|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Hell. Surprised it's not a DH? So am I.
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Free-will requires that people can reject God. It does not require that some will eternally reject God. It's a strange, pessimistic approach to assume it does.
No, but it surely allows that some might?
Yes, but would they be those predestined to do so? They wouldn't be aware of their destiny, but God would.
Just an idea.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
Oh, don't start on pre-destination! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
It's an interesting question, but I'm probably not the best person to answer it, bearing in mind my previously expressed views on the subject.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Free-will requires that people can reject God. It does not require that some will eternally reject God. It's a strange, pessimistic approach to assume it does.
No, but it surely allows that some might?
Sure. The point being that either scenario is consistent with free-will, thereby invalidating the argument that free-will necessitates that some will eternally reject God.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Go Lamb-chopped! My take on this issue is that God has a problem with his own nature being holy and consequently it is incompatible with sin or evil. Consequently, to have a 'hell' alternative for those to whom to be near him would be impossible, is an act of mercy. I like the verse. "It is not God's will that any should perish but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth."
If you say: Why not annihilate? as some have, then I'm with both Freddy and Lamb-chopped. WE are created beings who don't actually make the rules. Neither can we rewrite them.
[ 28. July 2006, 20:08: Message edited by: Jamac ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
The point being that either scenario is consistent with free-will, thereby invalidating the argument that free-will necessitates that some will eternally reject God.
I agree. Has anybody been arguing that some necessarily will? Certainly not me.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
The point being that either scenario is consistent with free-will, thereby invalidating the argument that free-will necessitates that some will eternally reject God.
I agree. Has anybody been arguing that some necessarily will? Certainly not me.
Greyface, I agree. It was never necessary for anyone to reject God, eternally or otherwise. It was merely possible.
That some do seems obvious. Whether they will continue to do it forever is a good question.
That the state of someone who rejects God is, in the long run, less pacific than the reverse, is implicit in all religious teaching. Exactly how intranquil that state is, and how that intranquility manifests itself, is a good question.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
The point being that either scenario is consistent with free-will, thereby invalidating the argument that free-will necessitates that some will eternally reject God.
I agree. Has anybody been arguing that some necessarily will? Certainly not me.
Yes, here:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
3. It is possible to eternally reject God.
Why is this so universally accepted as Absolute Truth™? What if it's not possible? What if it's extremely unlikely?
Free will theodicy requires it. Without it, why does any suffering exist?
"Free will theodicy" could exist without the possibility of eternally rejecting God, as we seem to have both agreed upon. So the question remains, why is it so universally accepted that many most likely will? What if it is very unlikely to the point of being almost impossible that anyone could eternally resist so great a good as God?
I firmly and resolutely believe that any rejection of God or goodness is based completely in misunderstanding, confusion, incompleteness and misrepresentation. When things become clear, rejection will disappear. You may disagree, but you can't say that this view is inconsistent with free will.
-Digory
[ 30. July 2006, 02:57: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
So the question remains, why is it so universally accepted that many most likely will?
Because many people have experience of obstinately evil people?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
So the question remains, why is it so universally accepted that many most likely will?
Because many people have experience of obstinately evil people?
It seems sad that they haven't experienced a more obstinately good God.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
It seems sad that they haven't experienced a more obstinately good God.
You've experienced God? What was it like? I have not.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
If "experienced" isn't to your liking or particular understanding, feel free to substitute "a belief in".
I don't think I believe that God is not good enough or loving enough or consuming enough that his being would not convince and complete everyone upon their full understanding or knowing of him. No matter what evil people I encounter.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
See, to me that sounds like he's overwhelming them, which negates freewill.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
This post from the last page explains how Grey Face and I seemingly came to an agreement that free will doesn't require the possibility to eternally reject God.
The outcome doesn't determine the means--that all end up completed by God's loving will doesn't negate their choice anymore than some ending up in hell and some in heaven. Either is as consistent with the concept of free will.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
See, if there's no possibility to reject God, how can you say there's freedom? Freedom to do X has to imply possibility to do X.
[ 30. July 2006, 03:30: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
If I choose chocolate over vanilla, there was choice. If 5 of us all choose chocolate over vanilla, we still chose. If 100 of us all chose chocolate over vanilla, still, there's choice. If 10 billion of us all chose chocolate over vanilla, was there choice? Is it meaningful to say "there was a possibility to choose vanilla" if we know that in the end every person chooses chocolate?
I don't know, perhaps. But the fact that all 10 billion chose chocolate doesn't negate their free will.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Certainly if 10 billion people all choose vanilla, one would be very skeptical of their freedom to choose; choices between vanilla and chocolate just don't work that way.
But that's quite irrelevant to the freewill and hell thing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
I agree. The choice between loving God or rejecting God is far more clear as to which is better. Which is why I believe that when understanding is complete, the choice will be simple for everyone.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Ah. But what do those of us who find the FWD (Free-Will Defence) less than convincing do?
Firstly - Why I Do No Accept The FWD by Papio Aged 29 and a half....
1a) God knows everything
1b) Gods can do anything
2) God created the world in the way that God did (how God did that is another question)
3) God created the world in the way that God did knowing what the results would be
4) God created the world in the way that God did, knowing that the result would be that some humans would reject God
5) If Papio throws a brick a window pane and it shatters, Papio cannnot reasonably say, on the basis of some arcane philiosophical point, that Ppapio did not know the pane would shatter and, therefore, Papio caused the pane to shatter. That is to say, it is Papio's responsibity (his Fault) that the pane is shattered.
6) God does not therefore have it open to God to say that Man choose to Sin and leave it at that, anymore than Papio has it open to him to say that the pane shattered and to leave it at that
7) However the Garden of Eden is understood, God must therefore bare some responsibility, at the very least, for the Fall. That is to say, either The Fall was the will of God or else God was a Thoughtless Vandal who nevertheless Caused Man to Fall (because he Caused both Man and The conditions for a Fall, knowing precisely what the outcome would be.
So, really ISTM, one of the following must be true since the FWD does not "work".
A) There is No God
B) God could not have stopped the Fall - but could could only be because God is Limited in Some way. That is to say, if the doctrine/dogma of omnipotence is explicitly rejected.
C) God is not all Loving after all
D) The Fall was God's original intention
E) Something else.
What I don't think we can do is say "oh, then it must be D" and proceed to talk therefore as though the FWD let's God off the hook. That, ISTM, is sheer intellectual dishonesty. Nothing more than special pleading, really.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Digory, you've misrepresented me fairly comprehensively.
I've not got time to refute at the moment, I'll be back later.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
So, really ISTM, one of the following must be true since the FWD does not "work".
A) There is No God
B) God could not have stopped the Fall - but could could only be because God is Limited in Some way. That is to say, if the doctrine/dogma of omnipotence is explicitly rejected.
C) God is not all Loving after all
D) The Fall was God's original intention
E) Something else.
Papio, why not just think of more options?
How about:
F) God knew this would happen, but also knows that it will come out right in the end, ensuring the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. There is not an alternative way of doing it that would work better.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Do you want to worship a utilitarian God?
Is that another option? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
My point is that if you're going to list options they shouldn't be straw men.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Your option F is a utilitarian God - you know, the greatest good for the greatest number and so on, - Classic Jeremy Benthem, gawd ress is soul...
What straw men have I presented, please?
I assume you realise that my option E was there is case there was an an option, or option, I haven't thought of? As such, my list was not intended to be exhaustive!
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
I agree. The choice between loving God or rejecting God is far more clear as to which is better. Which is why I believe that when understanding is complete, the choice will be simple for everyone.
I sincerely hope you're right, but don't understand the source of your certainty.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Freedom to do X has to imply possibility to do X.
Don't tell the libertarians. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Actually, Digory, given your starting points I am still as confused as Mousethief about why you are so certain. Since I am not convinced there there is an all-loving, all-powerful God to choose (I know you are, but I'm not) why are you so convinced that I will choose him?
What about people who have died, rejecting God and repentance in their final breathes? Do you think they have "really" chosen God?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Your option F is a utilitarian God - you know, the greatest good for the greatest number and so on, - Classic Jeremy Benthem, gawd ress is soul...
I see, Papio. That's not quite the way I meant it.
How about:
G. God knows what will happen, and knows that this system is the best of all possible systems.
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
What straw men have I presented, please?
Your options were:
quote:
A) There is No God
This is not a straw man. It is a plausible alternative.
quote:
B) God could not have stopped the Fall - but could could only be because God is Limited in Some way. That is to say, if the doctrine/dogma of omnipotence is explicitly rejected.
This is a straw man. No one thinks this. Many believe that God did not choose to stop the Fall, or that His laws prevented Him, but not because He is not omnipotent.
quote:
C) God is not all Loving after all
This is a straw man. No one thinks this.
quote:
D) The Fall was God's original intention
This is a straw man. No one thinks this.
quote:
E) Something else.
Yes.
quote:
I assume you realise that my option E was there is case there was an an option, or option, I haven't thought of? As such, my list was not intended to be exhaustive!
Of course.
My issue is that you did not offer any alternatives that were good ones. Evidently you can't think of any.
One option must be that God is omnipotent, omnsicient, loving, and has created a world that will fulfill the purposes of His love in a way that is fair, intelligent and good for every person everywhere.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
If you think that no-one believe B, C or D you would appear to be less well read in theology than me.
If you believe that the "fact" that "no-one" thinks somethings means it is not possible, you would appear to be less well-read in philosophy and history.
Oh well.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
That book by Dearmer posted earlier is pretty good. It would serve people well to read it!
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
If you think that no-one believe B, C or D you would appear to be less well read in theology than me.
If you believe that the "fact" that "no-one" thinks somethings means it is not possible, you would appear to be less well-read in philosophy and history.
Papio, I am very likely less well read than you in any number of areas. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
In any case, I don't mean that literally no one thinks these things, because surely they do. Nor do I mean that none of them are possible.
I mean that they are straw men because they don't represent what, in your words, "must be true since the FWD does not 'work'."
quote:
As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous. (Wikipedia)
In other words the possibilities you mentioned mostly seem weak or ridiculous.
So I'm suggesting that another possibility would be that God knew that sin would happen, but also knows that it will come out right in the end, and that there is not an alternative way of doing it that would work better. In other words, the reality is consistent with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-loving God.
[ 30. July 2006, 20:11: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
The point being that either scenario is consistent with free-will, thereby invalidating the argument that free-will necessitates that some will eternally reject God.
I agree. Has anybody been arguing that some necessarily will? Certainly not me.
How have I misrepresented you, GF? Here you said you agree with me that a scenario where none reject God in the end is consistent with free will, which is all I've argued so far concerning you, as I understand it.
Apologies if I've offended you. I'm looking forward to your further explanation.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
I agree. The choice between loving God or rejecting God is far more clear as to which is better. Which is why I believe that when understanding is complete, the choice will be simple for everyone.
I sincerely hope you're right, but don't understand the source of your certainty.
I'm only as certain as I am about anything else I believe about God, I suppose. Nothing I've experienced about God in my life has ever suggested that he will let anyone remain unfinished, unpursued, or incomplete because I've experienced Goodness to mean pursuit until completion. Nothing I've experienced about people has ever suggested that evils are anything but unfortunate chains of events, and that any of us are capable of any evil in the right environments, and that, conversely, any of us is capable of any good in another environment.
None of this is proof for anyone else, but it's why I am "certain" of what I believe. I don't know if I'm right, but I choose to act on what I sincerely believe to be true. If I'm wrong in the end*, I assume God will help me adjust, or else it won't matter, or else I'll pay dearly for my mistaken beliefs. Who knows?
*Or tomorrow?
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Since I am not convinced there there is an all-loving, all-powerful God to choose (I know you are, but I'm not) why are you so convinced that I will choose him?
If you'd like my honest answer, I'll try, and please try not to be offended. I think there are many who don't believe in God for good reason, because there simply isn't a lot of reason available for such a belief. Many people grow up in surroundings that simply make it impossible or unlikely to believe that a God exists at all, let alone a loving one. I doubt God holds that against them, and I believe that one day we'll all see and understand God clearly, and then we'll all rise far above our misconceptions about if he exists (athiests) or what he's like (Christians & other religions). If you're wondering why I'm "certain" about any of this, the shortest answer is that I'm not. A slightly longer answer is found above in my response to Mouse.
-Digory
[ 31. July 2006, 01:16: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Has anybody been arguing that some necessarily will? Certainly not me.
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Yes, here:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Free will theodicy requires it (the possibility of eternally rejecting God). Without it, why does any suffering exist?
Hope that quote clean-up makes things a bit clearer. I don't think it obscures what we're discussing.
Your logic is faulty. At no point have I argued, as you claim, that the possibility of eternally rejecting God requires that any will actually do so. I have just argued that the possibility is there and the danger is real.
quote:
"Free will theodicy" could exist without the possibility of eternally rejecting God, as we seem to have both agreed upon.
No, we haven't agreed on that at all. It could exist without it being the case that anybody will, but it would not exist without the possibility.
quote:
So the question remains, why is it so universally accepted that many most likely will?
You're asking the wrong person. As I've said repeatedly, I'm a hopeful universalist but I don't deny the possibility. I hope nobody chooses in the end to jump off the cliff, but I don't believe there is no cliff. Am I making sense?
quote:
What if it is very unlikely to the point of being almost impossible that anyone could eternally resist so great a good as God?
That may well be the case but almost impossible isn't impossible. Jesus seemed to think the threat was real. he could have been wrong of course, but that's not a line of thinking I'd want to go down without a great deal of thought.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
If I may pick up on a couple of things. A page back Greyface was arguing that eternal torment is preferable to annihilation. He said:
quote:
So would you obliterate your children if you knew they'd be unhappy for ever? Or make them as happy as you could, even if that involved a fair bit of weeping and teeth-gnashing? Most people seem unwilling to answer that question.
Life as it is seems generally a mix of suffering and joy. At the moment for example I'm "suffering" from sinusitis but if you come round here recommending euthanasia and berating my mother for giving birth to me, I'll set the dogs loose.
As I understand it, the problem most of us that are arguing against hell have, is that it makes God into a sadistic bully. If, on the other hand, hell is comparable to the occasional bout of sinusitis then of course there isn’t much of a problem.
To go back to your first paragraph you talk of hell as being a place where your children a) are unhappy – a very mild word compared to torment b) can be made less unhappy – so even their mild disappointment at ending up there can be ameliorated – not as far as I know a part of any conception of hell I have come across. You also articulate the idea that others who care from the outside could intervene in some way to make it less…. errr… unpleasant – or is that too negative a word to use?
My point is that to make hell acceptable you have had to euphemise it so much as to make it unrecognisable as hell. As soon as someone suggests that your hell sounds not too bad at all, you switch horses and suddenly insist it is a place to avoid at all costs.
To me hell is being separated from God and his ways. God as I understand it, is the source of all good things: love, beauty, joy etc. So I find the idea of anyone being subject to an endless existence with none of these present and there being no respite [b[ever[/b] from all the negatives (pain, rejection, betrayal etc), to be utterly repugnant. I cannot see how anyone deserves that.
Nor could I understand why anyone would choose that. People make all sorts of bad decisions in this life but that is often because they fail to understand the full implications of their choices. (Digory makes this point well, further up the page).
If you are still insistent that there must be some meaningful choice then to my mind a choice between heaven and annihilation is definitely a choice.
For those who for some bizarre reason – that I still can’t get close to getting my head round – would prefer to know their children were suffering forever, rather than that they had ceased to exist, then the choice could be heaven, annihilation or hell. Personally I can’t see anyone ever choosing hell - so it would almost certainly be empty in my view - but maybe some of those you love dearly will and you will find that reassuring in some way.
Luigi
[ 31. July 2006, 13:19: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
As I understand it, the problem most of us that are arguing against hell have, is that it makes God into a sadistic bully.
I don't believe any of us have been arguing for the rightness of eternal torture, so your accusation is unjustified unless you think it sadistic to keep those alive who are having an unpleasant time of some kind, as opposed to killing/obliterating them.
Can you specify what at what level of discomfort you would consider it righteous to start annihilating someone?
quote:
If, on the other hand, hell is comparable to the occasional bout of sinusitis then of course there isn’t much of a problem.
No, because of course spending eternity with sinusitis as opposed to in bliss in heaven isn't anything to worry about.
quote:
My point is that to make hell acceptable you have had to euphemise it so much as to make it unrecognisable as hell.
Then you've misunderstood. I'm not trying to make it acceptable, I'm trying to say that your argument is that a loving God would put the suffering human down. That non-existence is preference to some unspecified level of unpleasantness. Where do you draw the line, Luigi?
If our afterlife state was seen as a spectrum from eternal perfect bliss to eternal torment rather than one or the other, at what point would you start obliterating people?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
GreyFace,
I see the misunderstanding. My wording was confusing. What we have agreed upon is that free will can support the idea that the possibility of eternal rejection of God could go unfulfilled.
I maintain that the possibility isn't even necessary, but you haven't gone so far.
Does free will require that we have every conceivable choice at our disposal? How many choices must we have in order to be said to have free will?
Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In other words the possibilities you mentioned mostly seem weak or ridiculous.
Who to?
BTW, I apologise for being rude to you earlier.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Does free will require that we have every conceivable choice at our disposal? How many choices must we have in order to be said to have free will?
Freewill isn't about the range of choices available to us, but our ability to freely choose from whatever choices we have.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
I see the misunderstanding. My wording was confusing. What we have agreed upon is that free will can support the idea that the possibility of eternal rejection of God could go unfulfilled.
Yes, that's fair.
quote:
I maintain that the possibility isn't even necessary, but you haven't gone so far.
Nor will I.
quote:
Does free will require that we have every conceivable choice at our disposal? How many choices must we have in order to be said to have free will?
I don't think it really matters. What we're talking about is free will in the matter of rejecting or loving God. If love can't be coerced, then if we don't have free will in this matter we're not capable of loving. On the other hand if we're free to love we're also free not to love, and if we're free not to love... etc.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Freewill isn't about the range of choices available to us, but our ability to freely choose from whatever choices we have.
What does it mean to choose freely in a matter though, if not being able to choose from two or more options?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Greyface - I have explained my understanding of hell here.
quote:
To me hell is being separated from God and his ways. God as I understand it, is the source of all good things: love, beauty, joy etc. So I find the idea of anyone being subject to an endless existence with none of these present and there being no respite ever from all the negatives (pain, rejection, betrayal etc), to be utterly repugnant. I cannot see how anyone deserves that.
If you think that I am wrong in my conception of hell and that it is a very different place to this (much nicer) then please state why my depiction of hell is inaccurate. At the moment you seem to be hiding behind conveiniently vague generalities.... "unspecified level of unpleasantness. " Which could range between not repugnant at all, to suffering beyond our wildest imagination.
Secondly I would never suggest that there is a point at which people should be put down. My argument was that I could accept that there might be a point at which people themselves might choose to be annhilated especially if the worst suffering we have ever seen on earth was nothing compared to the intensity of suffering in hell. I thought I'd made it clear. However, apparently I hadn't.
Finally, I'll state it yet again in case it is missed. My main problem is that no suffering on earth is comparable to hell because, as I understand it, in hell there is no end to it. If there is never a good day in hell. There is never true love, true care, true affirmation, true beauty. Then why would anyone choose to go there? Who could possibly deserve to be sent there?
That is what I have a problem with.
I have a couple of times seen someone I love suffer quite considerably and believe me I would have killed them there and then if I'd thought their suffering was total and that I knew for certain that there was never any possibility of them having any further moment of joy, no matter how fleeting. Of course this never occurs in this life so it didn't even cross my mind.
I really don't think I am unusual in thinking this way. It is the reason so many others have said that annihilation is preferable to eternal torment - or to put it in your words - eternal unspecified unpleasantness.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Freewill isn't about the range of choices available to us, but our ability to freely choose from whatever choices we have.
What does it mean to choose freely in a matter though, if not being able to choose from two or more options?
If there's not at least 2 options, then there's no choice involved at all, and the question of whether the choice is free or not is rather moot, isn't it? Clearly there must be at least 2 options for the concept of "choice" to be in play at all. At that point you can ask if the choice is free or not.
But complaining that there aren't 12 choices but only 2, therefore the choice isn't "free" -- that's a category error. The freedom of the choice (if there is a choice) isn't dependent upon the number of choices available. If the menu says you can have either the mashed potatoes or the fries, your choice as a diner between those two options is quite unencumbered, even though you can't have a baked potato which is what you'd really like. This "there's not enough choices so it's not free" nonsense is something I have run into many times with non-theists when discussing free will. It's a grave misunderstanding of what is meant by "free will".
But surely you knew this, and I must be missing your point.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
If you think that I am wrong in my conception of hell and that it is a very different place to this (much nicer) then please state why my depiction of hell is inaccurate.
Your depiction of hell seems quite feasible to me. Are you expecting me to provide you with some kind of revelation as to what it's really like?
Are you arguing now that this is what Hell is like but it's impossible to end up there? That doesn't seem to make sense.
quote:
At the moment you seem to be hiding behind conveiniently vague generalities....
Forgive me for not having specific details as to the conditions in hell.
quote:
Secondly I would never suggest that there is a point at which people should be put down. My argument was that I could accept that there might be a point at which people themselves might choose to be annhilated especially if the worst suffering we have ever seen on earth was nothing compared to the intensity of suffering in hell. I thought I'd made it clear. However, apparently I hadn't.
Right. So if somebody didn't want to be put down but wasn't able to enter heaven, or refused to do so, what would you call their eternal destination?
quote:
There is never true love, true care, true affirmation, true beauty. Then why would anyone choose to go there?
There's existence though, unless you're right and hell and annihilation are identical. I'm not sure I share your apparent view of non-existence as morally neutral, to a bit of suffering being a bit bad to great suffering being really bad, and a bit of happiness being marginally better than non-existence and so on.
Or at least, I can conceive that your argument might be wrong. You don't seem to accept the idea that existence is good.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally stated by Greyface.
I'm a hopeful universalist but I don't deny the possibility. I hope nobody chooses in the end to jump off the cliff, but I don't believe there is no cliff.
Universalism is an attractive option but it seems to me that Christ did not in any way encourage us to adopt it. He threatens the Pharisees with Hell "You brood of vipers, how can you escape the fires of Hell?" [Matt23:33]
On the question of why anyone, given the choice would reject eternity with a loving God, it could be because love is not his only quality. He is also holy. Holy could be defined as incompatible with our sinfulness which unfortunately we easily cling onto by rejecting his way of dealing with it ie repentance. It humiliates us to repent since it involves the 'breaking' of our egos. God always accused the OT Hebrews of being hard-hearted. Has anything changed in human nature? A resounding no to that!
Regarding Papio's alternatives. Clearly God could predict man's rejection of him. Why then allow it to happen? The inference is that this is not a loving act. I agree with this though maybe have to recognise that God by definition simply knows more than me. He did this yet says he's loving. This is a paradox that I could only solve if I had his vision, if I could see the end from the beginning. As Freddy says, We have to trust at some point that his way of doing things will work to create the best scenario for all.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But surely you knew this, and I must be missing your point.
My point was just that there had to be a range of choices (i.e. at least 2) for it to be possible for free will to come into play.
I've heard it argued that to have free will is actually to have one's ability to choose evil removed - i.e. for the will to be free of evil. That's not what I mean by free will.
[ 31. July 2006, 15:02: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If the menu says you can have either the mashed potatoes or the fries, your choice as a diner between those two options is quite unencumbered, even though you can't have a baked potato which is what you'd really like. This "there's not enough choices so it's not free" nonsense is something I have run into many times with non-theists when discussing free will. It's a grave misunderstanding of what is meant by "free will".
Exactly. This is why I believe it is possible to believe in free will without the possibility of eternally rejecting God. In this case, even if you wanted to eternally reject God, you can't. It's not in your nature to do so. This doesn't make your free will invalid, as there are other options you are able to freely choose between. That God cared enough about us to keep eternal rejection, and thus, eternal hell, out of our reach speaks to his great love for us.
I'm not saying I am certain this is how it is. I'm saying that this view is compatible with free will and is thus not disproven by saying that God values our free will.
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Jesus seemed to think the threat was real. he could have been wrong of course, but that's not a line of thinking I'd want to go down without a great deal of thought.
I don't believe Jesus was wrong about anything. I wouldn't mind exploring that avenue of this discussion/debate with you and Jamac (and any others), if you desired. In what passages do you perceive Jesus to have been referring to a literal, post-death, eternal hell?
Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Universalism is an attractive option but it seems to me that Christ did not in any way encourage us to adopt it. He threatens the Pharisees with Hell "You brood of vipers, how can you escape the fires of Hell?" [Matt23:33]"
There is no word in the Bible that means "Hell". Gehenna, which is what he refers to here, is seen by many as a national judgement. Check out this link :
A Challenge to the Doctrine of Eternal Torment
I certainly believe Christ made threats of judgement(which is part of why I don't believe in this "people send themselves to hell" idea) but I just don't believe that he intended to cast anybody off forever. He punishes or chastises for the same reason any good creature would, to bring about repentance.
[code clarifications]
[ 31. July 2006, 20:37: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
John Spears,
Welcome aboard. I've cleaned up a bit of your code using the [QUOTE] and [URL] UBB tags. These help to make the Ship run smoothly. If you need a place to practice using these code tags, visit the UBB Practice Thread up in the Styx. It's a great place to get used to UBB code or to ask questions you may have about UBB.
Thanks for helping us out. PM me if you have any questions.
Professor Kirke
Purgatory Host
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
Check out this link :
A Challenge to the Doctrine of Eternal Torment
Welcome, John. Very nice link. I love sites like this that correlate large numbers of passages.
The author's conclusion seems to be that there is not eternal torment, but complete obliteration, as some have suggested here. It is interesting that most of the passages about the fate of the wicked do simply predict their complete destruction.
I didn't notice any explanation of passages such as these:
quote:
Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Mark 3:29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”—
Matthew 18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.
Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
These do seem to give the impression of punishments that go on forever.
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
I certainly believe Christ made threats of judgement (which is part of why I don't believe in this "people send themselves to hell" idea) but I just don't believe that he intended to cast anybody off forever.
Christ did use that kind of language, but it does seem reasonable to see His speech as metaphoric at times.
As for people "sending themselves to hell" Jesus did say:
quote:
Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
John 12:47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
Sayings like these could be interpreted as self-judgment.
[ 01. August 2006, 00:35: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Exactly. This is why I believe it is possible to believe in free will without the possibility of eternally rejecting God.
Then our choice to accept God is not free.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Exactly. This is why I believe it is possible to believe in free will without the possibility of eternally rejecting God.
Then our choice to accept God is not free.
Why is this a problem?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
