Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[Sad Star]

When I was young I, a young person, asked my father how it was okay for God to damn.

I'm a decent young person. I thought surely God could send the young version of me to heaven, and the older one to hell? And God could just as well send the vilest criminal to heaven in the event that he, say, suffered from dementia, as he forgets himself and his crimes. Similarly, if God sends the mentally retarded guy in church to heaven (I recalled myself asking my father), does he really? I mean, if he cures him of his ailment, changing him, and making him like everyone else, is he the same person?

The question and the questions it created didn't get answered to my satisfaction, and the terror of it, I feel, gave rise to a lot of identity questions that haven't been resolved in me to this day. Even at an early age, I'd think about killing myself, just to save myself from messing up and so save myself from hell.

And I knew for a fact by then that young people were running to the arms of death by the age of 12 or younger (through suicide), either for the reason I mentioned (escaping damnation) or for a worse reason (simply knowing that people by the billions had fallen for this).

[jimwalton]

I'm not completely sure I understand your question, but I'll try. God has a right to damn because (1) he is fundamentally righteous and has never done anything wrong, meaning (a) he won't make a mistake in how he judges people and (b) his judgments are always fair, and (2) as creator, all acts of wrongdoing and evil are essential acts of rebellion against him, meaning (a) he has the right to punish such rebellion and (b) he has a responsibility to punish such rebellion. Any just judge will not ignore evil and allow wrongdoing to get off the hook. That's what judges are for.

God damns people because they do wrong. They lie, are proud, are greedy, are inappropriately angry, they are proud and self-seeking, and they reject God, his invitation of love, his offer of salvation, and his free gift of life in Him.

Aside from that, you seem to have some fairly substantial misunderstandings of hell. Let me take a stab at some.

1. "Surely God could send the young version of me to heaven, and the older one to hell." In the Bible we are unified persons. We will not be split up in the afterlife, with one version of us going to a different place than another version of us. We are who we are, and we are accountable for our actions. Changes in us are good moves if they are in God's direction, and can change our destiny. So also deleterious changes in us that move us away from God and more worthy of judgment.

2. "God could just as well send the vilest criminal to heaven in the event that he, say, suffered from dementia, as he forgets himself and his crimes." A criminal will not go to heaven because he gets dementia. This is not a teaching the Bible would support or endorse.

3. "If God sends the mentally retarded guy in church to heaven (I recalled myself asking my father), does he really? I mean, if he cures him of his ailment, changing him, and making him like everyone else, is he the same person?" Not every person who is mentally handicapped automatically goes to heaven. People will be fairly judged on what they knew and what they did with it. God will take into account the capacities of a mentally handicapped person, and because God knows all and is perfectly righteous, his judgment will be fair.

3. Suicide doesn't save anyone from hell, nor does it condemn a person to hell. One's manner of death is not what decides his or her eternal destiny.

I don't know what you mean by "simply knowing that people by the billions had fallen for this."

[Sad Star]

Thanks for the attempt at answering.

The problem is that our ephemeral, temporal, nature makes our identity a false identity, since we don't know where we begin and the world ends. Man cannot be his mind, since his mind is always changing; he cannot be his body, since his body is always changing. It has been scientifically established that frontal lobe damage contributes to the creation of cereal killers. Dementia also changes people, which I myself witnessed at an early age. Existence itself, and the problems mother nature inflicts on people, can be itself a reason for madness. Nature is a dynamic environment, so whatever persons in it are changing. At all times, we are being acted upon by nature. It doesn't make sense to condemn someone for an action, since they're induced into action by nature. Nature is more guilty than man, since nature forces man by hunger and other ailments into doing what he does. God shouldn't be punishing man, but punishing nature. And he shouldn't even be punishing nature, but himself, since he created nature. At every step, nothing here makes sense. How can anyone accept these teachings when they fly in the face with the facts immediately before our eyes? And, what's more, is that since there's no God before my eyes, it's doubly impossible for me not to doubt what you're saying as anything but a synthetic story, a lie, wholly inconsistent with the facts of life. I think that the preacher of Christianity that would be the wrongdoer here, since they're teaching a baseless resentment of life itself, under the cover that such teachings come from God. It's sickening that billions have accepted a doctrine of resentment and hatred. God must be hateful (and not even God but the teacher of the God Christians describe), since you suppose that God holds us responsible for actions, which he himself did as the creator of everything. Imagine God as a drip painter. The drips are human beings, and sending them onto the canvas counts as his only creative act. They smash into the canvas thanks to gravity. Who is god to judge these drips? They're just drips! So what? Why damn? Could you imagine God having a conversation with these drips, showing them the gravity of their crimes against the canvas and himself, the dripper? I imagine this experience would be most bewildering to the drip. It was you! You dripped me! The whole thing is, on every level, absurd to me.

[jimwalton]

I disagree radically with your fundamental premises, and therefore with your derived conclusions. It's absurd because you have absurd presuppositions, false reasoning from those propositions, and unfounded conclusions from the entire process.

You claim that we don't know where we begin and where the world ends, and yet that is certainly not true of our physical beings, which have clear distinctions from the world around us. It is true with our minds also, since we have cognition of our own thoughts, but not those of others. We must use empathy as a relational task because our minds are distinctive and unmistakably other-defined from other minds. Therefore your initial premise is faulty.

A man can be his own mind, despite its changing-ness, just as a tree can still be a tree despite its change, the atmosphere still itself despite its change, and the sun itself despite its change. Change like this doesn't alter identity, but only form and at times function.

I agree that nature is a dynamic environment and that we as individuals, in addition to all things in nature, have change as a characteristic, but that change only goes so far. No one ever confuses a rock for a tree or a fly for a human. We have recognizable identities as entities that differentiate us from each other even in this dynamic environment.

Nature is therefore guilty of nothing, for nature is nothing but mechanistic cause and effect resulting from chemicals and forces acting upon other chemicals and forces. The only way one can ascribe teleology to nature is if one attributes a purposeful source to its actions. And there is, in the Christian worldview, exactly that purposeful source to the purpose we see in nature, and that source is God. The Bible, however, marks out other forces at play that show us God is not responsible for the ailments we see before our eyes.

Number 1 would be that he created nature to be a dynamical cause and effect environments, subject to its own movements and progressions. God doesn't micromanage (or even macromanage) the universe, but has infused it with progressive dynamism so that it runs "on its own" (though God sustains it, according to Scripture). Thus much of what "nature" does is the result of dynamic cause and effect (both classical science and chaos theory, relativity and quantum mechanics). Nature works independently of God. God shouldn't punish nature, for it has no moral cognition or capability.

Secondly, he has given human beings the capability of free will, so we act as independent agents as well. We are not automatons locked into a deterministic structure, but genuinely free agents to act as we choose. God, being righteous, is free and just to reward good choices and to punish evil ones.

You claim that "at every step, nothing here makes sense," but that is because you have chosen nonsensical premises and false conclusions as your argument.

You claim that "there is no God before your eyes," and therefore the whole systems is inconsistent with life. God doesn't need to be before your eyes for you to know its effect. You never see gravity, but you see its effects. Neither gravity nor God are inconsistent with the facts of life. As a matter of fact, theistic arguments about God's existence are far more consistent with the facts of life than scientific naturalism or atheism.

Christianity, contrary to your claims, is not a doctrine of resentment and hatred. If you think so, another reading of the Bible is warranted. Christianity teaches love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, kindness, forgiveness, and self-control. It's unfair to judge a movement by its abusers. A movement must be judged by its teachings, and by its focus—Jesus. There is nothing in Christianity that teaches resentment, hatred, or resentment of life itself. You seem to have a distorted and inaccurate caricature of Christianity at variance with its true teachings.

Your analogy of God as a drip painter misses the mark completely of the teachings of the Bible. Drips have no spiritual capacity or moral culpability, while humans have both. We are far from "just drips." To see humans as "just drips" is what is inconsistent with the facts of life. If we are mere drips, we are the mere agglomeration of chemicals, with no purpose or meaning. All is finally chaotic, irrational, and absurd. If so, then nothing has answers and there is no cause-and-effect relationship. While this position can be held theoretically, it is in contradiction to what we see in life. We see an external world that has form and order; it is not chaotic. If it were true that all is chaotic, unrelated, and absurd, science as well as general life would come to an end. To live at all is not possible except in the understanding that the universe that is there has a certain form, order, and that man conforms to that order so he can live within it. As a matter of fact, if this position were argued properly, all discussion, including ours, would be meaningless, and even your thoughts are unreliable and meaningless, which I doubt that you believe. We're back to the position that theism is more logical than the philosophy you express in your post.

[Sad Star]

I didn't contrive my premise; it was an observation, based on the changes a bonk on the head can cause in anyone, as proved by the serial killers, dementia sufferers, and retarded people I referred to.

You are still confusing word and image identity for the real thing, which is fully fused with nature. Rock, Tree, Fly, Human. These are words that, when spoken, evoke a trauma in your mind, but they do not evoke every aspect of the image trauma induced by the word. For example: a child that has never seen a rabbit but bugs bunny will only be able to think of bugs bunny when I say the word rabbit. There are, in fact, no rabbits: only a word rabbit, for inducing image traumas: in this case, bugs bunny. You are mistaking image and word trauma for things you cannot introspect into or know. And, having said that, empathy is not even possible: only the pretense of empathy. There is no logic to the world, since the world and nature preceded logic; for the concept of logic is contingent upon the inherently contradictory notion that we can deduce what's going on based on this or that, when this and that are merely word tips, so to speak, at the tip of the iceberg that is nature. You are correct: there is no cause and effect relationship, since there is only a continual happening. Your belief in a super causal agent is inherently superstitious. Everything is, indeed, chaotic, irrational, and absurd. That's why Hippasus was killed for revealing the square root of two: he revealed irrational numbers and hence man's inherent irrationality. This was considered ugly to those who killed him; but, of course, if disorder is ugly, then you might think so, but there is no order. You confuse disorder as order. You confuse a harmonious discord for harmony. You think there is peace, when peace is a misinterpreted destruction. Science as well as general life will come to an end, since everything ends in the graveyard. And no: you cannot say that what I have said is an argument or even a logical argument, since I do not argue, but elucidate.

Christianity started with the first abuser, namely, Jesus Christ, who did indeed profess hatred; hatred against father and mother when he claimed responsibility for pitting son against father, and so on. And what means did he use? A perverse mental terrorism made possible by threats of eternal damnation: hell, which only had the power to work on young impressionable minds. That is why Jesus needed to be killed: he was trying to terrorize the young into feeding him, and he did. Christ makes a mockery of life every step of the way, when he says: "Verily I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." he is not promising eternal life, he is merely describing what is needed for life in general in an effort to backhandedly mock it. Perhaps this is why the Gnostic Christ said: “Verily, I say unto you, none of those who fear death will be saved; for the kingdom belongs to those who put themselves to death.” Thus, to join god in his kingdom is to join in his kingdom of nothing. The love of the non-existent spiritual is a backhanded love for death. Christ was an evil man, that is my genuine conviction, and people accepted him because humans are creatures of agony. Why else would they hang crosses in their homes? A symbol for human execution. A symbol for people who crave death, not life or stars, like the Jews.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for your reply, but I'm fairly certain that continued dialogue between us is futile because of our presuppositional differences as well as our pursuit of logic. I disagree with almost everything you have said, as in my last post, and it seems certain that continue explanation will not allow us to make progress in mutual understanding.

Obviously a bonk on the head can produce change in people, and though it may change one's personality or personal characteristics, it doesn't change one's identity, which comes from a combination of his physical body (distinct from all others) and his mindset, both of which are subject to change while retaining a unique identity.

While we have images that pertain to an ideal ("rabbit"), we are able to entertain many fluctuations to the ideal (bugs bunny, a real rabbit, a lot, different colored rabbits and different species of rabbits) while still retaining a knowledge of what a rabbit is. This is not a matter of identity but of categorical inference.

> There is no logic to the world, since the world and nature preceded logic

What evidence do you have to substantiate such a claim? Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that the world and nature were preceded by God, who is characterized by reason, logic, personality, and purpose. What evidence do you have to guarantee your claim that nature preceded logic.

And, I might add, you are contradicting yourself if you claim there is no logic in the world, for you are using logic to press your point with me. If what you are saying is true, your argument is self-defeating.

> Your belief in a super causal agent is inherently superstitious

My belief in a super causal agent makes perfect sense, using reason to attain truth. We know that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and science and math both tell us that the universe at some point began to exist. Therefore it's reasonable to assume the universe has a cause. We know of nothing that began at one time to exist spontaneously of its own volition—nothing that we know of is self-caused. We know of nothing that at any time began to exist from its own nature (How can something pop itself into existence when it doesn’t exist?). Everything that had a beginning was brought into existence by something else that already existed, whether technological, mechanical, or even biological. Even biological things came from other biological things, or at least from something that already existed. Something had to always have existed. So what caused the universe to begin to exist? It has to have had a cause. God is a reasonable choice as to that cause. This is not superstition at all, based on reason.

> Christianity started with the first abuser, namely, Jesus Christ

You are making the grave error of not reading all of Jesus, but lifting various sentences out of context to make them mean what you want them to mean. If you truly want to understand Jesus and to represent his teachings properly, you must grasp all of what he said and elucidate on that. There is a travesty in what you have written that reveals an almost barbaric interpretation of Jesus, and not at all true to what he taught.

1. Hatred against parents? Not in the least. Jesus was teaching about comparative devotion, as Matthew 10.37 shows. Jesus taught that one should honor his parents, and he also showed that by his own life of honor toward his parents.

2. Pitting son against father (Luke 12.53)? This was a reference to a prophecy (Micah 7.6) regarding sin that causes exile, forgiveness that restores people, reconciling them to God and to each other. The division between families is not really the point. The point is that sin will be judged now, just as it was in ancient Israel. Sin causes deterioration of families, relationships, and societies. Jesus has come to heal, restore, and reconcile, but many don't accept it, and that in itself creates more problems.

3. Eating flesh and drinking blood. He was speaking symbolically, as is quite clear from John 6.51. Your interpretation ignores what Jesus is really saying to create a distortion of misunderstanding. Jesus was not speaking in a cultural vacuum to consign his followers to cannibalism. Rather, his words were intended to lift the listeners from their barren, food-dominated existence to the recognition of the supreme hunger of life that could only be filled by different bread. It was in that very journey under Moses that He had first told them that physical bread had limited sustenance. He wanted to meet a greater need. To a culture with such specific instruction on their spiritual need, to say nothing of their strict dietary laws, only ignorance would manufacture the notion that Jesus was prescribing the consumption of human flesh. Our hunger for something transcendent is so rooted in our very being, yes, even in our physical craving.

4. Promising life. John 3.15, 16, 36; 4.14, 36; 5.21, 24, 26, 39, 40; 6.27, 33, 35, 40, 47, 48, 51, 54, 63 and on and on and on. If you claim Jesus is not promising eternal life, you, my friend, have been deeply deceived or are desperately deceiving yourself.

5. The cross as a symbol for human execution? No, it was a mechanism of human execution, but it is a symbol of forgiveness and love.

As I said, I'm fairly certain that continued conversation between us will be fruitless since our positions are so disparate and irreconcilable at the very root.