it also states several times that he cannot tolerate sin in any degree, and that he cannot accept anything less than perfection.
From Job
1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. 1:2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. 1:3 His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east. 1:4 And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. 1:5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD
Why does creating the world let you "make the rules?"
Um, really? Because you made it, and are Omnipotent and can decide literally everything? Sometimes the simple answers are really the best ones.
You've confused my question. I'm not asking "is," I'm asking "ought." The ability to enforce your will upon others (omnipotence) has nothing to do with whether you should be enforcing your will upon others. Otherwise, every dictator on the planet is in the right because they make the rules. I do not subscribe to "might makes right" morality, and I'm challenging you to defend it.
Why is sending people to hell automatically unjust? Is so hard to believe that just like some deserve a prison term some deserve a bad afterlife as well?
Nobody deserves to be tortured for all eternity. It is even worse than torture in real life, because in real life there is a chance of escaping. Failing that, death will stop you from being tortured for eternity in real life. If you go to hell, you will be tortured for all eternity without hope of reprieve.
well, algebra, the answer is rather simple: Christ was the god of the old testament, and while God himself cannot tolerate sin, Christ can. Satan was no more in Gods presence than I am in yours.
it also states several times that he cannot tolerate sin in any degree, and that he cannot accept anything less than perfection.
From Job
1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. 1:2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. 1:3 His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east. 1:4 And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. 1:5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD
Why did god allow satan into his presence then?
The answer is that Satan being a fallen angel is actually a later tradition that came after Job was written.
The earlier tradition of Ha-Satan, or "The Satan," was that he is an angel that acts as a sort of prosecutor or accuser for mankind.
So in Job, Satan is amongst the heavenly host because there would be no reason for him not to be. The tradition of him being a fallen angel and enemy of God hadn't come in yet.
well, algebra, the answer is rather simple: Christ was the god of the old testament, and while God himself cannot tolerate sin, Christ can. Satan was no more in Gods presence than I am in yours.
There is no Hell anymore. When Jesus was crucified he went to hell. His three day mission? Purge it from existence and escape through the portal. Starring Ian McKellan as Jesus, Shia Lebouf as Comic Relief Charon, and Daniel Day Lewis as Lucifer.
Why does creating the world let you "make the rules?"
Um, really? Because you made it, and are Omnipotent and can decide literally everything?
So let me see if I understand this: God is powerful, therefore God gets to make the rules?
Exactly what does this say about God being good?
There's no contradiction between unconditional love and having standards in place to enter Heaven.
You're consistently missing, either deliberately or accidentally, the really important detail here.
According to you, the afterlife is a binary choice between heaven and infinite, unending suffering.
Even if the alternative were benign, your argument would still be invalid. However, it should be even more obvious that you cannot argue that God is unconditionally loving if he denies people entry into heaven when the only alternative is hell.
God or any human being can love someone unconditionally and still deny them something because of whatever standards they chose to set for awarding it. Your parents ever promise you money as a kid for good grades? Mine did and if I didn't get them I didn't get the money. Same principle here.
1. Invalid. The reason why your parents denied you the money was because it would teach you the lesson of respect for how much the money was worth and what it took to earn it. They deemed this lesson more valuable to you than the money itself, and therefore believed it was better for you to not give you the money than to give it to you. The lesson was deemed the higher good, and they wanted to give you what was good.
God's love is the greatest good, and a place in heaven and the eternity in God's love that represents is the greatest good of all. Therefore, it would make no sense that someone who loves a child infinitely and unconditionally would ever deny that child the greatest good, especially when the greatest good is God's love, which God, by virtue of being unconditionally loving, should logically never deny someone.
2. Is it the same principle here? Is it really? Because I somehow doubt your parents denied you the money and then lit you on fire. Why do you keep ignoring this?
Which, according to the Bible, is everyone. So why is God letting anyone in at all, and then if he's going to let people in, why some and not all?
Do you see how it doesn't make sense?
Everyone from birth, but not necessarily everyone in perpetuity. Born in sin, reborn in faith and ascending the stairs to Heaven through your deeds afterwards. People that don't have their sins cleansed, who don't do the basic stuff let alone make the long walk through life on the narrow path don't deserve to enter Heaven as God sees it.
Ok, follow this logic with me now.
God loves unconditionally, and we cannot redeem ourselves, but redemption is offered unearned by Christ Jesus' sacrifice.
HOWEVER, there are conditions for us to receive this redemption?
Does that make any sense? Why not just redeem everyone, if the sole condition for redemption is Jesus' sacrifice?
In other words, why does it matter whether or not someone accepts Jesus' sacrifice? Why can't Jesus' redemptive grace work on them regardless?
It doesn't make sense to you because you're not putting yourself in Gods place and asking why would He be selective?
No, it doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense. An infinitely loving being who unconditionally loves everyone would want to save everyone from the place of infinite suffering. Especially since he's the one who decides whether or not to send them there.
Why would He make it difficult to get into Heaven?
You're STILL not getting it. Even if we grant the "Heaven needs standards" argument, which I will not grant because it's entirely contrary to unconditional love, we then have the added problem of the alternative being not benign, not just ok, but the worst thing imaginable.
Heaven is the pinnacle of mans' worthiness in the eyes of God, and worthiness needs to be proved especially when going all the way back to the Garden man has shown countless times that he isn't.
Then Hell must be the nadir of man's worthlessness, right? Does that not directly contradict any notion that God unconditionally loves us? One who loves does not consider the object of love to be worthless.
Again I'm not sure why this doesn't make sense to you.
Because you're intentionally ignoring details that would make my argument make sense and your argument falter.
One such detail is hell, otherwise known as the discussion topic of this thread.
By human reasoning, sure. Perhaps by Divine reasoning too, but in the end that's what happens. The creator of the world didn't ask people to vote on this, it was a judgment, maybe even a petty one. Who knows but God? The way out of it has been written down for a long time and until it changes that's what we have to deal with.
So in other words, you're acknowledging that God is acting contrary to reason.
Good. Now just reword that to "Fresh Prince's argument is illogical" and we'll be right on the same page.
It's not, in the human sense, but we're not talking about that. What we're talking about is an effect of previous generations taking you spiritually if not mentally and physically far away from where you should be and belong.
But why then would an infinitely loving, infinitely just God punish someone for someone else's crime at all, let alone with infinite suffering?
Because that's what a benevolent being would do, clearly.
A benevolent being can still stick to his guns and keep Heaven for those who follow the path to it he set out. You have the free will to make the decision to do so. You want benevolence to be all encompassing and push out the necessity of standards, of proving and earning entrance to Heaven. You're not willing to accept that one can be benevolent and still prize exclusivity.
So a benevolent, unconditionally loving being would care more about following the rules than the suffering and agony of the people he loves?
That's not consistent with benevolence, unconditional love, or Jesus' message is it?
His reference to wanting to do something and cannot do it is more of the same of what I said.
So what you said is that God is not omnipotent.
It's a matter of God's standards preventing action, not a lack of ability to do so. Simple I want to do X but my beliefs, moral code etc prevent me.
God's moral code says he has to abandon people to infinite suffering? That's not moral at all.
Because He decided not to, for whatever reasons he chose to make the path to Heaven narrow and difficult. No point in questioning it, asking questions of this particular path doesn't bring us to the end any sooner or easier.
No, there is every point in questioning it. Questioning it means we are using the brains God gave us and actually thinking, instead of just blindly accepting every illogical and contradictory statement that anyone tells us. Questioning it means we are seeking wisdom and truth, which the Bible affirms are good things.
And this might be hard for you to accept, but you are not God. My statements toward you are not arguing against God, they're arguing against you. And your arguments are DEFINITELY not above questioning.
Despite our differences, I must say everything HR just said is spot on.
If the only two options are Heaven with God, and the worst possible place imaginable, then it just doesn't add up.
This is not to say that a loving God cannot punish people for sin either. But to be just, the punishment must fit the crime. Never-ending torment hardly fits the crime, any crime, even some of the worst ones I can imagine.
I'm really harsh on crime. I'd give some of the sick child rapists and violent murderers the death penalty if I could, and life without parole if I couldn't.
Still, those are finite punishments for finite crimes. Dying ends their suffering.
But if you DON'T die? If you don't die, AND you don't get paroled? If you don't die, don't get paroled, AND suffer intolerable torture forever?
No. That just isn't compatible at all.
At the very least, in spite of our differences, IF Hell was as HR believes, being apart God's presence/love - that doesn't sound like intolerable torture at least.
Speaking of which though, I've been meaning to respond to HR about
If Hell is simply "being absent the presence of Gods love" or some such nonsense...
Then I'd currently already be in Hell correct?
No. You are not currently experiencing the absence of God's love.
You do NOT get to tell me when or if I'm experiencing God's love or not. This offends me deeply, that you think you know how much God I'm getting.
Furthermore, if Heaven is "being in the presence of God's love" or some such nonsense...
Don't YOU have some of that presence in your life already? Don't you believe that God has
some presence in the world?
Ah, I see now where you were going with this. Very good.
Yes, you are correct.
I could be wrong though. But okay, so you accept the position that God's presence/love is in the world/your life?
Okay, I can work with that.
At the very least, in spite of our differences, IF Hell was as HR believes, being apart God's presence/love - that doesn't sound like intolerable torture at least.
Wait, what? No. No, that's not what I believe at all. That's what I've been going against.
You do NOT get to tell me when or if I'm experiencing God's love or not. This offends me deeply, that you think you know how much God I'm getting.
It offends you to tell you that God loves you? That's curious.
But okay, so you accept the position that God's presence/love is in the world/your life?
At the very least, in spite of our differences, IF Hell was as HR believes, being apart God's presence/love - that doesn't sound like intolerable torture at least.
Wait, what? No. No, that's not what I believe at all. That's what I've been going against.
Hmmmm
Is it not your position that Hell isn't a place, but more a state of being apart from God?
Have you not argued this in the past?
You do NOT get to tell me when or if I'm experiencing God's love or not. This offends me deeply, that you think you know how much God I'm getting.
It offends you to tell you that God loves you? That's curious.
That is NOT what was being said.
I was specifically talking about the life experience, and how I do not EXPERIENCE God's love, in my life, and/or I do not see it manifest in the world.
You responded with basically "yes you do".
Feel free to believe yourself that God loves me. But don't you ****ing dare claim that I actually experience this love.
You have no business whatsoever trying to tell other people how much God is a part of their lives.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Hmmmm
Is it not your position that Hell isn't a place, but more a state of being apart from God?
Have you not argued this in the past?
No, that's not my position. Other people have argued this. I am arguing that Hell does not exist, never has existed, and never will. It is antithetical to a loving God.
That is NOT what was being said.
I was specifically talking about the life experience, and how I do not EXPERIENCE God's love, in my life, and/or I do not see it manifest in the world.
You responded with basically "yes you do".
Feel free to believe yourself that God loves me. But don't you ****ing dare claim that I actually experience this love.
You have no business whatsoever trying to tell other people how much God is a part of their lives.
No, to clarify, I'm arguing you are experiencing God's love, as you always have, as you always will.
Now, you may not believe in God or God's love, you may not recognize that God exists or that his love exists, you may not acknowledge that God and God's love play a role in your life. Nevertheless, both God and God's love are eternally present, in your life and in everyone else's.
Hmmmm
Is it not your position that Hell isn't a place, but more a state of being apart from God?
Have you not argued this in the past?
No, that's not my position. Other people have argued this. I am arguing that Hell does not exist, never has existed, and never will. It is antithetical to a loving God.
That is NOT what was being said.
I was specifically talking about the life experience, and how I do not EXPERIENCE God's love, in my life, and/or I do not see it manifest in the world.
You responded with basically "yes you do".
Feel free to believe yourself that God loves me. But don't you ****ing dare claim that I actually experience this love.
You have no business whatsoever trying to tell other people how much God is a part of their lives.
No, to clarify, I'm arguing you are experiencing God's love, as you always have, as you always will.
Now, you may not believe in God or God's love, you may not recognize that God exists or that his love exists, you may not acknowledge that God and God's love play a role in your life. Nevertheless, both God and God's love are eternally present, in your life and in everyone else's.
No. No it isn't. No he isn't. He never was, and never will be. Not in yours, mine, or anyone else.
Now, you may believe in him, or believe in his love, but that's just your own delusion. Wake up.
Gee, that was easy. I thought it'd be a lot harder to just make enormous unsupported claims, and push them onto other people without so much as permission or politeness.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No. No it isn't. No he isn't. He never was, and never will be. Not in yours, mine, or anyone else.
Now, you may believe in him, or believe in his love, but that's just your own delusion. Wake up.
Gee, that was easy. I thought it'd be a lot harder to just make enormous unsupported claims, and push them onto other people without so much as permission or politeness.
There's nothing impolite about claiming God exists.
Though, it is erroneous to equivocate "I don't believe in God" with "God does not exist." You may not believe in God, but since God exists regardless of your belief in God, you are most certainly experiencing God.
And I don't know why you're going on and on about impoliteness. You made the claim that you were experiencing the lack of God's love. This is incorrect, and of course I'm going to disagree with you on it in a thread in a forum dedicated to religious discussion. You couldn't have entered into this discussion under the impression that opinions contrary to yours wouldn't be expressed, because that's exactly why you come to this forum in the first place.
No. No it isn't. No he isn't. He never was, and never will be. Not in yours, mine, or anyone else.
Now, you may believe in him, or believe in his love, but that's just your own delusion. Wake up.
Gee, that was easy. I thought it'd be a lot harder to just make enormous unsupported claims, and push them onto other people without so much as permission or politeness.
There's nothing impolite about claiming God exists.
There IS something impolite about telling someone they are experiencing something divine when they are not.
Dave: "I have not experienced Love, and I do not see the presence of Love in the world or my life."
Bob: "Yes you do, and you always have"
Dave:
Though, it is erroneous to equivocate "I don't believe in God" with "God does not exist." You may not believe in God, but since God exists regardless of your belief in God, you are most certainly experiencing God.
Correct. God would exist regardless of whether or not I believed in him, if he in fact existed. But "I believe in God, so he must exist" is just as erroneous a claim.
You are making a bold yet unfounded claim about God's presence/existence. Then you have the ****ing gall to tell me what I'm experiencing in my life.
First, demonstrate that God exists regardless of anything, my beliefs, or otherwise.
And I don't know why you're going on and on about impoliteness. You made the claim that you were experiencing the lack of God's love. This is incorrect, and of course I'm going to disagree with you on it in a thread in a forum dedicated to religious discussion. You couldn't have entered into this discussion under the impression that opinions contrary to yours wouldn't be expressed, because that's exactly why you come to this forum in the first place.
Demonstrate how it's incorrect.
Your personal belief that it is incorrect, does not make it incorrect.
Though, it is erroneous to equivocate "I don't believe in God" with "God does not exist." You may not believe in God, but since God exists regardless of your belief in God, you are most certainly experiencing God.
He must by definition be conscious of an experience in order to experience it. You do not experience things of which you are unaware, even if those things covertly affect the things you do experience.
As for the matter of God in particular: as incomprehensible and contradictory-on-its-face as it is for a deity to send people to Hell and be claimed benevolent, or to institute Hell by necessity and be claimed omnipotent, it is just as incomprehensible for a deity to remain utterly incommunicado and be claimed loving. Think about it. Is that how you treat your loved ones? If your family gave you the lifelong silent treatment, how would you think they felt about you? Does the true romantic stalk a girl unseen and maybe (at most) leave ambiguous signs and do secret little favors for her, or does he walk up to her, say "Hi", and build a relationship of two-way open communication between equals?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There IS something impolite about telling someone they are experiencing something divine when they are not.
Look, if you don't like the direction this thread is going, that's fine, but recognize that you're the one who directed it down this course.
You posted this:
I would argue that since the world itself seems to lack any sign God's presence (unless he is a sadist or something), and I personally have not felt his presence in the world or myself, then wouldn't THIS world be hell? That's a pretty low standard for Hell.
And later this:
If Hell is simply "being absent the presence of Gods love" or some such nonsense...
Then I'd currently already be in Hell correct?
To which the answer is no, incorrect on both counts.
You then proceeded to get bent out of shape about this, which I don't get why, considering that you're the one who made the posts and asked the questions. And really, what response did you think I was going give? You really thought I was going to agree that you are experiencing God's absence in the world being a believer in God? Come on man, how long have we been doing this?
If you can't handle religious opinions that are contrary to your own, then go take a breather somewhere.
He must by definition be conscious of an experience in order to experience it.
I don't see how you can argue this. You can experience things without being aware of either the experience or what it is you are experiencing. People do it all the time.
For instance, everyone is, at varying times of the day, unconscious. I think it's pretty safe to say we don't vanish from existence at those times, and as such are experiencing things, such as room temperature, gravity, breathing, etc.
You do not experience things of which you are unaware
Unless we're arguing an unusual form of solipsism, I'm going to have to disagree with you. People experience things without realizing it all the time, and the fact that they don't realize it doesn't magically make those things they're experiencing go away.
As for the matter of God in particular: as incomprehensible and contradictory-on-its-face as it is for a deity to send people to Hell and be claimed benevolent, or to institute Hell by necessity and be claimed omnipotent, it is just as incomprehensible for a deity to remain utterly incommunicado and be claimed loving.
JUST as incomprehensible? That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
Also, I don't believe God is utterly incommunicado. I'm not a deist.
Think about it. Is that how you treat your loved ones? If your family gave you the lifelong silent treatment, how would you think they felt about you? Does the true romantic stalk a girl unseen and maybe (at most) leave ambiguous signs and do secret little favors for her, or does he walk up to her, say "Hi", and build a relationship of two-way open communication between equals?
Well, to be fair, you might apply value judgments to the second one, but it is still a form of love.
You have a point, but the exact same argument in reverse can be found of parents who are perpetually in their children's lives and never leave them alone. There is a middle ground between the two extremes here.
(b) Is what you cited a truthful moral fact? Is what you describe really justice?
Alright, Romans 3:23 for ya. And I believe your second question is really just saying "My opinion is different than yours, so I don't care what you say." Not rising to that bait there buddy. Every perspective of mine is from the Bible, so if you have beef with that, then oh well. But if you want to argue from a Biblical perspective, than by all means, let's test our wits.
Where does His Omnipotence come into play? Because you seem to be saying that he cannot do something that it is logically possible for him to do.
Except that He did do it. He built a bridge to heaven at Calvary. The only thing left is for you to choose to either take that bridge, or pole vault the canyon. Trust me, the latter ain't happening, even if you're Mother Teresa. It is logically possible for Him to let you in, but logically impossible to just say "Hey, everyone's going to Heaven." If He did that, He'd be breaking His own law and would therefore be imperfect. Read Hebrews if you want to understand the politics of Calvary, that book explains it all.
The implication here seems to be that there is no love in Heaven. But don't worry about that yet, because first you have to explain the shaky premises. Consider this: Naturally you will agree that we are not omnipotent, that there are things we cannot do. We cannot spontaneously fly through the air, for example. But you claim we still have free will anyway. So, if we do have free will, it evidently must be possible for us to have free will even when we have choice out of just a subset of all possible things to do. And if God forbade sin on Earth, he would only be subdividing the set; we would still have a subset of things allowed to us, and thus still have free will. So the argument that sin is a prerequisite for free will does not follow.
Addressing "no love in Heaven": the thing here is that if any being in Heaven sins (i.e. Satan), they will be cast out. If you have sin, you cannot enter, as it is only for the pure who wish to worship God and God alone. The only love in Heaven is that for the Father, and His for those He created.
On free will, our opinions on this phrase differ. I'll explain this by saying life is a maze. According to your idea of free will, we can teleport to anywhere we want to in the maze. There are rules in this physical, created world that we cannot break with thought alone. However, what I'm referring to as free will here is the ability to choose which path to take. Every time you hit a fork in the road or an intersection, you have a choice of which path to take. That's what I mean by free will. Sorry about the confusion between our definitions for the word.
Incorrect. Sheol is not hell, nor a waiting place for judgment.
Sheol represents an earlier tradition in Judaism of a land of the dead, much like Hades was to the Greeks, in which all of the dead, virtuous or sinful, would go to a place without sunlight.
The idea of a separate afterlife for the virtuous and for the sinful, one going to Heaven and the other Hell, came much later.
So for you to say that the Bible has a uniform stance on the afterlife is incorrect.
First off, from a Christian perspective (as I stated), Sheol is a waiting place. The most common interpretation of Scripture says that Jesus went to where OT saints were and took them with him to heaven. From a non-Messianic Jewish standpoint, you are correct. But I never stated that I was speaking form that standpoint. The Jews in the OT only knew about the waiting place so that's all that was written about in the OT. The way to Heaven was not open until after Christ died and rose.
And why, exactly, does everyone deserve it?
Because of how we are? Well that can't be helped, can it? And if that can't be helped, and was not through anything we did, how can Hell be a punishment? What is it punishing?
Every human being (except one) has chosen to do things their own way instead of God's way. That's why everyone deserves Hell. And yes, it can be helped, but only if you stop trying to do it by yourself. You view it as an injustice because you refuse to surrender, but then that's your choice. Hell is a punishment for a choice of ours, not an action. The sinful actions arose after our decision.
The issue also is not doing something to deserve hell, the issue is choosing something besides God which causes a person to deserve Hell (unless you count choosing as doing, but I think of doing more as performing an act or a task). The separation from God results because His Holiness cannot allow it, although His Love desperately wants to allow it so you can experience Him and He can show you His Grace.
As Blinking said, you are in this paragraph demonstrating that God is not omnipotent, because you are saying God simultaneously wants to do something and cannot actually do it.
Furthermore, you are claiming God's love has a finite limit. This cannot be, and yet you are saying that God would abandon someone willingly forever. This is not what love does.
Or he could save them regardless.
Except why wouldn't God just save everyone regardless?
Because the He violates His own law. If you really want to see the politics of salvation, read the book of Hebrews. Long story short, God gave Adam reign over Earth. Adam broke God's law, so God punished him. Now God wants to regain control of Earth, and He won't just rescind His earlier choice (or else He would be imperfect). Therefore, He has to become a man (Jesus), live a perfect life under His own law (check), and then He has to die so the Old Covenant can be replaced by a new, perfect one (Hebrews 8:7). Saving everyone regardless would involve breaking His own rules, which would make Him unholy.
If he loves everyone, and the sole mechanism by which a person is saved has nothing to do with what the person does, but is God's grace, then how can you then argue that God would place a condition on salvation and still say God is omnibenevolent?
If doesn't place a condition on salvation, He would cease to be breaking His own rules. No perfect being can break their own rules, or else they aren't perfect. Also, what is not omnibenevolent about offering salvation to everyone regardless of their past or what they've done? That's more omnibenevolent than anything else in existence. He has to condemn us because we don't meet His standard. He doesn't want to separate us from Himself because He loves us. So He plays by His own rules, suffers a penalty He doesn't deserve (death is a punishment for those who have sinned, and Jesus was sinless), and therefore annuls the previous covenant of religion. A new, perfect covenant can now be made that can save anyone. A new, perfect covenant of faith is now in place for us.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Haven't played anything but EDH and casual for over a year
(b) Is what you cited a truthful moral fact? Is what you describe really justice?
Alright, Romans 3:23 for ya. And I believe your second question is really just saying "My opinion is different than yours, so I don't care what you say." Not rising to that bait there buddy. Every perspective of mine is from the Bible, so if you have beef with that, then oh well. But if you want to argue from a Biblical perspective, than by all means, let's test our wits.
Where does His Omnipotence come into play? Because you seem to be saying that he cannot do something that it is logically possible for him to do.
Except that He did do it. He built a bridge to heaven at Calvary. The only thing left is for you to choose to either take that bridge, or pole vault the canyon. Trust me, the latter ain't happening, even if you're Mother Teresa. It is logically possible for Him to let you in, but logically impossible to just say "Hey, everyone's going to Heaven." If He did that, He'd be breaking His own law and would therefore be imperfect. Read Hebrews if you want to understand the politics of Calvary, that book explains it all.
The implication here seems to be that there is no love in Heaven. But don't worry about that yet, because first you have to explain the shaky premises. Consider this: Naturally you will agree that we are not omnipotent, that there are things we cannot do. We cannot spontaneously fly through the air, for example. But you claim we still have free will anyway. So, if we do have free will, it evidently must be possible for us to have free will even when we have choice out of just a subset of all possible things to do. And if God forbade sin on Earth, he would only be subdividing the set; we would still have a subset of things allowed to us, and thus still have free will. So the argument that sin is a prerequisite for free will does not follow.
Addressing "no love in Heaven": the thing here is that if any being in Heaven sins (i.e. Satan), they will be cast out. If you have sin, you cannot enter, as it is only for the pure who wish to worship God and God alone. The only love in Heaven is that for the Father, and His for those He created.
On free will, our opinions on this phrase differ. I'll explain this by saying life is a maze. According to your idea of free will, we can teleport to anywhere we want to in the maze. There are rules in this physical, created world that we cannot break with thought alone. However, what I'm referring to as free will here is the ability to choose which path to take. Every time you hit a fork in the road or an intersection, you have a choice of which path to take. That's what I mean by free will. Sorry about the confusion between our definitions for the word.
Incorrect. Sheol is not hell, nor a waiting place for judgment.
Sheol represents an earlier tradition in Judaism of a land of the dead, much like Hades was to the Greeks, in which all of the dead, virtuous or sinful, would go to a place without sunlight.
The idea of a separate afterlife for the virtuous and for the sinful, one going to Heaven and the other Hell, came much later.
So for you to say that the Bible has a uniform stance on the afterlife is incorrect.
First off, from a Christian perspective (as I stated), Sheol is a waiting place. The most common interpretation of Scripture says that Jesus went to where OT saints were and took them with him to heaven. From a non-Messianic Jewish standpoint, you are correct. But I never stated that I was speaking form that standpoint. The Jews in the OT only knew about the waiting place so that's all that was written about in the OT. The way to Heaven was not open until after Christ died and rose.
And why, exactly, does everyone deserve it?
Because of how we are? Well that can't be helped, can it? And if that can't be helped, and was not through anything we did, how can Hell be a punishment? What is it punishing?
Every human being (except one) has chosen to do things their own way instead of God's way. That's why everyone deserves Hell. And yes, it can be helped, but only if you stop trying to do it by yourself. You view it as an injustice because you refuse to surrender, but then that's your choice. Hell is a punishment for a choice of ours, not an action. The sinful actions arose after our decision.
The issue also is not doing something to deserve hell, the issue is choosing something besides God which causes a person to deserve Hell (unless you count choosing as doing, but I think of doing more as performing an act or a task). The separation from God results because His Holiness cannot allow it, although His Love desperately wants to allow it so you can experience Him and He can show you His Grace.
As Blinking said, you are in this paragraph demonstrating that God is not omnipotent, because you are saying God simultaneously wants to do something and cannot actually do it.
Furthermore, you are claiming God's love has a finite limit. This cannot be, and yet you are saying that God would abandon someone willingly forever. This is not what love does.
Or he could save them regardless.
Except why wouldn't God just save everyone regardless?
Because the He violates His own law. If you really want to see the politics of salvation, read the book of Hebrews. Long story short, God gave Adam reign over Earth. Adam broke God's law, so God punished him. Now God wants to regain control of Earth, and He won't just rescind His earlier choice (or else He would be imperfect). Therefore, He has to become a man (Jesus), live a perfect life under His own law (check), and then He has to die so the Old Covenant can be replaced by a new, perfect one (Hebrews 8:7). Saving everyone regardless would involve breaking His own rules, which would make Him unholy.
If he loves everyone, and the sole mechanism by which a person is saved has nothing to do with what the person does, but is God's grace, then how can you then argue that God would place a condition on salvation and still say God is omnibenevolent?
If doesn't place a condition on salvation, He would cease to be breaking His own rules. No perfect being can break their own rules, or else they aren't perfect. Also, what is not omnibenevolent about offering salvation to everyone regardless of their past or what they've done? That's more omnibenevolent than anything else in existence. He has to condemn us because we don't meet His standard. He doesn't want to separate us from Himself because He loves us. So He plays by His own rules, suffers a penalty He doesn't deserve (death is a punishment for those who have sinned, and Jesus was sinless), and therefore annuls the previous covenant of religion. A new, perfect covenant can now be made that can save anyone. A new, perfect covenant of faith is now in place for us.
If he is perfect he could modify time and ensure he never made the rule in the first place. You have already shown he is willing to change the rules, A purfect being would not have made rules in the first place as all he would do would BE purfect and would have the forsight to know things change based on that having any rule in place is a flaw.
So what you want is for Him to unmake His rule so that you can be absolved without changing anything about your life?
Anyways, the logical fallacy of your argument is assuming that perfection involves having everything work out for everyone regardless of what they choose. His perfection is having no flaws. His perfection demands laws be made regarding sin or else He will become impure. The perfection requires rules, it does not mean He does things in a manner convenient for you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Haven't played anything but EDH and casual for over a year
I don't see how you can argue this. You can experience things without being aware of either the experience or what it is you are experiencing. People do it all the time.
For instance, everyone is, at varying times of the day, unconscious. I think it's pretty safe to say we don't vanish from existence at those times, and as such are experiencing things, such as room temperature, gravity, breathing, etc.
You're equivocating on the meaning of "experience". Saying a physical body "experiences" gravitational attraction is not at all the same meaning of the word as saying that a human being in a relationship "experiences" love. And the second usage is the preferred one in philosophical (and, I would argue, common English) usage. When John Locke argues that we learn truth because our minds are molded by "experiences", he's not talking about the gravitational force on the brain, he's talking about empirical observation. Furthermore still, the idea of "experiencing" love in the unconscious sense would be pointless in this conversation even if it were the more conventional interpretation of the term. IcecreamMan was clearly talking about reasons to believe in God - empirical evidence.
And where you get this "vanish from existence" notion, I have no idea; it doesn't follow from either usage of the word "experience".
Short answer: no, you do not have experiences while unconscious, except while dreaming.
JUST as incomprehensible? That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
No. The inconsistency between purported character trait and purported behavior is identical. You may not like it, but all the people you talk to who believe in Hell don't like what you have to say about it either. I urge you to approach this contradiction in just the same way that you would prefer those people approach your contradiction.
Also, I don't believe God is utterly incommunicado. I'm not a deist.
He hasn't communicated with me. If you're going to say that I have had experiences (there's that word again) that I might interpret as God's touch, then sure... but I could also interpret those experiences any number of other ways. Determining that he has communicated with me requires the presupposition that he is there and wishes to communicate with me. Which is not communication. You don't have to believe that a person exists beforehand for them to come up to you and say, "Please don't walk on the grass", and there's nothing vague about the idea they're trying to communicate.
Well, to be fair, you might apply value judgments to the second one, but it is still a form of love.
Absolutely not. Stalkers don't love their targets. They think they do (sometimes), but what they have is something else. Or, if you do want to call it "love", this implies that love is not always a positive behavior, and this form of love is not what we expect from a good deity.
You have a point, but the exact same argument in reverse can be found of parents who are perpetually in their children's lives and never leave them alone. There is a middle ground between the two extremes here.
Sure there's a middle ground, but I'd hardly consider unambiguous objective confirmation of existence an egregious exercise in "helicopter-parenting".
Says everyone "falls short of the glory of God." Not that they "deserve Hell."
If I tell you that a worker does not deserve a million-dollar salary, do you conclude that you should instead enslave him and beat him savagely for the rest of his life? Of course not. That's an absurd false dichotomy. Between falling short of ultimate supreme perfection and deserving of the absolute worst thing possible, there is a vast middle ground. Literally: we're standing on it.
And I believe your second question is really just saying "My opinion is different than yours, so I don't care what you say." Not rising to that bait there buddy. Every perspective of mine is from the Bible, so if you have beef with that, then oh well.
I'm not going to let a latent assumption of the authority of any text go unquestioned. The Bible is, as far as an objective observer is concerned, just one book among many that purports to make moral claims. Whether those claims ought to be accepted depends on the arguments presented in their favor. If you cannot present any of those arguments, then this whole ideological edifice of sin, damnation, and grace has feet of clay.
Except that He did do it. He built a bridge to heaven at Calvary. The only thing left is for you to choose to either take that bridge, or pole vault the canyon. Trust me, the latter ain't happening, even if you're Mother Teresa. It is logically possible for Him to let you in, but logically impossible to just say "Hey, everyone's going to Heaven." If He did that, He'd be breaking His own law and would therefore be imperfect.
You are fundamentally missing the point of the objection here. It's his law. Why in the first place did he set his law such that he could not choose to do the compassionate thing without violating it? That doesn't seem particularly benevolent, or, if benevolent, particularly smart.
For that matter, what's so important about being perfect? Even granting for the sake of argument that the contingencies are as you say, it remains a logical possibility for God to let everyone into Heaven. The whole point of Christianity is that God is no stranger to self-sacrifice, isn't it? It does not strike me as inspiring (or, for that matter, perfect) that God values his perfection over his love for everyone else in the universe. Especially since this "perfection" consists in adherence to a law that he enacted of his own all-powerful volition and that prevents him from doing something else he wants to do.
If God's hands are tied, he tied them himself. Why did he do that? And the ties are not very strong; he can break them any time he wants. Why doesn't he do that?
Read Hebrews if you want to understand the politics of Calvary, that book explains it all.
Reassert? Yes. Explain? No. "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him" (11:6). Full stop. No explanation as to why this should be.
The book is, as might be expected given the intended audience, much more concerned with establishing that Christianity is the true and natural continuation of Jewish tradition and orthodoxy. The Sabbath's still there, Jesus is a proper high priest, et cetera. (To this end it states outright is that the First Covenant is imperfect - 8:7-8. How does this square with your "God can't break his law without being imperfect" argument?)
What it does say by way of explanation rests on extremely shaky assumptions, for example: "For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (9:13-14). That's a pretty big "if". I see no reason why an omnipotent creator of the universe should care about animal blood from any species. The line only works because the author is addressing the Jews, who already accept the validity of animal sacrifice. And in the next chapter he goes on to state that animal sacrifice doesn't take away sins, therefore throwing the whole analogy down the drain!
To the book's questionable credit, it does provide the citation about deserving Hell I asked for above (10:28-31), though it does not justify its assertion other than by another analogy to current Hebrew custom... which, again, the author has just finished calling imperfect.
Addressing "no love in Heaven": the thing here is that if any being in Heaven sins (i.e. Satan), they will be cast out. If you have sin, you cannot enter, as it is only for the pure who wish to worship God and God alone. The only love in Heaven is that for the Father, and His for those He created.
As has already been pointed out, Job - which you cited - indicates that Satan can still present himself before God. Even setting that aside, it is not exactly an attractive portrait of "love" that you paint - nor, I submit, a Christian one. What about loving thy neighbor?
On free will, our opinions on this phrase differ. I'll explain this by saying life is a maze. According to your idea of free will, we can teleport to anywhere we want to in the maze. There are rules in this physical, created world that we cannot break with thought alone. However, what I'm referring to as free will here is the ability to choose which path to take. Every time you hit a fork in the road or an intersection, you have a choice of which path to take. That's what I mean by free will. Sorry about the confusion between our definitions for the word.
No, I mean the same thing. The fact that we cannot teleport is precisely my point. There are walls in the maze. If God forbade sin, that would put up some more walls. But it does not follow that there would be no forks or intersections.
If you're choosing where to go to lunch, but I shut down every local McDonald's with a few well-placed rats, I have reduced the number of options you possess but I have not reduced them to one. There is still a host of other places you can choose to go. You still have free will. "If I shut the McDonald's, you don't have free will" does not follow; neither does "If God forbids sin, you don't have free will".
(death is a punishment for those who have sinned, and Jesus was sinless)
Jesus also didn't really die. We think death sucks because of its permanent consequences. If he dodged the consequences through a miracle, can he really be said to have suffered the same punishment? It's like going to jail for three days, then walking out and saying, "I have suffered for all the lifers on their behalf, so set them all free!" (Except you also own and operate the jail, you walked out because you pardoned yourself, and you had the power to pardon everyone else too but just chose not to because of a promise you made earlier, a promise that your three-day incarceration has no discernible bearing on.)
First off, from a Christian perspective (as I stated), Sheol is a waiting place.
No, it isn't. Christians usually will try to make Sheol another term for hell, except it is most definitely not that.
From a non-Messianic Jewish standpoint, you are correct. But I never stated that I was speaking form that standpoint. The Jews in the OT only knew about the waiting place so that's all that was written about in the OT. The way to Heaven was not open until after Christ died and rose.
No. What we have is what the tradition of Sheol actually was, which was an afterlife everyone went to composed of darkness. We then had a later, apocalyptic tradition of Judaism come in and claim different afterlives for different people.
What you're trying to do is make the texts of the Bible written under the first tradition fit with the second without contradiction. This is impossible, and disingenuous.
What's particularly weird is that you actually acknowledge that the books of the Bible were written under different traditions that changed over time. That's not usually a nuance that people who believe the Bible is the Word of God do as it, you know, contradicts exactly that.
Every human being (except one) has chosen to do things their own way instead of God's way. That's why everyone deserves Hell.
Why? That doesn't make any sense!
And yes, it can be helped, but only if you stop trying to do it by yourself.
Except, no, it cannot be helped. If it could be helped, then we would be capable of earning Heaven, which we aren't supposed to be able to do.
You view it as an injustice because you refuse to surrender,
No, I view it as an injustice because it is one. Demonstrate how, in any way, the punishment fits the crime. Also demonstrate how it's a crime if we cannot help but to do it.
but then that's your choice. Hell is a punishment for a choice of ours, not an action. The sinful actions arose after our decision.
Except if it is impossible for men to live without sin, then by what possible logic is God justified in punishing us for it? We cannot actually live without sin. It's impossible. It is unjust to punish someone for something he cannot help but do.
Or he could save them regardless.
Except why wouldn't God just save everyone regardless?
Because the He violates His own law.
So? He could just change the law.
That's kind of the point of Christianity, isn't it?
If you really want to see the politics of salvation, read the book of Hebrews. Long story short, God gave Adam reign over Earth. Adam broke God's law, so God punished him. Now God wants to regain control of Earth, and He won't just rescind His earlier choice (or else He would be imperfect). Therefore, He has to become a man (Jesus), live a perfect life under His own law (check), and then He has to die so the Old Covenant can be replaced by a new, perfect one (Hebrews 8:7). Saving everyone regardless would involve breaking His own rules, which would make Him unholy.
You're telling me the same God that was responsible for Jesus' ministry is going to be so concerned about following laws and never breaking them that he's going to be fixated on them and not helping people?
No, that is exactly the opposite of Jesus.
If he loves everyone, and the sole mechanism by which a person is saved has nothing to do with what the person does, but is God's grace, then how can you then argue that God would place a condition on salvation and still say God is omnibenevolent?
If doesn't place a condition on salvation, He would cease to be breaking His own rules.
Who cares? God shouldn't, he's supposed to be infinitely loving!
Furthermore, if God were omniscient, why not just never make those rules in the first place? Do you see how your attempts to argue God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and unconditionally loving is turning out to be the exact opposite of all four of those qualities?
No perfect being can break their own rules, or else they aren't perfect.
God could just rewrite the rules. The entire religion of Christianity is based around the idea that he did just that.
Furthermore, Jesus' entire ministry was based around the idea that if you fixate on laws at the expense of people, you are in the wrong. That is what Jesus criticized the Pharisees for. Now you're trying to argue that God is defined by the exact same characteristics as the people Jesus criticized?
Also, what is not omnibenevolent about offering salvation to everyone regardless of their past or what they've done?
That would be omnibenevolent. That's what I'm arguing God does. You're specifically arguing that God isn't doing that. Like here:
He has to condemn us because we don't meet His standard.
See?
He doesn't want to separate us from Himself because He loves us.
If he's condemning people to eternal suffering, that's not love.
There are, that I am aware of, two versions of "hell" existing in mainstream Christian denominations as of now-
1) There is the old, Dante's Inferno hell with all the brimstone and fire and people being tortured for all eternity because they refused to accept Jesus as their lord and savior.
2) Hell is an eternal separation from God, where people go because they refused to accept Jesus as their lord and savior. Afaik, no one has ever gone into detail about what exactly this entails. Maybe it might just be your current life repeated for eternity? Or maybe you realize what it means to be separated from God and you regret it for eternity? Who knows.
In both of these, the act of refusing to accept Christ is the deciding factor. If you refuse to accept Christ before the death of your physical body, then God lets you live with your decision for all of eternity. People just disagree about what the consequences are now.
I am under the impression that the fact that you are separated from God is established fact in the NT (the whole passage where Jesus describes the gnashing of teeth and such). No one just knows what the supposed consequence of that is. My understanding is that the older version of Hell came from people taking all the horrid imagery in the Book of Revelations and imagining that must be what Hell is like.
That and Dante.
I do not remember what part of the NT this comes from, but Jesus does rather blatantly state that our actions on Earth will determine our fortunes after death, and that acts as justification for both Heaven and Hell.
I mean, you can just flip one of the argument for why Hell cannot reasonably exist (why must we be sent into eternal damnation for the actions we've committed in an incomparably small time period of our existence), and ask why we should be allowed eternal joy and happiness for the actions we've committed in an incomparably small time period of our existence?
The above argument effectively invalidates the existence of Heaven too. It doesn't make much sense that we should be allowed eternal happiness for what we've done on our incredibly brief time on Earth.
And there are also people who believe that Hell doesn't exist at all, because it doesn't make sense for an omnibenevolent God to send people to Hell, like Highroller.
Incidentally, I have a question for you- What denomination do you follow?
And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
-Revelation 14:9-11
I wonder how you can hold to your government being fair for trying to persuade people from not killing each other by promising them punishment yet when a God does the same thing for the same reason he is bad?
I have not yet heard the problem of Jail being discussed
I wonder how you can hold to your government being fair for trying to persuade people from not killing each other by promising them punishment yet when a God does the same thing for the same reason he is bad?
I have not yet heard the problem of Jail being discussed
Wasn't the only stipulation for entry to heaven is belief in Christ?
Wouldn't the appropriate analogy be government jailing people for not believing in...well, the government?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From Job
1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. 1:2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. 1:3 His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east. 1:4 And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. 1:5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD
Nobody deserves to be tortured for all eternity. It is even worse than torture in real life, because in real life there is a chance of escaping. Failing that, death will stop you from being tortured for eternity in real life. If you go to hell, you will be tortured for all eternity without hope of reprieve.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
"normality is a paved road: it is comfortable to walk, but no flowers grow there."
-Vincent Van Gogh
things I hate:
1. lists.
b. inconsistencies.
V. incorrect math.
2. quotes in signatures
III: irony.
there are two kinds of people in the world: those who can make reasonable conclusions based on conjecture.
The answer is that Satan being a fallen angel is actually a later tradition that came after Job was written.
The earlier tradition of Ha-Satan, or "The Satan," was that he is an angel that acts as a sort of prosecutor or accuser for mankind.
So in Job, Satan is amongst the heavenly host because there would be no reason for him not to be. The tradition of him being a fallen angel and enemy of God hadn't come in yet.
No. Read the passage he quoted.
So let me see if I understand this: God is powerful, therefore God gets to make the rules?
Exactly what does this say about God being good?
You're consistently missing, either deliberately or accidentally, the really important detail here.
According to you, the afterlife is a binary choice between heaven and infinite, unending suffering.
Even if the alternative were benign, your argument would still be invalid. However, it should be even more obvious that you cannot argue that God is unconditionally loving if he denies people entry into heaven when the only alternative is hell.
1. Invalid. The reason why your parents denied you the money was because it would teach you the lesson of respect for how much the money was worth and what it took to earn it. They deemed this lesson more valuable to you than the money itself, and therefore believed it was better for you to not give you the money than to give it to you. The lesson was deemed the higher good, and they wanted to give you what was good.
God's love is the greatest good, and a place in heaven and the eternity in God's love that represents is the greatest good of all. Therefore, it would make no sense that someone who loves a child infinitely and unconditionally would ever deny that child the greatest good, especially when the greatest good is God's love, which God, by virtue of being unconditionally loving, should logically never deny someone.
2. Is it the same principle here? Is it really? Because I somehow doubt your parents denied you the money and then lit you on fire. Why do you keep ignoring this?
Ok, follow this logic with me now.
God loves unconditionally, and we cannot redeem ourselves, but redemption is offered unearned by Christ Jesus' sacrifice.
HOWEVER, there are conditions for us to receive this redemption?
Does that make any sense? Why not just redeem everyone, if the sole condition for redemption is Jesus' sacrifice?
In other words, why does it matter whether or not someone accepts Jesus' sacrifice? Why can't Jesus' redemptive grace work on them regardless?
No, it doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense. An infinitely loving being who unconditionally loves everyone would want to save everyone from the place of infinite suffering. Especially since he's the one who decides whether or not to send them there.
You're STILL not getting it. Even if we grant the "Heaven needs standards" argument, which I will not grant because it's entirely contrary to unconditional love, we then have the added problem of the alternative being not benign, not just ok, but the worst thing imaginable.
Then Hell must be the nadir of man's worthlessness, right? Does that not directly contradict any notion that God unconditionally loves us? One who loves does not consider the object of love to be worthless.
Because you're intentionally ignoring details that would make my argument make sense and your argument falter.
One such detail is hell, otherwise known as the discussion topic of this thread.
So in other words, you're acknowledging that God is acting contrary to reason.
Good. Now just reword that to "Fresh Prince's argument is illogical" and we'll be right on the same page.
But why then would an infinitely loving, infinitely just God punish someone for someone else's crime at all, let alone with infinite suffering?
So a benevolent, unconditionally loving being would care more about following the rules than the suffering and agony of the people he loves?
That's not consistent with benevolence, unconditional love, or Jesus' message is it?
So what you said is that God is not omnipotent.
God's moral code says he has to abandon people to infinite suffering? That's not moral at all.
No, there is every point in questioning it. Questioning it means we are using the brains God gave us and actually thinking, instead of just blindly accepting every illogical and contradictory statement that anyone tells us. Questioning it means we are seeking wisdom and truth, which the Bible affirms are good things.
And this might be hard for you to accept, but you are not God. My statements toward you are not arguing against God, they're arguing against you. And your arguments are DEFINITELY not above questioning.
If the only two options are Heaven with God, and the worst possible place imaginable, then it just doesn't add up.
This is not to say that a loving God cannot punish people for sin either. But to be just, the punishment must fit the crime. Never-ending torment hardly fits the crime, any crime, even some of the worst ones I can imagine.
I'm really harsh on crime. I'd give some of the sick child rapists and violent murderers the death penalty if I could, and life without parole if I couldn't.
Still, those are finite punishments for finite crimes. Dying ends their suffering.
But if you DON'T die? If you don't die, AND you don't get paroled? If you don't die, don't get paroled, AND suffer intolerable torture forever?
No. That just isn't compatible at all.
At the very least, in spite of our differences, IF Hell was as HR believes, being apart God's presence/love - that doesn't sound like intolerable torture at least.
Speaking of which though, I've been meaning to respond to HR about
You do NOT get to tell me when or if I'm experiencing God's love or not. This offends me deeply, that you think you know how much God I'm getting.
I could be wrong though. But okay, so you accept the position that God's presence/love is in the world/your life?
Okay, I can work with that.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Wait, what? No. No, that's not what I believe at all. That's what I've been going against.
It offends you to tell you that God loves you? That's curious.
Of course.
Hmmmm
Is it not your position that Hell isn't a place, but more a state of being apart from God?
Have you not argued this in the past?
That is NOT what was being said.
I was specifically talking about the life experience, and how I do not EXPERIENCE God's love, in my life, and/or I do not see it manifest in the world.
You responded with basically "yes you do".
Feel free to believe yourself that God loves me. But don't you ****ing dare claim that I actually experience this love.
You have no business whatsoever trying to tell other people how much God is a part of their lives.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No, that's not my position. Other people have argued this. I am arguing that Hell does not exist, never has existed, and never will. It is antithetical to a loving God.
No, to clarify, I'm arguing you are experiencing God's love, as you always have, as you always will.
Now, you may not believe in God or God's love, you may not recognize that God exists or that his love exists, you may not acknowledge that God and God's love play a role in your life. Nevertheless, both God and God's love are eternally present, in your life and in everyone else's.
No. No it isn't. No he isn't. He never was, and never will be. Not in yours, mine, or anyone else.
Now, you may believe in him, or believe in his love, but that's just your own delusion. Wake up.
Gee, that was easy. I thought it'd be a lot harder to just make enormous unsupported claims, and push them onto other people without so much as permission or politeness.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
There's nothing impolite about claiming God exists.
Though, it is erroneous to equivocate "I don't believe in God" with "God does not exist." You may not believe in God, but since God exists regardless of your belief in God, you are most certainly experiencing God.
And I don't know why you're going on and on about impoliteness. You made the claim that you were experiencing the lack of God's love. This is incorrect, and of course I'm going to disagree with you on it in a thread in a forum dedicated to religious discussion. You couldn't have entered into this discussion under the impression that opinions contrary to yours wouldn't be expressed, because that's exactly why you come to this forum in the first place.
There IS something impolite about telling someone they are experiencing something divine when they are not.
Dave: "I have not experienced Love, and I do not see the presence of Love in the world or my life."
Bob: "Yes you do, and you always have"
Dave:
Correct. God would exist regardless of whether or not I believed in him, if he in fact existed. But "I believe in God, so he must exist" is just as erroneous a claim.
You are making a bold yet unfounded claim about God's presence/existence. Then you have the ****ing gall to tell me what I'm experiencing in my life.
First, demonstrate that God exists regardless of anything, my beliefs, or otherwise.
Demonstrate how it's incorrect.
Your personal belief that it is incorrect, does not make it incorrect.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
As for the matter of God in particular: as incomprehensible and contradictory-on-its-face as it is for a deity to send people to Hell and be claimed benevolent, or to institute Hell by necessity and be claimed omnipotent, it is just as incomprehensible for a deity to remain utterly incommunicado and be claimed loving. Think about it. Is that how you treat your loved ones? If your family gave you the lifelong silent treatment, how would you think they felt about you? Does the true romantic stalk a girl unseen and maybe (at most) leave ambiguous signs and do secret little favors for her, or does he walk up to her, say "Hi", and build a relationship of two-way open communication between equals?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Look, if you don't like the direction this thread is going, that's fine, but recognize that you're the one who directed it down this course.
You posted this:
And later this:
To which the answer is no, incorrect on both counts.
You then proceeded to get bent out of shape about this, which I don't get why, considering that you're the one who made the posts and asked the questions. And really, what response did you think I was going give? You really thought I was going to agree that you are experiencing God's absence in the world being a believer in God? Come on man, how long have we been doing this?
If you can't handle religious opinions that are contrary to your own, then go take a breather somewhere.
I don't see how you can argue this. You can experience things without being aware of either the experience or what it is you are experiencing. People do it all the time.
For instance, everyone is, at varying times of the day, unconscious. I think it's pretty safe to say we don't vanish from existence at those times, and as such are experiencing things, such as room temperature, gravity, breathing, etc.
Unless we're arguing an unusual form of solipsism, I'm going to have to disagree with you. People experience things without realizing it all the time, and the fact that they don't realize it doesn't magically make those things they're experiencing go away.
JUST as incomprehensible? That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
Also, I don't believe God is utterly incommunicado. I'm not a deist.
Well, to be fair, you might apply value judgments to the second one, but it is still a form of love.
You have a point, but the exact same argument in reverse can be found of parents who are perpetually in their children's lives and never leave them alone. There is a middle ground between the two extremes here.
Alright, Romans 3:23 for ya. And I believe your second question is really just saying "My opinion is different than yours, so I don't care what you say." Not rising to that bait there buddy. Every perspective of mine is from the Bible, so if you have beef with that, then oh well. But if you want to argue from a Biblical perspective, than by all means, let's test our wits.
Except that He did do it. He built a bridge to heaven at Calvary. The only thing left is for you to choose to either take that bridge, or pole vault the canyon. Trust me, the latter ain't happening, even if you're Mother Teresa. It is logically possible for Him to let you in, but logically impossible to just say "Hey, everyone's going to Heaven." If He did that, He'd be breaking His own law and would therefore be imperfect. Read Hebrews if you want to understand the politics of Calvary, that book explains it all.
Addressing "no love in Heaven": the thing here is that if any being in Heaven sins (i.e. Satan), they will be cast out. If you have sin, you cannot enter, as it is only for the pure who wish to worship God and God alone. The only love in Heaven is that for the Father, and His for those He created.
On free will, our opinions on this phrase differ. I'll explain this by saying life is a maze. According to your idea of free will, we can teleport to anywhere we want to in the maze. There are rules in this physical, created world that we cannot break with thought alone. However, what I'm referring to as free will here is the ability to choose which path to take. Every time you hit a fork in the road or an intersection, you have a choice of which path to take. That's what I mean by free will. Sorry about the confusion between our definitions for the word.
First off, from a Christian perspective (as I stated), Sheol is a waiting place. The most common interpretation of Scripture says that Jesus went to where OT saints were and took them with him to heaven. From a non-Messianic Jewish standpoint, you are correct. But I never stated that I was speaking form that standpoint. The Jews in the OT only knew about the waiting place so that's all that was written about in the OT. The way to Heaven was not open until after Christ died and rose.
Every human being (except one) has chosen to do things their own way instead of God's way. That's why everyone deserves Hell. And yes, it can be helped, but only if you stop trying to do it by yourself. You view it as an injustice because you refuse to surrender, but then that's your choice. Hell is a punishment for a choice of ours, not an action. The sinful actions arose after our decision.
As Blinking said, you are in this paragraph demonstrating that God is not omnipotent, because you are saying God simultaneously wants to do something and cannot actually do it.
Furthermore, you are claiming God's love has a finite limit. This cannot be, and yet you are saying that God would abandon someone willingly forever. This is not what love does.
Because the He violates His own law. If you really want to see the politics of salvation, read the book of Hebrews. Long story short, God gave Adam reign over Earth. Adam broke God's law, so God punished him. Now God wants to regain control of Earth, and He won't just rescind His earlier choice (or else He would be imperfect). Therefore, He has to become a man (Jesus), live a perfect life under His own law (check), and then He has to die so the Old Covenant can be replaced by a new, perfect one (Hebrews 8:7). Saving everyone regardless would involve breaking His own rules, which would make Him unholy.
If doesn't place a condition on salvation, He would cease to be breaking His own rules. No perfect being can break their own rules, or else they aren't perfect. Also, what is not omnibenevolent about offering salvation to everyone regardless of their past or what they've done? That's more omnibenevolent than anything else in existence. He has to condemn us because we don't meet His standard. He doesn't want to separate us from Himself because He loves us. So He plays by His own rules, suffers a penalty He doesn't deserve (death is a punishment for those who have sinned, and Jesus was sinless), and therefore annuls the previous covenant of religion. A new, perfect covenant can now be made that can save anyone. A new, perfect covenant of faith is now in place for us.
If he is perfect he could modify time and ensure he never made the rule in the first place. You have already shown he is willing to change the rules, A purfect being would not have made rules in the first place as all he would do would BE purfect and would have the forsight to know things change based on that having any rule in place is a flaw.
Anyways, the logical fallacy of your argument is assuming that perfection involves having everything work out for everyone regardless of what they choose. His perfection is having no flaws. His perfection demands laws be made regarding sin or else He will become impure. The perfection requires rules, it does not mean He does things in a manner convenient for you.
And where you get this "vanish from existence" notion, I have no idea; it doesn't follow from either usage of the word "experience".
Short answer: no, you do not have experiences while unconscious, except while dreaming.
No. The inconsistency between purported character trait and purported behavior is identical. You may not like it, but all the people you talk to who believe in Hell don't like what you have to say about it either. I urge you to approach this contradiction in just the same way that you would prefer those people approach your contradiction.
He hasn't communicated with me. If you're going to say that I have had experiences (there's that word again) that I might interpret as God's touch, then sure... but I could also interpret those experiences any number of other ways. Determining that he has communicated with me requires the presupposition that he is there and wishes to communicate with me. Which is not communication. You don't have to believe that a person exists beforehand for them to come up to you and say, "Please don't walk on the grass", and there's nothing vague about the idea they're trying to communicate.
Absolutely not. Stalkers don't love their targets. They think they do (sometimes), but what they have is something else. Or, if you do want to call it "love", this implies that love is not always a positive behavior, and this form of love is not what we expect from a good deity.
Sure there's a middle ground, but I'd hardly consider unambiguous objective confirmation of existence an egregious exercise in "helicopter-parenting".
If I tell you that a worker does not deserve a million-dollar salary, do you conclude that you should instead enslave him and beat him savagely for the rest of his life? Of course not. That's an absurd false dichotomy. Between falling short of ultimate supreme perfection and deserving of the absolute worst thing possible, there is a vast middle ground. Literally: we're standing on it.
I'm not going to let a latent assumption of the authority of any text go unquestioned. The Bible is, as far as an objective observer is concerned, just one book among many that purports to make moral claims. Whether those claims ought to be accepted depends on the arguments presented in their favor. If you cannot present any of those arguments, then this whole ideological edifice of sin, damnation, and grace has feet of clay.
You are fundamentally missing the point of the objection here. It's his law. Why in the first place did he set his law such that he could not choose to do the compassionate thing without violating it? That doesn't seem particularly benevolent, or, if benevolent, particularly smart.
For that matter, what's so important about being perfect? Even granting for the sake of argument that the contingencies are as you say, it remains a logical possibility for God to let everyone into Heaven. The whole point of Christianity is that God is no stranger to self-sacrifice, isn't it? It does not strike me as inspiring (or, for that matter, perfect) that God values his perfection over his love for everyone else in the universe. Especially since this "perfection" consists in adherence to a law that he enacted of his own all-powerful volition and that prevents him from doing something else he wants to do.
If God's hands are tied, he tied them himself. Why did he do that? And the ties are not very strong; he can break them any time he wants. Why doesn't he do that?
Reassert? Yes. Explain? No. "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him" (11:6). Full stop. No explanation as to why this should be.
The book is, as might be expected given the intended audience, much more concerned with establishing that Christianity is the true and natural continuation of Jewish tradition and orthodoxy. The Sabbath's still there, Jesus is a proper high priest, et cetera. (To this end it states outright is that the First Covenant is imperfect - 8:7-8. How does this square with your "God can't break his law without being imperfect" argument?)
What it does say by way of explanation rests on extremely shaky assumptions, for example: "For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (9:13-14). That's a pretty big "if". I see no reason why an omnipotent creator of the universe should care about animal blood from any species. The line only works because the author is addressing the Jews, who already accept the validity of animal sacrifice. And in the next chapter he goes on to state that animal sacrifice doesn't take away sins, therefore throwing the whole analogy down the drain!
To the book's questionable credit, it does provide the citation about deserving Hell I asked for above (10:28-31), though it does not justify its assertion other than by another analogy to current Hebrew custom... which, again, the author has just finished calling imperfect.
As has already been pointed out, Job - which you cited - indicates that Satan can still present himself before God. Even setting that aside, it is not exactly an attractive portrait of "love" that you paint - nor, I submit, a Christian one. What about loving thy neighbor?
And again, why did he set his law the way he did?
No, I mean the same thing. The fact that we cannot teleport is precisely my point. There are walls in the maze. If God forbade sin, that would put up some more walls. But it does not follow that there would be no forks or intersections.
If you're choosing where to go to lunch, but I shut down every local McDonald's with a few well-placed rats, I have reduced the number of options you possess but I have not reduced them to one. There is still a host of other places you can choose to go. You still have free will. "If I shut the McDonald's, you don't have free will" does not follow; neither does "If God forbids sin, you don't have free will".
Jesus also didn't really die. We think death sucks because of its permanent consequences. If he dodged the consequences through a miracle, can he really be said to have suffered the same punishment? It's like going to jail for three days, then walking out and saying, "I have suffered for all the lifers on their behalf, so set them all free!" (Except you also own and operate the jail, you walked out because you pardoned yourself, and you had the power to pardon everyone else too but just chose not to because of a promise you made earlier, a promise that your three-day incarceration has no discernible bearing on.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, it isn't. Christians usually will try to make Sheol another term for hell, except it is most definitely not that.
No. What we have is what the tradition of Sheol actually was, which was an afterlife everyone went to composed of darkness. We then had a later, apocalyptic tradition of Judaism come in and claim different afterlives for different people.
What you're trying to do is make the texts of the Bible written under the first tradition fit with the second without contradiction. This is impossible, and disingenuous.
What's particularly weird is that you actually acknowledge that the books of the Bible were written under different traditions that changed over time. That's not usually a nuance that people who believe the Bible is the Word of God do as it, you know, contradicts exactly that.
Why? That doesn't make any sense!
Except, no, it cannot be helped. If it could be helped, then we would be capable of earning Heaven, which we aren't supposed to be able to do.
No, I view it as an injustice because it is one. Demonstrate how, in any way, the punishment fits the crime. Also demonstrate how it's a crime if we cannot help but to do it.
Except if it is impossible for men to live without sin, then by what possible logic is God justified in punishing us for it? We cannot actually live without sin. It's impossible. It is unjust to punish someone for something he cannot help but do.
So? He could just change the law.
That's kind of the point of Christianity, isn't it?
You're telling me the same God that was responsible for Jesus' ministry is going to be so concerned about following laws and never breaking them that he's going to be fixated on them and not helping people?
No, that is exactly the opposite of Jesus.
Who cares? God shouldn't, he's supposed to be infinitely loving!
Furthermore, if God were omniscient, why not just never make those rules in the first place? Do you see how your attempts to argue God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and unconditionally loving is turning out to be the exact opposite of all four of those qualities?
God could just rewrite the rules. The entire religion of Christianity is based around the idea that he did just that.
Furthermore, Jesus' entire ministry was based around the idea that if you fixate on laws at the expense of people, you are in the wrong. That is what Jesus criticized the Pharisees for. Now you're trying to argue that God is defined by the exact same characteristics as the people Jesus criticized?
That would be omnibenevolent. That's what I'm arguing God does. You're specifically arguing that God isn't doing that. Like here:
See?
If he's condemning people to eternal suffering, that's not love.
1) There is the old, Dante's Inferno hell with all the brimstone and fire and people being tortured for all eternity because they refused to accept Jesus as their lord and savior.
2) Hell is an eternal separation from God, where people go because they refused to accept Jesus as their lord and savior. Afaik, no one has ever gone into detail about what exactly this entails. Maybe it might just be your current life repeated for eternity? Or maybe you realize what it means to be separated from God and you regret it for eternity? Who knows.
In both of these, the act of refusing to accept Christ is the deciding factor. If you refuse to accept Christ before the death of your physical body, then God lets you live with your decision for all of eternity. People just disagree about what the consequences are now.
I am under the impression that the fact that you are separated from God is established fact in the NT (the whole passage where Jesus describes the gnashing of teeth and such). No one just knows what the supposed consequence of that is. My understanding is that the older version of Hell came from people taking all the horrid imagery in the Book of Revelations and imagining that must be what Hell is like.
That and Dante.
I do not remember what part of the NT this comes from, but Jesus does rather blatantly state that our actions on Earth will determine our fortunes after death, and that acts as justification for both Heaven and Hell.
I mean, you can just flip one of the argument for why Hell cannot reasonably exist (why must we be sent into eternal damnation for the actions we've committed in an incomparably small time period of our existence), and ask why we should be allowed eternal joy and happiness for the actions we've committed in an incomparably small time period of our existence?
The above argument effectively invalidates the existence of Heaven too. It doesn't make much sense that we should be allowed eternal happiness for what we've done on our incredibly brief time on Earth.
And there are also people who believe that Hell doesn't exist at all, because it doesn't make sense for an omnibenevolent God to send people to Hell, like Highroller.
Incidentally, I have a question for you- What denomination do you follow?
-Revelation 14:9-11
I have not yet heard the problem of Jail being discussed
Wasn't the only stipulation for entry to heaven is belief in Christ?
Wouldn't the appropriate analogy be government jailing people for not believing in...well, the government?