Re: Does God enjoy people's cupboard love?

On 12 Nov, 00:57, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
claire.easth...@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Human understanding is limited and I
am not going to get angry with God for not telling me everything - I
am not going to throw a tantrum and shout "THATS SO UNFAIR! I HATE
YOU!"

Er, I wasn't suggesting that you should do *that*. (Though it
might just be a better response to the doctrine of hell, if you
really think that Christians have no choice but to accept it,
than yours.)

Why would that be a better response if there is no choice in the
matter – it would just be a waste of my precious energy and result
in me souring my relationship with God.

Let me answer with an analogy. Suppose you are an active member
of a political party, which happens to be in power. And suppose
that the government, in the hands of this party, does something
that on the face of it is monstrously unjust -- since you suggested
earlier that I compare you to the Nazis :-), let's suppose that
they have just announced that all Jews are to be rounded up and
sent to concentration camps. The announcement also says "Please
don't be alarmed. We have very good reasons for what we are doing,
although you cannot be expected to understand them. We ask that
you trust that everything we do is for the best."

We are not discussing something akin to a party-policy - suppose I
wished to oppose the law of gravity on the Earth!


Do you think that would be sufficient reason *not* to be angry
and upset at what they're doing? Even if, in fact, you did trust
that there must be a good reason?

Turn that 360 then, could you not equally ask me do I feel angry and
upset towards people rejecting God who are thereby seperating
themselves from me? In truth I do not feel anger about this. Sadness
yes, but not anger.



Incidentally: Since your belief in hell is the result of reading
the Bible and accepting what it says, however difficult: You've
said that you see hell as a sort of unavoidable consequence of
human sin and rejection of God, rather than as something that
God *does* to people; so how do you deal with passages like
Matthew 25:39ff ("depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal
fire prepared for the devil and his angels ... And they will
go away into eternal punishment") and Luke 12:4-5 ("I will
warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has
power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him")

I don’t think God could choose not to send away from Him those who
have rejected him – it is like trying to force together the positive
ends of two magnets even though that analogy does not work very well
to describe two opposites – God repels what is bad.

Well, originally you said specifically that sending people to hell
is *not* something God does. If I'm understanding you correctly,
what you're now saying is that he does do it, but he doesn't have
any choice.

We make the choice


So, I have a few questions.

1. Do you have any scriptural backing for the idea that God is
unable to choose his own actions in this respect?


1. It is about justice
Habakkuk 1
13 Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;
you cannot tolerate wrong.

2. God's sovereignty requires it. If there is no hell, there would be
no final victory over evil. If there were no ultimate separation of
good from evil, good would not ultimately triumph and God would not be
in ultimate control. God declares He will have victory over evil (1
Corinthians 15:24-28 and Revelation 20-22). God will defeat evil by
quarantining evil and separating it from good.

2. Some Christians believe that the damned do not suffer
eternally, but that the (metaphorical, yes) fires of hell
annihilate them. What do you think of this? (

Yes. I tend to agree with that with passages about the wages of sin
being death. In short though I am not sure. I know there are some
people who are really not fussed about oblivian!


3. Don't you think that the combination of infinite power,
infinite ingenuity and infinite love might reasonably be
expected to come up with some better way of dealing with
this unstoppable repulsion than (anything that could reasonably
be described as) hell?

When the war is won and evil is defeated completely it will.

4. How do you think it's possible for God and evil to coexist
as much as they do (assuming Christianity to be correct) in
the present world?

I think it is like asking why does rape and pillage happen in wars.
This is a battleground - its anarchy out there!!! ;-)

No, really truly I wasn't implying that you think the lives of
non-believers are worth less than those of believers.

Good. :-)

(I *was*
avoiding implying that you definitely don't, for reasons I've
already described.)

Not sure what this bit means – are you back-peddling on your assurance
above on the off chance that I do consider the lives of non-believers
to be worth less? :-/

No.

- Pretty much the first thing you said about hell is that
it's an inevitable consequence of rejecting God.

- Unless you expect to end up in hell yourself, it seems
clear that what you mean by "rejecting God" is not
something so broad that *everyone*, Christians included,
does it.

- So the explanation you gave of how it comes about that
some people end up in hell is, at most, an explanation
of how it comes about that *unbelievers* end up in hell.

- In other words, your argument for why some people deserve
hell (not your word, but to counter the accusation that
hell-as-you-see-it is unjust what you need to do is to
show that we do deserve it) is only really an argument
for why unbelievers deserve hell.

- Which gives the impression that you might perhaps believe
that believers don't deserve hell; at any rate, what you've
given as the reason why unbelievers deserve hell doesn't
apply to believers.

Correct.

This isn't really about how much anyone's life is worth; the
only reason why I put it that way is that I was responding to
things you said that put it that way :-).

????


Well you have started our debate by telling me my beliefs are
appalling and you disapprove of me holding them – there is not far
to go from there. If I tell you otherwise I just sound more
appalling! :-)

I disapprove of the beliefs. I'm not sure I'd exactly say
that I disapprove of you holding them. do think that it
would be better for you if you didn't, though.


Well, I am not doing any harm to myself or others by holding them so I
can't see why


It seems to be based on a misconception that’s all. There are no nasty
implications. There are lots of things I do not try to wish out of
existence just because they are nasty.

Then, please, *explain to me how the implications don't follow*.
I have explained in detail how I think they do. Your only response
has been to complain that I don't understand Christianity and am
being impolite. This is not helpful.

I don't blame you.
I expect your feeling about that is a bit like my feeling
about being told by (some) Christians that *my* beliefs
amount to rejecting everything that's good and valuable
and true.

I don’t think you reject EVERYTHING that is good – but instead of just
telling me that you do not agree with my beliefs or think I should
hold them I do think it would be more productive to have a think about
what you do believe in.

There appears to be a presumption here that I have not had a
think about what I do believe in, or that I don't continue to
do so.


Then why spend so much time trying to convince me my beliefs are wrong
or is it in the hope that I will manage to convince you?



(The process of deciding that I could no longer remain a Christian,
which I think it would be reasonable to describe as "having a think
about what I do believe in", took me 18 months

How did you come to be a Christian in the first place?

and the rather terse
notes I made for myself during that time are approximately the length
of a short paperback book. I spend about as much time in uk.r.c
as anyone, with the likely exceptions of Ken Down and our moderator;

Too much usenet is bad for you! :-)

I do, hard though you may find it to believe, do quite a lot of
thinking in the course of discussions like this one. I have three
shelves of books on philosophy and three of books on theology, all
of which I have read and, dare I say, thought about. I don't say
this to boast; none of it makes me better than anyone else; almost
certainly someone cleverer than me could have dropped Christianity
faster, and someone wiser than me would spend less time in uk.r.c,

As I said before, I had a mildly Christian upbringing and as a student
of the social sciences was very much like you in priding myself on
being a thinker and knowing about lots of ideas.

and there's not that much correlation between how much reading
someone does and how much thinking they do. The only point of all
this stuff is that, of all the criticisms that could be made of me --
some of them very severe and very just -- "you haven't really thought
about what you believe in" is probably pretty high on the list of
the most obviously ridiculous. "You spend far too much time thinking
about what you believe in, and would do better to focus on more
important things" would be nearer the mark.)

Have you reached any conclusions that are possitives rather than
negatives? i.e. what you believe rather than what you do not believe?

I often find more of a mutual understanding
with sincere followers of other faiths than I do atheists to be
honest. I just do not get being so proud and so evangelical (for want
of a better word) about not believing in anything.

I invite you to explain to me (1) what evidence you have that
I don't believe in anything and (2) what evidence you have that
I am proud of not believing in anything.

Well not you personally but the likes of Richard Dwarkins.

I'm not sure whether by "evangelical" you mean "evangelistic"
(i.e., seeking to make converts) or something else, but if it's
the former then I also invite you to show me where I have made
any attempt to get anyone to "not believe in anything".

You have told me that you are no longer a Christian and that Christian
beliefs are nasty?

You might wish to consider the possibility that you find more
mutual understanding with followers of other faiths because you
don't leap to the same conclusions about them as you have done
with me.

--
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc

It is not really about that – there are agnostic people who openly say
they envy people who can believe strongly in something which sounds
essentially good but which they feel they could not.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sarah Palin
    ... She is a Christian fundamentalist. ... The reason Sarah Palin has fired up the base so much is not as much ... An indication of what mankind is, not that God Shall Give The President ... also believed that religion had no place in the political sphere. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Prolife Question
    ... People who use reason ... I find that the more I love Christ, the more I despise the Christian ... ready-made *system* of religion or philosophy out there seems to give you ... Ask God to give you the grace of knowing God's will for PLG. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: {OT} 30.1.1933 = 20.1.2008 -- Only if youre a crazy virgin
    ... You believe in hell as physical places. ... in a Christian manner, so... ... fool has said in his heart "There is no God." ... realize all you damn Womens Libbers are Hillary lovers which is something ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: Prolife Question
    ... People who use reason ... I find that the more I love Christ, the more I despise the Christian ... ready-made *system* of religion or philosophy out there seems to give you ... Ask God to give you the grace of knowing God's will for PLG. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: GOD IS ALIVE
    ... the compassion and humility of the Christian. ... that would be pride, ... Contrary to your logics;it is for this reason that God refused to throw ... Hell is *your* concern, not that of someone who does not ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
Loading