Why you believe what you believe I

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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

Well maybe it is possible to see heaven, and we just don't know about it. People say that Atlantis exists or existed on this physical world. We can see the whole physical world, and it is not there.
People say heaven exists, but not in the physical world. It is a logical belief that's impossible to prove IMO. Part of the belief is that only dead people can see heaven, so the living shouldn't be able to see heaven.

[Elfhelm]

Rian, I saw your answer. Thanks. Sorry that I didn't understand the format. I had asked the question of someone who wasn't on the hot seat. I'll pay closer attention in the future.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by 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? "

Sorry - either I didn't see it, or it's past page 30 (I've worked my way to the bottom of page 30)

I really think Lewis says it well.

First, his comment (and I found the actual quote - I had the right idea, but some wrong words) (and this was written over 60 years ago, and in Britain - "tolerable" has the sense of "not entirely yucky") - "I am not going to try to prove the doctrine tolerable. Let us make no mistake; it is not tolerable. But I think the doctrine can be shown to be moral, by a critique of the objections ordinarily made, or felt, against it."

And the second goes something like this : "perfect love will offer every possible chance; perfect knowledge knows when it is of no more use to offer any chances."

And another :

C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
Finally, it is objected that the ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence. And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man "wishes" to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self- abandonment thorough which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.

In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: "What are you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary [where Jesus was crucified]. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.

Brownie, you are supposing that it is possible for every person to come to desire to be healed. But as I mentioned before, there are such things as self-inflicted wounds. And people can see and understand something, yet choose against it. And separation from God, the source of everything good in the entire universe, is ... Hell.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Rian, I saw your answer. Thanks. Sorry that I didn't understand the format. I had asked the question of someone who wasn't on the hot seat. I'll pay closer attention in the future.

No problem! I was just making sure you saw I answered you - there have been some LOOOOONG posts recently, and it's easy to overlook things!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No problem! I was just making sure you saw I answered you - there have been some LOOOOONG posts recently, and it's easy to overlook things!

*tries to look innocent*
*fails*

What did you think of my one Ri? Mind if I call you Ri?

[inked]

Nurv,

"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? "

Not to put too fine a point on it, the Anglican Church in Canada and the Episcopal Church in the USA are two of the most hypocritical institutions in Church history. They have abdicated the historic moral teaching of 2000+ years of Christian historry and 4000+ plus years of Jewish history in favor of postmodernism. They sign the Articles of Unity and flout them openly. Then they have the audacity to condemn the faithful Anglican Communion members for holding their feet to the doctrine and signatures. Just thought another Anglican perspective was in order for that rose-glassed view of yours and knew you could take it!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

*tries to look innocent*
*fails*

Actually, I was thinking of Lief's and mine! :

What did you think of my one Ri? Mind if I call you Ri?

I like when you call me Ri I like nicknames - they show affection. I'll try to reply to yours in (hopefully) a few hours - gtg now. I'm trying to just work my way thru in chronological order, tho, so I may not get to it today.

[Rían]

EDIT - nevermind - incomplete post.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well maybe it is possible to see heaven, and we just don't know about it. People say that Atlantis exists or existed on this physical world. We can see the whole physical world, and it is not there.
People say heaven exists, but not in the physical world. It is a logical belief that's impossible to prove IMO. Part of the belief is that only dead people can see heaven, so the living shouldn't be able to see heaven.

fair enough, but by that "logic" one could conclude that everything from vahalla to alternate universes exist... maybe, but impossible to prove, at least so far

the point is, there are some things we know exist, and some we speculate about... an important distinction when extrapolating other "things" based upon the existance of something

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No problem! I was just making sure you saw I answered you - there have been some LOOOOONG posts recently, and it's easy to overlook things!

Like my question here!

Another question to add. Do you believe someone can repent in hell and if so will they then go to heaven?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Brownie, you are supposing that it is possible for every person to come to desire to be healed. But as I mentioned before, there are such things as self-inflicted wounds. And people can see and understand something, yet choose against it. And separation from God, the source of everything good in the entire universe, is ... Hell.

i guess this is the crux of where i disagree... i do suppose that every person given complete knowledge of their choices will come to the desire "to be healed" as you put it... why not allow further chance at salvation after death? what has god got to lose?

another point by example... a kind and devoute buddist lives his entire life in best accordance with the teachings of Siddartha Gautama... who, in the classic sense is not a "deity" but a philosopher/ruler who lived around 500 B.C.... and whose teachings of compassion and spirituality are not terribly dissimilar to the basic tenants of christianity... irregardless of how this individual lived his life, as i understand it, this person would go to hell because he never acknowledged the "christian god"... to me this says that the "christian god" isn't really concerned at all about what type of person you are, but about whether or not you choose to worship him... i cannot accept a god with this kind of attitude

[Nurvingiel]

Not all Christians believe that. In fact, I think it's only Catholicism, and not all Catholics even believe that.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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

It is possible to see God or heaven. People have done it before. But even if it weren't possible, that wouldn't mean it didn't exist. Have you ever seen a quark or a lepton?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

People say heaven exists, but not in the physical world. It is a logical belief that's impossible to prove IMO. Part of the belief is that only dead people can see heaven, so the living shouldn't be able to see heaven.

People are each a combined body, soul and spirit, however. If we were only matter, it does make sense we could never see the spiritual. But as we are spirit too, it is logical that some are able to see the spiritual.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
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

I'm going to offer a rather different answer then RÃ*an did, because I don't completely agree with her and C.S. Lewis on this point. I think God could have made the world in such a way that everyone sinned and everyone repented in the end. However, he chose not to. He chose to make some people in such a way that they would reject God and be destroyed. However, hell is not a place of eternal torture in my view, but a place of pain when the person is punished for their sins, and then annihilation. Then I would argue next that it is arrogant for people to believe God doesn't have a perfectly good reason for doing this. With such resources, time and knowledge as he has, it seems arrogant to judge from our ultra-limited reference frames that his reasons for doing this are malicious. That's one of the problems I have with the view of non-believers that argue that hell is a good reason for rejecting Christianity. Their view is very arrogant.

I do notice now that you mention "an eternal" as you describe hell. As the hell I believe in does not include punishment for eternity but punishment in eternity, or that denies them eternity, I suppose your objection doesn't completely apply to my answer.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Not all Christians believe that. In fact, I think it's only Catholicism, and not all Catholics even believe that.

I hope it's OK for me to interject something here, being an apostate Catholic. The CC has stated that Gandhi was redeemed. Some people, like Mel Gibson, have opposed that statement. Several Popes have visited Gandhi's grave. They make speeches saying things like:

today as a pilgrim of peace I have come here to pay homage to Mahatma Gandhi, Healer of Humanity. Mahatma Gandhi told [sic] that if all men and women, whatever the differences between them, cling to the truth with respect and for the unique dignity of every human being, a new world order and civilization of love can be achieved. May God guide us and bless us as we strive to work together hand in hand, and build together a world of peace

[Lief Erikson]

RÃ*an, I sent a post last night that was in the middle of your steady stream of long posts, so it got buried. I'm going to repost it now:

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 flawed human nature. I'm still curious though, how good the discernment can be that is gained without prior knowledge of Christianity. 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]

I did see your post, Lief, but I"m trying to do a FIFO-type queue here (first-in, first-out)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Not all Christians believe that. In fact, I think it's only Catholicism, and not all Catholics even believe that.

i do realize and appreciate that

and i also appreciate lief's pov... it's perfectly valid that god...

chose to make some people in such a way that they would reject God and be destroyed. However, hell is not a place of eternal torture in my view, but a place of pain when the person is punished for their sins, and then annihilation.

though i am arrogant enough to ask the question why?

i don't necessarily see it as malicious, but not quite benevolent either

and again, it seems to place "accepting god" above all else... where i would put "being a good person" as more prominent

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

though i am arrogant enough to ask the question why?

i don't necessarily see it as malicious, but not quite benevolent either

and again, it seems to place "accepting god" above all else... where i would put "being a good person" as more prominent

One can't be a good person without accepting God. All goodness comes from God. It's not about belief but sin.

It's not arrogant to ask why. Asking why is fine. Believing that there can't be any good reason for God doing this is arrogant, but wondering why he did it is not.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One can't be a good person without accepting God. All goodness comes from God. It's not about belief but sin.

It's not arrogant to ask why. Asking why is fine. Believing that there can't be any good reason for God doing this is arrogant, but wondering why he did it is not.

my point exactly on why i just can't jive with christianity (at least in some forms)

i think that if you live by all the ways that one would consider "good" (i.e. golden rule, etc.)... for all intents and purposes, you are a good person

and, on the flipside, if your a generally "bad" person, but repent and accept god in the end, you were still a pretty bad person

of course, this is only my pov... and not agreeing with it certainly does not make anyone a "bad" person in my eyes