Why you believe what you believe I

[Rían]

I picked up one more kid, dropped off 5, and am down to 1 kid at home - and I have one whole hour to Moot! Thank goodness for crockpots and bean soup on cold days!

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What is Hell? Is Hell part of God? Are Heaven and Hell two sides of the same coin? If you go to Hell, can you "get out"?

Is Hell the way we redeem ourselves of sin? If so, what's Purgatory then?

I think I pretty much answered the Hell questions. And we don't know all details - but we know the important details I don't see any indication that once a person is in the "final" Hell that they can get out. There are several types/concepts of Hell in the Bible - one from the OT, "Sheol", is basically "The place of the dead" - there wasn't really a concept of Heaven in OT times, yet there is still some vague distinction between the place of the righteous and the wicked.
In the NT, there is a name, "Hades", that's similar to Sheol, and refers to basically the region of the departed, with reference to the intermediate state between death and the resurrection. There's also "Gehenna", which is the eternal hell.
Purgatory is a term used by the Catholic church, so I won't discuss it. I see no basis for the existence of Purgatory, tho. And the Bible seems very consistent that once a person is in Hell, thru their own choices, he/she will not come out. And this seems linked to the idea that our myriad small, daily choices are making eternal marks on our souls - like how you can influence the growth of a mighty tree by small, daily pressure. And after millions of choices, it comes to the place where it is no use to offer any further chances for salvation, because it has been chosen against millions of times - there is NO chance of it being accepted.

About sin, if a baby dies 1 second after it's born, (and committed no sins in that second), wouldn't it be sinless?

It would still have sin nature, altho it might be sinless. On this question, there is very little in the Bible - there are 2 verses that I know of that speak to this in kind of an indirect way, and both indicate that the baby will be in Heaven. There's the issue of the age of accountability, and there's a part in the OT where King David's infant son died, and he says that he will be with his son one day. I think the important thing on questions like this is that I see, over and over, that God is entirely just, and entirely loving, so I can assume that He will act in a just and loving manner in situations like this.

What denomination are you? (I'm just curious, you don't have to answer. )

I grew up in the Methodist church. I've also attended a Presbyterian church. However, I've found that IMO, the best churches are what's called non-denominational. The denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, etc.) IMO have been too corrupted by legalism, etc.
I found, while I was talking with Janny once, that this term, "non-denominational" isn't a familiar one in England, and perhaps it's not in Canada, either, so I'll describe it a bit. Denominational churches (Methodist, etc.) are accountable to regional and national headquarters. Non-denominational churches are their own entity. The chuch leadership follows the Biblical model of being lead by "elders" - men who model a high degree of integrity in their lives. There is usually a head pastor who does the teaching, but he is subject to the elders' authority. My particular church is several thousand members. Many, if not most, non-denominational churches are quite large - membership in the thousands. Personally I think it's because people are tired of the (I'm sorry to say) hypocrisy that is typically in denominational churches, and come to where the Bible is being taught clearly and without apology.

What did you study in University, and does it affect your worldview? (I'm studying forestry, and that has had a deep affect on my worldview, I was just wondering if you experienced a similar thing.)

I've always enjoyed math (or "maths", as I think you would say ) and science, esp. physics. I was a physics major at Uni for a year, then switched over to computer science when I hit electricty (altho I loved mechanics and optics, I never liked electricity and magnetism, and I also realized that the job market for physics graduates was not exactly hopping!) I think this affected my worldview - or rather, I got into those fields in the first place, I guess - because logic and analysis are very important to me. I think things should make sense - and if they don't, I think it's an indicator of possible error. Not that I think we should understand, or CAN understand, everything - but I think what we DO see should make sense. And that's a big reason why I think the Christian worldview is true - it hangs together logically.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

While I personally don't equate religion with logic, I agree that Christianity, at least the way you perceive it, Rian, seems very logical.

It is And it's not a matter of just my perception - I can give you specific Bible verses to back up my opinions. That's one of the important things about Christianity - there are documents where the tenets are recorded and can be analyzed, unlike atheism.

This is what I wonder most about. How do we all know enough? While I have few serious problems with Christianity, my own personal experience has actually turned me away from the religion. And I wonder about people who are brought up in other religions. Surely they do not have the same vision of Christianity that someone who is or was brought up as a Christian does. How would they have enough knowledge of Christianity to make that decision?

First off, I'm very, very sorry that you have had bad personal experiences with Christianity. Actually, reflecting on your previous question about free will and fairness, this is an area where fairness will allow for some bad experiences. See, ANYONE can become a Christian at ANY time, REGARDLESS of how "good" or "bad" they are. And there are some people that we would consider really bad that have seen their need and made a decision to become a Christian. And these people have a bit of "bad" to work off! And how the angels rejoice when a "bad" person is saved! The Bible says that those who are forgiven more will love more - sometimes I'm even a bit jealous of those who have had a rough life, for they will understand the depths of God's love and mercy in a deeper way than I could.

I think it is so utterly cool that Jesus will accept ANYONE who wishes to come to Him. That's one way that I see Christianity as the "fairest" worldview around, as opposed to the works-based worldviews. See, you look at someone like me - I look like basically a fairly decent person. Yet ... yet ... how much of that is due to my good upbringing, and the fact that I've always had plenty to eat, and have never been molested, etc. - things that are entirely NOT due to any merit on my part. Now put me in a terrible home growing up, and I'm sure I'd be quite different. Yet the fairness of God doesn't score good works - NONE of us can earn salvation thru works - NONE of us - our salvation is ENTIRELY due to the work of Jesus, the pure and spotless Lamb of God, on our behalf, and it's available to ANYONE and EVERYONE. And I truly think that God, who sees into the uttermost depths of our hearts, is more pleased with a person raised in a horrible situation who refrains from lying one time out of 100, then with me when I don't lie at all for months on end.

If you were on trial for your life, wouldn't you like a judge who knows everything about your situation? And yet this judge has mercy, too - His justice rightly compels Him to pass a right and just sentence, and His mercy allows Him to pay the price Himself - if we will accept it.

The Bible teaches on this subject that everyone has 2 witnesses to God - their conscience, and creation (the stars are glorious! and the flowers! and the mountains - they're breathtaking!) - and that these 2 things are sufficient for a person to make an informed decision to seek God - or deny Him. And the Bible teaches that ANYONE that seeks God with all their heart WILL find Him.

Does this answer your question?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Pytt

this is maybe the most intelectual post I've ever read! and I have'nt read all of it
while I am not Christian my self, I enjoy your posts abput it, Rian. they helps me see things in it which I never even had thought of by myself. keep posting, its realy enlightening

Well, thank you very much, Pytt! I'm glad my posts have explained some things for you Please feel free to ask me questions - it's my turn in the hot seat, and that's what it's for.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The Bible teaches on this subject that everyone has 2 witnesses to God - their conscience, and creation (the stars are glorious! and the flowers! and the mountains - they're breathtaking!) - and that these 2 things are sufficient for a person to make an informed decision to seek God - or deny Him. And the Bible teaches that ANYONE that seeks God with all their heart WILL find Him.

How much can one know about God that is learned only from heeding these two sources? Many have seen the mountains, the forests, the sky, the sun, and they have definitely believed that spiritual reality can be seen through them- but they have concluded that there are many gods. Others have looked at conscience as a witness and concluded, "whatever feels all right to your conscience is all right, and whatever doesn't is not all right. Everything is based on conscience." These kinds of fallicies occur when people listen to the two witnesses and observe spiritual truth in them.

I suppose people form heresies right from the clearly expressed words of the Bible also, simply because of malignant human nature. Can you offer me any examples though of non-Christians who have been led to wonderful correct conclusions about God because of looking at nature?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the existance of heaven is "fantastical", thus it is you who have to prove a positive...

Nope, I'm not biting.

First of all, you're making your statement about the onus of proof falling on me based on an unproven claim about the characteristics of heaven. If you can't show me a snapshot, then I refuse to grant the assumption that heaven is "fantastical" IMO, heaven is an actual place, with specific characteristics, and this has nothing to do with how hard or easy it should be to prove its existence. Now if the description of heaven contained contradictory terms, that's something different - but it doesn't.

BTW, I think Paris is a more "fantastical" place than, say, Boston - do you require more proof to accept the existence of Paris than the existence of Boston?

there are many other religions out there, and i'm sure each particular flavor could argue their case as well as you do...

Bring 'em on
Seriously, I just hope that people will think about their worldviews. I think it's an important topic.

i've seen some of it here... which just points to the lack of hard evidence

Yes, there is no hard evidence to prove Christianity - nor is there hard evidence to prove atheism, or any other worldview.

even if i bought your statement:
and answered "yes"... it would not prove one religious belief over another

Right, that's why I moved on to the next statement.

and if i look at your other statement... which could just as easily have come out of the mouth of a muslim, jew, etc.:

You know, I think each person needs to decide which worldview they think is right (Christianity, Islaam, atheism, etc.) because ALL of their moral decisions will be based on their chosen belief system.

the most "logical" conclusion, given the differences of interpretation we even find in abundance among "christians", is that no faith is completely right, and all are in fact guesses at the reality of the situation

Why does the fact that there are many alternatives necessarily lead to the conclusion that no faith is completely right? I don't think it does.

And I don't think my particular interpretation, with all its details, is entirely right. Yet I don't think it matters much, either, except in the absolute essentials, which are as follows : God exists and created us (perhaps in 6 days, perhaps even by evolution, altho I think the evidence indicates the former); all people have sinned, sin divides people, rightly, from a perfectly holy God; because God is loving, Jesus came to provide a way to reconcile us to God; those that accept this (and accept in a life-changing way where the rightful authority of God is acknowledged, not just mentally - heck, the devil knows that Jesus died for our sins!) will be with God in fulness of joy for all eternity. The other stuff isn't critical, IMO, altho it's important. The basics ARE critical. As Aslan said, once the feet are right, the rest of the body will follow

and in truth, the reality might even be something which no living being has even made the proper guess at yet

That is certainly an option However, that's no excuse for putting off a decision forever, if one seems to be right.

without physical evidence anything is possible... many perfectly "logical" conclusions have been made in the past given knowledge at the time, only to be proven completely wrong when new evidence came along (ptolemy is a good example)

All I'll say about this is that the Bible is not an astronomy manual, and those who tried to treat it as such got burned. It is a book, inspired by a loving God that desires reconciliation with us, that is about the heart.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Sure, I'll go on the hot seat eventually... but will probably end up contradicting myself.

Then you should reconsider your worldview

Simple question originating from your last post: Rian, do you believe the Bible should be followed word for word?

Basically, yes.

However, let me head off one question that I think you might bring up, because I often hear them asked together

Christians are NOT bound to the OT (Old Testament) covenant (law). Christians are under the NT (New Testament) covenant. This means I can eat pork with an easy mind

And Jesus, the Law-Giver (therefore speaking with rightful authority), summed up the ENTIRE law and prophets with 2 sentences : Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbors as yourself. Now some of the details of how this works out in real life are given in the NT, and yes, I think these should be followed "word for word", with the HEART intent to obey those two sentences above (as opposed to some self-righteous checklist kind of mentality).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Considering that the Bible has been translated many times over, which parts can be taken literally?

BTW, the newer translations are from the same documents as the older ones, and are NOT a translation off a translation off a translation ad nauseum, which WOULD be subject to the "telephone" game type of error.

IOW, when it became apparent that people no longer spoke as good King Jim did (the King James version), then learned scholars went back to the same documents that King Jim's guys did, and retranslated into newer language. This is NOT error - it's just an acknowledgement that the word "charity" in First Corinthians chpt. 13 in the King Jim version would be misunderstood by people today - it's now translated as "love", which has the SAME meaning as "charity" did in those days for that section. There's no translation error. Language is fluid; it only makes sense to modernize translations now and then.

BTW, I think Tolkien translated Job for the King James version, didn't he?

[Ñólendil]

Let me answer the question by turning it around - can YOU come up with a solution? Here's the assumptions : God is loving, God is just (and I'm crossing my fingers that everyone knows that word! Sometimes when I say "God is just", I get people asking "He's just what? It's such a good word, I hate to lose it!) - ok, starting over - God is loving, God is just, God gives people free will (and no, Lief, I will NOT discuss free will with you until you do your homework assignment, you naughty boy!) - ok, starting over - God is loving, God is just, God gives people free will, salvation is freely available to all and no one can say they didn't have enough information to choose rightly. SO - what is to be done if someone really, truly does NOT want to acknowledge their sin and their need for God's redemption and the rightful authority of God over them? What can be done? Shall one unrepentant person, who wants to hang on to their sin, be given the right to hold the rest of the entire universe hostage? What other solution IS there? What other solution can there possibly BE?

My solution would be the experience of your choice. I don't mean "choose your experience", I mean "experience your choice". I think we are punished by our actions, rather than for them. I believe things that are rather in line with the old Celtic Druidic Christians--that we have fallen from grace, and that in order to know love, and joy, we must experience suffering. We must, and do experience every kind of pain and fleeting smile, before we come to appreciate the all powerful love.

But the suffering is not eternal. I think, eventually, everyone will come to that point where they will repent. I think some people don't learn what they need to for so long that they practically live in this realm of pain forever--practically. But they don't live in it forever, and peace is gained in the end, by all.

This is my solution. In it, there is still an idea of God that ultimately allows us to suffer. There is also a reason why which makes sense to me. And there is also no eternal suffering, no one left unsaved.

It is the same model I presented when I was on the hotseat, only I used rather different language.

This is NOT a good person frustrated by lack of justice.

Of course Satan is not a good person in that book. But I do think he was genuinely frustrated by what he felt was a lack of justice, and I think he brought up some good points in his objections to God.

[inked]

Rian,

Tolkein was asked to translate Job but did not in fact do so. This, IIRC, was checking the English translation of the French, not translating from the Hebrew text. There is excellent discussion of this either here or over at Science Fiction Fandom. I do not think Tolkein had very much to do with Job in the final analysis due to his work load. He did do a bit with Jonah, though.

FYI and excuse the interruption.

Nolendil, your viewpoint as described has a strain in Christianity known as Universalism. FYI, also.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

But as I said, I was mainly talking about differences of opinion outside the realm of Christianity. Course, you may wonder why I would do that when speaking about God as seen as the Bible. I did so merely because of Rian's suggestion that her example of God in the Bible, is looking at it in terms of reality. There's nothing wrong with that suggestion, it's only that, for a discussion, not everyone will agree that the terms she is thinking of is reality. So I suggested "terms of the Bible" would be a better word. I don't mean to discount her beliefs, of course.

... The portion of my post which you quoted has to do with the reason why Rian was bringing up an argument based on the Bible in the first place. She was addressing people who "object that its rather mean of God to only bless us if we come to Him." People who believe this, often, but not always, are not coming from the direction of Bible-based beliefs. So I am taking the stance that, if you wan't to convince such a person, you will have to turn to branches of philosophy, such as ethics, or simply to matters of logic which do not require agreement with the scriptures.

I totally understand that some people are NOT coming from the direction of Bible-based beliefs. What I am trying to do is clear up the objection from the Christian POV only about the God described in the Bible - other people can clear up if the statement is correct from their POV.

For example, non-Christians will sometimes say things like "I just can't worship a God that hates homosexuals." Now, when talking to me, I assume they're referring to the Christian God. However, their premise that the Christian God hates homosexuals is WRONG, and I can support this with verses from the Bible. So in cases like that, the ONLY thing I'm trying to clear up is that in the case of Christianity, at least, they are wrong to say that God hates homosexuals, and therefore their objection falls down. I'm not trying to prove that Christianity is right. I am, however, pointing out that their statement about a characteristic of the Christian God is incorrect.

Do you see what I mean? If people make statements that assume certain aspects of Christianity, and they are incorrect, then I try to correct them, just as I accept your corrections about Hindu doctrine.

[Rían]

And about the reality thing - I'm not saying that my worldview IS actual reality (altho I think it probably is). What I'm saying is that we need to evaluate/analyze it AS IF it is actual reality, to see how well it holds up to the analysis/evaluation.

IOW, I think a valuable way to analyze a worldview is this : Let's assume that it IS true. Now what deductions can I make from it, and do these deductions match up with what I actually can observe?

Does that make sense?

(and thank you, inked )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Of course Satan is not a good person in that book. But I do think he was genuinely frustrated by what he felt was a lack of justice, and I think he brought up some good points in his objections to God.

Wow - I sure don't see that in Paradise Lost at all. Can you remember where there was a valid example of lack of justice? All I remember is that Satan did NOT want to acknowledge God as his rightful head (which, given that God created Satan, is a valid thing to acknowledge, IMO). And it's not like it's conceited of God, or like He's trying to keep Satan down somehow. It's just the truth that the Creator of all things is more powerful than the beings He created, and to let Satan take the position he wanted would have been wrong, and bad for everyone involved.

[Rían]

(continuing on down page 30)

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I call it indirect forcing, because by offering Hell as an alternative, God is giving an extra motivation to be faithful to God. That is, Hell isn't much of a choice because it is a place of eternal suffering, or annhilation. One is saying "Be faithful in God, or go to Hell,". I don't see how the fact that it is a truth claim makes it much different from the simple model you named. Yes, some would rather be in Hell than go to this Heaven, I myself made that clear, but this is because of the nature of the choice itself, and of the choice-giver.

But by giving an "extra motivation", doesn't that show God's love even more? (i.e., He desires what is best for us). And this also ties into the "proper reward" concept - did you read that one? IOW, God is a loving God and wants us to have joy and has designed us for joy - so is it somehow wrong to point out that Heaven is joyful and Hell isn't?

What I'm saying is, Heaven or Hell is a no-brainer. Everyone wants to go Heaven, and one only wants to go to Hell as a protest against the Heaven or Hell choice. So what kind of choice is it?

I think it is a choice that is available to everyone - that's what kind of a choice it is. And I just don't understand your no-brainer term If the choice is a real one, then it's a real one. And I think that probably people WILL choose to go to Hell, even if it IS a no-brainer choice. I don't quite get your point here.

Though, my point was not to suggest that there ought to be more choices, or anything like that. My point was that I don't see how the choice of Heaven or Hell is an indication of honor to free-will.

It's just the fact that God won't drag someone kicking and screaming into Heaven against their choice, that's all. Free will, for people, does NOT mean that they can arrange the universe however they like. People do not have this power, and God, who is all-knowing, all-powerful and loving, has already arranged the universe in its best possible configuration.

Do you mean that there is a religion which suggests that Heaven is whatever anyone wants it to be? I have met people who believe this, and I have as much problems with the idea as you do. But I haven't met a person who believes this on religious grounds.

Any worldview belief is "religious", IMO. I've heard people say this, yes.

I was speaking of what I guessed God's motivation to be from your perspective. Even modifying my statement, though, adding "love" in with justice, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for the problems I outlined in my post.

Are they cleared up now? I've responded to some of your posts earlier today.

I'm not sure "reality" is the best term here, simply because not everyone can agree with how God is as described in the Bible. I think whether you are thinking about this in terms of reality or not, you are certainly thinking about this in terms of the Bible. So yes, in terms of the Bible, perhaps the only way we can be blessed is to be with Him. But this argument is not very useful to those who have different perceptions of why God has made us, or what is meant by being in relationship with Him, or what is meant by being with Him.

As I said earlier, I'm trying to explain things from the Christian POV, and to show that they hang together logically. People can't properly evaluate Christianity if they have misunderstandings about it. I'm just trying to explain things, and I totally understand that some people may not choose to believe it. But at least they've had misconceptions about the Christian worldview straightened out.

Perhaps, you would say that God must honor our free-will, and let the wicked lead themselves away to damnation. But once again I must bring up the problem of love vs. damnation. If God loves even the wicked, should God not allow the wicked to undergo a healing process? To me, that's what's really important for the corrupt. The corrupt need to be healed, not punished.

Oh yes, they need to be healed - they need it so badly, and my heart aches for them, believe me! We all need healing so badly and God is the source of all healing, IMO. But if a person WILL NOT choose to be healed, then how can God force it, without removing their free will? There is such a thing as self-inflicted wounds, if a person doesn't want to be healed. And the only way to stop this is to completely take away a person's ability to choose. And IMO, this makes them not a person - it's like saying "You WILL go to Heaven, and you WILL enjoy it, even if I have to drag you there and tie you up so you won't run away!"

I don't think that God hates the damned. I also didn't think that you thought that God hated the damned. That's the problem. Supporters of the Heaven/Hell damnation model strongly suggest that God loves even the damned. I am suggesting that there is a problem with this--to many, it doesn't seem like God could love a person that he damns for eternity. How can you damn the one you love?
So I don't think you understood me here.

I really think I do, and I'll try to explain again, and let me know if you think I got it.

It's just that love is a two-way street. I dated a guy in college for a year, then over that year I saw character traits in him that I eventually decided that I couldn't live with, and I broke up with him. He still loved me and wanted to stay together, but I declined (a difficult thing to do , but one I thought was best for both of us). He loved me, but I didn't love him.

In the same way, God can really, really love a person, and do EVERYTHING on His side to show the love - yet if the person doesn't love back, then there's nothing God can do to force that love, unless it's take his/her very personhood away by turning them into a robot that can only repeat, without any meaning, "I love God and want to be with Him in Heaven!"

Now I really, really hope that there will be NO ONE in Hell. I also believe that this is very much a possibility. Now you said that you think no one will be in Hell - that they will ALL end up in Heaven, or Nirvana. I respect your belief , but you didn't answer my question - I was asking you IF there is a possibility that a person did not WANT to change, what other alternative is there, besides Hell? As C.S. Lewis says (roughly) - I'm not trying to make the idea of Hell palatable - it isn't! - I'm just trying to show that it's reasonable.

Do you mean that murderers and rapists can go to Heaven if they repent? If so, what is involved in repenting?

Yes, people that have murdered can go to heaven, people that have lied can go to heaven, etc. - our salvation (of which a nice side-effect is going to heaven!) depends ONLY on what Jesus did for us - it does NOT depend upon our works - we can never be good enough. However, what it DOES require of a person is to believe the basic tenets I outlined above, and believe in the sense of taking action in your life. As I noted before, the devil himself believes that Jesus is the Son of God and died for the sins of people, as the Bible somewhat humorously notes - however, he doesn't choose to ACT on that knowledge by obedience to God that brings fruit in his life.

[Rían]

Is that enough for you for now, Nurvi!

[Ñólendil]

Wow - I sure don't see that in Paradise Lost at all. Can you remember where there was a valid example of lack of justice? All I remember is that Satan did NOT want to acknowledge God as his rightful head (which, given that God created Satan, is a valid thing to acknowledge, IMO). And it's not like it's conceited of God, or like He's trying to keep Satan down somehow. It's just the truth that the Creator of all things is more powerful than the beings He created, and to let Satan take the position he wanted would have been wrong, and bad for everyone involved.

I don't have a copy on hand. But Lucifer made some good points about God effectively choosing Lucifer's path for him. Lucifer was angry in one part because God made him the way he was--the all-powerful entity was the ultimate author of evil, the ultimate author of Satan. I think Milton intentionally made Lucifer a character that you could feel sorry for in some moments, while in this case offering the character of God to make a rebuttal, and explain to his listeners (the Son, and the Angels) his true intentions.

God is made out to be the one who is right, but I think Milton really explored the nature of the evil of Satan in such a way that allowed readers to sympathize with the demon.

But by giving an "extra motivation", doesn't that show God's love even more? (i.e., He desires what is best for us).

You can take that perspective. But it is also as good a weapon of fear as I have ever heard of.

IOW, God is a loving God and wants us to have joy and has designed us for joy - so is it somehow wrong to point out that Heaven is joyful and Hell isn't?

If God wants us to have joy, why does God decide that some will never have joy? Why must some remain unrepentant forever? Why will some never be saved?

I think it is a choice that is available to everyone - that's what kind of a choice it is. And I just don't understand your no-brainer term

It is a choice available to everyone, yes. But one of the choices is Hell. So, I'm saying, that's really only one choice: Heaven. The other is not worth considering. That's what I mean by "no-brainer", essentially you don't have to think about it; you choose heaven--and a large motivation for this is fear of pain or non-existence.

Again, my point in arguing this is to illustrate my opinion that the Heaven/Hell choice model is not an ideal representation for the honor that Christianity has for free will. One is given the severest of penalties for making one choice, and the greatest of rewards for making the other. You would say that this is honoring free will because God allows people even to choose not to be with him. But the consequences for such a choice are absolutely horrendous, effectively forcing people to choose Heaven. Yes, some would choose Hell anyway, but as I have said, this would be for the sake of protest, or ignorance of consequence.

It's just the fact that God won't drag someone kicking and screaming into Heaven against their choice, that's all. Free will, for people, does NOT mean that they can arrange the universe however they like. People do not have this power, and God, who is all-knowing, all-powerful and loving, has already arranged the universe in its best possible configuration.

Very well. But I don't see any other religions claiming that God drags people into Heaven against their choice--so how does this point illustrate Christianity's honor of free will vs. other faiths?

Any worldview belief is "religious", IMO.

But religion is organized. There are no one-man religions out there. I think there's a LOT of people out there with unreligious worldviews. Philosophy, at least to the great philosophers, does not = religion. People can have worldviews based on ethics that do not reflect any religion. So how can all worldviews be religious? And have you ever heard it suggested that Heaven is whatever anyone wants it to be, by someone who considers himself religious?

Are they cleared up now? I've responded to some of your posts earlier today.

I don't know, it seems like the problems have gone largely unaddressed. I haven't heard a lot of reasons about why God would banish loved ones to eternal suffering. [edited: but you offered your explanation later in your post]

As I said earlier, I'm trying to explain things from the Christian POV, and to show that they hang together logically.

Okay. The objections will still continue, though, as long as the objectors (and I don't refer to myself) are not addressed on mutual terms.

But if a person WILL NOT choose to be healed, then how can God force it, without removing their free will?

I don't think anyone chooses not to be healed, in the end.

I agree that love is a two-way street. I don't agree that the only other solution is to take away a person's free will. I think God allows us all to heal, before we are with Him in Heaven.

Anyway I think you have explained yourself well.

I was asking you IF there is a possibility that a person did not WANT to change, what other alternative is there, besides Hell?

If someone never chooses to change, then someone will certainly live in that hell forever.

I think, as Lief mentioned, it comes down to my high trust in the goodness of the human soul. I don't believe anyone would never choose to change.

[Nurvingiel]

Just to liven things up, my huge long post of doom will be presented in a spiffy new font!

Is that enough for you... lol! It sure is buddy...

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The chuch leadership follows the Biblical model of being lead by "elders" - men who model a high degree of integrity in their lives. There is usually a head pastor who does the teaching, but he is subject to the elders' authority. My particular church is several thousand members. Many, if not most, non-denominational churches are quite large - membership in the thousands. Personally I think it's because people are tired of the (I'm sorry to say) hypocrisy that is typically in denominational churches, and come to where the Bible is being taught clearly and without apology.

I met a couple of Methodists this summer, they were very cool. They were tree-planters, which makes them automatically cool. The brother was quite knowledgeable about the Bible. Is this something that is required or encouraged or required in the church, or is it something he did of his own volition?

I have heard of non-denominational churches before, though I've never been to one. But isn't Methodist a denomination?

Why are the elders only men? (Other than that the structure of the church makes sense.)

I'm sure there are some churches that are hypocritical, but just to stick up for my own church, we're denominational (Anglican), but we're not hypocrites! The main messages in our church are love, acceptance, and community. We don't contradict these things. Or apologize about the Bible. Why would you do that anyway?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've always enjoyed math (or "maths", as I think you would say ) and science, esp. physics. I was a physics major at Uni for a year, then switched over to computer science when I hit electricty (altho I loved mechanics and optics, I never liked electricity and magnetism, and I also realized that the job market for physics graduates was not exactly hopping!) I think this affected my worldview - or rather, I got into those fields in the first place, I guess - because logic and analysis are very important to me. I think things should make sense - and if they don't, I think it's an indicator of possible error. Not that I think we should understand, or CAN understand, everything - but I think what we DO see should make sense. And that's a big reason why I think the Christian worldview is true - it hangs together logically.

That is so cool. Actually in Canada we say “math�. Only Britain IIRC says “maths�. You do seem like a very logical, analytical person. I see what you’re saying about things making sense. I think math and physics are super cool, but I stink at them. Plant biology (on a macro level) and forest management are more my thing.

I don’t think we should discount things just because they don’t make sense though. I think you have to say, "Why does this not make sense?" If I pick up a book written in Chinese, none of it will make sense to me. That’s because I don’t read Chinese, not because there’s something illogical about the book. Now, the book may actually not make sense, but I would first have to overcome my own shortcomings (not being able to read Chinese) to determine if the book had any shortcomings. Maybe you were already getting at that though.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Can I try the famous "newbie excuse"? I've been away for months...

No, you have 900 posts! But no worries.

Thanks for also responding about sin nature (which I still don’t fully understand, but that’s for the Theology thread) and Hell. I didn’t mean to double ask the question; there were a lot of posts.

[Nurvingiel]

About proving unseen things, I meant to add this as well. I forget where I read this analogy (it might have been at Entmoot), but I think it's appropriate. I hope I do it justice typing it from memory.

One day in a philosophy class, the professor asked the students, "Has any of you heard God?" The class was silent.
"Has any of you touched God?" continued the professor. Again, the class was silent.
"Has any of you seen God?" The class was silent, wondering what the professor was getting at.
"Therefore," he concluded, "There is no God." After a minute, one student put up his hand.
"Has any of you heard our professor's brain?" he asked his classmates. No one spoke up.
"Has any of you touched our professor's brain?" he continued. The class was silent.
"Has any of you seen our professor's brain?" Still silence.
"Therefore," the student concluded, "Our professor doesn't have a brain."



You could replace "God" with "heaven" in this story.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Nope, I'm not biting.

First of all, you're making your statement about the onus of proof falling on me based on an unproven claim about the characteristics of heaven. If you can't show me a snapshot, then I refuse to grant the assumption that heaven is "fantastical" IMO, heaven is an actual place, with specific characteristics, and this has nothing to do with how hard or easy it should be to prove its existence. Now if the description of heaven contained contradictory terms, that's something different - but it doesn't.

BTW, I think Paris is a more "fantastical" place than, say, Boston - do you require more proof to accept the existence of Paris than the existence of Boston?

paris exists, and i can look at pictures, and even visit... not possible with heaven (at least not a two-way trip as we are lead to believe )

some people believe there was a place called "atlantis" on the earth in the past... there are writings about it, there are theories about it... it may have existed, it may not... but one would be deluded to say it's as definite as a place like paris or boston

you don't assume something exists just 'cause it makes sense... jrrt's middle earth makes pretty good sense within it's own bounds, does that mean it exists? the only difference between tolkien's work and the bible is that we know jrrt wrote it

logic dictates that the bible is also a group of stories written by individuals... since we have no hard evidence of its more "fantastical" elements (angels, heaven, god, satan, etc.)

of course, one can always maintain "beliefs", but they should not be seen as anything more than that

Yes, there is no hard evidence to prove Christianity - nor is there hard evidence to prove atheism, or any other worldview.

exactly, though agnosticism says that no view of a "higher being" is provable... it, unlike christianity, atheism, or any other world view accepts that there is, and probably never will be, a definative answer

Why does the fact that there are many alternatives necessarily lead to the conclusion that no faith is completely right? I don't think it does.

because, it shows that each and every part of any religious text (i.e. the bible) is subject to interpretation by the reader... and history has proven that many many interpretations have been made, all accepted by the various interpretors as the "exclusively correct" interpretation

i interpret the bible as a collection of stories

And I don't think my particular interpretation, with all its details, is entirely right. Yet I don't think it matters much, either, except in the absolute essentials, which are as follows : God exists and created us (perhaps in 6 days, perhaps even by evolution, altho I think the evidence indicates the former); all people have sinned, sin divides people, rightly, from a perfectly holy God; because God is loving, Jesus came to provide a way to reconcile us to God; those that accept this (and accept in a life-changing way where the rightful authority of God is acknowledged, not just mentally - heck, the devil knows that Jesus died for our sins!) will be with God in fulness of joy for all eternity. The other stuff isn't critical, IMO, altho it's important. The basics ARE critical. As Aslan said, once the feet are right, the rest of the body will follow

your "absolute essentials" illustrate what i'm saying... you say "all people have sinned"... something which not even every sect of christianity, and certainly not judaism accepts as true

jews do not believe in "original sin"... most catholics do... this is not exactly a "minor detail"

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

About proving unseen things, I meant to add this as well. I forget where I read this analogy (it might have been at Entmoot), but I think it's appropriate. I hope I do it justice typing it from memory.

One day in a philosophy class, the professor asked the students, "Has any of you heard God?" The class was silent.
"Has any of you touched God?" continued the professor. Again, the class was silent.
"Has any of you seen God?" The class was silent, wondering what the professor was getting at.
"Therefore," he concluded, "There is no God." After a minute, one student put up his hand.
"Has any of you heard our professor's brain?" he asked his classmates. No one spoke up.
"Has any of you touched our professor's brain?" he continued. The class was silent.
"Has any of you seen our professor's brain?" Still silence.
"Therefore," the student concluded, "Our professor doesn't have a brain."



You could replace "God" with "heaven" in this story.

however

the point is that you can (as in, have the ability) to see the professor's brain... which is why we say it exists

such is not the case for "god" and "heaven"

try substituting "soul" for "brain"

the point is not whether you have seen something, but whether it is possible to see something

[brownjenkins]

btw ~ you did not my address my most important (to me ) issue with christainity and many other religions:

i would think that a truely benevolent creator would keep trying... if every person is born with the capability to be "moral", it is only logical to assume that a god with endless time and resource could come up with a method to help a person eventually realize the benefit of this "morality" for themselves... why ever throw in the towel?

this is my main issue with any religion that speaks of any kind of "eternal hell" in the afterlife