Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Amandil]

But, if hell is only the absence of God, does that then mean that it also holds no evil? I've always thought that hell is a place where evil reigns, but according to your post hell is simply a lack of God?

If God is the ground of all goodness, then the abject lack of God would mean the abject lack of all goodness. Hell, then, would be the abject lack of all goodness (this is why Christians think it's a bad place, as I said above). Where else would evil reign if not in the place where goodness is impossible?

So if hell is not evil, does evil really exist? If so, where does it originate?

Hell is the only place evil has left to go. I wouldn't worry too much about hell not being evil.

But the question of the real existence of evil is a giant philosophical problem. Evil certainly exists as a phenomenon of experience. That is, we experience evil so it seems to us like it exists, anyway. Whether or not evil is an actual thing, though, like an albatros or a radiator is a thing, is not at all clear. I think St. Augustine's idea that evil is a lack of goodness where there really ought to be goodness is still a pretty darn good definition of evil. On that view ("the privation theory of evil"), no, evil doesn't "really" exist at all. It's just the absence of a good that should exist (and there are goods that need not exist -- they're called supererogatory goods). And of course absences don't really exist, unless you want to play funny word games -- absences are the exact opposite of existence, and evil is the kind of absence that ought not to be an absence (language has trouble with speaking about lacks -- we have to use the verb "to be" to describe things that aren't there!). But that doesn't change the fact that it sucks horrendously to have to suffer those sorts of deprivations -- and that's real enough for us!

I gather by the last bit of your question (excepting the blonde-day part) that you think that evil originates in hell. I don't think that's quite right. Evil doesn't originate in hell; rather, hell is the only place left for evil to go (other than obliterating it, which wouldn't take seriously [among others] the people who prefer evil). Evil originates, according to the usual Christian understanding (I hope I'm getting it right -- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) solely in the wills of creatures capable of making moral decisions. That is, even though a donkey can choose this or that pile of hay, a donkey can't decide to be an asshole (the potential for further puns is tempting!). People can decide to be very bad or good indeed, so insofar as they choose to be very bad, they are an origin of evil. Many Christians also believe that non-corporeal beings (i.e., angels) can choose to be very bad. The ones that did choose to be very bad ended up as "demons," lead by the first (and baddest?) one, "Satan." Personally, I think there's enough human evil around to really bother thinking about demons too. But that's just me.

Don't know if that was helpful or not. It's pretty short and pretty dense. Maybe if you have a brunette-day tommorrow it will be easier to understand, or maybe I did such a bad job at explaining it I should do it all over again. At any rate, I'm done for now.

Love,

[Hasty Ent]

Hello Rian,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RÃ*an
point 1 - since you quoted where I said "at least I challenge you to show where I, personally have said that a non-believer can live a perfectly just life and still go to hell.", and then quoted something I said awhile back, it looks like you're trying to say that I did INDEED say that a non-believer can live a perfectly just life and still go to hell; is that what you're trying to say? I would have to disagree with you.

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave that impression. The quotes were a poor attempt to illustrate my reasoning. I try not to put words in anyone's mouth, but it might appear that way due to my own post being unclear.

point 2 - whether or not Gandhi is in hell - I can certainly tell you that I cannot make that final decision. All I can say with confidence is that the ONLY way of salvation is through Jesus. I'm don't know enough to say whether or not Gandhi made that decision or not; neither do you. I imagine just Gandhi and God know. If he did NOT, then yes, by his own free choice, he is in hell (the Bible says that all men are without excuse, for God reveals Himself to them in various ways, and God is just and fair). However, he may well have chosen to accept God's way of salvation; I just don't know.

This was the answer I was looking for back on page 4 or 5. Thanks.

Everyone has done such a fine job discussing this issue I'm a little intimidated. I think I'll just sit back now (silently) and occasionally lurk.

[Rían]

You're welcome, Hasty Ent, and please don't feel intimidated - join in whenever you want to

[Rían]

Amandil - yes, I'm pretty sure we did talk about hell already as the absense of God, but I can't remember where... this thread's too long now! Actually, looking back at Hasty Ent's post, it looks like it was around page 5...

Originally posted by Baby-K
But, if hell is only the absence of God, does that then mean that it also holds no evil? I've always thought that hell is a place where evil reigns, but according to your post hell is simply a lack of God?

So if hell is not evil, does evil really exist? If so, where does it originate?

Just asking 'cos I'm having a blonde day

Since I think all goodness is with God, or another way of expressing it might be there is no goodness without God, then I think that means that hell is a very evil place indeed. I really can't see how a "neutral" state can possibly exist.

Overall, I agree with Amandil's post. Did his post explain it to your satisfaction? I only differ slightly in the area of an absense not really existing (evil is an absense of good). I think there are 2 concepts here, and that is what's leading to the bit of confusion. I think that:

• evil is an absense of good in the sense that if there is no good, then there WILL be evil (as opposed to the possibility of a neutral state). If God, as the completely good Being, is NOT somewhere, then there WILL be evil.
• but evil is also a perversion of good, not merely an absense of good - Satan was a very high-up and beautiful and "good" angel before he fell. And Satan is indeed a real being in existance - he is no "absense of good that doesn't exist".

But these are very fine points, and not really pertinent to the larger question of: how did you live your life today? What choices did you make? Did you seek to obey what you know of God's instrutions, such as considering other's needs as more important than your own, and loving your neighbor as yourself? What I'm saying is that I think it is good to think about these things, but not to get hung up over them. And the quick answer is that, according to the Bible,

• hell exists; and
• hell is a terrible place

And as far as where evil originated, the Bible makes it clear that dualism is NOT a possibility (i.e., two EQUAL but OPPOSITE powers - God and Satan). God is the One who has existed from all eternity - Satan is just one of his creations who happened to choose to rebel and destroy and kill and hate. I think that the POSSIBILITY of evil came into being (in a sense) when God created beings with free will. But the Bible is clear that God Himself is NOT evil.

[Rían]

And I'll move on in the scumbag discussion...

I think I'll try to cut down on the depth of detail and get everything written out in this post (or maybe 2 posts), and then if people disagree/misunderstand, then I can always elaborate.

So to review, it's not just/fair on our part to judge the "badness" of someone, because we CANNOT see their heart, or their past, or how hard/easy it is for someone to act a certain way! For example, it is no merit on my part to NOT steal - I'm just not tempted in that particular area! Nor am I tempted (to use the worst-case example that started off this topic) to sexually abuse children, so it is no merit for me not to do that. Pardon my being matter-of-fact about this, but wouldn't you say that child abusers abuse children because they WANT to? (even if they think it's wrong, they still, in a sense, WANT to, or are physically/mentally driven to). IOW, this is NOT what goes thru their minds : "well, I think that abusing children is really wrong, and I have no desire to do it at all - hey, I think I'll go abuse a child now". I think that sin nature comes out in different people in different ways, and in different "strengths". God alone knows everything about each person, and so He is the only one that can judge people completely justly.

Now on to the new parts - I think the remaining issues are:

• God's holiness;
• God's love; and
• something else (I had 3 in my mind when I was driving home from school, but I can't remember the 3rd now!)

About God's holiness - I think, Coney, that you would probably agree that no human has ever lived a sinless life. From your post, it appears that you think that the "good" people should have the chance to get into heaven. But the point is, that you have drawn a line somewhere - on the spectrum of bad actions, if perfect is on the top and really scumbag is on the bottom, you plot, according to your wisdom (which CANNOT be just, as I pointed out above), the various people you know or have heard of. No one is at the top, but some really nice people are perhaps near the top, then the rest fall somewhere farther down the line. Then you have drawn a line somewhere, where you think that everyone above the line should go to heaven, and every one below should NOT even be ELIGIBLE for salvation. You've probably never thought of it that way, but don't you think I'm right? (if not, let me know ) So anyway, you draw the dividing line at a certain place, someone who is "worse" than you would probably draw it lower, someone who is "better" than you would probably draw it higher.

But God is absolutely holy and perfect! Just like you are repelled (and very rightly so) by child molestation, and think it is wrong to even tolerate it, God is repelled (and rightly so) by even the slightest sin! Can you see this concept?

I'm going to type in a rather long quote on this subject that I think will illustrate this probably better than what I said. And I better start another post now, because this is pretty long (oh well...)

[Rían]

from The Problem of Pain, by C. S. Lewis
A recovery of the old sense of sin is essential to Christianity. Christ takes it for granted that men are bad. Until we really feel this assumption of His to be true, though we are part of the world He came to save, we are not part of the audience to whom His words are addressed. We lack the first condition for understanding what He is talking about. And when men attempt to be Christians without this preliminary consciousness of sin, the result is almost bound to be a certain resentment against God as to one always inexplicably angry. Most of us have at times felt a secret sympathy with the dying farmer who replied to the Vicar's dissertation on repentance by asking "What harm have I ever done Him?" There is the real rub. The worst we have done to God is to leave Him alone - why can't He return the compliment? Why not live and let live? What call has He, of all beings, to be "angry"? It's easy for Him to be good!

Now at the moment when a man feels real guilt - moments too rare in our lives - all those blasphemies vanish away. Much, we may feel, can be excused to human infirmities: but not this - this incredibly mean and ugly action which none of our friends would have done, which even such a thorough-going little rotter as X would have been ashamed of, which we would not for the world allow to be published. At such a moment we really do know that our character, as revealed in this action, is, and ought to be, hateful to all good men, and, if there are powers above man, to them. A God who did not regard this with unappeasable distaste would not be a good being. We cannot even wish for such a God - it is like wishing that every nose in the universe were abolished, that smell of hay or roses or the sea should never again delight any creature, because our own breath happens to stink.

When we merely say that we are bad, the "wrath" of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from God's goodness. To keep ever before us the insight derived from such a moment as I have been describing, to learn to detect the same real inexcusable corruption under more and more of its complex disguises, is therefore indispensable to a real understanding of the Christian faith.

(BTW, DON"T think that Lewis or Christianity says that people are bad in the sense of being "trash" - the view is that they are of incredible worth, but damaged - and God can repair the damage).

And although the point of this quote was more to illustrate human wickedness (which was the title and point of the chapter that I quoted from), the reason that I chose to quote it is that I think it's a good illustration of how it is proper and right thing for God to regard ALL sin, no matter how insignificant, as an abhorrance.

And I don't have time now to get to points 2 or 3 (whatever point 3 was ), but this should be enough for now. Thoughts, anyone?

[Coney]

*no comment here*

[Finmandos12]

*no comment here*

Thats a first.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
Thats a first.

*shrugs* Yeah but there are a lot of Christian beliefs that go directly against who and what I am....not to mention what I believe is right and wrong........I don't think I can discuss them in a civil manner

*Feeling very respectful*

*No disrespect intended*

[MasterMothra]

The Problem of Pain, by C. S. Lewis

is that the book you recommended to me rian? i apologize, my memory is fading. i have not read it as of yet.

god is our father, we are his children. god allows evil things to happen to his children as a result of free will. this is acceptable.

is that a representative statement?

i am a father, i have children. i allow evil things to happen to my children as a result of free will. is that also acceptable?

what kind of father allows his children to be hurt and hides under the blanket of free will? easy; one that doesnt exist!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Coney
*shrugs* Yeah but there are a lot of Christian beliefs that go directly against who and what I am....not to mention what I believe is right and wrong........I don't think I can discuss them in a civil manner

*Feeling very respectful*

*No disrespect intended*

You've always been civil and kind, Coney, but I certainly respect if you want to not talk about these things anymore ....




but I'll miss you terribly...


*sigh*

[Rían]

and I don't have the heart to answer you now, MasterMothra, except to say yes, that is the book, and I sure wish you would read it....and you and I have already gone over the free will issue at great length in whatever thread that was about Melkor....

[Baby-K]

RÃ*an & Amandil - I see your point re evil existing in a place where no good can be found (where God is not). But I don't agree with all that was said, in my view evil exists regardless of the presence of God - for instance even 'saved' people can have evil thoughts (or does that not count - are only deeds evil?)

I also have a problem with the view(s) expressed by you 'cos isn't God omnipotent? Therefore evil should not exist anywhere on earth because God is everywhere..............

Re the issue of what is right / wrong etc - I agree with Coney that there are many Christian (and other religion's) beliefs that I do not agree with: I agree that murder, rape, etc is wrong but I will never agree that homosexuality is wrong.

RÃ*an - thanks for the encouragement, you know the background so I am sure you will not see my questions as personal slants in any way.

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
what kind of father allows his children to be hurt and hides under the blanket of free will? easy; one that doesnt exist!

Perhaps "allows his children to be hurt" should not be the only way to refer to this. Let's us make our own mistakes, have our own experiences may be a better way of putting it.

My earthly father loves me very much, this I know. Yet, he doesn't try to control my actions, nor does he make all of my decisions for me. If he did, he would be considered overprotective. Yes, he gives me guidance, and I don't always follow it. There are some mistakes I have to make, and there are some things I have to experience for myself. If I ever found myself in a harmful situation that I wasn't able to get out of on my own (such as drugs or an abusive relationship), my father would be there for me, to help pull me through my difficult time. God is the same way.

Instead of keeping me sheltered through overprotection, Father (both heavenly and earthly) gives me the right to choose;I have free will. But I also have someone I can count on to help me when I make mistakes, and someone to rejoice with when my decision was a wise one.

[MasterMothra]

well, rian, i just dont see the point in reading a book with a christian perspective if i dont have faith. faith cannot be rationalized, its simply something you have or dont have, and no amount of reading or writing can change that. the faith that i have is based on personal experience, and my personal experience, as a christian and non-christian, tells me that there is simply no god. at least not the one portrayed in the christian bible. and until god decides to "show" himself, then he has about as much historical value as the tooth fairy.

star polish, i see you points and i agree with them somewhat, but what im talking about is the literal interpretation.

god watches one of his children beat the other to death with a baseball bat. he doesnt interfere. why? because to interfere would infringe on our free will. god is deemed just in his non-action.

now:

a father sits and watches his son get beat to death by another child. if he doesnt interfere can he use the same reasoning as god and be justified? or is he a negligent parent or just simply follwing god's example?

would you interfere if you saw your child being physically hurt? why?

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
well, rian, i just dont see the point in reading a book with a christian perspective if i dont have faith. faith cannot be rationalized, its simply something you have or dont have, and no amount of reading or writing can change that. the faith that i have is based on personal experience, and my personal experience, as a christian and non-christian, tells me that there is simply no god. at least not the one portrayed in the christian bible. and until god decides to "show" himself, then he has about as much historical value as the tooth fairy.

Reading a book with a Christian perspective may give you insight on how those who do believe in God view the world, and how they came to your faith. Rian is not asking you to rationalize faith, she is simply asking you to read a book with a different point of view. It's no different than someone asking me to read Nietzche (I know I spelled that wrong).

star polish, i see you points and i agree with them somewhat, but what im talking about is the literal interpretation.

god watches one of his children beat the other to death with a baseball bat. he doesnt interfere. why? because to interfere would infringe on our free will. god is deemed just in his non-action.

The person doing the beating is not God. That person is of the world, could be considered the world. God is just, the world is not. God does not have control over us, nor does He wish to. You cannot have love without free will.

now:

a father sits and watches his son get beat to death by another child. if he doesnt interfere can he use the same reasoning as god and be justified? or is he a negligent parent or just simply follwing god's example?

would you interfere if you saw your child being physically hurt? why?

If my child was being physically hurt by another person, yes, I'm positive I'd interfere. But what if my child won't accept my help? Instead of recieving it, he or she pushes me away as well as trying to fend off the other attacker?

Don't get me wrong. I haven't entered this faith easily, and I've fallen many times. I'm still struggling with some aspects of God and Jesus Christ, because I find I disagree with a lot of the more organized churches. I have fought against God as well as with Him. I flirted with Wicca for a while a few years back, then was agnostic for a short stretch of time. That period in my life was absolutely horrifying. I wasn't happy with myself, and I was extremely angry or sad all the time. I was fighting against God and an invisible attacker...I knew it was there, but I didn't know what it was. My life was a bit destructive at that time. I didn't get into drugs, alcohol or sex, but another type of destructive behavior I'd rather not talk about. Christianity isn't always easy, but I found that after I found Jesus my life calmed considerably. I'm generally happy and comfortable with myself, and life is far brighter with Him in my life.

[Lief Erikson]

Those are some very good points, Starr Polish. God does defend his children (The Bible is full of instances where he does), but those who won't accept his help he leaves to the outcomes of their own actions. If we refuse to accept God, how can we demand his protection? We are in sin and the world is in sin, but he longs to bring it into his light, and he offers that light to all mankind. It is theirs for the taking, but if they don't accept it, then of their own free will they remain in darkness.

[Rían]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
[B]well, rian, i just dont see the point in reading a book with a christian perspective if i dont have faith. .....god watches one of his children beat the other to death with a baseball bat. he doesnt interfere. why? because to interfere would infringe on our free will. god is deemed just in his non-action.

I'm asking you to read it because I think it would clear up the misunderstanding that you clearly have about the topic, IMO, because of the example you have given. You don't even have to be a Christian to read it - what YOU'RE objecting to is something that you THINK Christians believe, and I think your opinion is in error (or more accurately, yes- free will DOES come into it, but I think you're missing a much bigger point). If you're interested in clearing that error up, I think the book would help. It's not a long book or an expensive one (it comes in paperback), would you consider it?

I'm going to be gone most of the weekend, so I probably will not post on this thread anymore until Monday or Tuesday (it usually takes some thought to post here, because I'm talking about more complicated thoughts than "which elven-king is the coolest" , altho those threads are loads of fun!)

[MasterMothra]

i see your points and they are taken well. i do take a more literal approach to the bible, that is why i dont believe the bible as far as god is concerned. there could be a god, i concede, but if there is, he isnt the monster that is portrayed in the bible.

i'll leave you with a couple of passages on a womans role in god's world. remember: this is the word of god and as christians believe, is beyond reproach.

1 Corinthians 11

3Now I want you to realize that the

head of every man is Christ, and the

head of the woman is man, and the

head of Christ is God.

7A man ought not to cover his

head,[2] since he is the image and

glory of God; but the woman is the

glory of man. 8For man did not come

from woman, but woman from man;

9neither was man created for woman,

but woman for man.

34As in all the congregations of the

saints, women should remain silent in

the churches. They are not allowed to

speak, but must be in submission, as

the Law says. 35If they want to inquire

about something, they should ask

their own husbands at home; for it is

disgraceful for a woman to speak in

the church.



Eph 5:22

22Wives, submit to your husbands as

to the Lord. 23For the husband is the

head of the wife as Christ is the head

of the church, his body, of which he is

the Savior. 24Now as the church

submits to Christ, so also wives

should submit to their husbands in

everything.


1 Timothy 2


11A woman should learn in quietness

and full submission. 12I do not permit

a woman to teach or to have authority

over a man; she must be silent. 13For

Adam was formed first, then Eve.

14And Adam was not the one

deceived; it was the woman who was

deceived and became a sinner.


Titus 2


3Likewise, teach the older women to

be reverent in the way they live, not to

be slanderers or addicted to much

wine, but to teach what is good.

4Then they can train the younger

women to love their husbands and

children, 5to be self-controlled and

pure, to be busy at home, to be kind,

and to be subject to their husbands,

so that no one will malign the word of

God.

1 Peter 3


5For this is the way the holy women of

the past who put their hope in God

used to make themselves beautiful.

They were submissive to their own

husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed

Abraham and called him her master.

You are her daughters if you do what

is right and do not give way to fear.
7Husbands, in the same way be

considerate as you live with your

wives, and treat them with respect as

the weaker partner and as heirs with

you of the gracious gift of life, so that

nothing will hinder your prayers.

I especially like this passage. It shows

god's kindness:

Exodus 21
17 "Anyone who curses his father or

mother must be put to death.


Do you really believe the following passages with all your heart? Do you believe this to be god's possition on how women are secondary to men?

[MasterMothra]

"God does defend his children (The Bible is full of instances where he does), but those who won't accept his help he leaves to the outcomes of their own actions. If we refuse to accept God, how can we demand his protection? "

so let me get this right. if you are a true christian, god will protect you from harm?