quote:God certainly could not just throw everyone who would eventually make it into heaven into heaven, and conversely everyone else into hell without giving us the opportunity to make the choices ourselves that would lead us there.
Not sure why. Seems like actually making the choice is a bit of a formality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
God gave humans free will. While God knows the future, He does not preclude us from exercising our free will. We are allowed to act out our lives.
(As I am Jewish, I do not believe in heaven and hell as defined by Christianity. My comment pertains more to the story of Abraham and Isaac.)
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:God gave humans free will. While God knows the future, He does not preclude us from exercising our free will. We are allowed to act out our lives.
That doesn't quite explain why actually making the choice would be necessary. If God knows the results of all your choices, why would He have to let you make them if He could just skip ahead to the consequences?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's one thing I never understood. Why does God allow people to go to hell?
Any rational person, if given a clear and obvious choice, would opt for an eternity of pleasure over an eternity of suffering. I think that is obviously true.
Anyone who would opt for an eternity of suffering either does not grasp what that means, or is mentally ill. If that is the case, and they are unable to make a rational choice, then it seems that God should not punish them for the inability to understand.
If any rational person chooses an eternity of suffering over an eternity of pleasure, the only logical explanation I can see is that they were not properly informed about the choice. No rational person would intentionally choose an eternity of suffering, so they must have chosen unintentionally, because they knew no better.
It seems to me, that if God wanted to prevent people from going to hell, all God would need to do is make sure that people are given a clear and obvious choice, with no ambiguity or possible misunderstanding.
Is God unwilling to do this? Is God unable to show all people the right way and the clear choice? If God is the epitome of all goodness, righteousness, and love, why not set things up such that nobody goes to hell?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, so this example is less extreme MC, but I think it proves the point.
Any rational person, if given a clear and obvious choice, would opt for a healthy life over an unhealthy one. I think that is obviously true...
however, how many (especially in this nation of ours) still eat unhealthy food, neglect exercise, overindulge in alcohol and other drugs etc... (including me).
Even on the faith side of things, I'll freely admit that I often do things that my personal beliefs tell me will lead me to Hell. This is because the temporary/selfish gains are easier to give in to than the long-term/selfless gains that we should really be going for.
If you're trying to argue the "if God is all good, how can he let evil exist" point, there's about 1500 years worth of philosophy that pretty much centered around that discussion.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it would be awful to curse us for eternity due to the weakness of the flesh, the same flesh which He created.
I have compassion for all of us who desire to live a healthy lifestyle, but for some reason find that they are not quite able to do it. As a psychologist, I work constantly to help people learn how to make it easier for themselves to live the way they want to (i.e., quit addictions, control extreme emotional reactions, replace unwanted thoughts, etc). It is not easy. We are not born knowing how to use systematic desensitization to help us overcome our fears; how to set specific, attainable goals and reinforcement contingencies; or how to set up our environment so that it is easier to keep our goals, etc. And God certainly did not bother to tell us these things in the Bible. He seemed to set us up to fail; that is if he exists.
Furthermore, an eternity in hell seems pointless, the individual learns nothing from it and is given no opportunity to repent or change. The punishment is just sadistic pain.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A: So, you believe in a deity? B: Yes. But it’s not just “a deity”. It is THE deity, the REAL one, the TRUE deity, it’s called – A: Well, I’m not particularly interested in its name, I have a “simple” question: “Has this deity given any LAWS to follow?” B: Sure, it is the basis of our moral system, everybody should follow these LAWS. A: And what happens if someone doesn’t follow the LAWS? B: Easy, that someone goes to HELL, for all eternity (after death). A: Does HELL equal pain and discomfort, consuming fire and unpleasant stuff like that? B: Well, they used to define it like this, but HELL is basically the “absence of the deity”. It is obviously something unpleasant. A: Yeah, but if I don’t believe in this deity, its absence (especially after death) doesn’t imply anything particularly unpleasant. I’d say this HELL is irrelevant for me. B: Ok, it is your choice not to believe in the deity, you might even plea the ignorance in your defence when the judgement day comes, but the deity knows you actually had the chance to follow the LAWS and you didn’t, so HELL is guaranteed for you anyway. A: Yeah, but if I don’t believe in this deity, its absence … B: Ok, it is your choice not to … A: Yeah, but if … [conversation truncated because of the infinite loop]
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That doesn't quite explain why actually making the choice would be necessary. If God knows the results of all your choices, why would He have to let you make them if He could just skip ahead to the consequences?
God gave us the opportunity to have (or to make for ourselves) a fulfilling life. A fulfilling life is not just an end result, but a process which includes the many choices we make along the way. A fulfilling life is not possible without actually living it.
God created us not just for His own pleasure, but for our own.
Abraham's life and his relationship with and understanding of God would not have been quite the same, but for his enduring and experiencing the test God gave him.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: That doesn't quite explain why actually making the choice would be necessary. If God knows the results of all your choices, why would He have to let you make them if He could just skip ahead to the consequences?
Because you're not the person who made those choices until after you've made them. We're changed by our choices. And we grow into the kind of person who would belong in Heaven, or Hell. For our own sake, for our own understanding and acceptance of the consequences, we can't be punished before the crime (or rewarded before our good choices).
Just like if we could see the future and see that someone would commit a crime, we couldn't go put them in jail before it happened ... because they aren't the person who's made the final choice to commit the crime yet. Of course, I know there could be some argument on that one.
To me this life is more about us learning to be the kind of person God wants, than about testing us so God can see if we'll do what He wants. He already knows what we'll become, but until we go through the learning and growth that we get from our choices, we haven't become that person yet. If God is anything I can believe in, He's just. So He couldn't punish us or reward us for things He knows we'll do, until we deserve it.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, they used to define it like this, but HELL is basically the “absence of the deity”. It is obviously something unpleasant. A: Yeah, but if I don’t believe in this deity, its absence (especially after death) doesn’t imply anything particularly unpleasant. I’d say this HELL is irrelevant for me.
So why are you worried about it? End loop.
Seriously, if you keep choosing to not be with God (both in this life and the next) why would you be bothered to not be with God?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
coming from a theist's side of the argument:
not believing that there is an invisible blanket warming me doesn't lessen the cold I will feel if that blanket is taken away...
As an atheist Hell is irrelevant as far as your daily life goes, but it doesn't make the punishment any less severe if it turns out to be accurate.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The blanket isn't taken away. If said atheist is cold all he has to do is choose to use the blanket.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"not believing that there is an invisible blanket warming me doesn't lessen the cold I will feel if that blanket is taken away... "
And believing that there is an invisible blanket warming you (when, in fact, there is not) won't keep you from freezing.
Steve (Atheist; out looking for real blankets)
P.S. kmbboots: there is no blanket! I'd just be wrapping myself in air, and pretending not to freeze.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:God gave humans free will. While God knows the future, He does not preclude us from exercising our free will. We are allowed to act out our lives.
That doesn't quite explain why actually making the choice would be necessary. If God knows the results of all your choices, why would He have to let you make them if He could just skip ahead to the consequences?
That just does not make sense. God created us so that we can grow as he grows. How much sense does it make to give say a new born baby its 2nd grade spelling bee award, a most improved basketball player medal, a high school diploma, PHD, and copy of its autobiography. The baby has yet to make the choices that will warrant those rewards. Experience is something that you obtain on your own. Part of what makes us human is the capacity to learn and make choices based on our knowledge.
Are you seriously suggesting that if you were God you would just program people with all the knowledge, memories, and experiences they WOULD of had had they been left with their own devices, up until the point you were capable? Sounds alot like The Island to me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think faith is complicated, both from a believing and an unbelieving perspective.
From a believing perspective, faith is both a virtue and a gift. It's something pray for and (apparently) rewarded for. It sometimes feels like credit - you get the substantiation after you have proven that you don't need it.
From an unbelieving perspective, I have known too many people who have longed to feel faith and simply don't, or can't, to think it is something that is simply chosen.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I don't understand "feel faith". What I have chosen doesn't result in any particular feeling. Some people do, I'm sure, but I think a lot of people would be disappointed if they expect that to be a reliable result of chosing faith.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can substitute the phrase "have faith" in my last sentence and it would mean the same thing. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you mean that some people want to choose faith and can't (for whatever reason), I think that is true. I do think that many people expect some sort of dramatic change once they make this choice - a road to Damascus kind of experience. Often, too, people think that everything will be different, easier? in a magical kind of way. While I think that may be true for some, it isn't for everyone and often people give up on faith because it doesn't have immediate "results".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure why some people do not find what they seek when they seek it. I love the gospel and my faith in part because I have almost always found peace/comfort/answers when I sought/tested it. When I haven't, my memories of doing so are strong enough to tied me over. I don't have an explanation for that that always fits, so I don't have an explanation for why some people don't.
Since it's generally worked for me, I'd be tempted to say that people aren't looking hard or long enough, but I've seen enough heartbreak following sincere seeking when they didn't find anything to accept that. I don't know why not everyone has faith.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...for me it is deciding - over and over again. The "results" tend to be cumulative rather than immediate. However, since I have been making this decision since before I can remember, it may just be that I don't really know anything else. Slacking off, sure, but not turning away.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you guys are missing the point of the blanket analogy so let me explain further:
Your current state: comfortably warm Theist's reasoning: because I am wrapped in an invisible blanket. Atheist's reasoning: because the temperature out here is fine.
possible future state (afterlife) Theist's reasoning: if the blanket is taken away I will be frigidly cold (it is afterall a very good blanket) Atheist's reasoning: should be the same as now more or less.
So, if the theist is right, the atheist will be freezing once that blanket is taken away (Hell). Whether or not the atheist ever believed that the blanket existed doesnt stop it from having an effect (assuming it did exist).
Similarly, denying the existance of God doesn't necessarily mean that he's not watching out for you, making your life more bearable. And neither does it mean that if that presence is taken away existence won't be worse, it just means that they won't know why it's so bad all of a sudden.
I don't intend this to be an attack on atheism per se, but more a warning that Pascal's wager CAN affect you if you're wrong, even if you don't think so. I believe I'm right in believing in God, but I also accept that I could be wrong and perhaps I'll regret it, but it seems many of the vocal atheists here completely deny the possibility that they will regret their beliefs.
Steve (Lapsed Catholic slowly letting the blanket fall down)
quote: So, if the theist is right, the atheist will be freezing once that blanket is taken away (Hell). Whether or not the atheist ever believed that the blanket existed doesnt stop it from having an effect (assuming it did exist).
The blanket doesn't get taken away. You can decide to be warmed by it or not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
no, I'm using the definition of Hell as the absence of God (i.e. the absence of the blanket)... whether you chose to believe in the blanket or not has noo bearing on weather or not the blanket warms you or ceases to when it is taken away.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue that pretty much no one chooses to be absent from God.
Many religious people have trouble understanding this; often central to their doctrines is that some people WOULD choose to be absent from God.
To which I say: show me one person alive who, when confronted with God, rejected Him. Don't quote from scripture about some hypothetical, possibly mythical person who may or may not have rejected God, and whose afterlife is by definition a matter of speculation. Show me a person who, fully believing in the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God, said "Meh."
People are "absent" from God only because they can't perceive Him, not because they dislike Him for some reason. And given that God knows before they're born whether or not they'll be able to perceive Him, and is according to most doctrines omnipotent enough to make Himself noticed if He felt like it, their ability to exist in His presence is entirely His responsibility.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, they used to define it like this, but HELL is basically the “absence of the deity”. It is obviously something unpleasant. A: Yeah, but if I don’t believe in this deity, its absence (especially after death) doesn’t imply anything particularly unpleasant. I’d say this HELL is irrelevant for me.
So why are you worried about it? End loop.
Seriously, if you keep choosing to not be with God (both in this life and the next) why would you be bothered to not be with God?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not bothered by “the absence”. I actually don’t feel the need for “a presence”. And by the way, I do assume my risk of “being proven wrong” after death (and thus sent to HELL).
I was pointing out “the infinite loop” because it is this particular kind of “self-sustained reasoning” that I was faced with, way too often:
quote: A: Yeah, but if I don’t believe in this deity, its absence (especially after death) doesn’t imply anything particularly unpleasant. I’d say this HELL is irrelevant for me. B: Ok, it is your choice not to believe in the deity, you might even plea the ignorance in your defence when the judgement day comes, but the deity knows you actually had the chance to follow the LAWS and you didn’t, so HELL is guaranteed for you anyway.
kmbboots, the way you ended the loop is quite ok with me
The worst/bothering part (for me) is that when a theist friend finds out about my “(atheistic) views”, they FEEL and SHOW pity for me! Well, I don’t need that pity, I’m “a big person”, I am prepared to stand by my choices and I take the responsibility that comes with them.
As for:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson People are "absent" from God only because they can't perceive Him, not because they dislike Him for some reason. And given that God knows before they're born whether or not they'll be able to perceive Him, and is according to most doctrines omnipotent enough to make Himself noticed if He felt like it, their ability to exist in His presence is entirely His responsibility.
I don’t like the sound of it. It’s like “avoiding the responsibility”. Placing the blame on “Him”. Why bother? I suppose this (i.e. the quote) is the typical “reasoning” that Church was trying to fight using the ingenious idea that if faith (in “Him”) cannot be forced upon non-believers, at least we can make them feel guilty for not being worthy enough to feel “His” presence. Note that it all comes down to it: the sin of not believing “the truth” is punished (by the all-loving deity).
posted
As far as I can tell you're the one who's brought punishment (and HELL</scarey bold capital letters>) into it.
I understand that you've had this conversation with other people who've used that argument, but they're not here, so if you want to address them this is not the place for it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine. You weren't the first one to bring it up. You still seem to me to be having a conversation with people who aren't here, rather than addressing the posts that are here.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:show me one person alive who, when confronted with God, rejected Him.
Me: Elijah, did you get a chance to pray about being baptized? E: Yes, I did. Comp: That's great. Did you get an answer? E: Yes, I did. I felt like God wanted me to be baptized. Me: I'm so happy for you! That's great. E: But sisters, I want to go to hell. Us: <stunned silence> E: If I accept that God, then I have to put him first. I don't want to put God before my art, and I don't want to say I'm wrong. I don't regret anything I've done - I don't think I have to repent.
Direct quotes. It definitely happens.
I'm not postulating what happens to him next, but people definitely choose to turn away.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm willing to bet that he was lying to your face, Katie. Without having the chance to speak to him independently, I'm going to have to go on faith for this one -- but somehow I find that scenario far, far more likely. I know several people who've lied to missionaries in similar situations to extricate themselves from what seemed like an awkward environment, and I'd imagine that those missionaries, if they believed what they were told at the time, probably came away with a slightly skewed picture of human nature.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you asked for one example. I know you're enamored of your theory, but maybe when your theory doesn't fit the facts, you're going to have to realize that it is possible your theory is wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I'm suspicious of your desire to have an honest discussion if you rebut my stories by telling me that they are all illusory.
Do you want me to make up stories of what I think your experiences actually were? If you want respect for your experiences, you have to extend that respect to others for their experiences.
If you want people to dismiss you and never share anything, by all means, continue to dismiss them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that I think it's illusory. It's that I think you, as a missionary, should automatically take with a grain of salt anything that anyone you've targeted for conversion might tell you about their appreciation of your faith. There are substantial pressures applied on both ends, and I believe that social pressure is one of the most common breeding grounds for falsehood.
If we were to ask missionaries how many people out there were Satanists, for example, based on what they're told, we'd get a hugely unrealistic number.
The problem of course is that most such "rejection" stories for Mormons are going to be missionary anecdotes, and I recognize that finding other examples will be difficult. But I maintain, based on both my experience with missionaries and my experience with people who've lied to missionaries, that it's far more likely that the targeted individual is lying about their experience to get themselves off the hook than that they actually experienced the glory of God.
From my own experience, I know that the missionaries who visited me were extremely disappointed that I felt nothing, were confident that I had done something wrong, and wanted to keep coming back over and over again to help me feel the Spirit. I had to go to some lengths to make it clear to them that I wasn't interested in continuing the process, and it certainly would have made my life easier if I'd just said "yeah, I felt the Spirit, but I'm just not interested for X reason." The fact that I felt nothing was interpreted as an invitation to continue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you are assuming he must be lying because there's no way he actually got his prayer answered.
Your entire thesis rests on the impossibility of him having the prayer answered as he said he did. That's forcing the facts to fit your pre-set conclusion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think it's highly unlikely that he got his prayer answered and yet found God unsatisfactory, and considerably more likely that he wanted to find a way to extricate himself from your company. Even the third option -- that he felt something, wasn't entirely sure how to interpret it, and yet was uncomfortable with joining the church and simply sought a rationalization you'd accept -- is more likely than the first possibility, as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And given that God knows before they're born whether or not they'll be able to perceive Him, and is according to most doctrines omnipotent enough to make Himself noticed if He felt like it, their ability to exist in His presence is entirely His responsibility.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "perceive him". What I perceive as God, you do not. We have both made a choice about how we perceive what is around us. And, yes, I suppose God could take that choice away from us. I'm grateful that God doesn't.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are still arguing from the conclusion. You think that because the story goes against your theory. Since you are deeply attached to your theory, you discount all evidence that would contradict it.
Very human, but not persuasive.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: the sin of not believing “the truth” is punished (by the all-loving deity).
Explain "punished"? The "punishment" you talk about is to keep not believing the truth. Because you choose to.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have both made a choice about how we perceive what is around us.
I would submit that no one normally chooses how to perceive things, but can choose how they'll interpret what they perceive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You think that because the story goes against your theory.
I would argue that this is perfectly natural, since you're presenting me with a third-party statement in a situation where that third party has every motivation to lie, and is in fact in a situation similar to one in which I was sorely tempted to lie about that very thing. One possible interpretation is that he's not lying, but -- as I said -- you may as well assume that everyone who tells you they're a Satanist is telling the truth, or that Scott Roberts really eats babies. To a casual forum visitor who didn't get the joke, the latter possibility might actually seem feasible; I've seen people berate Scott for making tasteless anti-Mormon jokes, not knowing the background.
What I'd really like is a first-person "I spoke to God and rejected Him," but those are curiously hard to come by -- except among (no surprise) the mentally ill, and I think we're agreed that they're a population of questionable utility for this purpose.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so you and I choose to interpret what we perceive differently. How does that change my meaning. We both perceive stuff; you choose to interpret it one way I choose to interpret it another.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you asked for stories. If you didn't have the slightest intention of taking them seriously, you didn't ask in good faith.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
It changes it enormously. Because if you've actually perceived some bunch of sensations that are uniquely God, you've perceived something I haven't.
If you've just experienced the same heat, cold, and visual stimuli that I have, and have chosen to call those things "God," you're just defining terms.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I apologize. It didn't occur to me -- and it absolutely should have -- that I would have gotten mainly missionary rejection stories on this site. Had I thought of it, I'd've first explained why I tend to dismiss all missionary anecdotes out of hand. You DO understand why many people might be tempted to lie to a Mormon missionary about successfully feeling the Spirit, though, right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not perceived anything that I couldn't explain as "not God" if I choose to.
Nor, come to think of it has anyone else, in my opinion. Angelic visitation = weird dream, burning bush = hallucination caused by too much sun, voices in my head = mental illness, love = response to chemical stimuli.
Depends on what we choose.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I haven't "spoken to God" in the most literal sense, but I have had spiritual experiences that have convinced me of the truth of my religion/church. Despite this, I have had times when I have actively decided not to follow it because it was inconvenient or because of my own pride or because I was "mad at God," etc. Heck, I'm kinda in one of those periods now.
So am I lying or crazy?
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Despite this, I have had times when I have actively decided not to follow it because it was inconvenient or because of my own pride or because I was "mad at God," etc.
That's not quite the same thing, though, as actually rejecting God. "I believe that the Catholic God exists, but reject Catholicism" is hugely different in practice from "I believe the Catholic God exists, but still use a condom," even if you can logically connect one to the other.
IIRC, even Satanists don't actually believe the Christian God exists as described in the Bible; if they believe, they believe He's just one of many. They don't believe they're in active rebellion against an omnipotent, omniscient foe.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
