Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Hmmmm, getting into deep waters here but as I understand it one of the reasons for the terrible anguish of the damned is that they do finally realise the wisdom and goodness of God, and know that it was their own wickedness in rejecting it that caused them to be there.

They're not just saying "Boy, this hurts, I wish I had been good," they realise fully and clearly the heinous nature of their sins, the worst of which is they pain they have caused the Lord by their rejection of His Love, and they do repent- but too late.

I thought the idea of the sinner proudly holding to his sin and defying God was just a part of Romantic imagery.

( And I think Lewis was being somewhat of a heretic with his speculations that the damned lose some of their individuality and awareness- I mean, that's the point, isn't it?)

Yes, deep waters indeed - and also definitely some speculation, but based on logical interpretation (IMO ) of the scriptures saying that God desires that all would be saved and that God is omniscient. Maybe this quote can say it better than my attempts to express what I mean (answering the question "why doesn't God give people a second chance? [after they are in hell]) (the 'incubation period' refers to time in hell):

from The Case for Faith, by Lee Strobel
Besides, that would make life before death utterly irrelevant. Then the question would be, why didn't God create people from the beginning with an incubation period? Why did he create them on earth for seventy-five years and let them die and then put them in the incubation period if it was the incubation period that they really needed in the first place? Here's the truth, Lee: this life is the incubation period!

[Rían]

(GreyMouser - whoops, forgot to finish my thought - here's the rest)

And I think that the concept of people fully and completely repenting, in the Christian sense, after some time in hell, indicates what I think of as the rather slow-on-the-uptake God image - i.e., after the first person in hell really repents, God thinking "Oh hell- um, er, rats! Now why didn't I think of that - that spending some time in the ol' slammer would cause people to repent! But it's too late to change things - I've already set my law saying that hell is eternal - oh silly Me, what a crazy dilemma to have put myself into, considering that I really love people and want them to be saved!!"

(I don't mean to be sarcastic - I'm just putting it into exaggerated imagery to make my point - do you see what I mean?) IOW, since the Bible states that God desires people to be saved, then He, being omniscient and omnipotent, would take every conceivable step to make this happen, while still respecting His perfect design of giving a person a free will.

They're not just saying "Boy, this hurts, I wish I had been good," they realise fully and clearly the heinous nature of their sins, the worst of which is they pain they have caused the Lord by their rejection of His Love, and they do repent- but too late.

I thought the idea of the sinner proudly holding to his sin and defying God was just a part of Romantic imagery.

Well, again, this turns on your use of the word 'repent' - if you mean in the Christian sense, I disagree; I know of people (one of my best friends is one) who would rather be a non-Christian - and WRONG - than to be a Christian and saved, because being a Christian means, among other things, turning over lordship of your life (which you never really had, anyway, in the sense that you will ALWAYS be a created being, but this is a right and good thing) openly to God. So I would disagree that the worst pain people in hell feel is that they've caused the Lord pain; I agree that they will fully and clearly see the heinous nature of their sins, tho, but I think they will still be ANGRY about things rather than SORROWFUL.

And unless I've misinterpreted her (which I really hope I have - I certainly have misunderstood many things before!), this is somewhat of the attitude I see in EG's statement: 'And were it the Absolute Truth, and if I die only to find out that I'm not at Fiddler's Green but that I was wrong all along, I'll gladly take the consequences of the third choice: misery, eternal "starvation." '. That's why I asked her what she means by that. (and I hope you don't mean it that way, EG - could you pause and think through what you meant, and if perhaps you should re-evaluate? I also don't know how serious you were - I thought you were joking earlier on, but was certainly wrong - are you joking here?)

And what about you, GrayMouser? You have a v. deep understanding of Christian doctrine in many areas. I'm especially glad to see your recent comments on the nature of sin and the goodness of God that were in your analogy, because I think it shows some deeper understandings. Can you understand the idea of fully seeing the nature of your sin but still not repenting?

( And I think Lewis was being somewhat of a heretic with his speculations that the damned lose some of their individuality and awareness- I mean, that's the point, isn't it?)

What are you talking about here? What are you referring to?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'm sorry if I offended you - I was teasing you because you yourself have joked about it many times (how you think morals are only related to the good of society, but then you think that perhaps there is more to it, like in the LeGuin story), and there was a big smilie after "There, now I don't have to curse the presence of morals anymore!" so I thought you were kinda joking about it. But I'll take your statement seriously now. I'm very sorry I misunderstood you.

It's okay...I overreacted. The way I said it, with the big smilie and all, made it seem less serious than I really was about it. I was just feeling pleased with myself for finally getting that bit written...I was being serious but with a more lighthearted attitude. Don't worry, I'm not offended anymore. I need to stop and think before writing sometimes, is all, and consider the causal logic behind someone's statements.

You're right, I've not given any reasons WHY I think it's the absolute truth, I've just been talking about the concept of absolute truth and how, if there ARE absolute truths, they would look in the Christian worldview.
I wanted to discuss why I think there IS absolute truth, before discussing why I think the Bible expresses the absolute truth. IOW, why bother saying that I think the Bible expresses the absolute truth unless I can say that I think absolute truth exists?

Fair enough, I just didn't know if you were considering that to be an answer, or if you were planning more. I look forward to more, then!

Since it was your question, are you ready to leave the hell topic, or do you have any more thoughts/questions?

I think we can move on--I now understand. However, it's brought up another question which I might ask later.

But why "gladly"?

Because I am stubbornly holding on to my beliefs and my defiance. You are definitely right to think that's part of what I'm saying--"rather be a non-Christian - and WRONG - than to be a Christian and saved, because being a Christian means, among other things, turning over lordship of your life (which you never really had, anyway, in the sense that you will ALWAYS be a created being, but this is a right and good thing) openly to God." That's certainly a big part of it. Not that I believe, in any way, that I will end up in Hell, and wrong, but IF that were the case, well, I'm not really joking. I have thought about it, and were I to turn out to be wrong, then so be it, I will still have my defiance. I believe we have more freedom and independance than is shown in Christianity. That is why I say gladly--perhaps I will be miserable but I can still hold on to that bit of my personality that is my thouroghly rebellious nature.

I hope I haven't offended you, Rian, through this...I am merely explaining my beliefs and why I said what I did.

[Aewionen]

I know this is really random but I have to share this! I went to a CEF, CYIA camp (Cef-child evangelism fellowship, Cyia-christian youth in action) and got to teach kids about Christ. 2 little girls in my group were saved and alot more were saved in other groups. It was an awesome expirience and you have a CYIA camp near you, you should go!!

Sorry, that was really random but I had to tell someone!

[Ruinel]

RÃ*an, I just noticed you posted a quote from a book "A case for faith". I'm curious if this is the same author that wrote "A case for christ"? Someone at work gave me the book, since she was deeply religious and knew I was an Atheist. (No, I've never read it. And I'm currently purging old crap out of my house, so it will likely be in a box to a charity soon.)

[Rían]

Yes, same author, and quite a good book, IMO. I like his journalistic investigation approach, and his real-life examples are both amazing (maybe not the best word, but the opening real-life example of the James Dixon case, where he was accused of, and even admitted to, shooting a police officer, and it was later proved that the OFFICER was the one that "shot himself" because his illegal pen gun had gone off accidentally!) and applicable. I recommend both of them.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Fair enough, I just didn't know if you were considering that to be an answer...

No, I didn't, and I'm glad you noticed the difference - I've never really stated anywhere (that I remember) WHY I believe Christianity to be true, I've just been busy explaining doctrines and underlying assumptions. But I would like to explain why I believe eventually.

I think we can move on--I now understand. However, it's brought up another question which I might ask later.

OK, I'll PM Hobbit and let him know we've started on his post, and we can finish GrayMouser's analogy discussion, too, because that's on hell.

Because I am stubbornly holding on to my beliefs and my defiance. You are definitely right to think that's part of what I'm saying--"rather be a non-Christian - and WRONG - than to be a Christian and saved.....well, I'm not really joking. I have thought about it, and were I to turn out to be wrong, then so be it, I will still have my defiance. I believe we have more freedom and independance than is shown in Christianity. That is why I say gladly--perhaps I will be miserable but I can still hold on to that bit of my personality that is my thouroghly rebellious nature.

I hope I haven't offended you, Rian, through this...I am merely explaining my beliefs and why I said what I did.

No, I'm not offended at all - different opinions don't offend me, just mean actions. I'm really rather glad that you can state your POV so freely, because that menas you know where you're at and you can think about the implications.

And I definitely disagree that you have more freedom and independence as a non-Christian than I do as a Christian. I think Christians have an incredible amount of freedom! (I started to type out an explanation of this, but it got really long, so I think I'll table it.)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Aewionen
I know this is really random but I have to share this! I went to a CEF, CYIA camp (Cef-child evangelism fellowship, Cyia-christian youth in action) and got to teach kids about Christ. 2 little girls in my group were saved and alot more were saved in other groups. It was an awesome expirience and you have a CYIA camp near you, you should go!!

Sorry, that was really random but I had to tell someone!

That's great, Aewionen! I think crickhollow (one of the moderators) does camps like this in the summer, too.

[Rían]

Hobbit - I started discussion on your posts, but it was kinda buried in a post dealing with some other things, so here it is again:

Hobbit's post: here, and the one after it

My question: Well, how about if I begin with: do you believe that there is an absolute truth about the state of being of things (whether or not we know it)? IOW, that it can be said that it is EITHER true or not true (if we had a way of knowing) that the God of the Bible exists?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

And I definitely disagree that you have more freedom and independence as a non-Christian than I do as a Christian. I think Christians have an incredible amount of freedom! (I started to type out an explanation of this, but it got really long, so I think I'll table it.)

Yes, you do have a lot of freedom, sure, but in the end your choices are join god freely and of your own will (so yes, there's freedom) or don't join god freely and suffer from your choice. What if you want more options? That's what I mean by saying having more freedom. I think we all have that freedom, Christian or not, but we limit our own freedom by subscribing to that one belief. That's just my view.

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Hobbit - I started discussion on your posts, but it was kinda buried in a post dealing with some other things, so here it is again:

Hobbit's post: here, and the one after it

My question: Well, how about if I begin with: do you believe that there is an absolute truth about the state of being of things (whether or not we know it)? IOW, that it can be said that it is EITHER true or not true (if we had a way of knowing) that the God of the Bible exists?

I'm not sure that I know what you are talking about. What are you saying is absolute truth?

[Rían]

I mean absolute truth as the correct version of the way things really are.

Example - I'm in California, and I think you're on the East Coast (is that right?) Well, for the purposes of this illustration, let's say you're on the East Coast, so you're 3 hours ahead of me. It's 10:45 pm right now in California. Let's say the question is: what is Hobbit doing right now?

I say that I think he is probably studying for his last few finals, since he seems a very consciencious chap Someone else might say Hey, I know him pretty well, and I bet he's out at an all-night pizza joint with some friends! Bmilder might say hey, he's my brother, and I bet he's playing some computer game. Someone else might say that they think you're asleep. (I wonder which, if any, is right?)

Now these are all different guesses/beliefs, some held more sincerely than others, BUT - there is only 1 absolute truth about what you are doing at this moment in time, and if we had a webcam on you then we would know what that truth is.

[Baby-K]

Now these are all different guesses/beliefs, some held more sincerely than others, BUT - there is only 1 absolute truth about what you are doing at this moment in time, and if we had a webcam on you then we would know what that truth is.

Not really - if you had a webcam on him & he was seen as being asleep, you would hold it as the absolute truth that he was in fact sleeping, however, he might (knowing that he is being watched) pretend to be asleep & thus the absolute truth would be that he is lying in his bed, deceiving everyone. Yet you would still believe that what you had seen was the absolute truth because that is what your mind is telling due to the sensory observation of using ONLY your eyes and none of your other senses, which could contextualise what your eyes are seeing. Then the minute you close the link to the webcam & can no longer see what he is doing, he might give up the fallacy, thereby still leaving you with the impression that you are STILL correct about what the absolute truth is, despite the fact that others had seen him give up the game & are thus closer to what is really true.

[Rían]

OK, so YOU'RE the mysterious 4th Mooter! (it shows 4 members on, but only 3 names! )

The webcam was an attempt at humor, and I slipped into inaccuracy. I should have pointed out, as you did, that he could be deceiving us by pretending to be asleep. Or I could have picked a better example, such as "Is Hobbit currently picking his nose?"

But by stating "thus the absolute truth would be that he is lying in his bed, deceiving everyone", it appears that you believe that there DOES exists an absolute truth in this matter. Is that right? See, I'm not talking about BELIEFS here. I'm saying that IMO, an absolutely true state of being exists. Whether or not we know what it is, or think we know what it is, is QUITE a different issue.

[Baby-K]

OK, so YOU'RE the mysterious 4th Mooter! (it shows 4 members on, but only 3 names! )

Guilty as charged

The webcam was an attempt at humor, and I slipped into inaccuracy. I should have pointed out, as you did, that he could be deceiving us by pretending to be asleep. Or I could have picked a better example, such as "Is Hobbit currently picking his nose?"

I know, but I just had to be the fly in the ointment

But by stating "thus the absolute truth would be that he is lying in his bed, deceiving everyone", it appears that you believe that there DOES exists an absolute truth in this matter. Is that right? See, I'm not talking about BELIEFS here. I'm saying that IMO, an absolutely true state of being exists. Whether or not we know what it is, or think we know what it is, is QUITE a different issue.

NO - I used those words to illustrate the problems with using words such as absolute & truth in the same sentence - I think your interpretation furthers that belief of mine - you see you perceived it to mean one thing while I intended it to mean something else completely......another 'mooter might come along & read it & give it another interpretation altogether.

IMO the only 'absolute truth' (see, now by using inverted commas I could even be giving the idea another interpretation - am I using it literally or sarcastically, or as an abstract concept? ) is that no 'truth' is 'absolute' if it cannot be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be scientifically measurable, if the outcome cannot be accurately predicted and if it it cannot and has not stood the test of time without question / challenge. i.e mathematical theories become absolutes when they are proven to be correct, unchallenge over & over again (take Pythagoras as an example). However, anything to do with human sciences (or what is left to human interpretation) cannot be absolutely true, because by sheer design (flawed or not) the human mind assimilates & constructs realities to our own liking. To say that an absolute true state of being exist would only be correct if the 'state of being' you refer to happens to be dead vs alive, because those 'states' can be scientifically proven. Death of course being the more absolute of the two - you can't be deader than dead, but some of us are in fact more alive than others.

[Rían]

So there were no truths before the scientific method was developed?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Baby-K
I know, but I just had to be the fly in the ointment

you li'l stinker, you!


Also, so there are no truths about things in the past, since they can't be scientifically evaluated in the present?


And I think the wording problem illustrates that communication by typing is difficult!!

[Baby-K]

IMO - nope, there were theories and beliefs and possibilities and assumptions - some of which became truths upon investigation & proving the validity thereof.

I am not saying that holding something as true in your own mind is a bad thing, however I do believe that expecting th rest of the world to hold it as true without question is quite arrogant (RÃ*an, I'm not referring to you personally, I'm speaking in a broader sense - referring to any person, institution or group who hold their beliefs as absolutes & expect the rest of the world to follow suit).

[Baby-K]

(the previous reply was to your first question)

you li'l stinker, you!

actually I smell quite pretty (wearing my current fave perfume - it's called Eau de Mechanic - available from truck exhaust outlets worldwide!)

Also, so there are no truths about things in the past, since they can't be scientifically evaluated in the present?

The truths (like mathematical / scientific theories) were proven in the past & still hold true today. The abstract concepts were either discarded when they were proven to be untrue OR they were kept & improved upon through the years.

And I think the wording problem illustrates that communication by typing is difficult!!

Yeah - but it makes it exiting too né (quite unpredictable at times)

[Rían]

So anything that was not subjected to rigorous scientific testing in the past cannot be considered true? My dog was alive yesterday - I believe it to be true, but I can't scientifically prove it. (He's still alive today, the hairy mutt! He's a great dog)

I think you're still concentrating on how we arrive at the belief of truth here - that's a different matter, and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about if there is a true state of what is/was, regardless of if we'll ever know it or not, or if we think we know it but are deceived, or think we know it but it's an incomplete picture.

Another example - I say that it is FALSE that my dog, while he and I were in the room with the piano in it yesterday, played my favorite Chopin piece. Would you say that since I can't scientfically disprove it, that I cannot say it's false?