by the choice of eternal paradise or eternal damnation.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying, we are presented with a choice, like either taking an apple from the table, or from the flames, and the nature of the choice (one option being far more attractive than the other) compels us to choose the more attractive option? And what is the problem you have with that? Is it the fact of having to choose at all, that you object to? Or is it the fact that both options are not equally attractive, and so we are less free, if you will, to choose to burn in hell (or to take the apple from the flames)?

Quote:

This is much like the non-choice you presented with the apple, except it's our souls being tossed in the fire. It's as much a non-choice to love God as it is which of the two apples you eat.

So we are forced to love God in order to avoid eternal torment, and you feel that 'forced' love is not true love?

The problem with this concept is that obedience is a matter of choice, where we don't tend to think of love as a matter of choice. I think it would be more useful to think in terms of acknowledgment. For example, you acknowledge the authority of a judge by showing him the proper respect, or you get cited for contempt (or removed from the court).

So thinking in those terms, does that cause you the same difficulty? Is it similarly a non-choice, to show respect to a judge, and if so, does that idea bother you in the same way?

Teremia wrote:

You can try, but effort is somehow not to the point, is it?

Ha! It's really quite like what Yoda said, isn't it (about doing, rather than trying to do -- I forget the exact quote).

I don't think you can try to feel something. I mean, how would you go about trying to feel something? I don't think we can. I don't think we can try to believe something, either. There is no mechanism to make the effort.

Unlike love, which we tend to associate to a large extent with feelings, belief is not based on feelings. Belief is based in action (obedience), which springs from attitude (trust and respect). I think some self-help guru has said, 'we do what we believe.' I believe this is so. We can tell what we believe, by examining what we do.

I think wanting is possible, though, with both belief and love. There is an interesting and curious (to me) Bible verse that seems as though it should be the opposite: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

If you want to believe something (or love someone for whom you lack certain motivational feelings), you can choose to act as though you believe (or love). I don't mean, pretending feelings. I mean, in the case of belief, you can choose to be obedient (go to church, for example), and in the case of love, you can choose to show love through action (caring for someone who is sick, for example), even if you don't necessarily feel an accompanying personal affection, or an accompanying personal conviction. I think doing this, is like doing what that verse says. Those actions done, that time and energy invested, without accompanying feeling but from a desire to do what is right, are like the laying up of treasure; eventually your heart will be there also.

Sister Magpie wrote:

Whatever we feel towards him, he is responsible for in some way. Making a certain person prefer heterosexual sex or chocolate over vanilla doesn't seem like it's usually described as interfering with the person's will.

I would agree. And Wolfie's idea of free will seems to be that a person preferring vanilla, can choose chocolate even though it isn't what they like. I think the free will comes in deciding how you deal with your preference for vanilla ice cream. Do you gorge yourself on it, avoid it entirely for health reasons, or something in between.

Quote:

It seems like it's only got to do with free will in this case because God really really wants to be loved while believing that love is forced in any way.

I think you're describing the problems people have with the ideas they come up with, about what God wants. If God wants companionship, then He has to somehow change created beings who all eventually choose to disobey (as a function of free will) and therefore fall out of companionship with Him, into beings that are once again able to have relationship with a supreme and perfect being.

Quote:

I mean, he creates us and gives us our preferences, but then thinks the love isn't good enough because we're just following orders, so we have to be not naturally inclined to love him, but that's got to be punished.

I think it clouds the issue, to talk about love, which we associate with feelings. The choice to obey or disobey (which involves the issues of trust and respect) is a free choice (an exercise of free will), in the same way that our choice of how to deal with a preference for vanilla ice cream, is a free choice (an exercise of free will). It is part of what makes us human beings, that we exercise this type of will in making decisions. If everything were pre-programmed, we would cease to be human, as we understand the concept.

Quote:

It seems to me there's only one way God would get the kind of love that's being described here, and that's to do it exactly as people do it: find a person whose will and preferences you didn't create, let them get to know you, and then take your chances.

And of course (even if that were an accurate description of what is at issue), there is no such person to be found, since God created all persons and things.

Cerin wrote:

So thinking in those terms, does that cause you the same difficulty? Is it similarly a non-choice, to show respect to a judge, and if so, does that idea bother you in the same way?

Yes. I technically still have the freedom of choice herfe as to whether I should respect a judge or not - just Wolfie technically still has the option to pursue sexual relationships with me. But just as you don't consider Wolfie as as having true freedom in that choice, neither do I have true freedom to respect the judge. In some sense, it's as if God decided to forgo the internal force of a natural disposition (which would ensure practically all of us would live happily with him) and instead use the external force of threatening damnation (which doesn't seem to be going too well in terms of getting us to follow him). Either way, it's force, and you seem to be arguing that force precludes the idea of a truly free choice.

yovargas wrote:

Yes. I technically still have the freedom of choice herfe as to whether I should respect a judge or not - just Wolfie technically still has the option to pursue sexual relationships with me. But just as you don't consider Wolfie as as having true freedom in that choice, neither do I have true freedom to respect the judge.

That's an interesting distinction you make -- I had spoken of showing respect, which you can do by behaving a certain way, while you speak of respecting. I assume you are talking about a difference in the attitude behind the actions? I think we do have a degree of choice when it comes to our attitude, if we consider attitude to be the way in which we choose to approach a situation, whereas we don't have a choice when it comes to our feelings (and I don't think respect is really a matter of feelings, but of perceptions and judgments that shape our attitude).

I disagree with you, that the judge scenario limits our freedom in the way sexual orientation does. In the case of sexual orientation, we have no choice in the matter of who we are attracted to. (To choose someone we are not attracted to is not a natural choice, and I reject that notion for consideration in a discussion of free will for the reasons I talked about earlier). We certainly have freedom to decide whether or not we will show respect to a judge, and I was asking you to compare that example to the apple in fire, or choosing eternal paradise over eternal damnation model, as to whether you consider it a similarly unsatisfactory sort of choice.

What I'm trying to get at is whether it was adding the idea of love to the mix of the discussion that raised your objections, or if it's something else entirely that you object to, as regards having to make choices where one of the options comes with an unattractive consequence.

I think the idea of 'forced' is causing some confusion, perhaps because of some of the inadequate analogies I've introduced. If Adam and Eve are pre-disposed to obey, they aren't being forced to make a choice. There simply is no free-will choice available (just as there is no free-will choice available to a heterosexual male, to choose a male partner to fulfill his romantic desires). I used the apple example to illustrate the idea of unnatural choices (which are demonstrably not free-will choices because it would take some kind of external imposition to force them). You then related that example to the idea of choosing either eternal damnation or eternal bliss (which I don't think is a useful way to consider the issue of obedience), and replaced the concept of obedience with love. We then came to the idea of a forced choice concerning love.

I think it's all become a bit confused.

Adam and Eve were free to choose to disobey God (they would not have been free to do so had they been created with a pre-disposition to obey). We are free to choose whether or not to acknowledge God, and having acknowledged Him, whether or not to obey Him.

I think what you were saying is that we aren't really free to choose to disobey God, because choosing to disobey God brings a consequence no one would be willing to endure, and so we are essentially forced to obey in order to escape the undesirable consequence. I was trying to examine what you feel is objectionable about that scenario, by examining the less extreme example of being ejected from a courtroom for showing disrespect.

I think there are two different sorts of scenarios being proposed, and the distinction between them is important. In the case of being pre-disposed, as with sexual orientation (or an Adam and Eve pre-disposed to obey), there is no arena within which to exercise free will. In the case of a situation that presents choices, but where the various options carry different consequences, there is an arena within which to exercise free will. In the latter case, you seem to be saying that there really is no free will choice, because people are disinclined to choose the option that has unpleasant consequences.

Suppose I am considering whether or not to have some ice cream. I might weigh the pleasure of eating the ice cream against the displeasure I feel being overweight. Would you agree that this is an exercise of free will?

Suppose I am considering whether to sit down and watch TV, or work on cleaning up the basement. There are lots of things that might be factors in my decision: how badly I want to see the TV show, how badly I want the basement clean, how tired I feel, my natural inclination or disinclination toward hard work, and maybe some ethical considerations about which activity has the better claim on my time and energy. Would you agree that this is an exercise of free will?

Suppose I am considering whether to take a nice warm bath or stick my arm in boiling water. That doesn't seem like a true choice; I wouldn't freely choose to stick my arm in boiling water, would I? And so you seem to be saying, no one would freely choose to suffer eternal torment, so there is no true choice about obeying God. I think the difference is, that that isn't the immediate choice we're making in matters of obedience.

The choice Adam and Eve made wasn't immediately, a choice between staying in the Garden of Eden or initiating the fall of mankind, with all its attendant misery and suffering. The chioice they made was between believing God and therefore obeying Him, or not believing God (in the day you eat of it you shall surely die) and therefore disobeying Him in order to pursue something they perceived as desirable.

It is not the consequence of disobedience that we are willfully choosing when we disobey. It is the allure of something false that we are willfully choosing when we disobey. We are choosing between believing what God says is true, and believing what we perceive or desire to be true.

God telling us the consequence of disobedience, is not God taking away our free will choice to disobey; it is God trying to inform our decision, so that we do not make a calamitous choice.

My son had his first skiing lesson this weekend.

Yes, I'm in the right thread, please bear with me.

There he went, in his bright orange jacket, with the ski instructor I've never seen before, to the chairlift and up the big, scary mountain. Before he did, I had to sign a paper saying that this activity carries a risk of INJURY and DEATH - in capital letters. My son is too little to make safe choices up on the slope and anyway he can't control everything that can happen.

Now, it is matter of immense importance to me that he stays safe and whole. But I know that if I were to keep him back and never let him take a risk, I would do much greater harm to him than a spill on the slopes could do. So I waited for him to come back, ready to receive him the way he came - whether happy and proud of his new skill (which proved to be the case, thank Heaven!), or scared and crying, or God forbid injured. If he did something stupid, like took his helmet off or lost his gloves, I would probably grumble a little, but he would still get a hug and a kiss and a snack from me.

This is what I believe of the afterlife, if there is one. I think God sends us into this big, scary world to take our risks and learn from our spills. And at the end, God will be there, ready to take us the way we come - happy, crying, or God forbid broken to pieces - and there will be a hug and a kiss and maybe even a snack. We will probably look back at the stupid things we did, and say we are sorry, and mean it for a change.

I know some people believe in a god who will send them to eternal torment or perhaps turn his back on them for eternity if they so much as lose their gloves along the way. Sometimes I wonder how it is possible for us to live on the same planet and see the world so differently. And very frequently, when I look at the things they say and do, I thank God that I am not one of them.

I'm converting to Frelgaism!

Frelga wrote:

I know some people believe in a god who will send them to eternal torment or perhaps turn his back on them for eternity if they so much as lose their gloves along the way.

I wonder if there really are people who believe in such a god. I suspect that is your mistaken perception of what others believe.

Your child trusts in your love for him and respects your authority, and therefore approached his skiing experience with your blessing and approval, and under the protection (so much as it extends) of the ski instructor. Imagine, on the other hand, a child who spurns his parents' interest, scorns their authority and judgment, and believes they do not have his best interests in mind; he therefore does not discuss with them his desire to learn skiing, or seek their approval or help in achieving that goal. He gains illicit access to a dangerous portion of the ski slope at night without adult supervision or instruction, has a terrible fall and is paralyzed for life.

His parents love him, but for all their love, they cannot undo the consequences of the choices he made, anymore than your hugs, kisses and snacks would undo the consequences, if your son had ignored your admonitions, chosen not to wear his helmet, and had sustained a serious brain injury.

God gives us the freedom to choose what approach we take to life. We are responsible for the consequences of the choices we make. Being punished for losing a glove along the way has nothing to do with it.

:):)

Quote:

This is what I believe of the afterlife, if there is one. I think God sends us into this big, scary world to take our risks and learn from our spills. And at the end, God will be there, ready to take us the way we come - happy, crying, or God forbid broken to pieces - and there will be a hug and a kiss and maybe even a snack. We will probably look back at the stupid things we did, and say we are sorry, and mean it for a change.

I love this. And I think this evokes a feeling that I have about God, a very intrinsic feeling, which I have a hard time characterizing... the feeling that we are very important to him, that he WANTS us to come home after the end of that long hard day. And I'm sure he'll offer us a cookie, or the heavenly equivalent.

There is a catch, here, though, and it has to do with us. Whether, or not, we choose to go home to him. It has to be a two-way relationship.

I know I'm not nailing my perception here, but it's something like this: We do have a choice to go home. Home is always there. Broken, bruised, crying, swearing, whatever we are at the time, his door is open.

And I find that very comforting.

Quote:

His parents love him, but for all their love, they cannot undo the consequences of the choices he made, anymore than your hugs, kisses and snacks would undo the consequences, if your son had ignored your admonitions, chosen not to wear his helmet, and had sustained a serious brain injury.

Luckily, God can undo the consequences of any action easily, just as, if they had the power, any loving parent would happily heal their child.

Though I'm not quite clear on what the analogy is specifically. What are people doing to God that is the equivalent of spurning their parents expressed interest and skiing down a mountain without proper instruction, and what are the consequences we're talking about?

-m

Anthriel wrote:

And I find that very comforting.

Anthy,

Me too.

I wonder sometimes if God is not simply what we want him to be. I’m reminded about a true story of a man who was in an accident and was “clinically dead” for some time before he was revived by paramedics. This happened several years ago at a race track close to where I live - a pedestrian bridge collapsed, killing several people and injuring quite a few. This man, who attends church with one of my co-workers, was severely injured, paralyzed, had multiple broken bones, and went into a state of clinical death shortly after he was rescued. When he had revived and recovered enough to talk, he relayed this story to some of his church friends: While he was “out” he saw the a bright light, felt himself rising above the scene, felt a sense of elation - the usual things you hear about these stories. But, he said his sense of elation was because he knew he was going to meet Christ. And sure enough, when he reached the light, there was Jesus, comforting him, telling him that he loved him. Afterwards, he said that Jesus had saved him, that he had given him the strength and the will to live.

The Sunday school class my friend is in discussed this, asking if he really saw such a thing, or if it was just his imagination - wishful thinking, if you will, but my feeling was why does it matter? What’s important is that he believed, with all of his heart, in something good. What if he had believed instead in something horrible, or even in nothing at all. It is entirely possible that he would not be alive at all today.

When I close my eyes and try to imagine what God is, what I feel is exactly what Frelga described, something akin to the feeling I had when my mother comforted me as a child, only much more powerful - an accepting, unconditional love that knows every bit of pain I have ever experienced. I imagine myself crying - not for joy, or pain, but simply because I’ve finally found someone who understands.

I don’t know about punishment. Lord knows, I’ve done plenty wrong in my life. I’ve hurt the people that I love, ignored the suffering of others, and blamed God more than a few times for my own problems. In other words, I’ve earned my share of punishment. But in the end, I cannot shake that feeling of acceptance, of a loving God who will be there “with a hug and a kiss and maybe even a snack”.

I’m hoping for donuts.

Thank you Frelga.

Teremia wrote:

I'm converting to Frelgaism!

If you want to congregate you know where to find me.

Cerin wrote:

I wonder if there really are people who believe in such a god.

Yes, there are.

Cerin wrote:

I suspect that is your mistaken perception of what others believe.

No, it's not. I have personally been told, regretfully or gleefully, that I was going to burn in hell for not belonging to their religion. I spoke to people who spend their lives looking over their shoulders for the snares that devil is setting out for them, though it beats me why devil should bother with their petty souls. I even heard mothers call their infants wicked and sinful for waking up crying at night, and that is entirely beyond what I can comprehend of human behavior.

Cerin wrote:

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

Cerin wrote:

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

Ah, but my argument is that a belief in the Islamic, Jewish, Sikh, ect, concept of God would feel no different to a belief in the Christian concept of God.

Yes, I understand. I disagree.

Can you provide evidence for that?

No, I don't think so. A muslim's anecdotal testimony of their religious experience might well sound to an objective listener, very much like my anecdotal testimony of my life as a Christian.

Exactly. And, IMHO, for good reason.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

But below you say that God has given us evidence of His nature, and if we have an attitude of humility before God, we will eventually come to recognize the truth. Is there evidence and objectivity or not?

There isn't evidence that would satisfy your standard of evidence; it is not evidence that proves the existence of God, which is what you seem to be wanting. If the existence of God were a matter of proof, it would not be a matter of faith to believe in Him.

I was hoping we’d touch on this point .

There is a middle ground between ‘poof’ and ‘faith’. I have faith that my political ideology is the best one; I can argue that case but I can’t prove it. The issue with the faith argument is that we are expected to believe something which is, by what I consider to be objective standards patently absurd: A roughly humanoid ethereal being with a big ego and temper to match has the ability to defy every law of physics and biology and communicates with the people on earth who he created by giving multiple and sometimes contradictory methods to certain individuals among tribes of desert nomads in the middle east in ancient times through unclear methods while showing a certain ignorance of a number of basic facts of history, biology and bizarre double standards in several cases. This is, to me, like suggesting that I should have faith in the ethereal pink elephants at the end of the rainbow.

The more unbelievable the claim, the higher standard of proof needed.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

If there is no objective argument to make me believe that one religion is correct over the other, then salvation is left to chance.

Salvation is left to God, and to you, in your response to Him (IMO).

So God decides who goes to heaven? Doesn’t this contradict free will?

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

What is the evidence of his nature and why do 75% of the world’s people not see it?

My understanding of this evidence, based on verses from Romans and the Psalms, is that the creation declares the glory of God, and that a humble attitude allows us to apprehend the presence and nature of God in the world around us.

Quote:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

because what may be known of God is evident among them, for God has shown it to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and divine nature, so that they are without excuse,

because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom. 1:18-21

When we continue in a humble awareness of God, we are receptive to His truth, in whatever way it may be brought into our lives. Going back to the idea presented in the Narnia passage, this would mean that a heart attitude of salvation is possible even if a person has not heard the message of salvation through faith in Jesus, and is outwardly worshipping a false god. So if that is correct, then it isn't necessarily 75% of humanity that hasn't seen the evidence of God.

I don’t see the work of God evident in the world; the more I look, the more counter-evidence I see. Therefore, I have trouble with the ‘creation is a message from God’ idea. Even if the world was clearly intelligently designed, then it wouldn’t necessarily say which God we should worship.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

But could you stop believing in the Christian concept of God and immediately change to the Hindu concept of God?

I could make the same choice to stop believing, that I made to believe. This would not be like brainwashing, but would be in the nature of a willful turning away from something I had previously embraced. Something like, perhaps, you having a change of heart about a person you once admired, but now think badly of and choose not to associate with.

A ‘change of heart’ isn’t voluntary in my experience. I used to think that Star Wars Episode I was a really good film. I don’t anymore. I’d really like to be able to like it, so I didn’t chose to stop liking it, but it just happened that I began to notice more and more of its flaws. I see religious belief working the same way; a Buddhist may like being a Buddhist and feel pressured to still be a Buddhist, but they can’t help it if they start to think that Shinto makes more sense.

Cerin wrote:

yovargas wrote:

The problem is that you're saying he didn't want an essentially compulsory choice brought about by an internal predisposition.

If we were pre-disposed to obey (like being pre-disposed to be attracted to females), obedience wouldn't be an occasion for choice at all, it would be our natural inclination.

Trying to avoid being roasted for eternity is also a pretty natural inclination.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

But what he's given instead is much worse - an external compulsion presented by the choice of eternal paradise or eternal damnation.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying, we are presented with a choice, like either taking an apple from the table, or from the flames, and the nature of the choice (one option being far more attractive than the other) compels us to choose the more attractive option? And what is the problem you have with that? Is it the fact of having to choose at all, that you object to? Or is it the fact that both options are not equally attractive, and so we are less free, if you will, to choose to burn in hell (or to take the apple from the flames)?

I can’t answer for yovargas, but my chief issue is that we are faced with a disguised non-choice as opposed to the free choice that Christians advocate. Disguised, because there isn’t anything to really help us one way or the other or even establish that there is a choice, and a non-choice because one option is unbelievably terrible. If a mugger went up to a man and held a gun at him and demanded money, and the man refused, and the mugger shot him, would you consider that to be suicide?

Quote:

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

If there is no objective argument to make me believe that one religion is correct over the other, then salvation is left to chance.

Salvation is left to God, and to you, in your response to Him (IMO).

So God decides who goes to heaven? Doesn’t this contradict free will?

God does not decide for you; however, he knows which decision you will make before you make it. It's a weird circular concept, and has been argued many times around the campfire; if God knows what you are going to do before you do it, and if he knows who will accept him and who will not before these people are even born, how does that differ from the concept of predestination?

It doesn't worry me much. As far as I am aware, I have a choice. The fact that he knows the results of my choice does not, in my mind, mean that he chose it for me.

It seems that you read Cerin's sentence as something like "Salvation is up to God"; however, I believe that Cerin's sentence should be read "salvation is up to God and you". Both. It's a relationship.

And Tinwe, if I get there first, I'll make sure I put in a request for a dozen of Krispy Kreme's finest to be there waiting for you. For surely Heaven would include Krispy Kremes!

yovargas wrote:

Quote:

Christianity wouldn't have all these problems answering these questions if it had maintained a more abstract and mystical conception of God.

tinwe_linto wrote:

Quote:

I wonder sometimes if God is not simply what we want him to be.

Anthriel wrote:

Quote:

...the feeling that we are very important to him, that he WANTS us to come home after the end of that long hard day.

Joseph Campbell wrote a series of books called The Masks of God. They are tacitly about mythology. Tolkien understood the link and connected the mythology of LOTR to creation through the Silmarillion. One of Campbell's purposes is to show that God wears different mask for different cultures. The masks are not God's creation but ours.

The Oriental religions seem to have a totally different view of the relationship betwen God and man. It is both more and less intimate than the Occidental view. More intimate in the sense that we are part of God, not separate, and less in the sense that a personal relationship is unnecessary. More abstract, as yovargas said. From an Upanishad:

Quote:

To know is not to know, not to know is to know.

From the Tao Te Ching:

Quote:

Those who know are still.

The Occidental desire for a direct relationship, patterned after our human relationships, seems to create the tendency for us to give God human characteristics with which we can relate. Our cultural and individual needs create the distortions we see in the thousands (16,000?) of Christian sects. Our God, like our heroes, has the characteristics to which we aspire.



Cerin wrote:

Quote:

Frelga wrote:

Quote:

I know some people believe in a god who will send them to eternal torment or perhaps turn his back on them for eternity if they so much as lose their gloves along the way.

I wonder if there really are people who believe in such a god. I suspect that is your mistaken perception of what others believe.

Frelga is correct. Most institutions accrete two types of pettiness over the centuries. One is a more and more detailed list of transgressions. The other is a list of rules that once, but no longer, serve a purpose.

The RCC is a serious offender with the first type. It categorized sin into mortal and venial. Our felony/ misdemeanor idea derives from it. The mortal sins were said to threaten your salvation and if unforgiven at death, you were condemed to hell. Now that may makes sense for a few things, like murder, but until after the middle of the 20th century, eating meat on Friday, and missing Church on Sunday, along with many other relatively minor sins, were considered mortal.

An example of the second type is the Jewish idea of kosher, which I think made perfect sense in the context in which it originated, but isn't too applicable to the modern world.

For the RCC, it was a case of losing your gloves/soul. I'm not sure what the penalties are for violating kosher rules, but I know some strict observers.



Speaking of ancient mysteries, the news from Indiana today is that the mystery of the unpopped popcorn has been solved. Kernels that are too porous don't explode.

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

So God decides who goes to heaven?

ATMB*, God has made a way for everyone to go to heaven. Deciding to accept the gift of salvation is up to us.

Quote:

I can’t answer for yovargas, but my chief issue is that we are faced with a disguised non-choice as opposed to the free choice that Christians advocate.

I tried to address this point in a previous post. When we disobey, we aren't choosing between the clear consequences of obedience and disobedience. Adam and Eve weren't consciously choosing between the fully realized concepts of life in paradise and life on a fallen earth with all its attendant suffering. If they had been, then their choice would have been, as you say, a non-choice.

What Adam and Eve were choosing between, was whether to believe what God had told them (do not eat of the fruit or you will die), or to believe what the serpent and their own senses and reasoning were telling them (you will not die, it looks good to eat). It is the same type of choice we make daily.

We encounter the truth of God in creation, in the Bible, in the testimony of believers, and we decide whether to believe that, or to believe contrary ideas that appeal to our reasoning and senses. It isn't as if we look and vividly see the rewards of heaven and the pains of hell that we are choosing, and so make a clear choice between those two things. We make the choice between the truth of God and whatever alluring falsehood is beckoning us to disobey. The consequences are a result of the choice, they are not the choice itself.

Quote:

If a mugger went up to a man and held a gun at him and demanded money, and the man refused, and the mugger shot him, would you consider that to be suicide?

That isn't the appropriate analogy, IMO. If someone were advised not to go out alone at night in a dangerous neighborhood, and they went out anyway, that is the exercise of their free will. That is the choice they made. The consequence of their choice, is that they were mugged.

Had they been able to see and truly grasp the future consequences of their action, they would have chosen differently. Neither the fact that they would have chosen differently, nor the fact that they were warned beforehand, negates the fact that they were free to choose at the time of their choosing. It was not a non-choice. Neither is our choice to obey God, a non-choice.

Sister Magpie wrote:

Luckily, God can undo the consequences of any action easily,

No. If God were to undo the consequences of our actions, it would render life meaningless and without integrity. It would truly be robbing us of our free will, by making the exercise of it pointless.

Do really think a loving parent would continually undo the consequences of their child's disobedient and foolish actions? What sort of a person would that child grow up to be? I think we have all encountered, if not in real life, certainly in TV or movies, the model of a spoiled rich kid repeatedly bailed out of trouble by wealthy, powerful parents. Teaching that there is ultimately no consequence for our actions does not build good character.

Quote:

What are people doing to God that is the equivalent of spurning their parents expressed interest and skiing down a mountain without proper instruction, and what are the consequences we're talking about?

People are spurning God's love and instruction when they reject Him and His truth, and choose to go their own way. The consequences are brokenness in this life, and if God is ultimately rejected, then an eternity without His presence.


Edit
*It occurs to me that another one of those thingies -- can't remember the term -- my favorites were SWAGWAP (Sam whacking at Gollum with a pan) and GHATROAP (Gimli hacking at the Ring on a plinth) -- would be useful for discussions of spirituality, similar to IIRC and IMO. I propose ATMB, according to my beliefs.

Sister Magpie wrote:

Luckily, God can undo the consequences of any action easily,
No.

No he won't, not no he can't, I assume, Because God can do anything.

Quote:

If God were to undo the consequences of our actions, it would render life meaningless and without integrity. It would truly be robbing us of our free will, by making the exercise of it pointless.

But we're not talking about all consequences, just the consequence of my not believing him leading to this incredible punishment.

We have this choice, but God conceals what the real choice is, so we think we're just choosing between believing things that don't make sense to us or believing things that do make sense to us according to our logic and intelligence, when really we're choosing between heaven and hell.

So I look around at creation and I don't see any evidence of the Judeo-Christian God. And Christianity as a religion doesn't resonate with me. And when Christians explain it it still doesn't sound true at all. So I don't believe it. How does it render my life meaningless or without integrity if, after it is over, I discover that God is real and he *doesn't* punish me for all eternity? Why should the meaningfulness of my life depend on this one question? And why does God intentionally conceal what the real game is?

Quote:

Do really think a loving parent would continually undo the consequences of their child's disobedient and foolish actions?

No, but the key word there is continually. We're not talking about about letting a child experience the consequences of his mistakes so he learns. That would make sense and have a point. We're talking about a child believing something based on the evidence he has and the parent punishing him for all eternity because he didn't choose the way the parent wanted him to. I think this is why I tend to agree with yovargas in thinking anthropomorphizing God does more harm than good. Once his actions are explained like they should make sense that way, he becomes monstrous to me.

Quote:

What sort of a person would that child grow up to be? I think we have all encountered, if not in real life, certainly in TV or movies, the model of a spoiled rich kid repeatedly bailed out of trouble by wealthy, powerful parents. Teaching that there is ultimately no consequence for our actions does not build good character.

But the time for building good character is *over* in this scenario. The child has already grown up and died, and now he's facing eternity in heaven or hell. We're not talking about God just allowing us to suffer the consequences of our actions on earth--obviously he does that.

Quote:

What are people doing to God that is the equivalent of spurning their parents expressed interest and skiing down a mountain without proper instruction, and what are the consequences we're talking about?

Quote:

People are spurning God's love and instruction when they reject Him and His truth, and choose to go their own way. The consequences are brokenness in this life, and if God is ultimately rejected, then an eternity without His presence.

So we should just assume that anybody who doesn't come to the same conclusions Christians do about reality is in fact actively spurning the truth and instruction just to be contrary? Isn't that illogical? In order to spurn God's love and instruction and truth I have to know it's there, and I'm intentionally choosing hell. But of course I wouldn't choose hell. If I believed that there was a God and if I didn't obey him (in whatever way I'm not obeying him) there'd be hell to pay I'd obey him out of fear of punishment. What would be the point of intentionally rejecting God if all it's going to get me is an eternity of misery? Really, aren't they just rejecting what other people want them to believe but they don't?

It just seems like this demonizes people unfairly--just like any group might tell its members that those other people are different because they are evil as opposed to just different. I guess I just don't see any way to justify certain punishments--for some punishments I'd hate to even try to justify it. If living without God (although God is supposed to be everywhere) is so torturous, why should anyone have to go through it for all eternity?

Quote:

Joseph Campbell wrote a series of books called The Masks of God. They are tacitly about mythology. Tolkien understood the link and connected the mythology of LOTR to creation through the Silmarillion. One of Campbell's purposes is to show that God wears different mask for different cultures. The masks are not God's creation but ours.

I remember he also said a cool thing about how you've got the Eastern religions where God and man are not separate, then as you get further west, like the Middle East, you get the religions where God and Man are separate. But once you do that you have to pick a side. The Middle Eastern religions are on God's side, with stories like Job (where he's tormented by God but still worships him). Further west you can the humanists who are on man's side with stories like Prometheus (he's tormented by Zeus but still defiant).

-m

Would it be succinct to say that the main difference between Christianity and other faiths re communication with a god is that other faiths help you to attain, wheras Christianity helps you to receive?

TheLidlessEyes,

Christian religious symbolism is full of references to the believer as the "vessel" of this or that, especially grace. The usual icon, the chalice, worked its way into mythology as the holy grail, although that form is sometimes seen as a metaphor for other forms.

So, I think you are absolutely right about the Christians being on the receiving end. I've been trying to think all afternoon of a response to the eastern side without it coming across as "the force be with you".

Sister Magpie wrote:

But we're not talking about all consequences, just the consequence of my not believing him leading to this incredible punishment.

I see, just scrap a principle when it becomes too inconvenient. There's moral fibre for you!

Quote:

We have this choice, but God conceals what the real choice is

You seem to be equating choice with consequence. Consequence is what happens as a result of choice, the consequence itself is not the choice.

Quote:

so we think we're just choosing between believing things that don't make sense to us or believing things that do make sense to us according to our logic and intelligence, when really we're choosing between heaven and hell.

We're choosing between trusting God's judgment (obeying) or trusting our own judgment (disobeying). The Bible makes it quite plain that choosing to disobey God has calamitous consequences for us, so it is not as if God leaves us without advice and warning as to which is the better choice.

I don't see that God is concealing something here, unless your complaint is that we can't experience the future the way Mr. Scrooge had the advantage of doing.

Quote:

How does it render my life meaningless or without integrity if, after it is over, I discover that God is real and he *doesn't* punish me for all eternity?

If action does not have consequence, then there is no meaning or integrity to life. If it matters not what you do or say or believe or think, then where is the meaning and integrity in life?

If there is no consequence to the choice you made -- being a series of choices throughout all your life -- regarding your attitude toward God, then why were there choices to begin with?

Quote:

Why should the meaningfulness of my life depend on this one question?

Because ATMB the disposition of your relationship with God is what your life is all about, and the thing from which all its meaning springs and will eternally spring.

Quote:

And why does God intentionally conceal what the real game is?

God does not conceal what the 'game' is. The 'game' is relationship with the Creator, and you can choose to 'play' or not. You seem to be asking why, when you've chosen not to 'play', you're not in the 'game' once the final quarter starts.

Quote:

We're talking about a child believing something based on the evidence he has and the parent punishing him for all eternity because he didn't choose the way the parent wanted him to.

We're talking about a child obeying his parent and not walking into the street, even though he wants very much to walk into the street and get his ball. We're also talking about the unfortunate case of the child who disobeys and walks into the street, and gets run over by a truck. His getting run over is not punishment for disobeying, it is the consequence of disobeying.

Quote:

But the time for building good character is *over* in this scenario. The child has already grown up and died, and now he's facing eternity in heaven or hell. We're not talking about God just allowing us to suffer the consequences of our actions on earth--obviously he does that.

The issue isn't whether the time for building good character is over. The world is founded on certain truths and principles, which uphold reality and will continue in eternity.

My understanding is that the physical world is a manifestation of an underlying spiritual reality. What is spiritual is eternal; God doesn't un-make what He has made. All of our actions here on earth have eternal consequences; that is, the things we've said and done are part of us, are part of what we are and have to give account for, are part of the fabric of reality.

If we are to continue eternally in companionship with God, who is perfect and holy, we must be like Him. In order to be like God, we must be re-born spiritually through faith in Christ. As part of that re-birth, our sins are forgiven, having been removed from us and taken by Jesus upon Himself on the cross. Jesus essentially took responsibility for the consequences of our actions Himself; He could do this because He had no sin of His own.

The choice we make in life, either through an attitude of humility before God, or specifically through accepting the teachings of Christianity, is whether to accept this provision God has made for us, to share His nature and spend eternity with Him. It's a gift, it isn't forced upon us. We have to accept it, the way we either accept a package from the mailman, or mark it 'refused.' Those who refuse it apparently don't see it as something of value, or don't think it is something they need, or think it comes from an untrustworthy source, or perhaps they're too proud to receive this type of gift, etc.

This is the consequence I keep referring to in the various examples we've been discussing. The consequence of refusing God's gift of forgiveness, is that our sins remain a part of us, and prevent us from continuing in God's presence.

Quote:

So we should just assume that anybody who doesn't come to the same conclusions Christians do about reality is in fact actively spurning the truth and instruction just to be contrary?

I think it comes down to whether you acknowledge a Creator, or if you regard yourself as your highest authority.

Since I've chosen to believe the Bible, I believe what the Bible says about God revealing Himself through creation, and people willfully refusing to acknowledge Him. That doesn't necessarily mean that people are consciously disobeying God just to be contrary. Rather, it's the dynamic illustrated in the story of Adam and Eve; they weren't deliberately deciding to be contrary, but they reasoned themselves out of obeying. They raised up their own perceptions and understanding against the knowledge of God, and they ended up trusting their own judgment more than they trusted what God had told them.

Quote:

In order to spurn God's love and instruction and truth I have to know it's there, and I'm intentionally choosing hell.

According to the Bible, we do know it's there; but you are not intentionally choosing hell. You're choosing something that looks better to you than God's truth, that seems more appealing and satisfying than God's truth. You're believing a lie. That's the choice you're making when you reject Christianity.

Now it may be that everyone will be given a final opportunity and will accept salvation in the end -- a 'skin of their teeth' scenario. That's what I'm hoping for, since it doesn't seem like an acceptable outcome to me, if even one person suffers eternally.

Quote:

What would be the point of intentionally rejecting God if all it's going to get me is an eternity of misery?

But that isn't the mindset of the person rejecting God. The person rejecting God is deceived. They've weighed some other knowledge or perception against the word of God, and they've decided to believe the lie, rather than the truth.

It's the child who sees the ball in the street, and begins to question whether his parents urgency about staying out of the street is really justified, and whether what they've warned him about is really true, and maybe they're just mean and don't want him to have any fun, and he begins to waver and look around, and decides to walk out into the street because he really wants to keep playing with the ball. What is the inception of that doubt? What is the difference between the child who obeys and the one who doesn't? I would suggest as a possibility, that one child reveres his parents, trusts their judgment and perhaps fears the repurcussions of disobeying, while the other child decides he is capable of judging for himself whether or not it is safe to go and get the ball.

Quote:

If living without God (although God is supposed to be everywhere) is so torturous, why should anyone have to go through it for all eternity?

Well, because we are eternal beings, and therefore the consequences of our words and deeds (if we choose to keep responsibility for them) are also eternal.

You've seen this before, but anyway:

***

It was the early spring of ’04, just when the yellow wattle was coming into bloom, that I moved into my new house. I was very fortunate as the landlord (whom I had never met) would not be charging any rent for himself, only a small fee to pay the property manager. As I was handed the key, the property manager informed me that the landlord was very generous like this and that I was lucky to have him looking after me.

The house wasn’t in bad condition, even though I found the stairs poorly designed and difficult to manage and some of the cupboard doors in the kitchen were wobbly and squeaky. On the kitchen wall was a note from the landlord. It welcomed me to the house, and then listed the rules I must follow. Some of them were sensible and banned things that I wouldn’t do anyway, such as lighting campfires on the kitchen floor or surfing down the stairs, while others were things that I would have expected like keeping things neat and tidy. Some, however, seemed plain unreasonable, like one that forbid me from spilling anything in the kitchen while others were just ridiculous, like a command not to wear a pink hat on certain Fridays. Throughout this, I noticed the landlord seemed somewhat full of himself, referring to himself as ‘THE LANDLORD’ in capital letters and talking extensively about how he had great powers of demolition and eviction and how he had punished tenants who didn’t obey the rules or destroyed houses to show his power. He also claimed to have built the entire house by himself in less than a week, a claim I found somewhat unbelievable. He concluded by telling me what would happen when the lease expired: if I had obeyed all of the rules I would be given a new home, a great mansion in a luxury estate where I would be cared for and all of my needs met so that I would never have to work again, and I would be able to meet the landlord, who would live nearby. If, however, I broke so much as one rule the landlord would be furious with me, and when the lease expired I would taken from the house and thrown in a dark cell in a terrible jail for the rest of my life.

I was somewhat concerned with this odd arrangement, so when the property manager came around the next day I decided to talk to him. He was a friendly man, and was very willing to answer my questions. I asked him first about how I could possibly obey all of the rules. He smiled and said that obeying the rules were unnecessary as long as I respected the landlord, accepted that I was a bad tenant and acknowledged his power and authority. When I asked why this was the case he told me a story. He said that the landlord himself came and lived in one of his houses, and never broke a rule. However, he still allowed himself to be thrown into the terrible jail. After three days he had broken out and thus all the broken rules from then on had been paid for by his sacrifice. This didn’t make sense to me. If the landlord held the ultimate power over the rules and the houses, why couldn’t he forgive people without having to go through the whole ordeal himself, and, for that matter, why did the rules have to be so strict in the first place? The property manager was patient, and he said that that question was often asked. He explained that the rules had to be very strict as the mansions in the special estate where the landlord lived were perfect and only perfect tenants could live in them. As no tenant was perfect, only the landlord’s forgiveness could let them live in the mansions. I, however, was still not fully satisfied. The property manager then showed me a special telephone on the wall. This, he said, would let me speak to the landlord, although he would never answer me directly. He advised me to call regularly to thank the landlord for his kindness and to be humble and admit my failings as a tenant to him. Finally, we addressed the stairs and cupboards. The property manager told me that the stairs were, in fact, brilliantly designed; only I couldn’t see it, and the cupboards had been broken by the previous tenants. He did not explain why the landlord hadn’t fixed them. But anyway, I was generally happy now, and the property manager went on to the next house.

And so my new life began. I lived comfortably in the house, did my best to obey the rules, and called the landlord every night to tell him about my doings, admit to my failings as a tenant and to thank him profusely for his kindness. After a while, I began to explore the neighborhood. My nieghbours lived in similar houses, had the same rules on their walls, and generally lived in a similar fashion to me. They all did their best to obey the rules, regularly called the landlord and were relying on his forgiveness to get a mansion in the special estate when their leases expired. So far, everything seemed to go as expected. But before long, I began to have doubts. In the next street, I met a family who invited me into their house. The rules on their wall were similar but different. Therefore, I queried them about their lease. They told me that the landlord would, indeed, give people mansions in the special estate when their leases expired or throw them into the jail. However, he said that the landlord had never actually come to live in the neighbourhood. Instead, to get a mansion what I really had to do was try to obey the rules as best I could and do certain acts, such as call the landlord five times a day and at least once during my lease go on a trip to a distant real estate office. I wondered how this could be the case when I had been told by everyone that the landlord was the same landlord and had the same rules across the whole neighbourhood.

As time went on, my doubts only deepened. In another street, I met more people with different rules. They said that they did not really need to worry; their family had lived in this street for time immemorial and were assured mansions when their leases ended as their forefather had made a special contract with the landlord. In another street, I met people who said that the landlord gave you several chances; if you failed as a tenant you would be given another lease and so on until you became good enough to live in a mansion in the special estate. In yet another street, the people claimed that there were many landlords, in another, that there was no landlord at all. Most confused, I consulted with the property manager when he next came to visit. It was then that I first heard about the warden.

The warden, the property manager said, once worked for the landlord. However, he did obey the rules that the landlord set for his employees and was thus sent to live in the terrible jail. Now, he tried to avenge himself upon the landlord by making people believe false things and follow false rules so that they would never get to the special estate. Horrified, I asked why the landlord did nothing. The property manager told me that the landlord could not interfere with the warden’s free will, and that it was my job as a good tenant to ensure that people were not deceived. Finally, I asked something that had been on my mind for a time now: How could I know the landlord existed? The property manager than asked me how else the neighbourhood could be here. I had no answer, and thus was again satisfied, and he left.

A few days later, the lease expired for one of my neighbours. One morning, we went outside to find that he was gone and that his house was vacant. We had not seen him leave, but the property manager assured us that he had been a good tenant and was even now moving into his mansion. Later that morning, I went for a walk up the other end of my street. There, I met some young people who showed no regards to the rules at all and had laid waste to their house. When I asked them about what they thought of the prospect of going to the terrible jail, they laughed and said they did not care. I was confused, as I had heard many tales of how the landlord had destroyed the houses of people who disobeyed him, or had cut off their leases and thrown them into the terrible jail.

Visiting people in the other streets again, I broached the subject of the warden to them. They were good people and kept a nice garden, and I didn’t want them to go to jail. I approached a man clipping his hedges and started talking. He listened silently for a while, sighed, put his clippers down, came around and out his hand on my shoulder. He then told me that I Was under the Warden’s influence, and would only face jail. When I bought up the property manager, he said that he was a good man, but misguided.

That afternoon, I went to visit my friend across the street. She was a good tenant who seemed to live by the rules, but when I broached the subject of the landlord to her she confessed that she did not really think he existed. I was incredulous, and when I asked how the houses could have got here, she showed me books about people called builders who had apparently built the houses in the neighbourhood, and also laid the roads and gardens. Their case was good, and I began to become skeptical of the landlord. However, I knew that the landlord had my house bugged and fitted with hidden cameras (that I could never find no matter how hard I looked) so I continued to live as the rules and property manager directed.

However, I had reached a point of no return. I now began to see inconsistencies and absurdities in the rules, clues in the house that it had been built by builders, and I began to ask questions to the property manager that he could not satisfactorily answer. Upon further enquiry, I found that no one had ever really seen the landlord or the warden, and that no one had heard from him or seen the jail or special estate either. I explored the neighbourhood to its boundaries and found no roads that could lead to the jail or the estate. I noticed that everyone seemed to believe that their own rules were the real rules, and that it was impossible to tell who was really obeying the landlord and who was obeying the warden. I read books that seemed to suggest that the idea of a landlord had evolved over time. I met people who didn’t believe in the landlord and didn’t fear going to the jail when their leases expired. I talked and talked on the special phone but I heard nothing. This time, the silence was poison.

One day, I decided that, beyond reasonable doubt, the landlord in all likelihood didn’t exist. I called him to ask him to prove otherwise, but he did nothing. The property manager still came but he no longer seemed happy, and I think he suspected my lack of belief. I still did my best to obey the reasonable rules, and still looked after the house, but I no longer called the landlord.

My lease will expire someday. Then, I will leave my house and go to where I know not. I have never met anyone who can tell me with certainty what happens on the day your lease expires. All the people tell me about the true nature of the landlord and the warden, but I don’t believe any of them. It may be that I was wrong and that I will go to the jail, or that people from other streets were right and that I was doomed to go to the jail anyway. Also, I can no longer hope to a mansion in the special estate. Still, I think that I have reached the truth at last. The property manager has not returned.