|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Gaping Maw of Hell
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
What about those who have been "told correctly" but much as they'd love to believe it's true, just find they don't?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's a very odd Hell if the denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon don't qualify for it.
Who does? What do I have to do to join?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The doctrine of the atonement says very clearly that all mankind is at enmity with God as the default position - Jesus said we are condemned already;
There is no The Doctrine of The Atonement. You should say your particular doctrine of the atonement believes....
.......and I don't recall Jesus saying we are condemned already. I think that's Pauline theology.
quote:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
"Whoever believes in the Son has life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
Jesus
As far as Noah, etc, are concerned - just read Hebrews 11. These people were all counted as righteous and were saved. The cross works backwards too and saved all those who were faithful to God's revelation in their day.
Believing that the Bible expresses truth through symbolism does not make an evangelical a liberal. I do not believe, for example, that Jesus is a real lamb. Neither do I believe God smells sacrifices or walks in gardens. Do you really believe that evangelicals take such things totally literally?
Ah John has all condemned already. I wonder how that squares with Jesus saying he came not to call the righteous.
As for Hebrews 11 that speaks of righteousness through faith. It speaks of a heavenly reward prepared by Jesus in the age to come. But it does not speak about righteousness through faith in Christ. It speaks of righteousness through faith. All those ancestor knew nothing of Christ's life, death and resurrection yet they were still righteous.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Believing that the Bible expresses truth through symbolism does not make an evangelical a liberal. I do not believe, for example, that Jesus is a real lamb. Neither do I believe God smells sacrifices or walks in gardens. Do you really believe that evangelicals take such things totally literally?
Many people take torture in Hell quite literally, yes. And they would say you are in error in not doing so too.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What about those who have been "told correctly" but much as they'd love to believe it's true, just find they don't?
Why is it so hard to believe the Kingdom of God came near in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus?
Do you reject the Kingdom of God? If so, why?
If its the supernaturalism that is a stumbling block, cut it out and throw it into the fire.
Those who do the will of God are Jesus' brothers and sisters.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What about those who have been "told correctly" but much as they'd love to believe it's true, just find they don't?
Do you mean "what should they do?" or "what happens to them in the end?"
I'm suspecting the latter. In which case I would leave them to the mercy of God. There's a huge difference between "just can't" and "just won't." And I'm sure God can tell the difference.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What about those who have been "told correctly" but much as they'd love to believe it's true, just find they don't?
Do you mean "what should they do?" or "what happens to them in the end?"
I'm suspecting the latter. In which case I would leave them to the mercy of God. There's a huge difference between "just can't" and "just won't." And I'm sure God can tell the difference.
I agree with that entirely. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ah John has all condemned already. I wonder how that squares with Jesus saying he came not to call the righteous.
Well he doesn't say they are condemned with no chance of redemption - that's the whole point of being 'saved' - we who are all condemned can, through belief (faith and trust) in the Son, be taken out of condemnation. As Paul says 'there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.'
quote:
As for Hebrews 11 that speaks of righteousness through faith. It speaks of a heavenly reward prepared by Jesus in the age to come. But it does not speak about righteousness through faith in Christ. It speaks of righteousness through faith. All those ancestor knew nothing of Christ's life, death and resurrection yet they were still righteous.
Yes, you're quite right - but this was OT, not post-Christ. You'll read that their faith was reckoned to them as righteousness. It was said that to be commended, to please God, we must believe he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Their faith in God (who was, after all the God who was incarnate in Jesus) is what was commended. It seems to me from this list of saints that God is confirming the covenants made in the OT that are fuilfilled in Christ. When Jesus went to Sheol to announce the Gospel I believe he went there to bring out those who had died in the faith of YHWH and lead them out to their reward. I don't see that anyone who lived under God's covenants before Jesus came is excluded from salvation - they are God's elect after all.
quote:
Many people take torture in Hell quite literally, yes. And they would say you are in error in not doing so too.
You really believe in a fiery place of torture as described by Dante?
Or can you not see that even conservative evangelicals like me can detect what is evidently symbol and metaphor? Jesus used Gehenna as a parable of hell.
He is not a real shepherd. The kingdom is not a real tree full of birds, hell is not a smouldering rubbish dump outside the walls of the city, Jesus is not a real dead lamb on a throne, there is no emerald rainbow or glassy sea in heaven. We will not wear white robes for ever and a day and throw our crowns around like frisbees at the big golden throne that Jesus sits on (as well as being a dead sheep). The new jerusalem is not going to be lowered to the ground on invisible wires ansd we will not all wait in line to be handed a little white stone and a certificate with our new name written on it.
HOWEVER
There is a real place, a way of being alive with Christ that we cannot understand, where those who are redeemed will see him and live in peace and joy for eternity .
There is a real place, a way of existing that we cannot understand, without Christ, without God, where those who refused to believe, the unredeemed will live in condemnation for eternity.
Beautiful as the picture language of heaven might be, I don't believe it's literal and it comes nowhere near the glory that we will experience.
Dreadful as the picture language of hell might be, I don't believe it's literal BUT it comes nowhere near the awfulness of the reality that will be felt.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What about those who have been "told correctly" but much as they'd love to believe it's true, just find they don't?
Do you mean "what should they do?" or "what happens to them in the end?"
I'm suspecting the latter. In which case I would leave them to the mercy of God. There's a huge difference between "just can't" and "just won't." And I'm sure God can tell the difference.
I know many people who "just can't" - I often find myself on the edge of that category myself. I've never met anyone who "just won't".
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, 'just won't' is an interesting idea. I suppose it means people who are confronted with all the evidence (!), and still refuse to believe in something. Do such people actually exist?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, 'just won't' is an interesting idea. I suppose it means people who are confronted with all the evidence (!), and still refuse to believe in something. Do such people actually exist?
Hmm, does this suggest a new (to me, anyway) twist on conditional universalism? Some people may well refuse to believe in and follow Jesus but that must be because they've not been presented with all the evidence properly, otherwise how could they refuse to believe in and follow him? And given that they've been presented the evidence in defective, substandard fashion, God will not condemn them...?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Presumably, you could start adding to that, various groups of people, e.g. those who are not interested, those who don't find any of the evidence convincing, and so on. I don't really understand who would be condemned, or why, out of that lot, but then I don't worry about it either. I don't feel condemned now I suppose - does that count?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Yes, 'just won't' is an interesting idea. I suppose it means people who are confronted with all the evidence (!), and still refuse to believe in something. Do such people actually exist?
YES!
To deny that this question could ever be answered in the affirmative is to deny the reality of free will.
As I certainly believe in free will, then I believe the answer must be 'yes'. A denial of free will implies a denial of moral responsibility. How many people are prepared to say that someone like, for example, Fred West had an excuse to murder all those innocent people?
Interestingly, the Bible seems to affirm the same idea, hence the claim in Luke 16:31:
quote:
If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.
No amount of evidence will persuade some people.
[ 17. June 2014, 09:48: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
So what do you make of the many people I know who would love to believe but just find they don't? These refusers may exist, but I've never actually met one.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ah John has all condemned already. I wonder how that squares with Jesus saying he came not to call the righteous.
Well he doesn't say they are condemned with no chance of redemption - that's the whole point of being 'saved' - we who are all condemned can, through belief (faith and trust) in the Son, be taken out of condemnation. As Paul says 'there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.'
quote:
As for Hebrews 11 that speaks of righteousness through faith. It speaks of a heavenly reward prepared by Jesus in the age to come. But it does not speak about righteousness through faith in Christ. It speaks of righteousness through faith. All those ancestor knew nothing of Christ's life, death and resurrection yet they were still righteous.
Yes, you're quite right - but this was OT, not post-Christ. You'll read that their faith was reckoned to them as righteousness. It was said that to be commended, to please God, we must believe he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Their faith in God (who was, after all the God who was incarnate in Jesus) is what was commended. It seems to me from this list of saints that God is confirming the covenants made in the OT that are fuilfilled in Christ. When Jesus went to Sheol to announce the Gospel I believe he went there to bring out those who had died in the faith of YHWH and lead them out to their reward. I don't see that anyone who lived under God's covenants before Jesus came is excluded from salvation - they are God's elect after all.
The point is, there are/were righteous people before the coming of Christ so everyone cannot be "condemned" as a baseline starting point.
I suppose you'd have to define "condemned". It cannot mean being unable to escape sin and be righteous before God unless you believe in Jesus.
It might refer to death after the idea that eternal life is offered in Jesus (because that's a new thing). So Noah was not under condemnation of death, that's just the way things were before.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So what do you make of the many people I know who would love to believe but just find they don't? These refusers may exist, but I've never actually met one.
But why don't they? You didn't answer my questions above.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What about those who have been "told correctly" but much as they'd love to believe it's true, just find they don't?
Why is it so hard to believe the Kingdom of God came near in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus?
Why is it so hard to believe that there's a pink unicorn in my back garden?
quote:
Do you reject the Kingdom of God? If so, why?
Do you reject the Way of the Pink Unicorn? If so, why?
quote:
If its the supernaturalism that is a stumbling block, cut it out and throw it into the fire.
Those who do the will of God are Jesus' brothers and sisters.
Without the supernaturalism, I can happily do the rest without bringing religion into it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So what do you make of the many people I know who would love to believe but just find they don't? These refusers may exist, but I've never actually met one.
But why don't they? You didn't answer my questions above.
I have now.
They don't believe because they've thought about it and decided they see no compelling reason to suppose it's any more than wishful thinking and fear of death, mostly. They agree it'd be nice if it were true, and they wish it were.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
If its the supernaturalism that is a stumbling block, cut it out and throw it into the fire.
Those who do the will of God are Jesus' brothers and sisters.
Without the supernaturalism, I can happily do the rest without bringing religion into it.
You can happily do God's will without bringing religion into it? How?
Do you believe in the values of the Kingdom or not?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
If its the supernaturalism that is a stumbling block, cut it out and throw it into the fire.
Those who do the will of God are Jesus' brothers and sisters.
Without the supernaturalism, I can happily do the rest without bringing religion into it.
You can happily do God's will without bringing religion into it? How?
Do you believe in the values of the Kingdom or not?
Tell me what you think they are.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was thinking about my family - my father was uninterested in religion; my mother was vehemently opposed to it; my wife went to a Christian boarding school, and then gave it up; I sort of dabble with religions.
Would God really condemn such people? Then rather like the Groucho Marx joke, he's not worth believing in.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was thinking about my family - my father was uninterested in religion; my mother was vehemently opposed to it; my wife went to a Christian boarding school, and then gave it up; I sort of dabble with religions.
Would God really condemn such people? Then rather like the Groucho Marx joke, he's not worth believing in.
Aye. It's thoughts like this that make me ask these questions. Most of my family have reasons they cannot believe God is there, or at least, if he is, gives a shit. To them, the demand appears to be "believe, despite the evidence."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was thinking about my family - my father was uninterested in religion; my mother was vehemently opposed to it; my wife went to a Christian boarding school, and then gave it up; I sort of dabble with religions.
Would God really condemn such people? Then rather like the Groucho Marx joke, he's not worth believing in.
Aye. It's thoughts like this that make me ask these questions. Most of my family have reasons they cannot believe God is there, or at least, if he is, gives a shit. To them, the demand appears to be "believe, despite the evidence."
I thought that faith was often defined as belief without evidence. It would be a bit strong to say, against the evidence, as that suggests that there is evidence that there is no God. Errm, no, I don't want to go there, as it gets into various arguments about atheism. Horror, horror, horror, not atheism, but arguments about it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So what do you make of the many people I know who would love to believe but just find they don't? These refusers may exist, but I've never actually met one.
Slight rephrasing--these refusers are not people who "would love to believe but don't," that's self-contradictory. Rather these are people who refuse to believe for illegitimate reasons (remember, I'm not talking about the "can't believers" here, I'm talking about the "won't believers").
What do I mean by "illegitimate reasons"? Okay, let's get longwinded about this.
Long ago I was discussing a Dead Horse subject with a close friend (the way teenagers do) and we went through the whole set of logical arguments. All the evidence, all the data, etc. To my surprise I started seeing that my friend, normally so honest, was playing logical hot potato with the various issues involved. Whatever she was after, it clearly wasn't answers.
When the light bulb finally went on, I asked her: "Wait a minute. Just suppose for a moment that somebody could present you with such perfect logic, such perfect evidence, that even you yourself admitted that their position on this issue was correct. Even YOU YOURSELF. Would you then change your personal position?"
She said, "No."
She then went on to say that she didn't WANT X to be true, because if X were true, it would seriously screw up her personal life. She would have to change certain decisions, and that would be painful, and she didn't want to do that.
And by gum, if she didn't want X to be true, then it wasn't GOING to be true, she flat out refused to believe it could ever be true, even if the Angel Gabriel came down from on high and presented her with a signed memo from God on the subject.
Her disbelief was not about logic. It was not about evidence. It was not about "just can't force my brain into that shape."
It was about desire and emotion. The problem lay not in her brain but in her will.
And I believe this so-called "reason" for human disbelief is very common, in fact probably the most common that exists.
Don't get me wrong--there are indeed intellectually honest doubters, people who haven't yet met evidence or logic that is sufficient to convince them. That's fine.
There are also, I suspect, people whose native twist of mind makes it difficult or impossible for them to agree with whatever form of Christianity they have been presented with. These are the "just can't believers."
But looking into my own heart, the main reason I have for not believing the otherwise-sensible X or Y or Z is not a logical one. It is the same as my friends, a selfish, will-based one: I don't want to face the consequences that would follow if I gave in and admitted X or Y or Z are true. I don't want to change my life. I don't want to be subject to a whole new set of demands on me (and I would be, if X is true). Instead of facing that horrid thought, I'm going to hide under the bed. I'm going to loudly say that X can't possibly be true, in the hopes of deafening whatever is whispering to me that I really ought to look into it... I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and say "La la la LA!"
And because this refusal to follow truth is cowardly and shameful, I'm going to mentally bury that fact from myself as quickly as possible. I'll avoid the subject of X, or maybe I'll dismiss those who believe in X as fanatics or dinosaurs or unworldly naïve freaks. I'll throw myself into some alternative to X that looks good and doesn't make such painful personal demands on me. Because at base, I am a coward.*
* Please note that at this point in the post I have shifted very definitely into using "I" to mean, well, "I" and not some generalized human being. I, LC, admit that I am a coward when it comes to facing unpleasant truths, and it takes the Holy Spirit giving a mighty kick in the rear for him to get me out from under my mental bed. I do (hopefully) eventually crawl out and face the truth, but it's not my natural desire or will. And I really, really, really don't think I'm the only human being who has will-based problems with faith.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So what do you make of the many people I know who would love to believe but just find they don't? These refusers may exist, but I've never actually met one.
Slight rephrasing--these refusers are not people who "would love to believe but don't," that's self-contradictory. Rather these are people who refuse to believe for illegitimate reasons (remember, I'm not talking about the "can't believers" here, I'm talking about the "won't believers").
I'm not. Because I've never met any. I know shedloads of Can't Believers though, which is why I'm interested in them. People don't seem to want to talk about them. Why? Why the focus instead on this hypothetical group of people who think Christianity probably is true but don't want to believe it is?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
If its the supernaturalism that is a stumbling block, cut it out and throw it into the fire.
Those who do the will of God are Jesus' brothers and sisters.
Without the supernaturalism, I can happily do the rest without bringing religion into it.
You can happily do God's will without bringing religion into it? How?
Do you believe in the values of the Kingdom or not?
Tell me what you think they are.
Why should I? Matters more what you think they are. What is this "the rest" that you speak of?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What about those who have been "told correctly" but much as they'd love to believe it's true, just find they don't?
Why is it so hard to believe the Kingdom of God came near in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus?
Why is it so hard to believe that there's a pink unicorn in my back garden?
quote:
Do you reject the Kingdom of God? If so, why?
Do you reject the Way of the Pink Unicorn? If so, why?
So you think the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was completely made up by some enterprising disciples and everybody got seriously duped and has been duped for the last 2,000 years.
You believe that Jesus' values on how to love God and love each other have no truth or beauty or goodness in them.
You only try to put up with this farce because you're terrified you might go to hell if it does turn out to be true in the end.
Does that sound about right?
Is that why you can't believe?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Evensong
The trouble with your formulations is that they combine various kinds of ideas. Thus, I doubt that the life and death of Jesus were made up; it just seems unlikely to me. However, that is quite different from the resurrection.
Similarly, Jesus' values are interesting, however, to be a Christian requires more than that.
I don't think I will go to hell, for sure.
I'm not sure now if my reasons for the 'suspension of belief' are illegitimate or not! Whatever.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What about those who have been "told correctly" but much as they'd love to believe it's true, just find they don't?
Why is it so hard to believe the Kingdom of God came near in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus?
Why is it so hard to believe that there's a pink unicorn in my back garden?
quote:
Do you reject the Kingdom of God? If so, why?
Do you reject the Way of the Pink Unicorn? If so, why?
So you think the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was completely made up by some enterprising disciples and everybody got seriously duped and has been duped for the last 2,000 years.
You believe that Jesus' values on how to love God and love each other have no truth or beauty or goodness in them.
You only try to put up with this farce because you're terrified you might go to hell if it does turn out to be true in the end.
Does that sound about right?
Is that why you can't believe?
I didn't say I can't believe. I said I find it very difficult. I do not suppose the resurrection story was "made up by some enterprising disciples", but there're rather a lot of other possibilities between "made up out of whole cloth in 35AD" and "completely true", aren't there? Mistake? Hallucinations? Exaggeration? It's an extraordinary claim and does need rather better support than it has to gain uncritical acceptance.
You're wrong in your second two paragraphs as well. For similar reasons. Google "excluded middle".
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So there's no choice but this false dichotomy? Sounds like hell to me.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was thinking about my family - my father was uninterested in religion; my mother was vehemently opposed to it; my wife went to a Christian boarding school, and then gave it up; I sort of dabble with religions.
Would God really condemn such people? Then rather like the Groucho Marx joke, he's not worth believing in.
It was people insisting that God would do that that finally broke my faith.
That human impulse to condemn the "other" the "unbeliever" to hell or to be burned at the stake.
I would classify myself as one of those "would believe if I could" people. I would love to have good reasons to believe. I just don't see them. Being a non believer is not easier or less demanding, you have to come up with reasons to keep going and live a full life that hopefully helps your fellow beings. Thankfully other humans have also been faced with the same issues and you can learn from their example.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was thinking about my family - my father was uninterested in religion; my mother was vehemently opposed to it; my wife went to a Christian boarding school, and then gave it up; I sort of dabble with religions.
Would God really condemn such people? Then rather like the Groucho Marx joke, he's not worth believing in.
It was people insisting that God would do that that finally broke my faith.
That human impulse to condemn the "other" the "unbeliever" to hell or to be burned at the stake.
I would classify myself as one of those "would believe if I could" people. I would love to have good reasons to believe. I just don't see them. Being a non believer is not easier or less demanding, you have to come up with reasons to keep going and live a full life that hopefully helps your fellow beings. Thankfully other humans have also been faced with the same issues and you can learn from their example.
The solution I've found is to take Christian symbols and rituals as helpful signs, which to some extent fit my own view of life. However, I realized a while ago, that symbols and rituals in other religions are also useful!
I suppose there is something relevant here about belief - there is belief that something is 'true', or belief that something is useful. Would God mind if I take my symbols from around the world?
Getting back on topic, hell is a very powerful symbol, which people can use to picture their own version of it. I was thinking of Sartre, with his 'hell is other people'. Although I don't think he meant that other people are hellish, but that I conceive of myself as an object, since others do, and this is hellish.
[ 18. June 2014, 09:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I didn't say I can't believe. I said I find it very difficult. I do not suppose the resurrection story was "made up by some enterprising disciples", but there're rather a lot of other possibilities between "made up out of whole cloth in 35AD" and "completely true", aren't there? Mistake? Hallucinations? Exaggeration? It's an extraordinary claim and does need rather better support than it has to gain uncritical acceptance.
Now that's a little different from Pink unicorns....
Personally I don't think God's going to give you a hard time for wondering whether the resurrection is actually true or not. IMV God always takes into account context and we are in an age that does not like supernaturalism.
But I also think it matters more to God what we do than what we believe . (Sheep and goats?).
The evidence for the resurrection is in a completely different category of fish from Pink Unicorns. There is evidence for the resurrection; it's just not scientific empirical evidence because that is beyond empirical scope.
The best evidence for the resurrection IMV is threefold:
1) The fledgling movement would never have got off the ground if it were not true. The faith would have died with Jesus. Why harp on about a dead messiah that did nothing to overthrow Rome?
2) I myself have had a personal mystical experience of the risen Christ. And this was completely out of the blue mind you - I was raised a Muslim and new nothing about Christianity - didn't even know any practicing ones.
3) Others have had similar experiences. Oxford University Press published Visions of Jesus. Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today and it's as "scientific" as you can get in this area.
IMV you can still be a good Christian but doubt the resurrection. The ethics of Christianity matter. What you do matters and how you treat others matter. (Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us).
What you miss out on if you don't believe in the resurrection or have had personal experience of it is profound hope. Hope and knowledge that at the end of the day, love does win. Good does conquer evil.
And that hope does make a significant transformation in our daily lives. It makes everything so much bigger, so much better. It makes all the shit and the suffering so much more worthwhile.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Evensong
The trouble with your formulations is that they combine various kinds of ideas. Thus, I doubt that the life and death of Jesus were made up; it just seems unlikely to me. However, that is quite different from the resurrection.
Similarly, Jesus' values are interesting, however, to be a Christian requires more than that.
I don't think I will go to hell, for sure.
I'm not sure now if my reasons for the 'suspension of belief' are illegitimate or not! Whatever.
I think I've responded to this post by speaking to Karl above. Shout if not.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Evensong
OK. On your first point - survival of Christianity, does that mean that Islam survived because Mohammed really flew to heaven on a winged horse?
On mystical experiences, well, they go on around the world, in different religions and rituals. I'm not sure why Christian ones have special status, except of course, to Christians!
I am fine with you believing in the resurrection, as long as I don't have to.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
So what do you make of the many people I know who would love to believe but just find they don't? These refusers may exist, but I've never actually met one.
It's not for me to make anything of these people, because only God is their judge. I believe that God judges people on the basis of their response to the light He has given them. I really don't think that that response can be measured in religious terms. Of course, there are those who will try to measure it, and there is a tome on my shelf which attempts this very thing. It's called 'Operation World' - an attempt not only to work out how many Christians there are in each country of the world, but also how many 'evangelicals' (you know... how many of those so called 'Christians' are the Real McCoy. *sigh*).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This discussion makes me ask:
Do you have to believe to be a Christian, or can you just act like one? Behaving as if you believe? Isn't this good enough? What about those who profess to believe buy refrain from acting like they do?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
This discussion makes me ask:
Do you have to believe to be a Christian, or can you just act like one? Behaving as if you believe? Isn't this good enough? What about those who profess to believe buy refrain from acting like they do?
I'm darned sure there's a parable about that...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
This discussion makes me ask:
Do you have to believe to be a Christian, or can you just act like one? Behaving as if you believe? Isn't this good enough? What about those who profess to believe buy refrain from acting like they do?
When I was a practising Christian, I suppose my position was basically, 'I don't know'. Well, I still don't know, but I realized there are lots of other things that I don't know! So you see, there is progress in life.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
This discussion makes me ask:
Do you have to believe to be a Christian, or can you just act like one? Behaving as if you believe? Isn't this good enough? What about those who profess to believe buy refrain from acting like they do?
I'm darned sure there's a parable about that...
My avatar tries to stick out its tongue back at your avatar, but mine lacks a face. So CYK* instead.
*consider yourself kissed
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What is the difference between just can't and just won't? How can one tell if a person can't or won't?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What is the difference between just can't and just won't? How can one tell if a person can't or won't?
I'm still not convinced of this army of "won't"s. IME, if something seems to be true, you believe it by definition. If it doesn't, you don't. The idea of refusing to believe something you "know" is true seems a bit non-sensical to me. But I know that not everyone parses "believe" as being equivalent to "think is true", as I do. To be fair, they can be represented with the same word in some languages - Credo (Latin), I believe/I think; Credu (Welsh) Believe, think; Croire (French) to believe, to think. Yes there's also Meddwl (Welsh) and Penser (French) which only mean "think", but there's a very close relationship between the concepts.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Couldn't agree more K:LB. There again I'm as liberally back slidden as you nowadays.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The language issue is interesting. It might be worthy of a tangent. In the Cree language, to think highly of something usually connotes praising it. It gets more complicated when the existence of anything (living and inanimate) also connotes spirit, embedded in the nature of the language itself and often the words themselves for things, so there really isn't a supernatural separate from the natural. Everything is both, always.
This is often reacted to with horror by Christians who draw a firm line between humans, animals and objects re souls and spirit, though plants are also part of the picture. The problem with the firm line is that it allows the separation of people from environment and ultimately disrespect for the natural world and its destruction. Thus hell might be what we are in the process of creating in our misguided dominance of the world. Did God really intend that we should hate the natural world, or act like we hate it and want its destruction by our exploitation? -- These are good questions from a First Nations perspective.
I'm not really doing it justice, but this is what I understand.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What is the difference between just can't and just won't? How can one tell if a person can't or won't?
I'm still not convinced of this army of "won't"s. IME, if something seems to be true, you believe it by definition. If it doesn't, you don't. The idea of refusing to believe something you "know" is true seems a bit non-sensical to me. But I know that not everyone parses "believe" as being equivalent to "think is true", as I do. To be fair, they can be represented with the same word in some languages - Credo (Latin), I believe/I think; Credu (Welsh) Believe, think; Croire (French) to believe, to think. Yes there's also Meddwl (Welsh) and Penser (French) which only mean "think", but there's a very close relationship between the concepts.
I think the definition of "believe" is pretty crucial here. I don't know any people who say (or imply) "I think the story of Jesus is probably true, but I refuse to accept that it is true" -- because that would be, as you say, kind of a nonsensical statement.
But I do think there are a lot of people (mostly people who grew up in church and grew away from it or made a choice to move away from it for some reason) who either explicitly or implicitly say, "I think it's probably all true, but I'm going to ignore it, or live as if it isn't true, because I don't want all the hassle of organizing my life around the idea of a God who has expectations of me." (In my experience these sorts of people often turn, much later in life when they've gotten quite old and crusty, into the kind of folks who visit their childhood church and are horrified to see people who wear jewelery/drink wine/commit whatever that church's unpardonable sin is -- even though they themselves have been doing those things for years. They want "the standards" upheld but not to actually follow those standards themselves.)
Those are the only kind of "won't believes" that I can think of. And that's more closely related to the definition of "belief" as committment or choosing to follow.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Evensong
OK. On your first point - survival of Christianity, does that mean that Islam survived because Mohammed really flew to heaven on a winged horse?
Apples and oranges. I'm not hugely knowledgeable about the ministry and death of Muhammad but I don't recall him being killed very early on in his ministry when his disciples were but few and then appearing to many of them bodily after his death.
If many of them saw him fly to heaven on a winged horse then that would indeed be an important propagating factor.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On mystical experiences, well, they go on around the world, in different religions and rituals. I'm not sure why Christian ones have special status, except of course, to Christians!
Again, while mystical experiences are not unique to Christianity, this does not belie the fact that the risen Christ has appeared to many through the ages and provides continuing evidence to his living. That's what we're talking about here: evidence.
If Muhammad has appeared to many since his death then that too would provide a certain evidence. But the one does not negate the other, just makes two types of experiences with evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am fine with you believing in the resurrection, as long as I don't have to.
You're welcome to reject the evidence. You do have free will after all. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
[ETA: This is in reply to Trudy's Scrumptious post]
That's very similar to what I was trying to describe. I maybe went a bit further, because in my experience these people go on to bury "this is probably true" under bushels of "it can't be true, because [insert spurious reason* here]." At which point they have convinced themselves that they don't live like Y because they don't believe X, rather than the original "I don't want to live like Y regardless of whether X is true or not." Basically playing self-justifying mind games with themselves.
* By spurious reasons, I mean ones so weak or unexamined that they would never accept them in another area of life that really mattered, such as the financial. Amazing how some hard-headed, intelligent adults can suddenly go all flabby-brained when it comes to justifying their non-faith.
[ 18. June 2014, 23:54: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
This discussion makes me ask:
Do you have to believe to be a Christian, or can you just act like one? Behaving as if you believe? Isn't this good enough?
The language point is a good one.
Kwesi defines "belief" well on a different thread:
quote:
I am increasingly of the opinion that it is important to distinguish between faith as "trust" and faith as "belief", and that salvation by faith is essentially about having trust in Jesus Christ rather than belief in a set of theological propositions.
Those listed for their faith by Hebrews (Chapter 11) are commended essentially because they had trust in God, though many of their beliefs were questionable. IMO
Faith to me is trust or faithfulness. Fits well with the most common word for faith in the NT too: pistis.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Evensong wrote:
Again, while mystical experiences are not unique to Christianity, this does not belie the fact that the risen Christ has appeared to many through the ages and provides continuing evidence to his living. That's what we're talking about here: evidence.
I know quite a few people who have had a direct experience of past lives. Is this evidence? Depends on how you define 'evidence' - I would say not. Confirmation bias, probably.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Well there was no confirmation bias in my experience. As I said, I grew up in Indonesia and knew nothing about Christianity.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well there was no confirmation bias in my experience. As I said, I grew up in Indonesia and knew nothing about Christianity.
I don't think it's possible to state that, as confirmation bias is probably largely unconscious. This stands to reason, since if it was conscious, and we were aware of it, we could lift the bias. But it isn't, and we can't. It's like lifting yourself by your bootstraps. It makes discussions difficult, since what seems perfectly sensible and obvious to oneself, can strike others as a bias or as wish fulfillment or even barking mad.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
