Thread: Kakangelicalism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024589
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Thank you, Latchkey Kid, for reminding us of this word kakangelion.
Bad news.
I've often wondered how the Gospel is actually "Good News", when it is based on the idea that everyone deserves to burn in hell for all eternity due to the effect of original sin.
This is what I wrote recently on another thread:
quote:
Suppose a brilliant doctor deliberately took his newly pregnant wife to live in the shadow of Chernobyl shortly after the disaster, and she gave birth to a seriously ill and deformed child. Then they moved away from there, and the doctor performed some amazing surgery on the child (after allowing the poor soul to suffer pain and humiliation for years) and demanded praise for so doing. Furthermore, he claimed to have 'saved' his child from the agony that he (the child) justly deserved, for committing the sin of having been born in the shadow of the nuclear reactor.
It doesn't add up, does it?
But that is what a lot of popular 'evangelical' theology sounds like, I'm afraid. And then the Church wonders why so many people are not interested.
But if that is not what the 'evangel' is, then what is the good news?
And why has such a twisted message managed to pass as 'good news' for so long?
Also, in the same vein, is the preaching of this kakangelion a form of psychological and emotional abuse, especially when directed at children*?
*a recent comment on the hell board drew attention to this:
quote:
I was unfortunate enough to be brought up in a fundamentalist Christian home. We attended a pentecostalist church where Sunday after Sunday we were 'favoured' with blood curdling hell-fire sermons, which scared the life out of me. I suffered from awful nightmares as a consequence. At eleven I did the 'born again' bit as I was frigtened of going to hell, I was even quite sickeningly devout for a while!
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I've often wondered how the Gospel is actually "Good News", when it is based on the idea that everyone deserves to burn in hell for all eternity due to the effect of original sin.
It wouldn't be (good news), if it were (based on that idea).
How about this: the Good News is that, while we are in fact burning in hell for all our time, there is a way out of all this brokenness. And that God loves us so much that he came down to live in all this crap among us.
(If I'm reading your post right, you're not actually saying that the Gospel is based on that idea, but that that's the "kakangelical" approach. Either way.)
From my second-hand experience, you can get the same outside evangelicalism; my girlfriend has been pretty much scarred by the years she spent in constant fear of going to hell if she skipped mass once or twice, as a result of her early Catholic-school education.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
my girlfriend has been pretty much scarred by the years she spent in constant fear of going to hell if she skipped mass once or twice, as a result of her early Catholic-school education.
How old is your girlfriend? That guilt-tripping-nun-stuff stereotype has been pretty atypical for the past 30+ years.
And for every ex-Catholic with a pre-Vatican II horror story of Sister Meany Skirts there's an everything-has-gone-to-pot-since-Vatican-II Catholic whose early memories are straight out of The Bells of St. Mary. Go figure.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Kakangelicals may be found outside Evangelicalism, and Evangelicals are not necessarily kakangelicals.
In Tim Costello's book Tips from a travelling soul-searcher he relates how at an Amnesty international meeting he compared AIs work in letter writing to the NT where letters were written either in prison or to people facing imprisonment, persecution or death and which can be seen much as "Letters and Papers from Prison" (with apols to Bonhoeffer).
After Tim's speech Phillip Adams (Our ABC radio's much loved atheist) got up and said "My father was a Congregationalist minister. I hated him. My father taught me anti-Semitism: he hated Jews because they crucified Jesus. He was a fundamentalist: he taught me of a God who hated me.' Addressing Tim in front of all who were gathered at the Queensland Parliament reception area, Phillip asked, 'Where were you and where were ministers like you when I needed you?'
It's for things like this I feel compelled to speak against those create a living hell for their listeners.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by I've often wondered how the Gospel is actually "Good News", when it is based on the idea that everyone deserves to burn in hell for all eternity due to the effect of original sin.
Are you sure?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by I've often wondered how the Gospel is actually "Good News", when it is based on the idea that everyone deserves to burn in hell for all eternity due to the effect of original sin.
Are you sure?
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I've often wondered how the Gospel is actually "Good News", when it is based on the idea that everyone deserves to burn in hell for all eternity due to the effect of original sin.
We've had threads before on "What is the Good News" and I might look to see if they still exist.
I notice that many look to Paul to see what is the Gospel, and I draw blankness when I refer them to the Gospels. I think they see the Gospels as only stories and Paul's writings as the definitive theology.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
The Bad News reminds me of the old priest and eskimo joke:
Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
[ 31. January 2013, 02:49: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
How old is your girlfriend? That guilt-tripping-nun-stuff stereotype has been pretty atypical for the past 30+ years.
Twenty-one, for what it's worth.
I'm sure it's a combination of internal factors (i.e., perfectionist personality and so on) and external (i.e., the school environment, her being Episcopalian and not Catholic, etc.) Point being, this sort of thing isn't limited to evangelicals.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Bad news.
I've often wondered how the Gospel is actually "Good News", when it is based on the idea that everyone deserves to burn in hell for all eternity due to the effect of original sin.
That seems rather straightforward. If everyone is going to hell, then news of a way to avoid that fate clearly is good news, and for everyone. If not everyone is going to hell, then news of a way of avoiding that is good news primarily for the hell-bound. If nobody is going to hell, then news of a way to avoid hell is pointless to all.
Mind you, I don't think that "not going to hell" is quite what the good news are about, though it is a start. But other than that you just seem to be rehashing the endless "good God cannot allow bad hell" argument.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
That seems rather straightforward. If everyone is going to hell, then news of a way to avoid that fate clearly is good news, and for everyone.
I suppose that the idea of "good news" could be understood in this superficial and pragmatic way, but a beautiful building built on rotten foundations will not stand. So we have to look beyond the superficial.
Salvation is not simply a matter of getting a good deal, but also involves having a relationship with the person offering the deal. What kind of person is this? Clearly a God who declares that we all deserve to scream in hideous agony for ever, simply for committing the sin of daring to be born into a fallen world, is worse than the devil. This 'devil' may offer a 'good' deal to all people, such that those who respond may avoid hell, but then they are required to spend eternity with someone whose understanding of justice bears absolutely no relation at all to any concept of justice held by any sane and reasonable person. So we are delivered from one hell, only to be installed in another, because the latter requires that we spend eternity worshipping a sadist.
That doesn't sound like "good news" to me.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I suppose that the idea of "good news" could be understood in this superficial and pragmatic way, but a beautiful building built on rotten foundations will not stand. So we have to look beyond the superficial.
I'm all for pragmatism and the "superficial" here is the primary evidence of scripture, as well as the vast majority of tradition till maybe a hundred years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Salvation is not simply a matter of getting a good deal, but also involves having a relationship with the person offering the deal. What kind of person is this? Clearly a God who declares that we all deserve to scream in hideous agony for ever, simply for committing the sin of daring to be born into a fallen world, is worse than the devil.
And if it were so, then so what? Your options remain just the same, have this relationship with the "worse than the devil" God, or burn in hell. Unpleasant situations and people do not disappear just because we don't like them.
But indeed, this entire debate is usually framed in the totally wrong way, as if the traditional side must argue for hell concerning the question whether a good God and hell are compatible. They need not, and should not. That hell exists and that some will fry in it for eternity is one of the most certain conclusions one can draw from scripture and tradition. Rather the traditional side should be busy arguing for the goodness of God.
If the traditional side loses that argument, hell does not somehow disappear. Rather, our assumption that God is good does. So if your main concern is to stay out of hell (a good idea), and if you believe in the evidence of scripture and tradition (a good idea), then quite frankly the typical discussion with the universalists is rather pointless. At best (or worst) the universalists can demonstrate that God is not good, in which case it becomes rather more urgent - not less - to stay in God's good graces.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This 'devil' may offer a 'good' deal to all people, such that those who respond may avoid hell, but then they are required to spend eternity with someone whose understanding of justice bears absolutely no relation at all to any concept of justice held by any sane and reasonable person. So we are delivered from one hell, only to be installed in another, because the latter requires that we spend eternity worshipping a sadist. That doesn't sound like "good news" to me.
Seriously, since when is the world determined by what you consider as its ideal state? Do you think "I don't like the people in Syria fighting," and then instantly they all drop their arms? Is your boss impressed if you tell him that you don't find some work inspiring and therefore it has ceased to be? Do you walk into the bank and tell them "I would like to have a million pounds and therefore I do." Is that how reality works?
This whole argument is just wishful thinking written so large that it can pretend to be an argument. But it is utterly irrelevant for truth and falsehood whether you like what is true or what is false. You have not been asked for your opinion, much less for a decision, on how things are going to be. God is as He is, and the world is as it is. The only thing that you get to decide is what you are going to do about it. And if you think that what is on offer from God is no "good news", then the sum total of relevance of this sentiment is: Zilch. Zip. Nada. Diddly-squat.
And please, spare me any cries of "I'd rather burn in hell for eternity than living with such a monster of God." This is either totally hypocritical bullshit based on the firm belief that hell does not exist (it is easy to be heroic about non-existent threats), or it is a statement of fact, which really doesn't change anything. Nothing happens just because someone takes a principled stance and burns in hell. Other than that person burning in hell, of course. This is the sort of tactics of Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire in order to shame the Chinese government into acting less evil. But compared to God, the Chinese government is utterly fickle, changing its mind at the drop of a hat. God is eternal. God is not going to change because you - in your mind bravely and in defence of moral principle - are determined to go to hell. The only thing that will change is you dying and then, possibly, going to hell. And then that won't change either. Forever. That's all. There's no Gandhi moment to be had here. This is not about the world as you know it. This is about eternal fate. Adjust to reality, or - possibly - pay the prince. (I say "possibly", because God is in fact good, in particular, merciful. If you claim He isn't, do feel free to delete that word though.)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
(first time I've ever given IngoB one of these I think).
For me, the good news is akin to this: many many generations ago, some humans consumed poison, even though they'd been warned it was poison and would seriously fuck them up and ultimately kill them. That caused a spiritual version of a bad genetic mutation which has been passed down ever since with the same as consuming the poison in the first place. Fortunately a kindly Deity (the same guy as it happens as tried to warn them off the poison) wanted and still wants to fix it by absorbing the poison's effects for us and offering the resultant cure to us gratis. Also, He would really like to be best mates with us.
YMMV, but I call that Good News.
[ 31. January 2013, 09:46: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Fortunately a kindly Deity (the same guy as it happens as tried to warn them off the poison) wanted and still wants to fix it by absorbing the poison's effects for us and offering the resultant cure to us gratis.
So what's stopping him?
quote:
Also, He would really like to be best mates with us.
That's nice, so long as He doesn't make the cure contingent on that friendship. That would be hideously manipulative and wrong.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
What's stopping him? Our acceptance of the cure. Oh wait, what? You want Him to force it down our throats? Same consideration applies re His friendship - it takes two to tango.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's stopping him? Our acceptance of the cure. Oh wait, what? You want Him to force it down our throats? Same consideration applies re His friendship - it takes two to tango.
I think what a lot of people might like is a bit more reason to believe that the cure really is the cure, that the poison actually exists, and that the being offering the cure is real.
This is the problem. Most of the people I know who aren't Christians haven't rejected the cure - they simply haven't been convinced that the whole problem is actually real.
Nor am I; I take the pill just in case. I know Pascal's Wager is bollocks, but I'm stuck with it. I'm still stuffed if the Muslims turn out to be right, or indeed quite a few Christian sects.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
This whole argument is just wishful thinking written so large that it can pretend to be an argument. But it is utterly irrelevant for truth and falsehood whether you like what is true or what is false. You have not been asked for your opinion, much less for a decision, on how things are going to be. God is as He is, and the world is as it is. The only thing that you get to decide is what you are going to do about it. And if you think that what is on offer from God is no "good news", then the sum total of relevance of this sentiment is: Zilch. Zip. Nada. Diddly-squat.
This put-down is the antithesis of the command in Proverbs 4:7:
quote:
...in all your getting, get understanding.
Anyone can use this kind of non-argument: "You have not been asked for your opinion." As it happens, I could just as easily respond in like manner: "who gave you permission to write all this?" (BTW... we have all been asked for our opinion concerning the nature of God's justice: read Isaiah 5:3, which clearly indicates that God does actually want us to appreciate that his justice really is just - according to how any normal, sane, reasonable person defines the word.)
Interestingly, I responded to an atheist on another site, and this is what he wrote in response to my original comment (and we were discussing something philosophical - the mind-brain problem):
quote:
I'm sorry but your personal dislike of the idea is irrelevant and doesn't change where the evidence points. To claim otherwise without evidence would be total folly. ... I'm sorry but your conjecture does nothing to change the facts as they are.
So really your response is no different. You have your dogmatic view, and woe betide anyone who dares to question it.
But as I pointed out to the atheist: how do you know that your position is, in fact, true? If none of us are allowed to "have an opinion", then how could we possibly ascertain the 'facts'?
(I must admit that I am rather surprised at this response from you of all people, Ingo, because you have often come across as a thinker.)
The fact is that what we believe about God's character does actually matter. It's not just a case of being in the Mafia Godfather's good books (and who gives a toss how he treats anyone else?). You know the first commandment. How can anyone obey this from his heart unless he has a view of God which he can accept?
Of course, you can reply by saying: "Tough! That is just the way it is." Unfortunately that is a very poor argument, because we cannot even know if your view is correct unless that is a conclusion we have drawn from the logical analysis of the evidence. That is how truth is normally perceived. And that is the method that I am using.
By the way... I am not denying the reality of hell. The Bible certainly mentions hell. But a particular interpretation of this doctrine is not a foregone conclusion. So therefore, I have been asked for my opinion. And thank God that He is Someone who doesn't insult people's intelligence by demanding blind submission, as you seem to think.
[ 31. January 2013, 10:20: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's stopping him? Our acceptance of the cure. Oh wait, what? You want Him to force it down our throats? Same consideration applies re His friendship - it takes two to tango.
I think what a lot of people might like is a bit more reason to believe that the cure really is the cure, that the poison actually exists, and that the being offering the cure is real.
This is the problem. Most of the people I know who aren't Christians haven't rejected the cure - they simply haven't been convinced that the whole problem is actually real.
Well, yes, but that's where the importance of belief comes in: belief that there's a problem (although as Romans 1 reminds us, a cursory glance round at the world does tend to point to that) and belief in the solution.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What's stopping him? Our acceptance of the cure. Oh wait, what? You want Him to force it down our throats? Same consideration applies re His friendship - it takes two to tango.
But if the result of not accepting the cure is an eternity of conscious agony, then I can well understand people deciding they'd really rather God did force the cure down our throats. And furthermore, deciding they can't credit a God who doesn't do this as being a God of love.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
How are people meant to know which cure is the right one? The Muslims offer one answer, the JWs another, the Hindus yet another, and various political ideologies offer yet other approaches. And apparently, if we get it wrong, despite having little to go on, we're buggered, according to most of the religious suggestions.
You understand why people might be a little "you WHAT?" about all this?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But if the result of not accepting the cure is an eternity of conscious agony, then I can well understand people deciding they'd really rather God did force the cure down our throats.
Indeed. I mean, if we're really as spiritually sick as all that, then surely we can't be trusted to be able to correctly discern our need for the cure. Surely what is needed is a form of spiritual sectioning so that we can be protected from our own self-destructive tendencies and refusal (or inability) to accept that there's something wrong with us?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Oh yes (although I'm not convinced that you have to jump through so many epistemmological hoops to get the cure as you seem to imply). But do you not accept that it's a rather different message to the kakangelion set forth in the OP?
[reply to Karl. Marvin and Kevin - would people really like that though? Would we not have a claim to bring to the spiritual equivalent of the ECHR?? "Help, help, I'm being oppressed: I'm being cured against my will and I don't even accept that I'm ill!" ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]
[ 31. January 2013, 10:39: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I for one would quite like unambiguous evidence from God that he's real and his cure is necessary and real, yes.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Marvin and Kevin - would people really like that though? Would we not have a claim to bring to the spiritual equivalent of the ECHR?? "Help, help, I'm being oppressed: I'm being cured against my will and I don't even accept that I'm ill!"
Asylums and Psych Wards are full of people screaming similar stuff, but the rest of us know that it's only because they're ill and that the treatment really is in their own interests. And when/if they get better, they realise it as well and are thankful for the actions taken to save their lives.
After all, if Heaven and Hell are real then this life means precisely fuck all except as a way of deciding which one we go to. What kind of loving God, knowing that, would prioritise our happiness in this tiny scrap of irrelevant shit we call 'life' over eternal happiness in Heaven?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Of what value, then, is faith?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Relying on faith is like a doctor relying on his mentally ill patients to cure themselves.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
That doesn't answer my question: what's the point of faith?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I suppose that the idea of "good news" could be understood in this superficial and pragmatic way, but a beautiful building built on rotten foundations will not stand. So we have to look beyond the superficial.
I'm all for pragmatism and the "superficial" here is the primary evidence of scripture
No it's not the primary evidence of scripture.
The primary evidence of scripture is the reverse.
The superficial reading is the damned to Hell forever meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Adjust to reality, or - possibly - pay the prince. (I say "possibly", because God is in fact good, in particular, merciful. If you claim He isn't, do feel free to delete that word though.)
Your logic reminds me of Martin Luther's hidden God....
Your redeeming feature is that you don't believe the logical bullshit you're sprouting. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That hell exists and that some will fry in it for eternity is one of the most certain conclusions one can draw from scripture and tradition. Rather the traditional side should be busy arguing for the goodness of God.
The 'goodness' of God which includes his creation of a hell prepared for the Devil and his angels and all those who will 'fry in it for eternity'? Even in the flawed administration of human justice a person given the death penalty for their crime can only die the once.
That concept of hell, of course, was hardly new to ancient peoples. The gods were in heaven doing what they pleased, receiving the praise of a people grateful for their crumbs of good fortune, punishing when that praise wasn't forthcoming. And the other side of the coin, the ruler of hell below ready to take his victims down into the darkness with him for ever.
Nobody expected, as a right, justice at the hands of anyone in those days. No doubt a 'good' God who could punish eternally, or at least more fearfully than any crime could deserve was anthropomorphically comprehensible in civilizations where brutal, over the top behaviours from even wise sovereigns where par for the course.
And the appeal to scripture as a certain warrent for hell - at least in the form described - is faulty, imo. The Bible - as a book - is not consistent in after-life experience. But I have to admit I don't see scripture as one big block of immutable 'thus says the Lord'.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That doesn't answer my question: what's the point of faith?
Indeed. Why expect us to believe something with very little corroboration, rather than making the issue clear and hard to deny?
That is indeed one of my unanswered questions.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Tied up with trust, the bedrock of any true relationship? "Just a suggestion", as they say at Tescos.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I have trust in my relationship with Mrs Backslider. I don't have to lie awake at night wondering if she actually exists in order for this to be the case though.
[ 31. January 2013, 11:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That doesn't answer my question: what's the point of faith?
Indeed. Why expect us to believe something with very little corroboration, rather than making the issue clear and hard to deny?
That is indeed one of my unanswered questions.
I think one answer would be that you are required to abandon self, or die to self. If you want stuff to be 'clear and hard to deny' you are implicitly setting up your own self as a tin-pot little god! Then, naturally enough, it denies God, or doubts God, because it is its own god.
Or, in terms of the various Western intellectual traditions, you are beginning with a dualist concept of reality (subject/object dualism), which is fine, but then you are guaranteed to find religion odd, since you are going to reify God as object, which is doomed.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
The trouble, as I see it, with getting hung up on the issue of hell and ECT is that if I were to believe in that sort of God the result in me would be entirely death-dealing and life-quenching. It would scare me to death - not literal death necessarily (but perhaps) but certainly something approaching spiritual death. My whole focus would be turned inwards with a desperate obsession to ensure that "I was OK" and not going to suffer for ever and ever and bugger everyone else. That attitude would, in any case, probably therefore be self-defeating...
This is also not the life I see being advocated by Jesus in the scriptures. I see in Jesus someone who came that we might have life, life in all its fulness/in eternity/in perpetuity (however you render it). Also someone whose primary teachings seem to be to care for others before yourself and attend to their needs at the expense of yourself. I do not see someone who came to encourage us to be inward-looking death-obsessed people constantly anxious about our eternal destiny, and for that matter people who would write off God's created world as a simple binary soul-sorting process.
Ultimately I think this whole issue comes down to how you would answer the question "Is God violent?".
My own answer to that is "no" and that would characterise how I would approach this whole issue. A non-violent God necessarily cannot tolerate what might be described as a "traditional" view of hell. It does not deny that hell, or something like it, exists, but it would be a very different setup to the Dante's Inferno hell which seems syncretically to have invaded people's reading of the Bible.
YMMV
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have trust in my relationship with Mrs Backslider. I don't have to lie awake at night wondering if she actually exists in order for this to be the case though.
Just extend that metaphor when thinking of God.
Ask it of life.
The most important decision we make is whether we believe we live in a friendly or hostile universe.
-Einstein.
Same thing.
[ 31. January 2013, 11:40: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have trust in my relationship with Mrs Backslider. I don't have to lie awake at night wondering if she actually exists in order for this to be the case though.
At the risk of getting all po-mo on yo ass, how do you know she exists?
[ 31. January 2013, 11:43: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Evensong - I understand all the individual words in that post, but as a whole they convey absolutely bugger all to me.
Quetz - we've been here before. But it's still a Catch-22 - how can I die to self for the sake of this God before I know he's real and therefore it's worth doing? I cannot get a handle on this sort of "never mind about whether it's real or not" thinking. If God requires that, then he's a priori rejected me, because I'm not capable of operating in that way.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have trust in my relationship with Mrs Backslider. I don't have to lie awake at night wondering if she actually exists in order for this to be the case though.
At the risk of getting all po-mo on yo ass, how do you know she exists?
I have sufficient physical evidence of her that it would be a perverse conclusion to decide she didn't. Would that that were so of God, but it isn't.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
At the risk of getting all po-mo on yo ass, how do you know she exists?
That's a terrible use of pomo on yo assness dude. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Evensong - I understand all the individual words in that post, but as a whole they convey absolutely bugger all to me.
Don't worry about it.
It was either pure genius or utter crap. I can't quite decide myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I cannot get a handle on this sort of "never mind about whether it's real or not" thinking. If God requires that, then he's a priori rejected me, because I'm not capable of operating in that way.
Viola!
If God would condemn such an honest one to eternal torment, she would be entirely unjust and in contradiction with the scriptures.
You'll be right mate. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Evensong - I understand all the individual words in that post, but as a whole they convey absolutely bugger all to me.
Quetz - we've been here before. But it's still a Catch-22 - how can I die to self for the sake of this God before I know he's real and therefore it's worth doing? I cannot get a handle on this sort of "never mind about whether it's real or not" thinking. If God requires that, then he's a priori rejected me, because I'm not capable of operating in that way.
I'm not saying that God requires that. I wouldn't know. It's just the way it seems to operate.
But I agree with your last point, and I often puzzle over this. Many people don't want to 'die to self', or feel unable, so what about that?
Well, it is a puzzle, and it stops me going senile, having something like to chew over in my dotage.
When I used to do meditation groups, I would usually get in the groove straight away, and get a lot out of it, but others didn't, and that puzzled me as well. But I realized one day they are different from me!
As she said, viola!
[ 31. January 2013, 11:58: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
I'm planning to get The Fire that Consumes on my kindle.
He seems to sum it up in this lecture but would like to read his detailed study.
I was surprised to learned that a movie called Hell and Mr. Fudge has been made and was well received at the Houston film festival where it was first released.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I like violas, but I prefer 'cellos.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That doesn't answer my question: what's the point of faith?
Indeed. Why expect us to believe something with very little corroboration, rather than making the issue clear and hard to deny?
That is indeed one of my unanswered questions.
I rather like what William Paley wrote:
quote:
Of a revelation which really came from God, the proof, it has been said, would in all ages be so public and manifest, that no part of the human species would remain ignorant of it, no understanding could fail of being convinced by it.
The advocates of Christianity do not pretend that the evidence of their religion possesses these qualities.
...
What would be the real effect of that overpowering evidence which our adversaries require in a revelation, it is difficult to foretell; at least, we must speak of it as of a dispensation, of which we have no experience. Some consequences however would, it is probable, attend this economy, which do not seem to befit a revelation that proceeded from God. One is, that irresistible proof would restrain the voluntary powers too much; would not answer the purpose of trial and probation; would call for no exercise of candour, seriousness, humility, enquiry; no submission of passions, interests, and prejudices, to moral evidence and to probable truth; no habits of reflection; none of that previous desire to learn, and to obey the will of God, which forms perhaps the test of the virtuous principle, and which induces men to attend, with care and reverence, to every credible intimation of that will, and to resign present advantages and present pleasures to every reasonable expectation of propitiating his favour.
(Evidences of Christianity, Part 3, Chapter 6).
In short, irresistible evidence would undermine free will.
However, I admit that there is a problem with this. If eternal torture in hell is the consequence of people exercising their free will, such that they choose one course rather than the other, then, in what sense, does God respect their freedom? It would be no different from a torturer telling a victim that he respects his freedom to keep silent, but if he does so he will waterboard him, electrocute him, beat him or worse. In any human system of justice, this practice would be termed coercion.
But I can see Paley's point. Just as science would be redundant (and therefore the joy of scientific inquiry and discovery would be impossible) if every human being instinctively at birth knew everything about the universe, so spiritual inquiry would be redundant if God provided incontrovertible evidence for his existence and the truth of His ways. The problem comes when people fail to draw the right conclusions. But how can they be blamed for so doing, if the truth was so elusive anyway?
I am fast coming to the view that the biblical doctrine of hell is actually a description of some form of purgatory. I am aware that there are verses that speak of the finality and permanence of hell, and I wouldn't mind discussing those at some point (maybe in Kerygmania). But I cannot ignore the truth that "God's mercy endures forever" and "mercy triumphs over judgment". I cannot ignore the fact that "God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" and my puzzlement as to why an eternal God would limit the pursuance of this desire to a very confused, difficult, dangerous and, of course, finite period of life on planet earth. Why is it that God's desire to save operates in a limited environment, and yet his 'desire' to condemn operates in an eternal environment? That does not make sense to me. It would appear that God's desire to condemn is infinitely greater than his desire to save.
Furthermore, we have been led to believe that there are two sides to the "salvation equation": what God has done in Christ through the cross, on the one hand, and our response to it, on the other. The latter is as important as the former. If the latter side of the equation is missing, then the former becomes inefficacious.
Now, as a Christian, I certainly believe that God has attended to the first part of the equation with complete and total commitment: He sent His own Son to die, and since the Son only does what He sees His Father do (as the Bible says), then all of God suffered on the cross. The cross is a revelation of the wholehearted commitment of God to our salvation.
But if the second part of the equation is necessary, then, presumably God would be as committed to the success of it, as to the first part. But this does not appear to be the case! What we see is this: millions of people living and dying before the advent of Christ; millions living in countries completely closed to the communication of the gospel; millions rejecting the gospel because the Church has abused them or preached a distorted message to them; millions in countries where there is a huge disincentive to responding to the Christian message, because of the fear, not only of personal torture and death, but also the torture and murder of one's own relatives; millions who cannot be expected to respond to the gospel, because understandably they wish to be faithful to the viewpoint they were brought up to believe ("honour your father and mother" is, after all, a biblical injunction!), millions being incapable of responding due to mental incapacity, and so on...
Surely a commitment to salvation would necessitate giving every single human being overwhelming opportunity to respond to the gospel message!!
The only logical conclusion that I can draw is this: the second part of the equation is not as important as the first. I have to assume that God sees 'response' in a radically different way to the way so many Christians see it. There is considerable latitude when it comes to human opinions. Response to the gospel is not a simple matter of subscribing to a neat set of doctrines. God sees the heart, and can apply the first part of the equation in situations that appear to have nothing to do with formal Christianity.
I guess this probably makes me a heretic. I really don't care. Frankly, I am more interested in truth.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Quite a good test of anyone's presentation of the Christian message is, 'is this good news?'.
Obviously Amos Starkadder's "you're all damned" fails that test. So does anything that tells you, you need to be somewhere else to receive it - whether it's, come the revolution, married to someone else, or have got a PhD. Likewise the bland, anything that produces a 'so what' reaction, like 'the world would be a better place if we were all nice to each other'.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And please, spare me any cries of "I'd rather burn in hell for eternity than living with such a monster of God." This is either totally hypocritical bullshit based on the firm belief that hell does not exist (it is easy to be heroic about non-existent threats), or it is a statement of fact, which really doesn't change anything.
It doesn't quite work like that. For some people, the thought of spending eternity worshipping the monster-God is hell. It's 1984's Room 101 made eternal.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have trust in my relationship with Mrs Backslider. I don't have to lie awake at night wondering if she actually exists in order for this to be the case though.
At the risk of getting all po-mo on yo ass, how do you know she exists?
I have sufficient physical evidence of her that it would be a perverse conclusion to decide she didn't.
What physical evidence?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have trust in my relationship with Mrs Backslider. I don't have to lie awake at night wondering if she actually exists in order for this to be the case though.
At the risk of getting all po-mo on yo ass, how do you know she exists?
I have sufficient physical evidence of her that it would be a perverse conclusion to decide she didn't.
What physical evidence?
Matt; this really isn't going anywhere. The simple fact is that I am for all intents and purposes convinced of Mrs KLB's existence, and not of God's. If you're really going to try to convince me that my higher level of confidence in one over the other is not rational then you're getting pretty desperate.
I'm not playing this silly game.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I like violas, but I prefer 'cellos.
And it would be difficult to reverse that, wouldn't it? I suppose it could be done via brain-washing.
But I see the same problem with religion - I don't see how I can choose not to believe what I do believe, or to not resonate with what I do resonate. Therefore, those who simply don't believe, or don't resonate, cannot change this. Why should they be punished for this? For not trying hard enough?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Karl, I don't see it as silly at all; for me (at least), it is germane to the issue. You are placing trust in your physical senses and the evidence which you perceive they communicate, without knowing for sure that this is indeed trustworthy, as opposed, say, to your existing in a Matrix-style virtual reality. The fact that the level of faith you have to exercise the trust in the physical is lower (far lower maybe) than that in the metaphysical does not negate that there is a continuum between the two.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
There's a continuum between the likelihood of my own physical existence and the likelihood of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but continuum does not imply equivalence.
But that's hardly the point. The fact is I do have evidence of the existence of Mrs Backslider, and I have nothing even remotely analogous for the existence of God. I have hope, wishful thinking and a few questionable experiences open to equally viable explanations other than the existence of God.
[ 31. January 2013, 14:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And if it were so, then so what? Your options remain just the same, have this relationship with the "worse than the devil" God, or burn in hell. Unpleasant situations and people do not disappear just because we don't like them.
But indeed, this entire debate is usually framed in the totally wrong way, as if the traditional side must argue for hell concerning the question whether a good God and hell are compatible. They need not, and should not. That hell exists and that some will fry in it for eternity is one of the most certain conclusions one can draw from scripture and tradition. Rather the traditional side should be busy arguing for the goodness of God.
If the traditional side loses that argument, hell does not somehow disappear. Rather, our assumption that God is good does. So if your main concern is to stay out of hell (a good idea), and if you believe in the evidence of scripture and tradition (a good idea), then quite frankly the typical discussion with the universalists is rather pointless. At best (or worst) the universalists can demonstrate that God is not good, in which case it becomes rather more urgent - not less - to stay in God's good graces.
You've stated you are not the recruiting type, you needn't keep demonstrating this.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It comes from an almost universal failure to realise that Jesus used His milieu's myths, traditions, figures of speech to confront it.
It comes from the assumption that He believed them.
It comes from woodenly literal interpretation.
It comes from ignoring the outrageously gracious and inclusive good news from Jesus Himself.
It comes from failing to repent and believe that Jesus is the gospel.
That He saves.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Also all of that!
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This put-down is the antithesis of the command in Proverbs 4:7:
Not in the slightest. Proverbs 4:7 recommends wisdom to you, not opinion. It is wise to realize that your opinions about reality do not change reality. Well, not so much wise as sane, but I trust you get the point.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Anyone can use this kind of non-argument: "You have not been asked for your opinion." As it happens, I could just as easily respond in like manner: "who gave you permission to write all this?"
Simon, and by delegation his team of H&As, gave me permission to write here. If they withdraw their permission, I won't be able to write here. And that is not in the end my decision. Neither is it in the end your decision how the world and the afterlife is managed. God made the whole shebang, God has the final say. If you don't like that, tough luck. (Just in case that you are confused: I'm not doubting in any way or form your right to voice your opinion here, on SoF. I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that your opinion about the universe does not change the universe. With the exception of that part of the universe which is you, because you can change yourself to some degree.)
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
(BTW... we have all been asked for our opinion concerning the nature of God's justice: read Isaiah 5:3, which clearly indicates that God does actually want us to appreciate that his justice really is just - according to how any normal, sane, reasonable person defines the word.)
Verily, God looks for justice and righteousness. And if His interaction with the world in Isaiah 5 is anything to go by, then woe to those who have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, for as the tongue of fire devours the stubble, and as dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root will be as rottenness... and so on, and so forth. Seriously, do read more than a verse at a time. It helps.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Interestingly, I responded to an atheist on another site, and this is what he wrote in response to my original comment (and we were discussing something philosophical - the mind-brain problem): quote:
I'm sorry but your personal dislike of the idea is irrelevant and doesn't change where the evidence points. To claim otherwise without evidence would be total folly. ... I'm sorry but your conjecture does nothing to change the facts as they are.
So really your response is no different. You have your dogmatic view, and woe betide anyone who dares to question it.
You seem to assume that just because someone is an atheist, he must talk trash and I must immediately feel the need to stand against him. Now, I have not real idea out of which context you ripped that one. Quite possibly the atheist was talking nonsense, they do that a lot. But considered just on its own, what the atheist says there is of course perfectly valid. Your personal dislike does not count as argument against evidence. And you may wish to call that dogmatic, I call it sane. Reality is not determined by your preferences, apart to some degree from that chunk of reality which you are and hence control. That's not intended as a statement of faith by the way.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But as I pointed out to the atheist: how do you know that your position is, in fact, true? If none of us are allowed to "have an opinion", then how could we possibly ascertain the 'facts'?
Now you are switching gears. Whether it is in fact the case that scripture and tradition suggest that at least some people burn in hell is a different question. I may be right or wrong about that, and an argument could be made. Not that I particularly fancy having that argument now, because I have had it often before and there's just so much hyper-emotive eisegesis I can take.
But that was not my point. I was not attacking your presumably universalist position, as silly as that position is. Rather I was attacking the way you are reasoning for that position. Because whatever may be truth about heaven and hell, it sure is no argument to say "I don't like it, therefore it is not the case." That's not even wrong, to quote Wolfgang Pauli.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You know the first commandment. How can anyone obey this from his heart unless he has a view of God which he can accept?
That's a decent point. Marvin uses it as his excuse all the time... However, one one hand I actually do believe that God is good and loveable (while indeed some people will fry in hell for eternity); just not particularly in a Santa Claus / cute kitten kind of way. And on the other hand people do not really work like this, psychologically. This stuff about not being able to love God because He would torture sinners eternally almost invariably comes from those who are dead certain that He doesn't. It's basically just an argument about justice rendered as emotional appeal for greater rhetorical effect. The opposing side in fact manages to love God just fine in spite of the hell issue. This appeal is then supposed to make them feel bad about loving such a God, it is not pointing to any actual and acute lack of such love.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Unfortunately that is a very poor argument, because we cannot even know if your view is correct unless that is a conclusion we have drawn from the logical analysis of the evidence. That is how truth is normally perceived. And that is the method that I am using.
No, you haven't presented any logical analysis of evidence. So far you have in effect just said "God cannot possibly do this because I would find it abhorrent." Which is neither here nor there.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... I am not denying the reality of hell. The Bible certainly mentions hell. But a particular interpretation of this doctrine is not a foregone conclusion. So therefore, I have been asked for my opinion.
Because you are interpreting something, you have been asked for your opinion? And your opinion will then have some effect? So if you happen to read through some new law, the Prime Minister and the President of the Supreme Court will accordingly phone you up to hear your opinion? And then they will go on to inform parliament and the judiciary, respectively, on the correct way of implementing this new law according to you? Cool.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No it's not the primary evidence of scripture. The primary evidence of scripture is the reverse. The superficial reading is the damned to Hell forever meaning.
You are plain wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Your logic reminds me of Martin Luther's hidden God.... Your redeeming feature is that you don't believe the logical bullshit you're sprouting.
You are plain wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The 'goodness' of God which includes his creation of a hell prepared for the Devil and his angels and all those who will 'fry in it for eternity'? Even in the flawed administration of human justice a person given the death penalty for their crime can only die the once.
Indeed. A good God, and an eternal hell that is not empty - I do believe in that. And God is neither a human administrator, nor is the afterlife and its conditions straightforwardly comparable to this earthly life.
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
My whole focus would be turned inwards with a desperate obsession to ensure that "I was OK" and not going to suffer for ever and ever and bugger everyone else. That attitude would, in any case, probably therefore be self-defeating... This is also not the life I see being advocated by Jesus in the scriptures.
I agree. But since this concepts appears to be so novel, allow me to repeat: just because something may make you feel bad or indeed be bad for you, does not render it non-existent. That's not how reality works. You cannot determine what is the case by looking at how it would make you feel. What you can determine from scripture, however - and you have already done so - is that it would be wrong and against Jesus' intention if the knowledge of hell drove you into obsessive self-centred worry about your own salvation. So, uhm, well, don't do that?
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Ultimately I think this whole issue comes down to how you would answer the question "Is God violent?". My own answer to that is "no" and that would characterise how I would approach this whole issue.
So, are you a Marcionist, or do you reinterpret basically the entire OT in highly creative ways? Mind you, saying that God is this or that is always going to be an analogy. But if you feel that you can validly attribute all sorts of "positive" human attributes to God, then the case for attributing violence to God seems relatively clear cut.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's irrelevant. Jesus, our Lord, master, example, template wasn't. I bow to God's pragmatism, which one way or another is pretty breathtaking. God's pragmatism - which may include doing violence - is predicated on ONE thing. Love. And we ALL know what that is.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What you can determine from scripture, however - and you have already done so - is that it would be wrong and against Jesus' intention if the knowledge of hell drove you into obsessive self-centred worry about your own salvation.
I agree with that. Where we clearly disagree with each other is how the various passages of scripture discussing what we might abbreviate as "hell", be that references to Sheol, Gehenna or whatever, are to be correctly interpreted. My interpretations of those passages may not be correct, but neither may yours IngoB!
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So, are you a Marcionist[...]
No.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jesus, our Lord, master, example, template wasn't [violent].
Is the point. I don't think looking to Jesus to see God makes one a Marcionist, but a Christian. In Jesus, God died rather than killed.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
then the case for attributing violence to God seems relatively clear cut.
Come now, a source that says God killed Jesus is to be trusted? "God" killed "Jesus"? The atonement can be discussed until the cows come home but what view of the Trinity and what Christology is required to believe that "God" killed "Jesus"?
But that website isn't interested in that really, is it? It's trying to make a point against Christianity (and Islam and Judaism and Mormonism).
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You know the first commandment. How can anyone obey this from his heart unless he has a view of God which he can accept?
That's a decent point. Marvin uses it as his excuse all the time... However, one one hand I actually do believe that God is good and loveable (while indeed some people will fry in hell for eternity); just not particularly in a Santa Claus / cute kitten kind of way. And on the other hand people do not really work like this, psychologically. This stuff about not being able to love God because He would torture sinners eternally almost invariably comes from those who are dead certain that He doesn't.
Given that you use me as the example in your first sentence, it's ironic that I actually am one of those who struggles to love God because of it!
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No it's not the primary evidence of scripture. The primary evidence of scripture is the reverse. The superficial reading is the damned to Hell forever meaning.
You are plain wrong.
No I'm not.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Your logic reminds me of Martin Luther's hidden God.... Your redeeming feature is that you don't believe the logical bullshit you're sprouting.
You are plain wrong.
That's a shame.
Best not bother with the trying to argue for God's love thing then. Waste of time if it isn't true.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
IngoB's recent posts along the lines of "you are wrong" indicate that he is convinced of his study of these matters, even as the rest of us sing a different song that includes the God of Love of the NT.
I might ask how IngoB you can include bits of the OT while avoiding others, say the allegedly God-commanded genocide within Joshua, but let's avoid proof texting. I am no biblical scholar, but I've heard arguments before that attempt reconcile the human written and self justifying scripture with the demonstrations of Love we understand as Christians. The simple answer has always been that the world itself (the universe as a whole) is marked by free will, and we project our perception of the polarities we see on what our minds can comprehend and then fill in with our experienced creativity.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Proverbs 4:7 recommends wisdom to you, not opinion. It is wise to realize that your opinions about reality do not change reality. Well, not so much wise as sane, but I trust you get the point.
I am well aware that my opinions about reality do not change reality. I never suggested for one moment that they did. But I am not seeking to opine in such a way as to change reality, but to understand reality. I would have thought that was obvious.
Also, you may like to apply your 'wisdom' and 'sanity' to your own opinions. Your views do not change reality. So what exactly is the issue here?
I am quite intrigued that you refer to the concept of 'sanity'. What I have been speaking against is moral insanity - the kind of insanity I described in the OP. My humble opinion about reality is that God is not insane, but sane. He is just and loves justice, and He means for us to understand and appreciate that. Therefore we can understand how His justice is indeed just. That is not about trying to change the reality of His justice, but about understanding it.
quote:
Neither is it in the end your decision how the world and the afterlife is managed. God made the whole shebang, God has the final say. If you don't like that, tough luck.
You're preaching to the converted here. Never once did I even hint that it was my decision as to how the world and the afterlife is managed. Where did you get that idea from? Please could you quote something I wrote which even remotely suggests this.
Or perhaps it's just a case of my saying something that you happen not to agree with, and you are rather presumptuously attempting to enlist the support of the Almighty in your cause as a futile way of trying to silence me? That is certainly what it sounds like to me.
I can't change what God is, or what He does. And I certainly do not want to. What I am doing is seeking to understand - an activity that you seem to be opposed to, for some reason.
quote:
Seriously, do read more than a verse at a time. It helps.
Oooh. Moody. Take it to hell, if you're getting uppity, my friend, and leave the rest of us to have a mature conversation, eh?
Actually, if you look at the logic of the parable of the vineyard in Isaiah 5, you will see that I have a point. You seemed to have overlooked the need to read the Scripture with comprehension.
quote:
Your personal dislike does not count as argument against evidence. And you may wish to call that dogmatic, I call it sane. Reality is not determined by your preferences, apart to some degree from that chunk of reality which you are and hence control. That's not intended as a statement of faith by the way.
Yes, that's true.
So please apply your rule to yourself. What you are coming out with doesn't change reality either.
You are stating a position, which is just as much an opinion as anything I have said.
quote:
No, you haven't presented any logical analysis of evidence.
Code for: "you haven't presented any logical analysis of evidence, that I happen to agree with, and which conforms to my personal preferences."
You must think that I was born yesterday. It's blindingly obvious that you are just reacting, and not reasoning in any kind of mature way. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's quite another to try to use a form of psychological manipulation to try to silence him. All this stuff about "no one asked for your opinion" or "your opinion won't change reality" etc etc is just laughable. If you really think I am taken in by this approach, you are more deluded than I thought.
I'm sorely tempted to say more, but I must remember the rules of this board.
Finally...
quote:
...while indeed some people will fry in hell for eternity...
Did you write that with tears in your eyes, or with a smirk on your face?
Only you know the answer to that one.
And God saw it too.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The 'goodness' of God which includes his creation of a hell prepared for the Devil and his angels and all those who will 'fry in it for eternity'? Even in the flawed administration of human justice a person given the death penalty for their crime can only die the once.
Indeed. A good God, and an eternal hell that is not empty - I do believe in that. And God is neither a human administrator, nor is the afterlife and its conditions straightforwardly comparable to this earthly life.
He certainly isn't a human administrator. And taking your view it would appear he is not even capable of the poor sort of justice a human administrator is capable of. I would suggest that he is in fact far superior to that and that scripture reveals only a partial - and therefore incomplete - picture of God's justice.
It may be an matter of faith for you that God punishes hideously and eternally for temporal sins; and to accept as unchallangeable that there is no cultural context to be taken into account.
But I believe we really are meant to apply a little logic to what we've been learning about God through Christ over the past 2,000 years and preach the gospel afresh in each generation. Not that the non-existence of hell as a literal reality is anything new as an idea, of course.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Surely a commitment to salvation would necessitate giving every single human being overwhelming opportunity to respond to the gospel message!!
This is just more "I wish it were so, therefore it is so." There really is nothing in Christian scripture or tradition that suggests God is making salvation near impossible to miss or reject. Furthermore, this sort of thinking immediately runs into a very simple problem: why are we even here? If salvation is so utterly guaranteed and heaven awaits all, then whatever is the point of this crap here and now, which we call our lives? There is a race to be run, and a good fight to be fought. And the great commission is not just some cultural highlight tour seeking mutual understanding of equivalent religious traditions. Yes, there will be, for example, righteous Hindus in heaven. But yes, there will also be less of them, and significantly less of them, than if they had converted to Christianity. Mission is no joke, and we are our brother's keeper also in religion.
Jesus did not say "There are many ways, and personal truths, and individual lifestyle choices; everybody comes to the Father, I also can take you there but do check out the other tour operators." Neither did He say "Enter by the wide gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to life, and those who enter by it are many. Whereas the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to destruction, and those who force themselves along it are few and really have only themselves to blame."
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It doesn't quite work like that. For some people, the thought of spending eternity worshipping the monster-God is hell. It's 1984's Room 101 made eternal.
And your point is? That it sucks to be them? Agreed. Other than that I see no further necessary consequences. Again, this constant argumentation strategy that X, Y or Z cannot be because someone might not like it or be disadvantaged or whatever it just bollocks. God is not a happy-o-mat.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I see the same problem with religion - I don't see how I can choose not to believe what I do believe, or to not resonate with what I do resonate.
That's a rather romantic and exalted point of view of human spiritual life. I'm afraid pragmatic habit formation rather beats the snot out of it. If you want some pragmatic romanticism on this matter, read Blaise Pascal.
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
My interpretations of those passages may not be correct, but neither may yours IngoB!
Sure. But my interpretation has the vast majority of two millennia of Christian tradition behind it. Yours, not so much.
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is the point. I don't think looking to Jesus to see God makes one a Marcionist, but a Christian. In Jesus, God died rather than killed.
First, just how violent Jesus was Himself can be debated, and depends on what one means with that. For example, He was quite regularly verbally bruising. Second, much of the violence in the OT was directed against the Israelites anyhow. I'm not arguing for God as Hitler, but against God as Teletubby. Getting yourself nailed to a cross to die miserably isn't precisely a smooth, pleasing and child-safe way of making a spiritual point either, is it now? A Church founded on the blood of martyrs cannot claim to be anything other than spiritually rated R. Blood was, is and will be shed for Christ. I'll happily agree that Jesus brought some clarity into the confused mayhem of the OT there. But neither in word nor in deed has there ever been a lack of signs for the potential wrath of God. And Jesus wasn't shy in the slightest about threatening it.
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Come now, a source that says God killed Jesus is to be trusted? "God" killed "Jesus"? The atonement can be discussed until the cows come home but what view of the Trinity and what Christology is required to believe that "God" killed "Jesus"? But that website isn't interested in that really, is it? It's trying to make a point against Christianity (and Islam and Judaism and Mormonism).
So? That website provides a convenient list of the OT body count with scripture verses, which is why I linked to it. That it does so for its own purposes is neither here nor there. And I find it rather annoying that you focus on the one death in the NT, that of Christ, which clearly would require a different discussion from a Christian perspective. How is that in any way affecting my point that the OT doesn't portray God as being above violence?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Given that you use me as the example in your first sentence, it's ironic that I actually am one of those who struggles to love God because of it!
You did not ask me to become your spiritual advisor, but I will say this: in my opinion, you are sitting on a fence. Not the fence most people sit on, but still. If you really believe that God is as you tend to claim, then you simply are not saved. And if you really are as scared of that as you tend to claim, then you should be desperately seeking a change. As long as you do not, you are still sitting on that fence.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Best not bother with the trying to argue for God's love thing then. Waste of time if it isn't true.
Indeed. There is no point to argue for your concept of God's love.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
He is just and loves justice, and He means for us to understand and appreciate that. Therefore we can understand how His justice is indeed just. That is not about trying to change the reality of His justice, but about understanding it.
Well, very good. The problem comes in how you go about that. You basically say: "I know what justice is. It is this but not that. Therefore God cannot be doing that. Hence when scripture seems to say that God is doing that, it really must be saying this. And it is my duty to find some interpretation which turns that into this, even if it's a bit strained. Then I will have shown that God is just."
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I can't change what God is, or what He does. And I certainly do not want to. What I am doing is seeking to understand - an activity that you seem to be opposed to, for some reason.
I am not opposed to understanding, but to where you source your understanding from. Primarily, from what you think should be the case. Where precisely is the room in your thinking for a God who is not as you think He should be? Things often turn out to be other than what we think they should be. Where is there any sign in your thinking that you may be mistaken about some key concepts, like justice? You will happily accept being a heretic and dismiss two millennia of Christian thought with the wave of your hand, because you know how things must be. How is that a honest inquiry? If you start with yourself and consult only yourself, you will end with yourself. No surprise there.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So please apply your rule to yourself. What you are coming out with doesn't change reality either. You are stating a position, which is just as much an opinion as anything I have said.
Well, if we were the only two Christians that ever lived, that would be true. But that is not the case, and since you are the one making extraordinary claims you should be furnishing extraordinary proof. But again, I did not attack your position as such, just your way of arguing for it. "I feel this would be unjust, therefore God doesn't do it" is simply not a valid argument. Maybe God is unjust. Maybe your feelings are mistaken. Maybe your feelings are right and God is just, but you are mistaken about the contradiction. Maybe this is not about justice. Maybe this is about justice, but applied in a different way. Maybe you are missing key information. Etc.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You must think that I was born yesterday.
I'm sure that you were born at least 4,000 days ago.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Did you write that with tears in your eyes, or with a smirk on your face?
Neither. It was written matter-of-factly.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
He certainly isn't a human administrator. And taking your view it would appear he is not even capable of the poor sort of justice a human administrator is capable of.
Rather, I think your evaluation is poor. Neither do you correctly account for the purpose of human life, nor is it the case that human sin is finite in its negative value, nor is it the case that eternal life with God allows the same kind of arrangements as temporal life with a human administrator.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I would suggest that he is in fact far superior to that and that scripture reveals only a partial - and therefore incomplete - picture of God's justice.
And we had to wait for you to fill in the gaps, because basic reckoning of good and evil required 21stC sophistication? God should have waited till now to come, and should have inspired us, for we would have sorted out these matters a lot better than those bronze age simpletons. Right?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
IngoB, your posts illustrate perfectly what the OP was about: you offer only either eternal pain, or eternal life in the intimate company of a psychopath. Bad news. Very, very bad news.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
But my interpretation has the vast majority of two millennia of Christian tradition behind it.
So it's an argument from authority (cherry picked by you), not an argument based on logic and evidence (including a careful assessment of biblical evidence).
Basically this is an act of intellectual capitulation. By trying to bludgeon people into submitting to your magisterium (or what you imagine it is), you have abdicated responsibility to support your case by the normal God-given means by which we perceive truth.
Your entire argument has been along the lines of "you have no right to contend with Christian tradition". It's not even a proper debating position, just dogmatic imposition.
I encountered this on another site, and I was trying and trying to get a particular contributor to engage with the biblical arguments about a particular subject (about which I was not even being remotely dogmatic - I just wanted a discussion), but he just kept on and on about the fact that my views (or what he thought were my views) were invalid, because he felt that they were a departure from "Christian tradition". That was his only argument. The subject was sexuality, as it happens, and I wasn't even arguing for a particularly liberal view - but just suggested that certain Bible passages could be interpreted in a certain way. He found this utterly intolerable. No discussion was allowed. No biblical exegesis. Previous generations had done all our thinking for us, so all we had to do was unthinkingly submit. Christian tradition had obviously caused the human mind to become redundant. Each generation should become less intellectually active than the last, due to the authority of "Christian tradition"!
This was the ugly face of religious bigotry, and, yes, it's a delusion*, and extremely bad news (although great news for atheism!).
(* Because God the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of "knowledge, wisdom and understanding" - Isaiah 11:2 - not the spirit of mindless and brainless conformity to irrational ideas dogmatically imposed ex cathedra by decree).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
IngoB, your posts illustrate perfectly what the OP was about: you offer only either eternal pain, or eternal life in the intimate company of a psychopath. Bad news. Very, very bad news.
You could be right. Or your judgement "psychopath" could be wrong. At any rate, your judgement "bad news" does not change whether it is or is not the case. Neither is something else true or false simply because you judge it to be "good news". And that was my actual point.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So it's an argument from authority (cherry picked by you), not an argument based on logic and evidence (including a careful assessment of biblical evidence).
No cherry-picking of authority is necessary for my side in this, very much so for the universalist side. But you seem not to get that I'm actually not making an argument against universalism here. I'm making an argument against a typical way of arguing for universalism. There is a difference...
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Basically this is an act of intellectual capitulation. By trying to bludgeon people into submitting to your magisterium (or what you imagine it is), you have abdicated responsibility to support your case by the normal God-given means by which we perceive truth.
OK, here's a hint, since you are feeling so intellectual: I'm not trying to bludgeon you into submission, I'm trying to pull the rug from under your feet.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Your entire argument has been along the lines of "you have no right to contend with Christian tradition". It's not even a proper debating position, just dogmatic imposition.
Except that that hasn't been my argument at all. Tell you what, for the purpose of this thread, let's assume that the RCC is totally wrong about practically everything, and either deadly evil or bat-shit insane, collectively. Now, that just removes just a couple of side remarks from what I've said. Care to deal with the rest?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This was the ugly face of religious bigotry, and, yes, it's a delusion*, and extremely bad news (although great news for atheism!).
Sure is, terrible stuff. And we really should have an in-depth discussion of universalism, except I for one have had it many times with plenty of scripture, theology and philosophy in play. In fact, I had one fairly recently which was really getting into scriptural detail. So I will pass on that here. All I'm saying here is that you cannot conclude from your preferences to reality.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
For me the good news is that I was created to be in relationship with all of creation. God, humankind and nature. Christ, fully human and fully divine and part of the Trinity both demonstrated/s and facilitated/s relationship.
All the rest to me is superfluous.
The nice thing about string theory is that it demonstrates that interconnectedness at a subatomic level.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Best not bother with the trying to argue for God's love thing then. Waste of time if it isn't true.
Indeed. There is no point to argue for your concept of God's love.
I'm delighted to hear you already know what it is.
Does ESP number amongst your accomplishments?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
IngoB -
Funny how you rail against universalism. Who are you talking to? Certainly not me, considering that I am not a universalist!
There are not two simple positions: universalism or "everyone deserves to burn in hell because of original sin". It's a bit more complex than that.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
whatever is the point of this crap here and now, which we call our lives?
Some of us don't think it is crap.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
there will be, for example, righteous Hindus in heaven.
Genuine question, is that really in accordance with the two millenia of Christian tradition you refer to?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Jesus did not say "There are many ways, and personal truths, and individual lifestyle choices; everybody comes to the Father, I also can take you there but do check out the other tour operators."
No, he didn't, but he did provide his answer (the way, the truth, the life) to a specific question. The question was most assuredly not "How can I get to Heaven?" or "How can I avoid eternal conscious torment?"
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sure. But my interpretation has the vast majority of two millennia of Christian tradition behind it. Yours, not so much.
That may well be so. Where do the Hindus come into that two millenia of Christian tradition?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But neither in word nor in deed has there ever been a lack of signs for the potential wrath of God. And Jesus wasn't shy in the slightest about threatening it.
"signs" "potential" "threatening" - do you use those words deliberately? You stop short of saying that Jesus demonstrated the wrath of God for example.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And I find it rather annoying that you focus on the one death in the NT, that of Christ, which clearly would require a different discussion from a Christian perspective.
Well, tough. If we are going to discuss anything from a Christian perspective I don't think it's particularly controversial to look at the founder and perfecter of our faith.
A final question, have you ever, once in your life, ever considered that you might be wrong about anything IngoB? Ever?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And we had to wait for you to fill in the gaps, because basic reckoning of good and evil required 21stC sophistication? God should have waited till now to come, and should have inspired us, for we would have sorted out these matters a lot better than those bronze age simpletons. Right?
You can extrapolate incorrectly all you like from what I posted. I've never suggested here or anywhere else throughout my time on the Ship that our forebears were simpletons. What I am saying is that different cultures have different perspectives in religion and society as they develop; whether for the better or the worse. And it's foolish to pretend that nothing has changed in the development either of human beings or of our own knowledge of human beings.
I also think it's foolish to ignore the fact that humankind has accumulated more experience of God - including the working of his Holy Spirit - since Christ's birth than before Christ's birth.
Whether that experience is of benefit is, of course, dependent on our response. If I have an absolutely fixed view about Uncle George it makes no difference if I know him five days or five decades - he will only ever be who he was to me when I first made up my mind about him - a relationship based on an over-reliance of dogmatic first impressions. If I'm too cavalier with what I think I know about Uncle George's basic character, I may attribute things to him which aren't right and lose what is essentially true about Uncle George.
The challenge surely is to find the dynamic path between those two extremes.
As for my filling in the gaps? That's genuinelly funny! Men have been filling in the gaps since they decided Mary was a perpetual virgin, the Magdalene was a whore and we couldn't have heaven and hell without purgatory and limbo as well! More like creating gaps where none existed and then filling them in.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
*Nods appreciatively at iamchristianhearmeroar and Anselmina.*
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
*Tries again*
Ingo I realised belatedly you have probably never read any Martin Luther so I'd like to explain my previous analogy because I actually have some sympathy for the position I think you're trying to espouse.
God is almighty. God is creator and ultimate controller of all life ( Aquinas too wot?)
Henceforth: if God turns out to be a complete dick or bitch or psychopath, what we think about God's judgement is ultimately irrelevant.
Because it will happen as God wills it anyway.
And we must needs worship this psychopathic, dickish, bitchy God anyway because of what she/he is ( and not necessarily only because he/she/it will send us to eternal torment once the saints are raised again).
What I still don't understand is why you would bother arguing for a God of love if this is what you actually believe.
Luther put it down to pre destination.
I can't figure out where you get off.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm planning to get The Fire that Consumes on my kindle.
He seems to sum it up in this lecture but would like to read his detailed study.
I was surprised to learned that a movie called Hell and Mr. Fudge has been made and was well received at the Houston film festival where it was first released.
Thank you for the links. I found the lecture illuminating as it addressed the questions that had arisen in my mind.
Whether the bad news is that some people will roast alive for ever, or roast until they're destroyed for ever, I hope that there will be a way for everyone to ultimately be reconciled to God before judgement day. After all, none of us is perfect, whether or not we believe in and try to serve God.
The good news of Christ, for me, has far less to do with eternal life later than it has to do with full life in him now, filled with the vibrancy of the Holy Spirit.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm delighted to hear you already know what it is. Does ESP number amongst your accomplishments?
Since you appear to deny the reality of hell (non-empty hell), your concept of God's love is unlikely to accommodate that reality. Hence there's no point in arguing for it.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Funny how you rail against universalism.
Is it really impossible to get this through to you? I'm not railing against universalism. I'm not even really discussing universalism. I'm pointing out that a particular argumentation strategy - one which you have and keep on using here - is a logical failure. If you are not using it to argue for universalism, as I thought, but for something else, then it remains a logical failure.
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Genuine question, is that really in accordance with the two millenia of Christian tradition you refer to?
Yes. It's based on St Paul (Romans 2:14-15 in particular) and there has always been (from the Church fathers forward) a discussion on how that precisely plays out. It is fair to say though that this discussion did not get serious and eventually settle until the late medieval / early modern period, when the existence of many new people (rather than old enemies) who never had heard the gospel became seriously present to people's minds through Western expansion and colonialism.
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
No, he didn't, but he did provide his answer (the way, the truth, the life) to a specific question. The question was most assuredly not "How can I get to Heaven?" or "How can I avoid eternal conscious torment?"
The question was indeed "How can I get to heaven?" (as is revealed in the ensuing discussion, since the question was where Jesus is going and how to follow Him, and the answer - explicit in verse 28 - is to the Father, i.e., heaven) and the answer included "no one comes to the Father, but by me."
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Where do the Hindus come into that two millenia of Christian tradition?
As people to be converted to Christianity. ASAP. (That by the way does not mean that there is no good in Hinduism now, or that this culture should simply disappear without a trace. Christianity can accommodate many things, and has always profited from soaking up whatever good may be found in any human culture or other religion.)
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
You stop short of saying that Jesus demonstrated the wrath of God for example.
Imagine yourself to be a Pharisee, a law-abiding and religious Jew, and read Matthew 23. Plenty of wrath there, I would say.
Now, quite generally the coming of Christ marks a turn from outer signs and deeds to inner ones, and in some sense from communal to individual behaviour. So mostly Christ is not talking about God's wrath in terms of future military threats or other social disasters, as the prophets of old. Rather, he focuses on the inner effects and what one has to do, personally. That said, after all the destruction of the very core of classical Judaism was imminent. I'm not sure what outer demonstration of God's wrath could top the final destruction of the Temple and all it stood for - that's basically a nuclear strike in spiritual terms. Maybe we do not allow ourselves to see it this way any longer (it is now considered spiritually incorrect to assume that God was displeased with the Jews largely rejecting / ignoring Christ), but the Jews back then sure would have seen this as a major sign of God's wrath.
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
If we are going to discuss anything from a Christian perspective I don't think it's particularly controversial to look at the founder and perfecter of our faith.
I was pointing out a website that conveniently lists God's body count in the OT, showing that He acts quite violently there. You answered that their listing of Christ's dead in the NT is questionable. That is evasion, pure and simple.
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
A final question, have you ever, once in your life, ever considered that you might be wrong about anything IngoB? Ever?
Sure. For example, I've been essentially wrong about religion at least twice in my life (in my opinion), which is why I have changed religion (not denomination) twice so far.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And it's foolish to pretend that nothing has changed in the development either of human beings or of our own knowledge of human beings.
As far as basic reckoning of good and evil, justice and mercy, necessary to understand salvation goes - count me as a fool then. Nothing has changed in the development or knowledge at the required level, nor will it ever till the Second Coming. It is like talking about the wheel. Yes, the wheels on a Formula 1 car are way more sophisticated than those on ancient Egyptian chariots, but nevertheless the wheel does not need reinventing. As far as I am concerned, you are basically saying "the ancients thought that wheels had to be round, but we now know that they must be square". Not so. (For our resident smart alecks: I know of non-round wheels and their usage. Go and miss a point elsewhere.)
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ingo I realised belatedly you have probably never read any Martin Luther so I'd like to explain my previous analogy because I actually have some sympathy for the position I think you're trying to espouse. ... What I still don't understand is why you would bother arguing for a God of love if this is what you actually believe.
Your key mistake is simply that you think I espouse that position. I do not. I'm merely saying (over, and over, and over again ... not that anybody seems to be listening) that a popular argumentation strategy doesn't work because God could be an asshole, or people could be mistaken about what would make God an asshole. This is about what information one can base an argument on, this is not about an actual argument for or against anything.
All I'm saying is that there is no logical force in "This is evil therefore God cannot be like this / doing this". God could be evil. One could be mistaken about what is evil. One could have a faulty idea about what is happening. Whatever. At any rate, how one perceives and evaluates something does not as such determine its existence. If someone says "this is unjust, therefore God doesn't do it," then this does not tell me primarily anything about God, but about them.
The question is where we source our information about God from. I actually even admit that our feeling of justice has to play a role in this. But, and this is crucial, it is not independently valid. It is simply not true as some first principle that God has to be just according to my heart. Rather, if I believe that God is just, and if I believe that God has written His law on our hearts, and if I believe that God is steadfast, then - and only then - can I start to use the evidence of my heart for conclusions about God. But then I also cannot simply dismiss information from the very same source. I have imported reckoning of scripture and tradition into my evaluation of what my heart tells me. I cannot then turn around and use what my heart tells me against what scripture and tradition say. That's sawing off the branch you are sitting on.
If we base our argument on what we prefer and think, it has no particular meaning for anything. Reality does not bend to our likes and dislikes. If we borrow authority and meaning from other sources to make our preferences and thoughts estimable, then we cannot turn our preferences and thoughts against these sources.
As for the position I espouse: I would say that it is precisely the tension between our feelings of just punishment and eternal punishment in hell that will tell us something deep about God and the eternal afterlife. It is always the case that the Divine is found most truly where our minds run into apparent paradoxes. It is always false to resolve this tension by dismissing one side of the dilemma. God is not either/or but both/and. Basically I think that we are quite mistaken in our extrapolation of this life into the next.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
I'm pointing out that a particular argumentation strategy - one which you have and keep on using here - is a logical failure. If you are not using it to argue for universalism, as I thought, but for something else, then it remains a logical failure.
You point out that my "argumentation strategy" is a logical failure, and that from someone how wrote further down in the post:
quote:
It is always the case that the Divine is found most truly where our minds run into apparent paradoxes. It is always false to resolve this tension by dismissing one side of the dilemma. God is not either/or but both/and.
I agree that an apparent paradox is not resolved by ignoring or dismissing one side of the dilemma, but neither is it resolved by embracing the contradiction as a contradiction. Apparent paradoxes lead us to seek deeper knowledge, wisdom and understanding - as is commanded in Proverbs 4:7 - a clear commandment of God that I am keen on obeying, even if certain other people are not.
You seem to make sweeping statements about God, but yet acknowledge that we cannot rely on humanly understood concepts, and claim that we find God in paradoxes (in other words, in contradictions). Therefore you have no epistemological basis for making those sweeping statements about God! In fact, you cannot even appeal to Christian tradition, because that also is subject to interpretation. All you can appeal to is your own personal interpretation of Christian tradition.
If God could be evil, we could never know or even assert that to be the case. How could minds created by an evil God possibly grasp any truth at all?
You really haven't thought this through, have you? You can't have it both ways. Either God can be understood and genuinely appreciated by the human mind, or we can say absolutely nothing about God at all - not even "that he could be evil". Now that is logic, and I defy you to prove (by the normal rules of logic and not by your contradiction based non-logic) that this position is invalid.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You point out that my "argumentation strategy" is a logical failure, and that from someone how wrote further down in the post:
Tu quoque is yet another logical fallacy. Any particular reason why you refuse to engage with my actual point?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Apparent paradoxes lead us to seek deeper knowledge, wisdom and understanding - as is commanded in Proverbs 4:7 - a clear commandment of God that I am keen on obeying, even if certain other people are not.
Then we are agreed on this point. All the rest you write is based on pretending that I had not written "apparent". Now, as far as I am concerned, your approach is to resolve both/and into either/or, and thus leads you away from wisdom and understanding.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Tu quoque is yet another logical fallacy. Any particular reason why you refuse to engage with my actual point?
No, no reason at all, considering that I did actually engage with your point if you had bothered to read my post, instead of cherry picking the bits that you wanted to score points against.
quote:
Now, as far as I am concerned, your approach is to resolve both/and into either/or, and thus leads you away from wisdom and understanding.
A rather naive answer. Apparent contradictions can be resolved into both/and if it can be shown that they are actually complementary. That is so uncontroversial that it is hardly even worth mentioning. But clearly the ideas of 'square' and 'circle' as pertaining to the same shape cannot be resolved into both/and. But this is what you are trying to do as regards the justice of God. If you say that God's justice transcends ours such that it is completely different, then the word 'justice' has no meaning for the human mind. But when the Scripture says that there is no injustice in God (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:4), that means something to the human mind. In fact, it must do, because God means for us to understand justice - see, for example, Proverbs 2:9, obviously in the context of what has just gone before. And, of course, there are many Scriptures which exhort us to apply God's justice, so that it becomes our practical justice (2 Chronicles 19:5-7 is one example).
You accuse me of wishful thinking, but there is no logical basis to this charge at all. What you are railing against is the ability of the human mind to understand anything of God. If we seek to understand the ways of God and come up against contradictions and the kind of moral insanity that I outlined in the OP, then either we embrace contradiction and understand nothing (because understanding something is the antithesis of embracing contradiction, since contradictions destroy each other, a point well illustrated by Jesus Himself: "a house divided against itself cannot stand"), or we seek to resolve those contradictions. You seem to resent this process, and anyone who tries to seek to resolve these problems is dismissed as a wishful thinker. But what is the alternative to understanding? The answer is intellectual nihilism. In fact, ironically, if you reject the logical process of understanding, then any concept that you affirm has no justification at all, because it stands as an idea that is undermined by a contrary idea. So on what basis do you choose idea A over idea non-A? The answer: dogmatism. And since there is no logical process going on here, the selection of idea A over non-A must be based on subjective preference. Thus it is the rejection of the logical process of understanding which is based on wishful thinking.
Therefore your accusation against me is about as far from the truth and logic as it is possible to imagine.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
It is always the case that the Divine is found most truly where our minds run into apparent paradoxes. It is always false to resolve this tension by dismissing one side of the dilemma. God is not either/or but both/and. Basically I think that we are quite mistaken in our extrapolation of this life into the next.
On that I think we're agreed. There is always going to be tension between concepts of Love, Justice, Mercy, Wrath (I'm sure our understanding of that is not necessarily how it was intended).
We are trying to grasp concepts that we can never fully understand in this life. Who knows, it might turn out that we are all wrong about this. In which case we will just have to trust in God's mercy...
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
[QUOTE]There is always going to be tension between concepts of Love, Justice, Mercy, Wrath (I'm sure our understanding of that is not necessarily how it was intended).
We are trying to grasp concepts that we can never fully understand in this life. Who knows, it might turn out that we are all wrong about this. In which case we will just have to trust in God's mercy...
It seems to me that if we look to God for justice, then we want people to get what they deserve. Look at the outcry for dire punishment for the perpetrator of a horrendous crime, particularly one against a child. Do we want to see God's wrath then? We don't want it turned on us, or on those who do what we think are 'minor' crimes, or on those whose actions we find excuses for....etc.
Theology is man-made, and angled according to the culture within which it grows. God's nature is, always was, and always will be the same. The tension will remain. I see it as exciting and necessary for our continued growth.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
It is always the case that the Divine is found most truly where our minds run into apparent paradoxes. It is always false to resolve this tension by dismissing one side of the dilemma. God is not either/or but both/and. Basically I think that we are quite mistaken in our extrapolation of this life into the next.
On that I think we're agreed. There is always going to be tension between concepts of Love, Justice, Mercy, Wrath (I'm sure our understanding of that is not necessarily how it was intended).
We are trying to grasp concepts that we can never fully understand in this life. Who knows, it might turn out that we are all wrong about this. In which case we will just have to trust in God's mercy...
Where is the paradox - or even the tension - in the idea that love condemns anti-love? If 'love' means anything at all, it is opposed to its antithesis. It would certainly be a contradiction if love did not imply justice, because then love would not be opposed to anti-love.
And if there are people who choose to embrace anti-love (say, as a result of pride), then the reality of love will, of course, be a torment to them. That has nothing to do with God having any desire to hurt such people, and everything to do with these people bearing the inevitable consequences of their own free choice.
God's love and justice are not two sides of a coin. Love is the whole coin, as is justice. Because they are the same thing. 1 John 1:9 makes clear that God forgives and sanctifies us on the basis of His justice: "He is faithful and just (δικαιος) to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
And, yes, we can basically understand this in this life, because we were created to be in a relationship with God, whom we are to love with all our minds, as well as every other part of us. After all, the Scripture affirms that "we have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16).
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
EE. You are a PITA BUT
I have some sympathy with IngoB. I have been the most vehement proponent of God the pragmatist, and still have a side-bet on that to which I would bow the knee. But I cannot see coercion in Christ (yeah, yeah clearing the temple twice, I used to use that one - He didn't touch a human being), let alone violence, regardless of how breathtakingly violent the narratives of God pre- and post- incarnate are.
Nothing in the violence of God justifies ours. NOTHING.
Nothing in God's APPARENT pragmatic justification of the violence of the state (by Paul, a culturally limited rhetorician on whose giant shoulders we stand) justifies ours. Including our participation as agents of the state. We are ON OUR OWN when we do that.
We will have to give account for it. Oscar Romero and Jerzy Popiełuszko and Janani Luwum and Martin Luther King and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi will not.
As Christians cannot act in Mali then French forces must.
So we must account for that too.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Apparent contradictions can be resolved into both/and if it can be shown that they are actually complementary. That is so uncontroversial that it is hardly even worth mentioning. But clearly the ideas of 'square' and 'circle' as pertaining to the same shape cannot be resolved into both/and.
(Euclidean) "square" and "circle" are not in apparent, but in actual contradiction. That is not the case we are talking about. Neither are we talking about an apparent contradiction that can be resolved by a decision for one of the two sides, rejecting the other. Then there would not be mystery, but merely difficulty. What we are talking about is the kind of apparent contradiction that makes us say that an electron is both a particle and a wave. There is no actual contradiction there. Neither is there a unique resolution available, it is not the case that we were mistaken about calling the electron either wave or particle. Rather, what turns out to be the case is that in some circumstances it is best to talk of the electron as a wave, and in some as a particle. And we can show that these modes of description are both valid in terms of a higher description. And we can manipulate that higher description to some extent intellectually (i.e., make predictions with it). But what we cannot do is to understand the higher description fully, in the same sense as we understand either what a wave is or what a particle is. Our minds find here a truth that we can see to be a truth and with which we can successfully argue, but which we can nevertheless not completely comprehend. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Not an actual contradiction, and not an apparent contradiction that is simply resolved by recognizing one of its options as actually true.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But this is what you are trying to do as regards the justice of God. If you say that God's justice transcends ours such that it is completely different, then the word 'justice' has no meaning for the human mind. But when the Scripture says that there is no injustice in God (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:4), that means something to the human mind.
The projection of human concepts onto God has its limits. We can always assign some new word to something to "capture" it. But in the last analysis words do not even capture the natural world. "Raindrop" is not a raindrop. What does it feel like to be a bat? Our words are like markers which we can ram into a territory that we cannot actually visit. As we approach God, we cannot even ram home our mental markers. In some sense we are always talking about ourselves when we talk about God. To take your one verse example: What it means for God to have no fault (Dt 32:4) is that the conflict with God is the people's fault (Dt 32:5).
What you wish to do is to resolve Divine characteristics into human terms. But this is not an easy thing to do. Mercy and justice, for example, stand in tension, set up another apparent contradiction. If you say that God is supremely just and supremely merciful, and approach this as if you were talking about some human ruler, then necessarily one of these sides must fail. A human ruler cannot be both supremely just and supremely merciful. What you are really saying in saying that God is supremely just and supremely merciful is something that goes beyond these words. You are shining light on a mystery from two sides, to reach as much understanding as the human mind can, but you are not ultimately comprehending. Here is not the sort of meaning that your mind can store together with information how to peel an orange.
Scripture has literal meaning when talking about God. But it does not have meaning in the sense of a fact sheet or recipe. Much of it is a reflection of the human condition in the perfect mirror of Divine mystery. Some of it is a poetic juggling act, a human attempt to keep several things that need to be said, but cannot be said together, up in the air at the same time.
God's justice is our justice. But it does not follow that our justice is God's justice. God, as God, is not human, and while we are in His image and likeness, this renders the Infinite into the finite, a projection that cannot be simply reversed. God is not some dictator in the sky who needs a lesson in human rights. Religion is not politics.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And, of course, there are many Scriptures which exhort us to apply God's justice, so that it becomes our practical justice (2 Chronicles 19:5-7 is one example).
Indeed. But what we are applying is the justice God has given us. It is God's justice in that sense. Your actions are evaluated by the rule and standard God has set for human beings. This is not true, for example, for a donkey. We now laugh at medieval trials against animals, and rightly so. Why then, if you know that human law does not extend to any other creature, do you feel that you can straightforwardly extend it to the Creator? That you are bound does not mean that you can bind. That you can be bound does not mean that He can be bound.
Now, I'm not saying that we can say nothing about what God must do. We can, but because God is steadfast. So more properly, we can say something about what God will do. And I'm not saying either that what God will do can be in ultimate contradiction to what humans must do. God is true to Himself, there is no mismatch between any part of His works. But I do say that the simple step that you wish to take from what you must do to what God must do is false. God is not human, God is not a creature; and human justice is given by God as part of God's justice, but it is not all of God's justice, not even a sufficient representation thereof.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You seem to resent this process, and anyone who tries to seek to resolve these problems is dismissed as a wishful thinker. But what is the alternative to understanding? The answer is intellectual nihilism. In fact, ironically, if you reject the logical process of understanding, then any concept that you affirm has no justification at all, because it stands as an idea that is undermined by a contrary idea.
This is of course not the case, but if it were so, it would still be better than falsely resolving what one cannot. And quite frankly, I'm not known for rejecting concrete and practical doctrine about God.
But while you love to go on about the contradiction part of things, that's not really the main thrust of my argument against your style of argumentation. You are really quite wrong about all that, too, but that was not my point.
My point was in the end a very simple one: you take scripture to defeat scripture. All this stuff about your sense of justice is just smoke and mirrors to hide that. In the end what you are doing is to borrow authority from scripture to say that God is in a particular way, and then you turn this against other scripture saying that God does certain things. But if the authority of scripture saying that people will be condemned to hell can be doubted, so can the authority of scripture saying that God is love. You cannot pick and choose from scripture like that, without undermining your argument.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Therefore your accusation against me is about as far from the truth and logic as it is possible to imagine.
It is regrettable that this is false, for that would be a truly remarkable achievement.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But if the authority of scripture saying that people will be condemned to hell can be doubted, so can the authority of scripture saying that God is love. You cannot pick and choose from scripture like that, without undermining your argument.
Yes - of course it can be doubted. But our hope is that God is love and only has/had the best for us in mind from the beginning of it all. If these two are so, then God will have found a way for none of us to endure eternal torture - whatever way that is.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
EE, perhaps I should have been clearer when I said "concepts". I meant "human concepts". I think IngoB made the sort of points I would have wanted to on that count.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
then God will have found a way for none of us to endure eternal torture - whatever way that is.
This help?
I've never met the guy but he appears to have spent a year a while back doing nothing but studying hell. Anyway, it appears that the bible does not actually teach that our loving heavenly father tosses the lost sinner into the gaping maw of hell in order to suffer the conscious and unending torments of damnation throughout all eternity.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
(Euclidean) "square" and "circle" are not in apparent, but in actual contradiction. That is not the case we are talking about. Neither are we talking about an apparent contradiction that can be resolved by a decision for one of the two sides, rejecting the other. Then there would not be mystery, but merely difficulty. What we are talking about is the kind of apparent contradiction that makes us say that an electron is both a particle and a wave. There is no actual contradiction there. Neither is there a unique resolution available, it is not the case that we were mistaken about calling the electron either wave or particle. Rather, what turns out to be the case is that in some circumstances it is best to talk of the electron as a wave, and in some as a particle. And we can show that these modes of description are both valid in terms of a higher description. And we can manipulate that higher description to some extent intellectually (i.e., make predictions with it). But what we cannot do is to understand the higher description fully, in the same sense as we understand either what a wave is or what a particle is. Our minds find here a truth that we can see to be a truth and with which we can successfully argue, but which we can nevertheless not completely comprehend. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Not an actual contradiction, and not an apparent contradiction that is simply resolved by recognizing one of its options as actually true.
I agree with everything you have written in this paragraph.
However, when faced with an apparent contradiction, we should at least do all we can to find a resolution. That is all I have been trying to do.
quote:
The projection of human concepts onto God has its limits.
Yes, but do we know what those limits are? Perhaps human rationality has greater potential than we are prepared to acknowledge?
Furthermore, if all our ideas about God are merely human concepts - and, in a certain sense, they must be - then even our evaluation of God's superiority over us must be a human concept. Even the idea that "God's justice must be so much higher and infinitely more complex than our justice" is a concept framed by the human mind. Perhaps we are wrong about that? Perhaps God is a being who has the capacity to create beings who can perfectly understand the essence of His justice? Who are we to say that God cannot do this?
If we are sceptical about the validity of human concepts, then we must also be sceptical about our scepticism, for that also is a human concept.
As it happens, I don't accept that rationality per se is merely human, or derived from any natural process, but is a reflection of a truly objective rationality, which can only derive from the mind of God.
quote:
My point was in the end a very simple one: you take scripture to defeat scripture. All this stuff about your sense of justice is just smoke and mirrors to hide that. In the end what you are doing is to borrow authority from scripture to say that God is in a particular way, and then you turn this against other scripture saying that God does certain things. But if the authority of scripture saying that people will be condemned to hell can be doubted, so can the authority of scripture saying that God is love. You cannot pick and choose from scripture like that, without undermining your argument.
In fact I do not doubt that certain people will be condemned to hell - or at least that this is a possibility. I also see no contradiction (not even an apparent one) between that and the truth that "God is love". I see no contradiction in saying that the reality of the love of God is hell in the experience of those who are unrepentantly evil. After all, what is evil, if it is not a deep-seated hatred of true love? I have expressed this view a number of times on the Ship and elsewhere, and I often come up against the view that no one - no matter how evil - would reject the love of God, but would embrace it willingly. I see no logic in that viewpoint at all. It doesn't take a great deal of insight to work out that love can only operate in the absence of pride. If I want to be better than other people (alas, a desire I struggle to resist all the time!), and therefore wish to look down on others, then clearly I cannot be in any kind of 'love' relationship with those people. But what if I am so addicted to my own pride, that I would rather suffer no end of torment than give it up? That is a possible free will decision.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Therefore your accusation against me is about as far from the truth and logic as it is possible to imagine.
It is regrettable that this is false, for that would be a truly remarkable achievement.
Yes, you're right. A really stupid comment by me, thanks to a rush of blood to the head. Along with my pride, I guess I also struggle against the desire to be overly combative in discussion and debate. My bad. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 05. February 2013, 10:28: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0