Re: Thoughts from a doubting Thomas

In message <87bqbze8c4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Allow me to remind you (and any other readers there may be)
once again that your oh-so-generous-and-noble disapproval of
forcing people to do things doesn't extend to a disapproval
of burning them to destruction in hell if they don't do them.

There are two points: destruction and hell.

What we are talking about is not a mere lifestyle choice as innocuous - if
as foolish - as preferring Windoze to Linux. We are talking about people who
choose wickedness over goodness, and although not all of them become
monsters of evil such as Hitler or Pol Pot, the only reason why they do not
is lack of time and opportunity.

In the perfect world which God is going to set up, it seems obvious to me,
if not to you, that such people can have no place and the only alternative
is to put an end to them - to destroy them.

Furthermore, that destruction will be permanent and final. If, as Christians
believe, there is more to man than just his physical body, then that extra
part or dimension or whatever you want to call it, has to be destroyed as
well. Hell is the method by which the individual is completely and
irrevocably destroyed and, for all I know, may be the only way in which that
end can be accomplished. It is depicted as burning fire and perhaps it is: I
don't care because I won't be going there and those who will have chosen it
of their own freewill.

I assumed you meant worldwide. So far as I can tell, the fraction
of the world's population that's Christian is shrinking very slowly
over time. Of course it's possible that it's the falsechristianscum
who are "falling away" while the True Believers grow in numbers --
as I said, it's controversial whom to count -- but I'm not aware of
any good reason to think that that's actually so.

Well, let's not fall out over something so difficult to quanitify.

(The "paragraph above" was about "genuine free will".) So, Ken, would
providing "enough evidence to make being a Christian clearly rational"
destroy free will, make it impossible for us to do evil, etc., or not?
If it would, then why are you now saying that what it would take for
that to happen is "not an intellectual knowledge ... but a visible
presence standing beside them 24/7"? If it wouldn't, then why have
you been reacting to what I've said about intellectual knowledge (or,
heck, even *evidence*; I'm not so fussy as you paint me) as if I'd
been suggesting a visible presence 24 hours a day?

Because, as you have pointed out, people - Adam and Eve for example - are
quite capable of "forgetting" God's presence.

There is, of course, not a shred of evidence[2] that this "time
of testing" is in fact doing anything to help produce "a society
composed of people who want to be good", or that other approaches
wouldn't be more effective, or that the "temporary stress of an
examination" is in any relevant way analogous to, say, dying of
cholera.

All I can say is that the majority of Christians I have met have been people
who want to be good, who recognise when they have done wrong and repent for
it, and who actively work to make the world a better place. Perhaps you
should move up to Rhyl?

I meant: one's moral qualities, or potential moral qualities,
interpreting "moral" as broadly as you might think appropriate
in this context. Another way to say it would be: "That those
who ultimately choose good over evil are, fundamentally, better
people than those who don't".

Seems a bit of a tautology to me.

I appreciate that you are not, in so many words, making claims
about my sincerity or lack of it. But it seems to me that you're
seeking to suggest that the procedure you claim God has adopted
is fair, in the sense of classifying people reliably into good
and bad; and I think you've got trouble if in fact anyone ends
up damned on account of having made an honest but incorrect
assessment of the evidence.

As I don't believe that anyone who made an *honest* but incorrect assessment
of the evidence will be damned, I think I avoid the trouble.

(Irving.) And a bloody stupid way of dealing with him, too.

Quite so. He should have been shot - or hung.

And of course that's a great analogy for God's dealings with
imperfect human beings, because obviously there's nothing
God could do to stop falsehoods being believed. Except for
burning people who believe them, of course, so that they
won't infect others. Truly is it written that God is merciful.

People who believe lies because they want to believe them. St John speaks of
people who prefer darkness to light "because their works are evil" and I
think that is the characteristic of the damned. They *want* to do evil,
therefore they clothe their actions with excuses that they can't believe or
the evidence is against belief or whatever.

I wasn't saying it as an argument against hellfire (as it happens
I think it is one, but not on its own a strong one at all). What
it's an argument against is your claim that an unbreakable respect
for people's wills governs God's dealings with people. Burning
someone to destruction in hell isn't in accordance with their
will any more than opening their eyes to the truth and their
hearts to righteousness, and if God is unwilling to do the latter
because their freedom is oh-so-precious then it's a nonsense to
suggest that it's any better to do the former.

Not so. We are given a period of probation - called life - in which God
allows us to do what we will. He then calls time and doles out the rewards
we have deserved. Those who have used their freedom for good will have more
and greater opportunities for good; those who have used their freedom for
evil will be eliminated.

Take drug addicts, who I think form the majority of criminals in our
prisons. The offer of treatment for their addiction is there, it is free, it
is urged upon them[1]. They refuse to accept the treatment for the basic
problem, that leads them to criminal acts, and then they are punished - no
doubt against their wills but for the good of society.

If there were a reliable way to turn drug addicts into non-addicts,
with no danger of relapse and no awful side-effects, against their wills;
and if the only options available were to apply this treatment to them
or to torture them to death; then I (and I hope every decent human
being on the planet) would unhesitatingly choose the former. You
appear to think it's good for God to choose the latter.

I think the "if" is the key.

As I see it - and I don't claim to be an expert - those who become drug
addicts are people who *choose* to ignore warnings, who choose to defy
authority, who put personal pleasure before everything else. Even if there
was a way to quash the craving for drugs, such people would simply find some
other way of expressing their desire for pleasure, their defiance of
authority and so on.

That is why I see no value in simply forcing people to refrain from certain
wrong acts: the basic attitude behind those acts will find *some* way of
expressing itself sooner or later. What is needed is a change in attitude.

I don't know what level of consistency you consider "remarkable".
The way it looks to me is that there are a bunch of moral ideas
that appear to be more or less hard-wired into our brains, about
which religions generally agree (and so do non-religious people),
and then there are a whole lot of other things that differ widely
between cultures.

I believe C.S. Lewis made somewhat the same argument in "Mere Christianity".

One feature that not only isn't universal across religions, but
isn't even universal across Christianity, is your contention that
for everyone there's a single moment of moral choice that makes
them finally Good or Bad and hence determines their fate. So I don't
think you can claim that we all have fair warning that one single
crucial choice, not advertised as such at the time, is liable to
determine our eternal fate.

The decisive choice is, I think, the culmination of a whole series of
choices, whether we are talking about the career we choose or our ulimate
destiny.

Another (which isn't a matter of moral code, but *is* highly
relevant to the question of whether we can reasonably be said
to have been "warned") is that there's no agreement about what
rewards and punishments are in fact on offer.

No exact agreement, perhaps, but a fiery hell is pretty common.

It *sounds* as if you're saying that if any religion makes
claims of miracles and finds medical people willing to say
that they've happened, then it's irresponsible not to convert
immediately to that religion. But that's such a stupid thing
to say that you can't possible mean it; what, then, *do*
you mean?

Not at all - but what I am saying is that reputable physicians have examined
these people and declared that the healing cannot be explained by mere
physical means. You have not examined them, yet you confidently proclaim
that a miracle is impossible. Suspension of disbelief is one thing; definite
disbelief is quite another.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

Relevant Pages

  • (Pohl) Where is George Carlins soul right now?
    ... Burning in Hell because of the things he said ... In Heaven cause even God has a sense of humor ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: CITV Digital
    ... history of the universe from its creation to its end is predestined. ... God knows exactly what will happen before it happens. ... But why will I be burning in hell for doing exactly what god decided I would ...
    (uk.culture.nostalgia.1980s)
  • "who is Satan and where is hell " - By Dr. AK Coomaraswamy
    ... either God or Satan seriously, arises from the fact that they have ... than of hell. ... Here, perhaps, the solution of the problem of Satan may ... body, soul, and spirit is built up. ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Who is "Satan" and where is "Hell"?.................By Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy
    ... either God or Satan seriously, arises from the fact that they have ... than of hell. ... Here, perhaps, the solution of the problem of Satan may ... body, soul, and spirit is built up. ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: basic message!?
    ... > various scriptures which she believes speak of people heading for Hell. ... Jewels: so you've got no comments at all on these passages, ... >>> not by God but by society. ... > scripture for everything you believe. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Loading