Board index ‹ Jesus

[jimwalton]

It's safe to say that the far majority of the people on the planet know about the concept of hell. (Certainly all Christians, Jews, and Muslims do; many Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists have had enough cultural cosmopolitan exposure to have heard something about it.)

My referring to the fire was, of course, just an analogy, not about the certainty of the fire (which is the direction you are taking my analogy), but about a person's choice for salvation or fiery consequences. As we have discussed, the evidences for the existence of God outweigh the evidences against his existence, but that fact persuades few who still claim "There just isn't enough evidence to sway me towards theism." I think the question still is: What evidence are you looking for that would accomplish that?" My honest wondering is that there is no such evidence. Most people, I think, are saying that because they are choosing not to believe, not because they've objectively analyzed the cases pro and con.

[Book Mitten]

> So is God blocking your relationship with Him, or is it maybe something you are doing that is blocking it? I dunno, I'm just talking off the top of my head (as usual).

I guess I don't know either. One of the reasons the fire analogy regarding California doesn't apply either in my opinion. In any case, I aim to honestly search for truth. I can't choose not to aspire to do so. It would cause me massive cognitive dissonance. Of course, I may possibly have some aspects of my self which are deceptive or lead me astray, but I aim to combat them. I don't question God lightly. I don't do it simply to be edgy or for nihilistic reasons. I do it because I believe it's right.

> Just, for instance, you and I have exchanged, I dunno, about 75 posts each? Doesn't ANY of this qualify as getting answers that help you understand?

It qualifies as an attempt and some degree of clarification, but belief is something of a scale, and we still have a certain way to go yet. That's why I'm here, and presumably why you are too.

> What kind of answer were you expecting to receive? I mean, I never hear God's voice, and often even thoughts don't come to my mind. But then when I read (like, the Bible, or helpful books) I'll get some understanding. Or when I listen to what someone is saying it will help me.

I guess some kind of knowledge welling up inside me could have been revelatory. It's hard to really know since God communicates differently with some (e.g. the disciples through, by comparison, a more stark appearance of himself, or some manifestation thereof) than others.

>> So why doesn't God bless this higher understanding to us in this world?
> He does.

What I'm referring to is the knowledge you say he blesses us with in the next world that presumably makes us "better", or more enlightened.

[Book Mitten]

>> If it would be better if they didn't do evil, why doesn't God prevent it?
> We've covered this. God can't interfere with human free will, or it's not "free will" at all.

What about the free will of the victim? Do you think the victim of atrocity has free will? Besides, God clearly interferes to some extent merely to keep norms in place.

My other point about free will is that people will act from inclination, of which God will be aware. He will as a result understand why they do what they do if they are deprived of certain measures of goodness, surely? Of course, this idea of goodness might not be accurate, but I'm just putting the idea out there.

[jimwalton]

> What about the free will of the victim? Do you think the victim of atrocity has free will?

Of course. We all have free will. The victim was, obviously, victimized by someone else exercising their free will. The victim probably exercised their free will also, whether screaming, fighting, running—whatever they did at the time in response to the perpetrator's free will.

> Besides, God clearly interferes to some extent merely to keep norms in place.

How so? What do you mean?

> My other point about free will is that people will act from inclination, of which God will be aware.

Yes they do, and yes He is.

> He will as a result understand why they do what they do if they are deprived of certain measures of goodness, surely?

As an omniscient being, He would be able to know such things, yes.

[Book Mitten]

> To me that's not justice—they got away with it.

They got away with it anyway in this life. I tend to judge outcomes based upon what I see in front of me. Therefore I don't see how the next world should be any different.

> Of course. We all have free will. The victim was, obviously, victimized by someone else exercising their free will. The victim probably exercised their free will also, whether screaming, fighting, running—whatever they did at the time in response to the perpetrator's free will.

I don't see this as any kind of free will, let alone free will of any significant degree. Screaming, fighting, or running, (remember some victims cannot do this) are simply reactions that the individual sees as appropriate given the circumstances. They can't choose to believe one way or another. They are themselves manifestations of belief. As such their belief about what is best will be entwined and influence the action and vice versa.

>> Besides, God clearly interferes to some extent merely to keep norms in place.
> How so? What do you mean?

There are clear embedded traits in living things that even some of the most staunch defenders of free will can see limit some parts of free will, at least at a certain point.

>> My other point about free will is that people will act from inclination, of which God will be aware.
> Yes they do, and yes He is.

With this in mind, consider how God knows that many people who do bad things will think they are doing right, and how they couldn't choose to think otherwise out of nowhere, for that would make their thought processes arbitrary. Wouldn't God then realise the limits of their knowledge and thus perhaps free will? Wouldn't this put the legitimacy of brimstone "Justice" into doubt?

[jimwalton]

> Wouldn't God then realise the limits of their knowledge and thus perhaps free will? Wouldn't this put the legitimacy of brimstone "Justice" into doubt?

I agree that at least some people (perhaps many, but it's impossible to know) think they are doing right and have made that choice based on their evaluation or definition of right and wrong, but this is tricky. Some people generate that definition or evaluation as a choice because they reject, for instance, what the Bible says—so they come up with their own definition and evaluation. In that case they did choose it, and they're thoughts are not arbitrary.

> Wouldn't God then realise the limits of their knowledge and thus perhaps free will? Wouldn't this put the legitimacy of brimstone "Justice" into doubt?

This is why it's of benefit that God is omniscient, so He knows exactly what people are thinking and feeling and what their motives were. And I still stick with the theology I've been consistent in expressing all along: God will be perfectly fair with people.

[Book Mitten]

> My referring to the [California] fire was, of course, just an analogy, not about the certainty of the fire (which is the direction you are taking my analogy)

I was doing no such thing. I am simply following the metaphorical language, since, whatever it represents, that is the language used to visualise it. Perhaps you mean some kind of psychological hell like in Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky. Or some kind of void where nothing moves. The fact remains that all of these conceptions are depicting something very unpleasant.

[jimwalton]

Yes, there is no doubt that the Bible portrays an afterlife without God as not only "very unpleasant," but as disastrous and the epitome of what is undesirable.

[Book Mitten]

> Most people, I think, are saying that because they are choosing not to believe, not because they've objectively analyzed the cases pro and con.

You don't "choose to believe". You simply come to believe through various factors. Let me put it another way. Could you choose to believe Christianity is not true? My guess would be no, since you are swayed by certain pieces of information and experience. Before you say we are looking at the same data, I must stress that we are not. We have much shared understanding, but there are definite nuances in our experiences and perspectives. That's simply a fact given that we are different people with different lives. It doesn't discount what we have in common.

[Book Mitten]

> Most people, I think, are saying that because they are choosing not to believe, not because they've objectively analyzed the cases pro and con.

You don't "choose to believe". You simply come to believe through various factors. Let me put it another way. Could you choose to believe Christianity is not true? My guess would be no, since you are swayed by certain pieces of information and experience. Before you say we are looking at the same data, I must stress that we are not. We have much shared understanding, but there are definite nuances in our experiences and perspectives. That's simply a fact given that we are different people with different lives. It doesn't discount what we have in common.