Insofar as forgiveness is only a quality of consciousness, of course the offender cannot rebuff it. But forgiveness can be and often is extended as an act of attempted reconciliation; and the action can be rebuffed.
So? That's not the same thing as rebuffing forgiveness. Forgiveness is not and has never been contingent on the other person accepting the forgiveness.
You wrote,
The forgiveness has been extended; it has not yet been received.
If I extend forgiveness to someone, it means that person has received forgiveness. They're the same thing!
Look, I agree with what you all are saying about forgiveness as pertains to human to human relationships.
We are talking about human relationships.
But there is more to a benevolent society and enlightened thinking than forgiveness alone; for such misdeeds as occur still must be addressed with justice. If a man rapes a woman, it is excellent principally for her sake if she should be able to forgive him; but forgiveness or not, justice demands that he should still go to prison for his crime.
Ok, why?
And no, I'm not saying he shouldn't, but actually assess this: why?
Now all genuine crimes people commit against one another are ultimately crimes against God -- who is the Source of all good things, including both justice and mercy -- Who has no desire to punish anyone, and yet cannot allow any injustice to be simply overlooked or brushed aside. The solution, in traditional Christian thought, is that God satisfied the demand for justice by paying the penalty for all our sins Himself on the cross; and that by this act He purposed to offer reconciliation to all people.
Ok, so by that logic, there's no demand for justice. Problem solved.
Those who go to hell are not those whom God refuses to forgive; all is already forgiven. Those who go to hell are those who refuse the active offer of reconciliation: who either say, "Go away God, I want nothing to do with you," or else, "Don't insult me by saying I'm 'forgiven;' I've done nothing bad enough that needs to be forgiven by You. So I'll take what I deserve, thank you very much." And so God gives them what they want.
Bear in mind that when the Psalmist spoke of Sheol, he was referring simply to the "land of the dead" at a time prior to the Jews conceptualizing a heaven or hell. But I realize that's somewhat evasive, so...
Yes, I'm aware. Another strike against the existence of Hell, really.
I don't know whether it should be logically impossible for an omnipotent and also omnipresent God to create a place where His presence does not reach. But perhaps God can stretch his presence so thin that it would be imperceptible to anyone but Him (just as photons of light still exist in the "utter blackness" of deep space).
That doesn't make any sense. If God is everywhere, then God is everywhere. You can't be less everywhere. If you're infinitely present, then you cannot be less present.
Or perhaps the defining character of hell is that it is inhabited by people who are doing all in their power to deny the presence of God. God is still talking to them, but they are constantly screaming and blasting loud music to totally drown out His voice. Or He is still showing Himself, but they have put on VR headsets or gouged out their eyes or something.
No, that's not what hell is.
Nor does that make any sense. These people are denying the presence of the infinitely powerful, infinitely present everywhere God who threw them into the pit of eternal hellfire in the first place?
I mean these are unfortunate and juvenile, but evil? Why is that evil?
They are the seeds of evil. They complement and are complemented by the desacralization of life itself. No one who really believes that human life is sacred, or that we are created in God's image, would assault or murder another for something as petty as internet notoriety.
No, that wasn't what you were talking about. This is what you were talking about:
but we have lost the ability to condemn the "selfie" narcissism, the YouTube attention whoring,
To which I responded by asking you why, exactly, people taking selfies or posting videos of themselves on Youtube is "evil." It might be immature, but I don't see evil. Justify this.
I used to (about fifteen years ago) be enrapt by the New Agey Conversations With God series of books by Neale Donald Walsh. I've since observed a slew of problems with those books, but they still say some good and even astonishing things. One that has always stuck with me is where Neale asks God, "How can I know this is God talking to me and not just my imagination?" And God replies, "What would be the difference? Don't you see that I can speak to you through your imagination as easily as any other means?"
But if you actually think you're hearing what you think is God's voice in your own mind, that's schizophrenia.
If you think God is talking to you in your own mind, what you're really doing is just ascribing to yourself the authority of God. Which is ridiculous.
I also don't believe that God ever rejects anyone, but only that He confirms some people in their settled rejection of Him.
That is not what the Bible tells us, nor is that in keeping with what hell is, nor is that consistent with your own argument, as you clearly do think God rejects people.
Furthermore, I do not believe the absence of hell invalidates the need to do good. The idea that God will welcome you with open arms no matter what you do is does not entail that what you do does not matter.
Does it matter ultimately or only temporarily?
It matters ultimately. What we do is what we do and can never be undone. The fact that we're all going to the same place, that there is no difference in afterlife between those who are saints and those who are sinners, does not invalidate the need to behave morally.
I'm just going to respond to a couple of things here, and then I'd really like for you to clarify and explain yourself on something you believe before we get back to the business of vivisecting what I believe.
That doesn't make any sense. If God is everywhere, then God is everywhere. You can't be less everywhere. If you're infinitely present, then you cannot be less present.
How does it not make sense? Something can be everywhere while existing at different concentrations from one area to another. Heck, if you accept that people can legitimately have spiritual experiences (in contrast to mundane, everyday experiences), then one reasonable inference would be that God's presence is more concentrated in or around a person at moments of revelation or ecstasy or epiphany.
But if you actually think you're hearing what you think is God's voice in your own mind, that's schizophrenia.
If you think God is talking to you in your own mind, what you're really doing is just ascribing to yourself the authority of God. Which is ridiculous.
To be clear, the Conversations With God books maintain a pantheistic worldview. In which case, yes, everyone has the "authority of God," meaning that no one has any special authority at all.
Now, here's what I really need you to explain:
It matters ultimately. What we do is what we do and can never be undone. The fact that we're all going to the same place, that there is no difference in afterlife between those who are saints and those who are sinners, does not invalidate the need to behave morally.
First of all, if God is God, why is it that "what we do," as temporal little humans, can never be undone?
More importantly, how does complete afterlife equivalence, the proposition that John Wayne Gacy and Mother Teresa are in the same place, not invalidate the need to behave morally? If we're all getting let into Disneyland no matter what, how does that not invalidate the need to buy a ticket?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
More importantly, how does complete afterlife equivalence, the proposition that John Wayne Gacy and Mother Teresa are in the same place, not invalidate the need to behave morally? If we're all getting let into Disneyland no matter what, how does that not invalidate the need to buy a ticket?
If I tell you that bad people will die young and good people will die old, and you counter that both good and bad people can die at any age, have you therefore invalidated the need to behave morally? No, because there may be other reasons to behave morally besides trying to die old instead of young.
Besides, I was under the impression you liked Calvinist predestination (since it makes our actions unimportant). What need is there to behave morally if all that matters is whether you're one of the elect?
If I tell you that bad people will die young and good people will die old, and you counter that both good and bad people can die at any age, have you therefore invalidated the need to behave morally? No, because there may be other reasons to behave morally besides trying to die old instead of young.
And all those reasons have to do with our relationships and consciousness and stature in this life, do they not?
Besides, I was under the impression you liked Calvinist predestination (since it makes our actions unimportant). What need is there to behave morally if all that matters is whether you're one of the elect?
I don't believe in Calvinist predestination and I apologize if I gave that impression.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
More importantly, how does complete afterlife equivalence, the proposition that John Wayne Gacy and Mother Teresa are in the same place, not invalidate the need to behave morally? If we're all getting let into Disneyland no matter what, how does that not invalidate the need to buy a ticket?
Quote from attributed to Aristotle »
I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.
Quote from Immanuel Kant »
Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another.
Quote from Kant again »
If the action would be good solely as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary, in virtue of its principle, for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical....
...an imperative concerned with the choice of means to one's own happiness... still remains hypothetical: an action is commanded, not absolutely, but only as a means to a further purpose....
[The categorical imperative] is concerned, not with the matter of the action and its presumed results, but with its form and with the principle from which it follows; and what is essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may. This imperative may be called the imperative of morality.
If you are only being good because you desire the reward of heaven and fear the punishment of hell, you're doing it wrong. And frankly, it's that kind of talk that creeps out atheists. Are we supposed to believe that the faithful are closeted sociopaths, that if they thought there was no God or afterlife they'd run rampant? That's an awfully nihilistic, shallow, and - to repeat Kant - immature theory of morality.
Fortunately, most of the major Christian denominations expressly repudiate it. Ask any priest or pastor: you do have to be good for its own sake, regardless of the potential consequences, even if there is no Heaven. (And I can't help but point out that, according to Ecclesiastes, there isn't.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because infinity minus one is still infinity. You can't be omnipresent and not be somewhere, that doesn't make any sense. To be infinity present means you are present infinitely. You cannot be infinitely present everywhere and then be less-than-infinity present anywhere, that's a direct contradiction.
Heck, if you accept that people can legitimately have spiritual experiences (in contrast to mundane, everyday experiences), then one reasonable inference would be that God's presence is more concentrated in or around a person at moments of revelation or ecstasy or epiphany.
No, that's ridiculous. Someone might be more aware of God, but that doesn't mean God is any less there. Again, omnipresent.
In which case, yes, everyone has the "authority of God," meaning that no one has any special authority at all.
Which is dumb. And wrong.
It matters ultimately. What we do is what we do and can never be undone. The fact that we're all going to the same place, that there is no difference in afterlife between those who are saints and those who are sinners, does not invalidate the need to behave morally.
First of all, if God is God, why is it that "what we do," as temporal little humans, can never be undone?
Can you travel back in time?
More importantly, how does complete afterlife equivalence, the proposition that John Wayne Gacy and Mother Teresa are in the same place, not invalidate the need to behave morally?
So the only reason you behave morally is the fear of punishment or the promise of reward? That's the only reason?
No, that's ridiculous. Someone might be more aware of God, but that doesn't mean God is any less there. Again, omnipresent.
So if omnipresent means "equally present everywhere," should that not include within human consciousness? How then is it possible for some to be more aware of God than others?
Which is dumb.
Yes, well, pantheism has problems.
Can you travel back in time?
Not of my own power, no. But God exists outside of time and could theoretically undo past deeds, or create an alternate history and then make that the actual history. (Not saying the Christian God would, since that would be effectively be lying; but it doesn't on the face of it strike me as a logical impossibility.)
So the only reason you behave morally is the fear of punishment or the promise of reward? That's the only reason?
Not at all. You're missing the point.
I mean, you still haven't said if you believe that there's a hierarchy in heaven: if those who were the servants in this life become the masters and vice versa, that the last shall be first and the first last (Luke 13:29-30). If so, then I can accept that. But your lack of clarity is leaving me here to assume that God makes everyone's condition in heaven equal.
In that case, it would be better to be an atheist. Because, yes, to do good and to avoid evil only out of hope for reward/fear of punishment is indeed a very "low" morality. But without there being some kind of divine reward or punishment, or at least some spectrum of divine consequences that distinguish between good and evil deeds and lives, you have a God who confirms moral relativism. That is worse (even just for us right here and now) than no God at all, because it lends the weight of divine sanction to amoral self-indulgence.
An atheist who steps on others to reach his goals must say, "I'm just looking out for number one; it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, etc." He must adopt a defensive posture against his critics and perhaps he really will feel some pangs of conscience. But a theist who believes that God loves her just the same and will treat her just the same no matter what she does, and who steps on others to reach her goals, will say, "God wants me to follow my bliss and do what it takes to reach my goals, no matter what the haters say." She has taken an assertive posture and will be better inoculated against criticism through the confidence that God is right by her side, helping her to reach the top, no matter how many of the steps He places before her are laid on the backs of her neighbors.
EDIT:
@Blinking Spirit,
Yes, we should indeed be good "for goodness' sake." But if one believes in a God who decrees that there is no functional distinction between good and evil, where then does that leave us?
Going back to your beliefs on hell, Pandas, the thing we're seeing here from you is sometimes referred to as "mental gymnastics." In essence, your mind is basically twisting around trying to make everything fit together with the conclusion you've just taken as a given is true.
Let me demonstrate to you the problem, and why you're having such a hard time here:
Your argument seems to be that God is infinitely loving and merciful and such, yet there is still a hell, a place of infinite suffering people go to for all of eternity. Hell is not somewhere God wants to send anybody, but that being said, almost all save a small fraction of the human race will go there. This is just, because Hell is the place these people deserve to go, yet at the same time God sends people to Heaven, which is not eternal suffering, and which none of these people actually earned or could deserve to go. Still, you claim it's logically impossible for God to send everyone there. Your claim is that this is all perfectly justified due to the fact that God is actually inviting everyone into heaven, and wants everybody to go to heaven, but the vast, vast, vast majority of people are rejecting God's invitation, and are instead willingly self-imposing themselves into hell, where the infinite agony is actually supplied by them, and they are choosing to stay there for all of eternity.
Let's start with the most obvious problem with this: That's not the hell that's being described in the Bible. You keep talking about Biblical justification, and quoting Bible passages, but hell as described in the Bible goes completely against that. The Hell as depicted in the Bible is recognized as a pit of horrible agony, wailing, and gnashing of teeth that God will send sinners to out of his wrath. God, out of wrath, casts the sinners into horrible fire and suffering because he wishes for them to suffer an eternity of his anger. It is a terrible place God sends the wicked. Moreover, the Bible depicts a final judgment, in which God separates those to be sent to heaven from those sent to hell, so it is God's choice as to whom to send to hell. Nor do these people choose to go there, as the Gospels depict people as pleading for God's mercy and to enter the Kingdom of God, only to face God's rejection. God's rejection is a defining point of hell, perhaps the defining point of hell.
So what you're describing, especially your claim that God doesn't reject anyone, is not only not recognizable as Biblical hell, but is also in multiple ways the opposite of Biblical hell. Every depiction of hell in Scripture contradicts your characterization of hell.
Which prompts the question as to why you are arguing for your idea of hell over the Biblical idea of hell. And I think it's pretty clear why. As you stated earlier, many Christians have looked at hell and found it morally disturbing, and in turn have attempted to reconcile it with an infinitely loving, infinitely moral God,
But what you're describing is an attempt to say that hell's existence is reconcilable with an infinitely loving, infinitely forgiving God by claiming that hell is an entirely different thing from what the Bible describes hell as. That's not a valid answer. That's avoiding the question. You can't say that you've demonstrated how hell's existence is logically consistent with the idea of a loving God by arguing that a totally different place is reconcilable with God, because you're addressing a totally different place and not hell!
That entire approach is disingenuous. basically acknowledges that a loving, forgiving God is irreconcilable with hell, but the arguer doesn't want to admit that the two are irreconcilable because that idea is somehow threatening to him, and so tries to find some way of reconciling the irreconcilable anyway, twisting arguments and thoughts in mental gymnastics to try to get them to fit.
It's denial.
Now, we can discuss the problems with your version of hell, and why it is also logically problematic and contradicts a loving, omnipotent, forgiving God, but to me the errors in your argument aren't as important as why you are making the argument in the first place.
Why do you need there to be a hell so badly, Pandas?
Is it because you cannot accept the possibility that you might be incorrect?
Also, a friend of mine pointing out something I found funny and poignant: if every single person who goes to hell wanted to go to hell, and, as you claim, God sent them to hell because he's just giving them what they want, then by that logic, God is just giving everyone what they want. Right? So how is that a punishment? Isn't God rewarding them by your logic? He's giving them what they want. And if God is rewarding them by sending them to hell, then by your logic, why bother with heaven or Christianity? See how it doesn't make sense? Especially in light of your being against moral relativism?
Yes, we should indeed be good "for goodness' sake." But if one believes in a God who decrees that there is no functional distinction between good and evil, where then does that leave us?
It kinda sounds like it leaves you being good for goodness' sake...
Yes, we should indeed be good "for goodness' sake." But if one believes in a God who decrees that there is no functional distinction between good and evil, where then does that leave us?
God or no God, there is always a functional distinction between good and evil. Doing good things is not the same as doing bad things. That's just trivial. As far as moral knowledge goes, the believer and the nonbeliever are in exactly the same position: Neither has experience of the afterlife. Neither can perform repeated experiments to find out what's good and what's evil by seeing which afterlife any given act earns. Both must determine good and evil by examining the act itself, using their reason, and discussing it with others. The truth is that there is no functional distinction between Godly and Godless morality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But without there being some kind of divine reward or punishment, or at least some spectrum of divine consequences that distinguish between good and evil deeds and lives, you have a God who confirms moral relativism.
False dichotomy. Lack of God giving out a special reward for good or a special punishment for evil does not mean that moral judgments are invalidated.
So the only reason you behave morally is the fear of punishment or the promise of reward? That's the only reason?
Not at all. You're missing the point.
No, I'm not, because that's exactly what you're saying. Look at what you post afterward:
But without there being some kind of divine reward or punishment, or at least some spectrum of divine consequences that distinguish between good and evil deeds and lives, you have a God who confirms moral relativism. That is worse (even just for us right here and now) than no God at all, because it lends the weight of divine sanction to amoral self-indulgence.
Which says that the only reason you behave morally is the fear of punishment and the promise of reward. You basically said ethics is completely invalidated otherwise.
Now, Pandas, do you see what you did there? I asked you if you believe that the only reason to do good is because of the fear of punishment and the promise of reward. You said, "No, I don't believe that at all, what I believe is that without the fear of punishment and the promise of reward, there's no reason to do good."
So the answer is yes, you believe that the only reason to be good is because of a special reward for being good and a special punishment for being bad.
Why do you need there to be a hell so badly, Pandas?
Is it because you cannot accept the possibility that you might be incorrect?
You know what? Maybe the truth is that I am indeed a person of "low" morality. Maybe I do bank on the promise of heaven and the threat of hell to keep me from doing bad things -- not criminal things as the world reckons them, mind you. I simply feel no desire to rob or rape or kill.
But if there are no divine consequences, why am I "wasting" my life away with a wife who has a *****load of health problems that prevent her from working, that (along with her disposition for indulging her kids) leaves us always just scraping by from paycheck to paycheck, and I often feeling more like a caretaker than a husband? That should be the role of someone twice my age, at least, at the end of a long and mutually enjoyable marriage, not a marriage that has been saddled by sickness from day one. Why don't I leave and pursue my desires and put my needs first and actually save some money and not live on the edge of the financial abyss?
Because running out on my wife and stepkids would be "ignoble" or a "rotten" thing to do? Hah -- who cares in this society anymore? People are divorcing left and right and talking about how much freer they feel after the fact, how much better to be out of the shackles of that restrictive relationship. And I could always spin it (to myself and others) to make myself out as the long-suffering victim of an insecure, obsessive and needy wife, which is indeed how I have felt at times.
But if there is inherently something noble about persevering in hard circumstances... I mean, without a God, I honestly don't see it. What's the point of cultivating good character, rather than being just a *****ty person, if you'll die just the same and all your deeds be forgotten in a hundred years or less? I mean, if being a *****ty person is funner and freer and more immediately gratifying (in a world where, after all, we can never be sure of living to see tomorrow -- momento mori), then why not be *****ty?
"If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'" (1 Cor. 15:32) Yeah, I agree with Paul. I really do.
And you can all look down your noses in judgment and say, "Poor Pandas, he's so muddled in the head, so ****ed up." Go ahead and say it. Maybe some human minds are inherently capable of valuing what is good for its own sake, just as some are capable of doing higher calculus -- and others not. Maybe I'm smart in some ways and very stupid in others. I can take that. But stop trying to tell me that it makes no difference to God how I live my life, because the guilt may be on your head if I once again succumb to despair and believe it.
If, Highroller, you are indeed a Christian, then read carefully and bear in mind the admonitions of Romans 14. Also, do not PM me about any of this. Even if foolishly, I am putting this all out in public view; so I will insist you do me the courtesy of keeping it public. If you PM me I will not respond or acknowledge it. Address me openly or not at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Why do you need there to be a hell so badly, Pandas?
Is it because you cannot accept the possibility that you might be incorrect?
You know what? Maybe the truth is that I am indeed a person of "low" morality. Maybe I do bank on the promise of heaven and the threat of hell to keep me from doing bad things -- not criminal things as the world reckons them, mind you. I simply feel no desire to rob or rape or kill.
But if there are no divine consequences, why am I "wasting" my life away with a wife who has a *****load of health problems that prevent her from working, that (along with her disposition for indulging her kids) leaves us always just scraping by from paycheck to paycheck, and I often feeling more like a caretaker than a husband? That should be the role of someone twice my age, at least, at the end of a long and mutually enjoyable marriage, not a marriage that has been saddled by sickness from day one. Why don't I leave and pursue my desires and put my needs first and actually save some money and not live on the edge of the financial abyss?
Because running out on my wife and stepkids would be "ignoble" or a "rotten" thing to do? Hah -- who cares in this society anymore? People are divorcing left and right and talking about how much freer they feel after the fact, how much better to be out of the shackles of that restrictive relationship. And I could always spin it (to myself and others) to make myself out as the long-suffering victim of an insecure, obsessive and needy wife, which is indeed how I have felt at times.
But if there is inherently something noble about persevering in hard circumstances... I mean, without a God, I honestly don't see it. What's the point of cultivating good character, rather than being just a *****ty person, if you'll die just the same and all your deeds be forgotten in a hundred years or less? I mean, if being a *****ty person is funner and freer and more immediately gratifying (in a world where, after all, we can never be sure of living to see tomorrow -- momento mori), then why not be *****ty?
That's for you to answer.
And you can all look down your noses in judgment and say, "Poor Pandas, he's so muddled in the head, so ****ed up." Go ahead and say it.
Why would we want to do that?
But stop trying to tell me that it makes no difference to God how I live my life, because the guilt may be on your head if I once again succumb to despair and believe it.
This shame spiral you're in is not despair?
I've never once said it didn't make a difference to God how you live your life. What I did say is that God won't torture you forever for the mistakes you make.
Now if you want to torment yourself forever, you have that freedom. But that's not recommended.
Jesus talks a lot about sin in our hearts as well as sin in action. Is wanting to do something bad but avoiding it because you want to go to heaven really any better than actually doing something bad in God's eyes?
I've never once said it didn't make a difference to God how you live your life. What I did say is that God won't torture you forever for the mistakes you make.
Now if you want to torment yourself forever, you have that freedom. But that's not recommended.
Actually, shortly after making that last post, I felt a weight lifted from my shoulders. Because I had admitted the truth about myself, and that was where I needed to go all along. Yes, I am in my nature a man of low morality; and I don't need to justify that, anymore than I need to justify my inability to do calculus or perform a three foot vertical leap, because it is God who justifies.
Jesus talks a lot about sin in our hearts as well as sin in action. Is wanting to do something bad but avoiding it because you want to go to heaven really any better than actually doing something bad in God's eyes?
Of course it's better! Because while the rewards (such as they are) for sinning are obvious, worldly and immediate, one must take the future, heavenly reward for not sinning on faith. That alone proves that you are taking seriously (even if in immaturely) God's existence, His moral character, and His ability to reward.
Even so, you are right, goodness is not a matter only of doing or not doing; the desires of one's heart matter. Jesus wanted people to understand that no one is good through and through; that we all have sin in our hearts and so must not make the error of standing in judgment on one another or (even worse) acting self-righteously towards God.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Of course it's better! Because while the rewards (such as they are) for sinning are obvious, worldly and immediate, one must take the future, heavenly reward for not sinning on faith. That alone proves that you are taking seriously (even if in immaturely) God's existence, His moral character, and His ability to reward.
Even so, you are right, goodness is not a matter only of doing or not doing; the desires of one's heart matter. Jesus wanted people to understand that no one is good through and through; that we all have sin in our hearts and so must not make the error of standing in judgment on one another or (even worse) acting self-righteously towards God.
So here's the problem then: If we're already sinning in our hearts, and we still get to go to heaven because we accept forgiveness, can we not also sin in actions and go to heaven because we accept forgiveness? If you want to ditch your family, you've already sinned, and are banking on forgiveness. You could just as well actually ditch them and get forgiveness. What does this morality offer over atheism if you can do bad things and accept forgiveness later?
So here's the problem then: If we're already sinning in our hearts, and we still get to go to heaven because we accept forgiveness, can we not also sin in actions and go to heaven because we accept forgiveness? If you want to ditch your family, you've already sinned, and are banking on forgiveness. You could just as well actually ditch them and get forgiveness. What does this morality offer over atheism if you can do bad things and accept forgiveness later?
Yeah, Paul addressed this, especially seeing as forgiveness of actions necessitates more grace than forgiveness of thoughts:
"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" (Romans 6:1-3)
You can't ever eliminate sin from your life; but you can certainly cultivate self awareness and discipline, and take it seriously, and do everything you can do to sin as little as possible. To be Christian is to seek to live in imitation of Christ. It's not an invitation to go on a killing spree because you've got a divine "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
But if there are no divine consequences, why am I "wasting" my life away with a wife who has a *****load of health problems that prevent her from working, that (along with her disposition for indulging her kids) leaves us always just scraping by from paycheck to paycheck, and I often feeling more like a caretaker than a husband?
But, the divine consequences of ditching and not ditching are the same. Either way you're a sinner, and either way you can be forgiven. How do you reconcile this with your claim that divine consequences are so important?
But, the divine consequences of ditching and not ditching are the same. Either way you're a sinner, and either way you can be forgiven. How do you reconcile this with your claim that divine consequences are so important?
Not all sins are equivalent. The Bible states that there are degrees of punishment in hell (i.e. Matthew 11:20-24) and degrees of reward in heaven (i.e. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15).
When you know that something is wrong and do it anyway, that is a worse offense than when you act from a degree of ignorance. And if you do wrong willfully while counting on God's forgiveness to make it all okay, that indicates that you don't actually take God seriously; which certainly cannot be auspicious for the condition of your soul.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Actually, shortly after making that last post, I felt a weight lifted from my shoulders. Because I had admitted the truth about myself, and that was where I needed to go all along. Yes, I am in my nature a man of low morality; and I don't need to justify that, anymore than I need to justify my inability to do calculus or perform a three foot vertical leap, because it is God who justifies.
No, this doesn't have anything to do with God or religion. It has to do with you. This has to do with your need to justify yourself.
And the answer is no. Of course you're not morally justified.
If you truly have no love for your wife, and no love for your children; if you truly resent them to the point where you actively see them as burdens, as wastes of your time, to the point where you would gladly cut them out of your life; if the threat of external punishment from God truly is the only thing that prevents you from doing so, then leave.
All of this is, of course, completely irrelevant to the discussion. This should not be a discussion about anyone's personal life. This is supposed to be a discussion about Christianity.
Furthermore this:
But stop trying to tell me that it makes no difference to God how I live my life, because the guilt may be on your head if I once again succumb to despair and believe it.
Is a self-seeking, narcissistic threat that has no place here.
It doesn't matter how much you need a belief to be true. If it is not true, it is not true. This is a discussion on truth.
Now can we please get back to a discussion on how it is irreconcilable that God can be loving and forgiving and still damn people to hell? Can we get back to a discussion on God, and not Pandas? That'd be great.
No, this doesn't have anything to do with God or religion. It has to do with you. This has to do with your need to justify yourself.
And the answer is no. Of course you're not morally justified.
Exactly. I'm not justified. I can't justify myself. It is God who justifies.
All of this is, of course, completely irrelevant to the discussion. This should not be a discussion about anyone's personal life. This is supposed to be a discussion about Christianity.
If Christianity had no bearing on peoples' personal lives, it wouldn't be worth discussing.
Now can we please get back to a discussion on how it is irreconcilable that God can be loving and forgiving and still damn people to hell? Can we get back to a discussion on God, and not Pandas? That'd be great.
]Not all sins are equivalent. The Bible states that there are degrees of punishment in hell (i.e. Matthew 11:20-24) and degrees of reward in heaven (i.e. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15).
When you know that something is wrong and do it anyway, that is a worse offense than when you act from a degree of ignorance. And if you do wrong willfully while counting on God's forgiveness to make it all okay, that indicates that you don't actually take God seriously; which certainly cannot be auspicious for the condition of your soul.
Not all sins are equivalent, but it doesn't matter once you're forgiven for them. If you retain some amount of reward or punishment, then you haven't been truly forgiven.
You wrote,
If I extend forgiveness to someone, it means that person has received forgiveness. They're the same thing!
We are talking about human relationships.
Ok, why?
And no, I'm not saying he shouldn't, but actually assess this: why?
Ok, so by that logic, there's no demand for justice. Problem solved.
... Matthew 25.
_______
Yes, I'm aware. Another strike against the existence of Hell, really.
That doesn't make any sense. If God is everywhere, then God is everywhere. You can't be less everywhere. If you're infinitely present, then you cannot be less present.
No, that's not what hell is.
Nor does that make any sense. These people are denying the presence of the infinitely powerful, infinitely present everywhere God who threw them into the pit of eternal hellfire in the first place?
No, that wasn't what you were talking about. This is what you were talking about:
To which I responded by asking you why, exactly, people taking selfies or posting videos of themselves on Youtube is "evil." It might be immature, but I don't see evil. Justify this.
No, that's bullcrap.
It's one thing to imagine having a dialogue with God. It's one thing to, for the purposes of literature, characterize your internal philosophical dialogue as an external philosophical dialogue with Philosophy personified.
But if you actually think you're hearing what you think is God's voice in your own mind, that's schizophrenia.
If you think God is talking to you in your own mind, what you're really doing is just ascribing to yourself the authority of God. Which is ridiculous.
That is not what the Bible tells us, nor is that in keeping with what hell is, nor is that consistent with your own argument, as you clearly do think God rejects people.
It matters ultimately. What we do is what we do and can never be undone. The fact that we're all going to the same place, that there is no difference in afterlife between those who are saints and those who are sinners, does not invalidate the need to behave morally.
I'm just going to respond to a couple of things here, and then I'd really like for you to clarify and explain yourself on something you believe before we get back to the business of vivisecting what I believe.
How does it not make sense? Something can be everywhere while existing at different concentrations from one area to another. Heck, if you accept that people can legitimately have spiritual experiences (in contrast to mundane, everyday experiences), then one reasonable inference would be that God's presence is more concentrated in or around a person at moments of revelation or ecstasy or epiphany.
To be clear, the Conversations With God books maintain a pantheistic worldview. In which case, yes, everyone has the "authority of God," meaning that no one has any special authority at all.
Now, here's what I really need you to explain:
First of all, if God is God, why is it that "what we do," as temporal little humans, can never be undone?
More importantly, how does complete afterlife equivalence, the proposition that John Wayne Gacy and Mother Teresa are in the same place, not invalidate the need to behave morally? If we're all getting let into Disneyland no matter what, how does that not invalidate the need to buy a ticket?
If I tell you that bad people will die young and good people will die old, and you counter that both good and bad people can die at any age, have you therefore invalidated the need to behave morally? No, because there may be other reasons to behave morally besides trying to die old instead of young.
Besides, I was under the impression you liked Calvinist predestination (since it makes our actions unimportant). What need is there to behave morally if all that matters is whether you're one of the elect?
I don't believe in Calvinist predestination and I apologize if I gave that impression.
If you are only being good because you desire the reward of heaven and fear the punishment of hell, you're doing it wrong. And frankly, it's that kind of talk that creeps out atheists. Are we supposed to believe that the faithful are closeted sociopaths, that if they thought there was no God or afterlife they'd run rampant? That's an awfully nihilistic, shallow, and - to repeat Kant - immature theory of morality.
Fortunately, most of the major Christian denominations expressly repudiate it. Ask any priest or pastor: you do have to be good for its own sake, regardless of the potential consequences, even if there is no Heaven. (And I can't help but point out that, according to Ecclesiastes, there isn't.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
They might or they might not.
I guess you're not willing to follow your own reasoning, then.
No, that's ridiculous. Someone might be more aware of God, but that doesn't mean God is any less there. Again, omnipresent.
Which is dumb. And wrong.
Can you travel back in time?
So the only reason you behave morally is the fear of punishment or the promise of reward? That's the only reason?
Yes, well, pantheism has problems.
Not of my own power, no. But God exists outside of time and could theoretically undo past deeds, or create an alternate history and then make that the actual history. (Not saying the Christian God would, since that would be effectively be lying; but it doesn't on the face of it strike me as a logical impossibility.)
Not at all. You're missing the point.
I mean, you still haven't said if you believe that there's a hierarchy in heaven: if those who were the servants in this life become the masters and vice versa, that the last shall be first and the first last (Luke 13:29-30). If so, then I can accept that. But your lack of clarity is leaving me here to assume that God makes everyone's condition in heaven equal.
In that case, it would be better to be an atheist. Because, yes, to do good and to avoid evil only out of hope for reward/fear of punishment is indeed a very "low" morality. But without there being some kind of divine reward or punishment, or at least some spectrum of divine consequences that distinguish between good and evil deeds and lives, you have a God who confirms moral relativism. That is worse (even just for us right here and now) than no God at all, because it lends the weight of divine sanction to amoral self-indulgence.
An atheist who steps on others to reach his goals must say, "I'm just looking out for number one; it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, etc." He must adopt a defensive posture against his critics and perhaps he really will feel some pangs of conscience. But a theist who believes that God loves her just the same and will treat her just the same no matter what she does, and who steps on others to reach her goals, will say, "God wants me to follow my bliss and do what it takes to reach my goals, no matter what the haters say." She has taken an assertive posture and will be better inoculated against criticism through the confidence that God is right by her side, helping her to reach the top, no matter how many of the steps He places before her are laid on the backs of her neighbors.
EDIT:
@Blinking Spirit,
Yes, we should indeed be good "for goodness' sake." But if one believes in a God who decrees that there is no functional distinction between good and evil, where then does that leave us?
Let me demonstrate to you the problem, and why you're having such a hard time here:
Your argument seems to be that God is infinitely loving and merciful and such, yet there is still a hell, a place of infinite suffering people go to for all of eternity. Hell is not somewhere God wants to send anybody, but that being said, almost all save a small fraction of the human race will go there. This is just, because Hell is the place these people deserve to go, yet at the same time God sends people to Heaven, which is not eternal suffering, and which none of these people actually earned or could deserve to go. Still, you claim it's logically impossible for God to send everyone there. Your claim is that this is all perfectly justified due to the fact that God is actually inviting everyone into heaven, and wants everybody to go to heaven, but the vast, vast, vast majority of people are rejecting God's invitation, and are instead willingly self-imposing themselves into hell, where the infinite agony is actually supplied by them, and they are choosing to stay there for all of eternity.
Let's start with the most obvious problem with this: That's not the hell that's being described in the Bible. You keep talking about Biblical justification, and quoting Bible passages, but hell as described in the Bible goes completely against that. The Hell as depicted in the Bible is recognized as a pit of horrible agony, wailing, and gnashing of teeth that God will send sinners to out of his wrath. God, out of wrath, casts the sinners into horrible fire and suffering because he wishes for them to suffer an eternity of his anger. It is a terrible place God sends the wicked. Moreover, the Bible depicts a final judgment, in which God separates those to be sent to heaven from those sent to hell, so it is God's choice as to whom to send to hell. Nor do these people choose to go there, as the Gospels depict people as pleading for God's mercy and to enter the Kingdom of God, only to face God's rejection. God's rejection is a defining point of hell, perhaps the defining point of hell.
So what you're describing, especially your claim that God doesn't reject anyone, is not only not recognizable as Biblical hell, but is also in multiple ways the opposite of Biblical hell. Every depiction of hell in Scripture contradicts your characterization of hell.
Which prompts the question as to why you are arguing for your idea of hell over the Biblical idea of hell. And I think it's pretty clear why. As you stated earlier, many Christians have looked at hell and found it morally disturbing, and in turn have attempted to reconcile it with an infinitely loving, infinitely moral God,
But what you're describing is an attempt to say that hell's existence is reconcilable with an infinitely loving, infinitely forgiving God by claiming that hell is an entirely different thing from what the Bible describes hell as. That's not a valid answer. That's avoiding the question. You can't say that you've demonstrated how hell's existence is logically consistent with the idea of a loving God by arguing that a totally different place is reconcilable with God, because you're addressing a totally different place and not hell!
That entire approach is disingenuous. basically acknowledges that a loving, forgiving God is irreconcilable with hell, but the arguer doesn't want to admit that the two are irreconcilable because that idea is somehow threatening to him, and so tries to find some way of reconciling the irreconcilable anyway, twisting arguments and thoughts in mental gymnastics to try to get them to fit.
It's denial.
Now, we can discuss the problems with your version of hell, and why it is also logically problematic and contradicts a loving, omnipotent, forgiving God, but to me the errors in your argument aren't as important as why you are making the argument in the first place.
Why do you need there to be a hell so badly, Pandas?
Is it because you cannot accept the possibility that you might be incorrect?
Also, a friend of mine pointing out something I found funny and poignant: if every single person who goes to hell wanted to go to hell, and, as you claim, God sent them to hell because he's just giving them what they want, then by that logic, God is just giving everyone what they want. Right? So how is that a punishment? Isn't God rewarding them by your logic? He's giving them what they want. And if God is rewarding them by sending them to hell, then by your logic, why bother with heaven or Christianity? See how it doesn't make sense? Especially in light of your being against moral relativism?
It kinda sounds like it leaves you being good for goodness' sake...
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, I'm not, because that's exactly what you're saying. Look at what you post afterward:
Which says that the only reason you behave morally is the fear of punishment and the promise of reward. You basically said ethics is completely invalidated otherwise.
Now, Pandas, do you see what you did there? I asked you if you believe that the only reason to do good is because of the fear of punishment and the promise of reward. You said, "No, I don't believe that at all, what I believe is that without the fear of punishment and the promise of reward, there's no reason to do good."
So the answer is yes, you believe that the only reason to be good is because of a special reward for being good and a special punishment for being bad.
But if there are no divine consequences, why am I "wasting" my life away with a wife who has a *****load of health problems that prevent her from working, that (along with her disposition for indulging her kids) leaves us always just scraping by from paycheck to paycheck, and I often feeling more like a caretaker than a husband? That should be the role of someone twice my age, at least, at the end of a long and mutually enjoyable marriage, not a marriage that has been saddled by sickness from day one. Why don't I leave and pursue my desires and put my needs first and actually save some money and not live on the edge of the financial abyss?
Because running out on my wife and stepkids would be "ignoble" or a "rotten" thing to do? Hah -- who cares in this society anymore? People are divorcing left and right and talking about how much freer they feel after the fact, how much better to be out of the shackles of that restrictive relationship. And I could always spin it (to myself and others) to make myself out as the long-suffering victim of an insecure, obsessive and needy wife, which is indeed how I have felt at times.
But if there is inherently something noble about persevering in hard circumstances... I mean, without a God, I honestly don't see it. What's the point of cultivating good character, rather than being just a *****ty person, if you'll die just the same and all your deeds be forgotten in a hundred years or less? I mean, if being a *****ty person is funner and freer and more immediately gratifying (in a world where, after all, we can never be sure of living to see tomorrow -- momento mori), then why not be *****ty?
"If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'" (1 Cor. 15:32) Yeah, I agree with Paul. I really do.
And you can all look down your noses in judgment and say, "Poor Pandas, he's so muddled in the head, so ****ed up." Go ahead and say it. Maybe some human minds are inherently capable of valuing what is good for its own sake, just as some are capable of doing higher calculus -- and others not. Maybe I'm smart in some ways and very stupid in others. I can take that. But stop trying to tell me that it makes no difference to God how I live my life, because the guilt may be on your head if I once again succumb to despair and believe it.
If, Highroller, you are indeed a Christian, then read carefully and bear in mind the admonitions of Romans 14. Also, do not PM me about any of this. Even if foolishly, I am putting this all out in public view; so I will insist you do me the courtesy of keeping it public. If you PM me I will not respond or acknowledge it. Address me openly or not at all.
Why would we want to do that?
This shame spiral you're in is not despair?
I've never once said it didn't make a difference to God how you live your life. What I did say is that God won't torture you forever for the mistakes you make.
Now if you want to torment yourself forever, you have that freedom. But that's not recommended.
Of course it's better! Because while the rewards (such as they are) for sinning are obvious, worldly and immediate, one must take the future, heavenly reward for not sinning on faith. That alone proves that you are taking seriously (even if in immaturely) God's existence, His moral character, and His ability to reward.
Even so, you are right, goodness is not a matter only of doing or not doing; the desires of one's heart matter. Jesus wanted people to understand that no one is good through and through; that we all have sin in our hearts and so must not make the error of standing in judgment on one another or (even worse) acting self-righteously towards God.
So here's the problem then: If we're already sinning in our hearts, and we still get to go to heaven because we accept forgiveness, can we not also sin in actions and go to heaven because we accept forgiveness? If you want to ditch your family, you've already sinned, and are banking on forgiveness. You could just as well actually ditch them and get forgiveness. What does this morality offer over atheism if you can do bad things and accept forgiveness later?
Yeah, Paul addressed this, especially seeing as forgiveness of actions necessitates more grace than forgiveness of thoughts:
"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" (Romans 6:1-3)
You can't ever eliminate sin from your life; but you can certainly cultivate self awareness and discipline, and take it seriously, and do everything you can do to sin as little as possible. To be Christian is to seek to live in imitation of Christ. It's not an invitation to go on a killing spree because you've got a divine "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
But, the divine consequences of ditching and not ditching are the same. Either way you're a sinner, and either way you can be forgiven. How do you reconcile this with your claim that divine consequences are so important?
When you know that something is wrong and do it anyway, that is a worse offense than when you act from a degree of ignorance. And if you do wrong willfully while counting on God's forgiveness to make it all okay, that indicates that you don't actually take God seriously; which certainly cannot be auspicious for the condition of your soul.
And the answer is no. Of course you're not morally justified.
If you truly have no love for your wife, and no love for your children; if you truly resent them to the point where you actively see them as burdens, as wastes of your time, to the point where you would gladly cut them out of your life; if the threat of external punishment from God truly is the only thing that prevents you from doing so, then leave.
All of this is, of course, completely irrelevant to the discussion. This should not be a discussion about anyone's personal life. This is supposed to be a discussion about Christianity.
Furthermore this:
Is a self-seeking, narcissistic threat that has no place here.
It doesn't matter how much you need a belief to be true. If it is not true, it is not true. This is a discussion on truth.
Now can we please get back to a discussion on how it is irreconcilable that God can be loving and forgiving and still damn people to hell? Can we get back to a discussion on God, and not Pandas? That'd be great.
If Christianity had no bearing on peoples' personal lives, it wouldn't be worth discussing.
EDIT: I'll get back to you on that.
Not all sins are equivalent, but it doesn't matter once you're forgiven for them. If you retain some amount of reward or punishment, then you haven't been truly forgiven.