quote:The problem I have with Lewis' argument as presented here is that if God is omnipotent, then he could have made us able to have free will and understand Him without needing to subject us to pain.
Unless "creating free will without pain" is of the same sort of logically impossible category as "creating a rock so heavy that even God cannot lift it".
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Unless "creating free will without pain" is of the same sort of logically impossible category as "creating a rock so heavy that even God cannot lift it".
Two questions, and I realize you may not have the answers:
First, is there pain in heaven?
Second, is there free will in heaven?
If the answer to both is yes, then it seems to meld with your answer that free will requires pain of some sort.
If the answer to both is no, then what's so great about free will?
If the answers are mixed up in any other way, it seems to contradict your statement.
But I don't follow the boards as often as I used to, so maybe this is a non-sequitor and you don't even believe in heaven anyway. So if the question makes no sense, feel free to ignore it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have the answers to those two questions. The "free will requires pain" argument is from C.S. Lewis, and I don't exactly agree with it, but I do think he could make a reasonable argument that free will logically entails pain of some kind.
My personal view would be better put this way: A world with pain is more meaningful than a world without it, because good is less meaningful without the contrast of evil. Heaven, as traditionally described, is clearly a far more pleasant place to live in than our present life. But I think pleasantness is not the highest good. The pain of our world may allow our lives to be meaningful in a way they could not be if we simply existed in heaven without pain or evil.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Zues [sic] I'm fairly certain to legend was omnipotant [sic] short of one thing, he couldn't go against The Fates.
In my understanding that Zeus and the rest of the Greek pantheon had a very long and difficult fight to overthrow the Titans (and especially Cronus), even needing the help of the Cyclopes (and others) to do so.
That would seem to indicate that he couldn't snap his fingers to make Cronus eliminated from existence, which would be implied by omnipotence. That is unless he grew into his omnipotence later.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I don't think I've heard anyone claim that Zeus, Odin, Ra or Vishnu were omnipotent. It seems to me that's something you monotheistic types tacked onto religion. I could be wrong though, comparative religion isn't something I've ever paid much attention to.
I would also like to point out that atheism has an excellent answer to the problem of pain .
None of the Hindu gods are omnipotent, according to a traditional Vedic understanding of them. Historically, actually, worship was a way of forcing the gods to do something for you - if you (or the priest you hired) did the right rituals and worshiped the right way, things would happen the way you wanted. While few Hindus now would agree with this perspective (at least so baldly stated), you can still see the effects in many Hindu rituals - to a Western eye, a lot of the requirements and steps in worshiping can seem very arbitrary.
When you get into a more monotheistic/pantheistic interpretation of Hinduism - basically anything above the level of folk worship and post-Upanishads onwards - it gets a little more fuzzy. For most schools of thought, it tends to be less like God can do anything, and more like everything is God. But there are certainly some Hindus who would agree that God (however they define it or whoever they name as such) is omnipotent.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
In Mormon cosmology, the answer to both of these is yes.
I'd like to go one step further and say that there is also sadness in heaven. The Bible has some examples of God feeling sadness, anger, and other feelings.
In other words.....Being lobotomized is not a requirement to enter heaven.
quote:Zues I'm fairly certain to legend was omnipotant short of one thing, he couldn't go against The Fates.
Or Kratos, of course. Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: In other words.....Being lobotomized is not a requirement to enter heaven.
Do you expect to have a brain in heaven at all? I thought you were supposed to be pure spirit or energy or something.
With your personality on earth dependent on the chemistry and physical structure of the brain, what in heaven is supposed to represent "you"? Do you get a perfect copy of your brain at its peak, or a simulation of such? Does your "spirit" behave and think and feel just like your brain does when it is not under the influence of drugs or a brain injury? If you die when you are old and your personality has changed due to changes in your brain, do you get your young brain back in heaven? What if your young brain had you being a selfish jerk while your old brain was a nice guy? If someone dies as a child with an undeveloped brain, do they get an adult brain in heaven?
Not trying to pounce, but I honestly don't know what theists would answer to the above.
It seems most of my discussions with theists here have them admitting that the brain is responsible for the bulk of your personality, but claiming that there is some non-physical "soul" that also plays a part. But can that non-physical part do the entire work of the brain in heaven? If so, why can't it do so here on earth after a traumatic brain injury that changes your personality completely?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If one had the power to save everyone and chose to only save some? Not such a good guy.
I'm curious-- Mormonism gets by this by saying 1) God is not omnipotent; 2) His purpose is not to spare us pain, but to make us like Jesus Christ-- suffering and joy are therefore necessary parts of our mortal experience.
How do you answer the problem of pain?
It is complicated but it starts with the idea that God isn't some separate "being" but is with and through and part of everything and everything is part of God, including us and that we still have a lot of work to do. We are in the process of creating and being created not done with it. If we want a world that works better, we (the part of God that is us) had better get to work on that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you expect to have a brain in heaven at all? I thought you were supposed to be pure spirit or energy or something.
Mormons believe in a physical resurrection. When that occurs you will have a "glorified" body which resembles, in some manner, your current physical body.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Weren't Christ's most vehement rebukes aimed towards the hypocrites?
As I recall, Jesus's harshest words were for for those who were most concerned with rules other people were breaking, with those who took a legalistic rather than a loving approach to God's law.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My deal with pain is that it is part and parcel of free will. Want no pain? Can't have free will. They go together. I value my freedom more than I would a pain-free existence.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My deal with pain is that it is part and parcel of free will. Want no pain? Can't have free will. They go together. I value my freedom more than I would a pain-free existence.
I suspect that if you gave a bunch of scientists a crap-load of funding and removed ethical constraints, you could create a human being that does not feel emotional or physical pain within a few generations.
Would that person lack free will? I don't see how they would any more than you or I.
(Note: I don't actually believe in free will exists in any meaningful way, but am interested in the way these two things seem so linked to you guys.)
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormons believe in a physical resurrection. When that occurs you will have a "glorified" body which resembles, in some manner, your current physical body.
Yeah, a lot of my objections to Christian theology don't really apply to Mormons (original sin, an omnipotent God, the holy trinity, God no longer talking to prophets, etc).
There are other things about LDS theology that don't sit well with me, but they are often not the same things as with the other varieties of Christianity.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My deal with pain is that it is part and parcel of free will. Want no pain? Can't have free will. They go together. I value my freedom more than I would a pain-free existence.
I suspect that if you gave a bunch of scientists a crap-load of funding and removed ethical constraints, you could create a human being that does not feel emotional or physical pain within a few generations.
Would that person lack free will? I don't see how they would any more than you or I.
(Note: I don't actually believe in free will exists in any meaningful way, but am interested in the way these two things seem so linked to you guys.)
I'm interested in this world, not a hypothetical where pain doesn't exist in the first place. It does exist, and it exists now. Saying under a different circumstances it wouldn't exist doesn't change the present circumstances, where they are inextricably linked.
They are inextricably linked because the source of what seems like the vast majority pain comes from 1) human choices, and 2) mortal bodies. And a little bit 3) opportunity cost.
Pain from opportunity cost - not everyone can win the race. If you and your friend love the same person, only one of you can get a monogamous relationship with him. If you choose one life, you can't choose a different life, and that different life will go on without you. All these things can be painful, and they are all linked to opportunity cost.
Pain from mortal bodies - the dream of the fountain of youth and the elixir of healing never dies. It hasn't happened yet. Unless and until, bodies breaking down and working wrong causes pain, both to the body owner and to the people who love him/her.
But the last: human choices. Most of pain comes from the consequences of your own or someone else's choices. We can choose the action, but the consequences of it. Everything from war to assualt to gossip can cause pain, and all of it is from someone's choice, sometimes your own. As long as choosing to pull the trigger means the person the gun is pointed at gets shot, the choice to pull the trigger will cause pain.
This is all very Worthing Saga, which is, not coincidentally, my favorite Card novel now.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems most of my discussions with theists here have them admitting that the brain is responsible for the bulk of your personality, but claiming that there is some non-physical "soul" that also plays a part. But can that non-physical part do the entire work of the brain in heaven?
I think in Christianity speculation about how things operate in heaven is generally considered just that - speculation. It's more concerned about how we ought to behave in this life, rather than how the afterlife works. So, I don't think you can find a definitive answer to a question like that. My guess would be that personalities in heaven are fundamentally different than they are on earth - or maybe personality in the way we think of it doesn't exist there at all.
But as MattP pointed out, the Christian denominations who believe the physical body is in the afterlife don't have an issue with this at all.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect that if you gave a bunch of scientists a crap-load of funding and removed ethical constraints, you could create a human being that does not feel emotional or physical pain within a few generations.
Would that person lack free will? I don't see how they would any more than you or I.
And important question would be... Would this person always be at the same constant level of happiness, no matter what happened to him or what decisions he made?
Or would this person be more or less happy depending on his situation? And if so, is being less happy different from pain?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that an inability to feel pain is almost certainly fatal at a relatively early age, I'd go with no, the person would likely not be happy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my evolutionary psych class yesterday, we talked for a bit about a man who was studied who had permanently lost the "emotion" part of his brain. he was completely unable to feel anything. As a consequence of this, he was no longer able to make decisions. Big or small, didn't matter. He had no opinions. Even choosing what to eat at a restaurant amounted to closing his eyes and pointing to a random dish. He could still lay out every option, as rationally as anyone, but if you asked him what he should do, or what he wants to do, or what the best choice is, he hadn't the foggiest idea what you were talking about.
He was never "happy" in the sense that we think of happy--but he felt no emotional pain, either. he was just... numb. I have no idea what the theological implications of this are, but I felt like sharing.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, I will try to make it clear to you what I am trying to say. God does not protect the earth against destruction as a reward, nor will He allow it to be subjected to cataclysmic disaster as a punishment. What He must do in response to a direct act of offiical rebellion to his authority is something different.
Reward and punishment figure in to some extent on an individual basis. But this is balanced by the need to avoid overtly making it look like He is bribing people to be faithful to Him. There are, of course, the natural consequences of wise behavior. God does allow "the effective fervent prayer of a righteous man" to "avail much" (see James 5:16) in interceding for others and in praying for healing for others (especially in connection with the annointing ceremony--v. 15). But it is an entirely different matter where a direct challenge to God's authority as Creator is being made not by one individual, but by a nation, and especially by the nation that is the cultural leader and example for the whole world.
What God can do for individuals is influenced TO SOME EXTENT by their behavior and by their faith. But the protection that God continues to give to humanity as a species must be directly affected by how humanity relates to its Creator. To make a direct, official challenge to God's authority as Creator to ordain and define what marriage means, must unavoidably result in making an increased separation between all humanity and God. The Creator must back off, and must withdraw a large measure of His special protection to the species as a whole. Otherwise He would cross the line between being mercifully, patiently forgiving; and being indulgently tolerant of evil. God must always be just while still being merciful. He will not sacrifice either one.
That is the choice He made by His own free choice. This is the kind of God that He chooses to be. When God was in Christ accepting responsibility for all the sins of mankind throughout all time, so that Christ "was made to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21), He chose to accept the possibility of suffering eternal harm if things did not work out sufficiently. In the very midst of this display of the ultimate expression of mercy, God at the same time refused to give in and embrace sin. He refused to set aside Justice (the Law that identifies us as sinners--1 John 3:4), but instead saw to it that the punishment for sin was paid, the sentence against humanity was carried out--in the New Man, the New Adam, in whom the whole human race is now comprised.
When Jesus cried out on the Cross, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34), He was not merely quoting the opening words of Psalms 22. He was expressing the pain He felt as for the first time He felt a separation between Himself and the Father, a separation that had never before existed in the heart of Deity. Though Christ Himself is fully eternal and self-existent (it was He who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, the Father has never manifested Himself directly on earth), and thus could not die as we die, He could lapse into a state of unconsciousness from which He might never awaken. This is what Deity risked in Christ on Calvary.
The fact that God chose to turn away His face from the Son at Calvary, shows to us that God has truly and fully and forever chosen not to embrace evil, or injustice. He demonstrated mercy and justice coming together, without either being set aside. This is an assurance to all intelligent beings inhabit the universe, that God will never choose to turn toward evil. He does have the power of choice; He created freewill. But He has shown us what His choice is. In that we can rest secure for eternity.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Considering that an inability to feel pain is almost certainly fatal at a relatively early age, I'd go with no, the person would likely not be happy.
It's a real, though rare, condition and is terribly tragic.
quote: Reward and punishment figure in to some extent on an individual basis. But this is balanced by the need to avoid overtly making it look like He is bribing people to be faithful to Him.
He's all powerful. Why can't he protect the faithful from disease and, through his completely unlimited power, make it look as if he isn't bribing anyone?
quote:What God can do for individuals is influenced TO SOME EXTENT by their behavior and by their faith. But the protection that God continues to give to humanity as a species must be directly affected by how humanity relates to its Creator. To make a direct, official challenge to God's authority as Creator to ordain and define what marriage means, must unavoidably result in making an increased separation between all humanity and God. The Creator must back off, and must withdraw a large measure of His special protection to the species as a whole. Otherwise He would cross the line between being mercifully, patiently forgiving; and being indulgently tolerant of evil. God must always be just while still being merciful. He will not sacrifice either one.
The motivations you ascribe to God here are morally wrong. You're talking about collective punishment. Even though there are many people in the United States whose obedience has never flagged, the just thing is for God to withhold his protection from the entire country? How is that fair to the people who haven't failed him?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, you forget we are a race of sinners, who have all separated ourselves from God. We are born separated from God. Not completely, or we would not live at all; but largely. This is why we do not live forever. We are subject to disease, to accident and injury, we age and we die. God never meant for any of this to happen. But these are the inevitable consequences of being separated from God, who is the One and Only Original Source of Life and Health.
It has been said that the thing that first caused Adam and Eve to grieve, was seeing the first dying leaves falling from the gigantic trees of Eden, because it meant that death had entered the world--because of them.
God has attacked the problem of sin and death at the root, by seeking to heal the separation that has come between our race and our Creator. Since freewill is involved, we must make informed choices every step of the way. To just give us everything on a silver platter, might make us self-sufficient and arrogant and lead us to take everything for granted, and thus wind up greatly delaying the time when our relationship with our Creator can be made whole. Every time God considers whether to answer a prayer for healing, or deliverance, or any kind of help, He must weigh whether this would help to strengthen faith, or whether it might actually serve to delay the time when His would-be faithful people will be ready for Jesus to return. Sometimes this depends upon the people involved themselves, how they would react to blessings.
There is a member of my church who has three daughters. One of them was diagnosed with type I diabetes. But this daughter happened to be the one who was very focused and attentive to detail, and could readily handle the challenges of balancing sugar and insulin. My friend confessed once that it was the surely the mercy of God that diabetes fell upon this daughter, because she was the only one who could handle it.
Another church friend has four daughters. One is very smart. One is very spiritual. The younger two are wavering between the pull of the world, and the pull of what they have learned through their church. It was the daughter who is spiritual who recently suffered a car accident, where her left shoulder was crushed, and her spine and hip damaged. This happened only a few months after she passed her state boards and qualified to work as a registered nurse. She has had several surgeries, and still faces more surgeries. She has numbness in her left arm and wrist--a serious problem indeed for a nurse. She experiences constant pain in her back, because one of the disks was shattered. But she never lets on to anyone who visits her that she is in pain. She is always asking about others, always concerned about others. She keeps her Bible beside her, and always has somethig encouraging to say to people. This is amazing for a young lady, only about 20 years old. Her mother admitted to me that the Lord allowed this to happen to the one of her daughters who could best handle it.
If you are friends with God, then no matter what happens, for good or ill, you know that God is with you. You are aware of His presence. You feel the encouragement that His Spirit gives you. You trust that God will see to it that whatever is ultimately for the best good for you, is what will happen.
Another member of my church has a nine-year-old son who was admitted to the hospital with a blood clot in his brain. Doctors cautioned everyone that the surgery was chancey. He might not survive the operation. The son understood all this fully, and he was peacefully resigned to the Lord's keeping, especially after the pastor and elders of the church came and annointed him and prayed for him, as per James 5:15, 16. The operation was a complete success. Surgeons removed a bloodclot the size of a baseball. Later, doctors said that only a small percentage of patients in such cases survived. The boy says that when he is able, he wants to preach a sermon to the church about his experience. The pastor promised him that he would be allowed.
I know of another case where a woman had two small children, and her husband was diagnosed with leukemia. During his lengthy battle, which including a bone marrow transplant, she became pregnant. I don't wish to judge her, but perhaps she thought that if she had a small infant, God would have to heal her husband. But you cannot manipulate God. Despite everythig, her husband died, and she was left as a single mother to raise three small children. Fortunately the church helped her alot in the ensuing years. But she admitted to me once that she was "angry at God." I wonder what would have happened if God had healed her husband. Would she then have thought she could get away with trying to manipulate God?
Those are just a few of the lessons I have learned in my church about the way that God relates to people and their needs and wishes and how He answers their prayers.
Remember this as well, Destineer: This life is not all there is. This life is a small spark compared to eternal life. God wants us to live forever, at peace with Him, and not just to be happy for a few short years now, and then perish forever. It does not hurt if there is suffering we must endure in this life, if it can serve to lead us to be restored to fellowship with God, so we can live forever. When those who have suffered greatly in this life, even martyrdom, meet in Heaven to compare notes, we are told that they will all conclude, "Heaven was cheap enough!"
[ February 03, 2011, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro--it is because there is so much that needs to be said, things that are vital, that many here seem not to understand, or else they would not express the unwise things that they say.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
What then did God intend to happen that he did not foresee not happening?
quote:We are born separated from God.
This does not seem to jibe with Jesus being born without sin, and living a perfectly sinless life. Why are we born separated from God, is it really just because? Is God really powerless in that he cannot stop us from beginning life cut off from him? I can understand him allowing us to distance ourselves from him with out choices so that we can learn, but it does not make sense to me that God, who created us, allowed such a fundamental disavantage to remain unchecked. I can certainly accept that an inevitable result of our having free will is sin and death. I can't accept that because of choices Adam and Eve made, every single human being has a sin upon their head. Sins belong to choices we freely make, not circumstances we find ourselves in.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro--it is because there is so much that needs to be said, things that are vital, that many here seem not to understand, or else they would not express the unwise things that they say.
How you think and reason is disturbing to me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, so two separate stories of "This horrible ordeal has been weathered pretty good by this one out of many children in this family, therefore, it was the will of the Lord that it happened to that particular sibling!"
Like, not just one, but two.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, Jesus was born not separated from God, because He was God before He allowed Himself to be joined to the inheritance of man. Separation or unity with God is a spiritual reality. In His Spirit, Jesus was not a sinner. The danger was that in taking human nature, with all its appetites and the weaknesses of the flesh that had accummulated over 4,000 years of continual deterioration, Jesus had made Himself very vulnerable. But He withstood every temptation, even the temptations give by Satan in the wilderness, where He was tested over appetite--the very point where our first parents fell. And He never once chose to yield to temptation and separate Himself from His Father.
There are at least two reasons why God does not instantly change our physical natures so we are perfectly sinless at the moment we are converted and give our hearts to Him. (1) We are not yet fully reconciled to God spiritually, and must yet make more choices so that our conversion can become more and more thorough. We must freely choose all the changes that God makes in us. They are miraculously wrought in us; but God will not violate our freedom of choice. He wants love that is genuine from all His creatures, and love is only genuine if it is completely free. (2) God desires to demonstrate that the question of sin and righteousness does not depend upon our physical nature, they depend upon spiritual reality, the reality of faith, and what we freely choose. So it was that despite having the same physical nature we have, Jesus never gave way to sin even in thought. After all, remember that when Adam and Eve fell, they did have perfect physical natures. They chose to doubt God and disobey Him, even though they had the sinless perfection their Creator originally gave them. So also Lucifer, and the other angels who sided with him in heaven, chose to embrace sin and rebel against God, despite being in the perfection of heaven, besides being in the presence of God himself, besides having not just perfect ntures, but angelic natures. As it has been observed, angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. But in Christ, paradise is restored, for He passed over the same ground our first parents did, and He was victorious where they failed, despite the degeneracy of the physical nature. And just as Christ demonstrated, God also wants to be demonstrated in us, that it is faith, not nature, that really matters. Because for all eternity, and for all creatures on our world, and on every other world where there is intelligent life, and even in heaven among the angels, righteousness for the creature will only consist in faith in the perfect righteousness of God. Righteousness is by faith in God, for all and forever.
Thus we will be a continual lessonbook to the universe, and will travel with Christ throughout the cosmos, to tell our stories.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, Orincoro, if you are unable to understand, then you are unable to understand. Your frame of reference is not high enough or deep enough.
"These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:13, 14)
This is the best I can do to explain these things. I am sorry if it is not good enough for everyone.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Fortunately the church helped her alot in the ensuing years.
The church helped her alot? Glad to hear it's doing better. jk
Anyway, I don't feel like I'm getting answers that address the questions and criticisms I posted, so maybe let's call it a day.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samprimary, Orincoro, if you are unable to understand, then you are unable to understand. Your frame of reference is not high enough or deep enough.
Yes. Your stubborn insistence on logical consistency is a personal failing, you two.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, Orincoro, if you are unable to understand, then you are unable to understand. Your frame of reference is not high enough or deep enough.
Like, the weakness of that particular argument should be profoundly evident. Here is an example: I could look at you and convince myself that the Lord's work is evident in you: he saddled you with such an unreasonable mind knowing that you, of anyone, would be the most capable of remaining steadfastly unaware and content of your failures of logical faculty. One less suited to it would have self-awareness of these faults and become depressed. Hallelujah, the lord allowed this condition to befall upon the one who could most comfortably weather it.
Alternately: this is a bunch of convenient positive-bias assurances. Again.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This brings up the question as to why alternatives where reconciliation with God are assured for all after death, and nobody is left to suffer for all eternity for remaining secular, are not used and this system, according to the bible, is.
I may be reading this wrong, but are you asking why some Christian denominations believe that God doesn't allow everyone into Heaven? Because personally, I believe that anyone who wants to go to Heaven can. That's what Christ's death and resurrection meant: the salvation of humanity. As to the question of why you should even believe in God, if you don't have to in order to enter Heaven, the answer is a) that wanting to go to Heaven isn't something you can do on a whim. If God truly knows all of you, in your good and your bad, then that means that by meeting Him you have to truly want to know yourself and admit all your shortcomings and problems, and some people won't or can't do that. But believing in God in this life helps you to do so. And b) it's a better way of living, and it's good and right to thank Him for this life (which is a gift, even when it feels sucky) and because He wants us to, and you shouldn't question God too much. I hope that's the question you were asking.
As to the question of if there's pain or free will in Heaven, I like the idea of a beatific vision. This is purely speculation, but I think that Heaven allows you to truly understand the Universe and God and everything. *Insert mandatory joke about 42 here*
Please note: I'm not trying to preach, there's a big "I BELIEVE, this may not necessarily be true" in front of all of these statements. I'm by no means an expert on any of this, just putting the ideas out there.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
See, this is what gets me. Why not? What downside could there possibly be in questioning God as much as you can, as often as you can?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that God chose to turn away His face from the Son at Calvary, shows to us that God has truly and fully and forever chosen not to embrace evil, or injustice. He demonstrated mercy and justice coming together, without either being set aside. This is an assurance to all intelligent beings inhabit the universe, that God will never choose to turn toward evil. He does have the power of choice; He created freewill. But He has shown us what His choice is. In that we can rest secure for eternity.
Compared to all the other things that Christ's suffering and death meant, how is this particular doctrine weighted?
quote:Jesus's harshest words were for for those who were most concerned with rules other people were breaking, with those who took a legalistic rather than a loving approach to God's law.
There are a number of temple merchants who disagree with you.
I think we've had this discussion before: when I find the beam in my eye and remove it, I'm still obligated to help remove the mote in my brother's eye. There is not the sense in that particular sermon that one cannot ever remove the beam; there is every sense that one is expected to correct their life, and help others to come to God.
Jesus' condemned the hypocrite, not the righteous who encouraged sinners toward repentance.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jesus's harshest words were for for those who were most concerned with rules other people were breaking, with those who took a legalistic rather than a loving approach to God's law.
There are a number of temple merchants who disagree with you.
I think we've had this discussion before: when I find the beam in my eye and remove it, I'm still obligated to help remove the mote in my brother's eye. There is not the sense in that particular sermon that one cannot ever remove the beam; there is every sense that one is expected to correct their life, and help others to come to God.
Jesus' condemned the hypocrite, not the righteous who encouraged sinners toward repentance.
I'm not sure your logic here really works. In the most famous (I think) example, Jesus tells the crowd that only those without sin can cast stones. He does NOT say "those without the sin of fornication or adultery can cast stones" only those without sin at all.
Therefor, that seems to imply that until you live in absolute perfection, you have not really removed the beam, and are still a hypocrite.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What downside could there possibly be in questioning God as much as you can, as often as you can?
Well, after hearing the answers (or lack of them), people start to leave the church, for one thing...
Think of organized religion like a blockbuster movie. It can be moving or exciting or inspiring or breathtaking or comforting, but usually only as long as you don't poke at the plot holes too much.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people who encourage others toward repentance don't do it through the use of literal stones. I think there's an order of magnitude that's important to pay attention to.
Recall also that Jesus commanded his disciples to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. From Paul's writings (at least), there seems to be a good amount of evidence that that process entailed identifying sin, and persuading others to forsake it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What downside could there possibly be in questioning God as much as you can, as often as you can?
Well, after hearing the answers (or lack of them), people start to leave the church, for one thing...
Think of organized religion like a blockbuster movie. It can be moving or exciting or inspiring or breathtaking or comforting, but usually only as long as you don't poke at the plot holes too much.
So Michael Bay would be a baptist preacher, you think?
ETA: ANd I bet Christopher Nolan would be a Scientologist... "It's so uber-complicated and cool!"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What downside could there possibly be in questioning God as much as you can, as often as you can?
Well, after hearing the answers (or lack of them), people start to leave the church, for one thing...
I haven't observed this to be true. I've observed that religious people tend to ask questions about God more than non-religious people. This is what drives the religious to do Bible study, meditation, etc. and that search for answers seems to more often drive people closer to religion rather than father from it.
A key difference, though, is the assumptions that go into finding the answers to those questions, and the assumptions that deterime which questions get asked. People who question God in a certain way (typically when they assume the assumptions of skepticism) often predictably are driven further from religion, while people who question God in other ways may be driven closer to religion. If you operate with the assumption that belief is foolish unless you can get answers to all your questions, then you're going to become disillusioned with the lack of answers. Folks who treat it like religion is on trial tend to end up dissatisfied with religion, whereas folks who treat it like they are a student trying to learn difficult concepts tend to end up more satisfied after the questioning.
So, I don't see the issue as being with asking questions. The downside comes into play only if you approach those questions in certain ways.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's actually an excellent response to a snarky statement.
There are, however, people who have left the church after starting out as devout believers only wanting more understanding of difficult concepts. *waves*
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, religion is for the credulous. And I have some stones to sell you. When I tell you what they do, keep an open mind and donīt approach my claims with skepticism because if you do, you may not buy them!!
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Most people who encourage others toward repentance don't do it through the use of literal stones. I think there's an order of magnitude that's important to pay attention to.
Recall also that Jesus commanded his disciples to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. From Paul's writings (at least), there seems to be a good amount of evidence that that process entailed identifying sin, and persuading others to forsake it.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Paul didn't actually know Jesus, did he? It's hard to know that Jesus would necessarily have wanted Paul to be doing exactly what he was doing since Paul ISN'T a Gospel.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Most people who encourage others toward repentance don't do it through the use of literal stones. I think there's an order of magnitude that's important to pay attention to.
Recall also that Jesus commanded his disciples to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. From Paul's writings (at least), there seems to be a good amount of evidence that that process entailed identifying sin, and persuading others to forsake it.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Paul didn't actually know Jesus, did he? It's hard to know that Jesus would necessarily have wanted Paul to be doing exactly what he was doing since Paul ISN'T a Gospel.
According to his writings Paul states that he had seen Jesus, and received instructions from him through Ananias.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul wrote a lot of good things but, remember, he was writing, not specifically to "posterity" but to certain groups of people with specific issues.He was trying to get the early Christian community - which was Jewish - to accept Greeks and other non-Jews. Getting them to accept non-circumcision and non-adherence to dietary laws was one thing; getting them to accept certain Greek sexual practices was another.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Apostle Paul also said he received instruction directly from the Lord in visions (he had the prophetic gift). Example: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." (1 Corinthians 11:23-26; NKJV)
Paul himself was certainly not at the Last Supper when Jesus instituted the Communion Service. He was not converted until long after. But this passage in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians is the one most pastors I know of quote when leading out in the Communion Service, because it is so clear in setting forth the sequence of events, and explains the significances of both the the wine and the bread.
kmboots, Paul never at any time advocated that the dietary laws should be disregarded. It was ceremonial observances and feast days that had been fulfilled in Christ that he said were not to be considered obligations any more. Neither did Peter, despite his vision of the sheet let down from heaven (see Acts 10); he himself said that what that dream taught him that he was to call no man unclean (see verse 28). There is no record that Paul, Peter, or any of the other apostles suddenly began eating pork, or shellfish, or spiders, or creeping things of the earth.
[ February 04, 2011, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
