A Violation of Free Will! (The Greatest Commandments)

[R_Daneel]

Why do you wish to help me?? It always seems odd to me that those who believe in “Nothing” after death think they need to help thos of us who believe in"Something" after death.

Maybe some of us feel sorry to see you wasting your lives on useless rituals. I certainly do.

Of course if you are wrong…That is another matter.

Exactly. That is another reason for my presence. I cannot be “absolutely” certain that I am right. There is an infinitesimal chance that I am wrong. I am asking for supporting evidence for your beliefs. Sad, but true, I don’t get anything, but double-speak.

Here is a question to you, if you are interested. Why do you think that God’s supposed “infinite mercy” stops at the moment of our death? Why do you think that there are no other chances, but at that time we know (as opposed to to believe) what the rules of the game are? That there is a God, and the requirements are “exactly these”? Is that “infinite love”? Is that “infinite mercy”? Please forget “justice” for the time being. (Justice and mercy are as contradictory as a “married bachelor”.) Just concentrate on this question.

Mine were not so much “objections” as clarifications. You made the statement that, “If you think that anyone would go willingly to be subject to eternal torture and torment, then you should think again.”
My post merel clarifed the error in that statement. Some people are more than willing to choose “eternal torment” in the form of smoking and addictions to various drugs and alchohol.

Yes, because they either don’t know of those results (in which case they are ignorant) or they consider the negative side to be “worth” the positive one. Now, who would consider real eternal torment to have a positive side? But the real problem is that the idea of “hell” with its “eternal torment” has never been substantiated, and the alleged “rules of the game: how to avoid hell” are not set in stone. There is no reason to accept them for anyone, who does not a-priori believe them.

 

[JRKH]

Maybe some of us feel sorry to see you wasting your lives on useless rituals. I certainly do.

Fair enough - Of course I feel sorry for people who waste their time on useless rituals like football games - All that face painting, and sitting out there freezing their keesters off for something that makes no difference. But I don’t try prevent them from going either.

Exactly. That is another reason for my presence. I cannot be “absolutely” certain that I am right. There is an infinitesimal chance that I am wrong. I am asking for supporting evidence for your beliefs. Sad, but true, I don’t get anything, but double-speak.

I’m glad to hear that you are hear to learn as well. As far as “double speak” and “supporting evidence” goes I guess that we just have troubles in coming to “common definitions” of what qualifies as each.
As for one holding a particular position, I think it really boils down to taking one of two beginning positions.
I accept God because I have no reason to reject Him.
I reject God because I have no reason to accept Him.

Each of these postions can be supported by some of the same “evidence” that is looked at from differing viewpoints. I see evidence of God in every facet of my life, you do not see God in many of those same facets in your life.

Here is a question to you, if you are interested. Why do you think that God’s supposed “infinite mercy” stops at the moment of our death? Why do you think that there are no other chances, but at that time we know (as opposed to to believe) what the rules of the game are? That there is a God, and the requirements are “exactly these”? Is that “infinite love”? Is that “infinite mercy”? Please forget “justice” for the time being. (Justice and mercy are as contradictory as a “married bachelor”.) Just concentrate on this question.

Why do you think we don’t “know” what the rules are now??

Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to sidestep your question(s) here, I am not sure I can answer your questions in anything resembling a “brief” manner. And with my circumstances (caring for a terminally ill wife), I’m not sure I can devote the time to the question that it deserves.

I would say that I already know what the “rules” are - And every one of those rules distills down to the two great commandments that are built on Love.
The first Rule is to Love God - With your whole being. You can’t Love God if you don’t believe He exists. So belief is a prerequisite. God can perhaps save someone who says “I don’t know” but He cannot save someon who says “I reject you”. That is not limiting God’s mercy but limiting your acceptance of God’s Mercy.
Suppose you were in Jail. One day you wake up and find a note taped to the door. It says, the door is unlocked, you’re pardoned. Go and sin no more. Would you refuse to believe and stay in the cell?
God has extended His mercy. Will you accept it? Or will you remain in the cell?

The second Rule is to Love your neighbor as yourself. Don’t do to them what you would not want done to yourself. Simple and straightforward rule, but oh so hard to implement.

Do these two things, to the best of your ability, and there is hope.
But -
Skip the first and try to do the second and there is no hope.
After all, no matter how good a driver you are, and no matter how much you want to get across the river, you cannot cross a bridge if you refuse to believe the bridge is there.

Yes, because they either don’t know of those results (in which case they are ignorant) or they consider the negative side to be “worth” the positive one. Now, who would consider real eternal torment to have a positive side?

They don’t see a positive side to cancer resulting from smoking. Why would you think that they do? They just don’t weigh cancer in the balance when they start smoking, usually to fit in with their friends.
People choose hell for the same reason. They prefer the “Pleasures” and the “Freedom” now and basically choose to ignore the negative consequences later. Just like a teenager who begins to smoke. They aren’t thinking about the negative consquences coming in 20 or 30 or 40 years. They only know that this is what they want now.
As they age they often begin to realize their error but by that time they are so addicted to their vice they are unable to break free. They might try, and some will succeed, but many will not, and they will suffer the consequences.
The same with sin. A person, especially a young person gets involved in sinful acts, not because of the eternal consequences, but because it is what they want to do now. Haven’t you noticed that most teenagers believe they are basically immortal? Once they begin to realize (if they ever do) the negative consequences of their sin, they are addicted to it and it is very difficult to break the habit.

But the real problem is that the idea of “hell” with its “eternal torment” has never been substantiated, and the alleged “rules of the game: how to avoid hell” are not set in stone. There is no reason to accept them for anyone, who does not a-priori believe them.
How to avoid hell is set in stone. It is embodied in the two great commandments refenced above. Every great and long lasting faith in the world generally holds to one form or another of these.

Peace
James

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

Exactly. That is another reason for my presence. I cannot be “absolutely” certain that I am right. There is an infinitesimal chance that I am wrong. I am asking for supporting evidence for your beliefs. Sad, but true, I don’t get anything, but double-speak.

The lord himself came as flesh to this Earth, performing miracles aplenty, and people still didn’t believe.

The people who actually witnessed all this wrote of it and spent the rest of their lives trying to make sure others heard and believed: and people still didn’t believe

The Lord came again as the Holly Spirit (that nagging feeling you have that drove you here) and people still chose not to believe.

He founded a Church, and inspired writings that give you the Truth, and still you don’t believe.

In the OT he came to dwell with the Israelites, and yet they still chose not to believe.

Since He did all this and people still don’t believe, it’s obvious that we have free will (going back to the OP’s post). It’s also obvious that there is not much "proof " we can offer you. If history is any indication, the Lord could come down and in dwell in your house, and chances are you would still refuse to believe.

I’m not sure what “double speak” you are referring to. There is plenty of evidence, plenty of proof, but **you **are the one that rejects it because it does not come in whatever form **you **wish it to. You choose of your own free will to ignore what ever proof exist. Most atheist would **choose **to ignore any proof, up to and including a personal visitation from the Lord himself. Given that level of pig headed rejection and desire to live their lives according to their own rules, what “proof” could we possibly offer?

 

[o_mlly]

(From Dictionary.com)
Idiom
9.
of one’s own accord, without being asked or told; voluntarily: We did the extra work of our own accord.

(From the catechism)
1743 “God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel (cf. Sir 15:14), so that he might **of his own accord **seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” (GS 17 § 1).

(From the Holy Bible, Matthew 22:36-40 NIV)
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

If God commands us to love God with all our heart etc., are we really doing it out of free will—that is of our own accord (without being told; without inducement)?

Likewise, if a Child is told that if he does not love his parents he will be beaten, and he decides to cooperate, does he really love his parents out of free will?

As a “critical thinker” surely you note your post contains the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. That is, it is entirely possible to both possess a free will and be commanded. The verb that verifies the middle you exclude is “disobey.”

 

[R_Daneel]

Fair enough - Of course I feel sorry for people who waste their time on useless rituals like football games - All that face painting, and sitting out there freezing their keesters off for something that makes no difference. But I don’t try prevent them from going either.

Exactly. But you realize that they only spend a relatively little time attending those games, and it does not harm the other parts of their lives. It can, of course, if you consider those British soccer-fans, who are simply rabid in their attitude toward to game.

I’m glad to hear that you are hear to learn as well. As far as “double speak” and “supporting evidence” goes I guess that we just have troubles in coming to “common definitions” of what qualifies as each.
As for one holding a particular position, I think it really boils down to taking one of two beginning positions.
I accept God because I have no reason to reject Him.
I reject God because I have no reason to accept Him.

Each of these postions can be supported by some of the same “evidence” that is looked at from differing viewpoints. I see evidence of God in every facet of my life, you do not see God in many of those same facets in your life.

I read you five-by-five. And I agree with you. We both have our own point of view, and we see the same thing in a different light.

Why do you think we don’t “know” what the rules are now??

Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to sidestep your question(s) here, I am not sure I can answer your questions in anything resembling a “brief” manner. And with my circumstances (caring for a terminally ill wife), I’m not sure I can devote the time to the question that it deserves.

I am so sorry to hear that. I am with you with all my heart - for all it is worth.

I would say that I already know what the “rules” are - And every one of those rules distills down to the two great commandments that are built on Love.
The first Rule is to Love God - With your whole being. You can’t Love God if you don’t believe He exists. So belief is a prerequisite. God can perhaps save someone who says “I don’t know” but He cannot save someon who says “I reject you”. That is not limiting God’s mercy but limiting your acceptance of God’s Mercy.
Suppose you were in Jail. One day you wake up and find a note taped to the door. It says, the door is unlocked, you’re pardoned. Go and sin no more. Would you refuse to believe and stay in the cell?
God has extended His mercy. Will you accept it? Or will you remain in the cell?

The second Rule is to Love your neighbor as yourself. Don’t do to them what you would not want done to yourself. Simple and straightforward rule, but oh so hard to implement.

Do these two things, to the best of your ability, and there is hope.

If only it would be that simple. But there are many other alleged requirements, too, especially as the Catholic belief goes. Attending mass, doing confessions, and many others…

But, as you correctly said, belief is a prerequisite. What about those who don’t have it? Or those who have a different belief? Or those who do believe, but believe differently? Naturally, I do not “reject” God. Without belief, rejection is impossible.

But -
Skip the first and try to do the second and there is no hope.
After all, no matter how good a driver you are, and no matter how much you want to get across the river, you cannot cross a bridge if you refuse to believe the bridge is there.

And here is the rub. You say that no matter how I love my neighbors, how much time I may devote to helping those who are need, no matter how many “good works” I do, I am out of luck. It is all for naught. That is completely irrational, as far as am concerned.

They don’t see a positive side to cancer resulting from smoking. Why would you think that they do? They just don’t weigh cancer in the balance when they start smoking, usually to fit in with their friends.

Possible cancer is the negative side. The actual enjoyment from smoking is the positive one. (I know, I am a smoker…)

People choose hell for the same reason. They prefer the “Pleasures” and the “Freedom” now and basically choose to ignore the negative consequences later.

The point is that those “consequences” are not natural. They must be believed in. If one does not believe that cancer “exists”, all they have to do out there and see the actual, physical evidence.

How to avoid hell is set in stone. It is embodied in the two great commandments refenced above. Every great and long lasting faith in the world generally holds to one form or another of these.

Unfortuantely, for me that is not enough. Just because many people believe in something, that does not lend credence to their belief.

Now, if you have time, ponder what I said. How can God’s mercy be “infinite”, if it stops at the moment of death? Don’t you see that this is a contradiction? An infinite love gives infinitely many chances to “mend one’s ways”. Why is this period of life (which I believe is all, but you don’t), when we don’t know, is more important than the next, when we do know? How can the rule: “one strike and you are out” be considered “infinite” love and mercy. (Please don’t say that we have many chances in this life. It does not matter.)

 

[R_Daneel]

The lord himself came as flesh to this Earth, performing miracles aplenty, and people still didn’t believe.

The people who actually witnessed all this wrote of it and spent the rest of their lives trying to make sure others heard and believed: and people still didn’t believe

The Lord came again as the Holly Spirit (that nagging feeling you have that drove you here) and people still chose not to believe.

He founded a Church, and inspired writings that give you the Truth, and still you don’t believe.

In the OT he came to dwell with the Israelites, and yet they still chose not to believe.

Since He did all this and people still don’t believe, it’s obvious that we have free will (going back to the OP’s post). It’s also obvious that there is not much "proof " we can offer you. If history is any indication, the Lord could come down and in dwell in your house, and chances are you would still refuse to believe.

I’m not sure what “double speak” you are referring to. There is plenty of evidence, plenty of proof, but **you **are the one that rejects it because it does not come in whatever form **you **wish it to. You choose of your own free will to ignore what ever proof exist. Most atheist would **choose **to ignore any proof, up to and including a personal visitation from the Lord himself. Given that level of pig headed rejection and desire to live their lives according to their own rules, what “proof” could we possibly offer?

Actual proof, instead of hearsay evidence of questionable nature. You assume that even if God came to me personally, I would not believe. True, I would not believe (I would not need to believe), because I would know. And knowledge is infinitely better than belief.

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

Actual proof, instead of hearsay evidence of questionable nature. You assume that even if God came to me personally, I would not believe. True, I would not believe (I would not need to believe), because I would know. And knowledge is infinitely better than belief.

Just because you would know He is God would you still fallow though? The Jews constantly turned their back, and they “knew”. Absolute knwoledge of his existance does not mean absolute belife in and acceptance of his teachings.

Actual proof, instead of hearsay evidence of questionable nature.

You’re proving my point here. You don’t accept anything we can offer as proof or evidence. Can you tell my any proof that would suffice for you? Is there anything short of personal visitation that would do the trick. Would personal visitaion do the job even? If a massivly powerfull being came to you, turned a city to salt before your eyes etc… Does that PROVE he is the one true God, creator of the universe? Or does it just prove he is a being of power far surpassing any you have?

Even the then you would need to have some acceptance of faith that he is indeed God. I don’t know you, maybe that would be enough for you, but there are many who would still deny.

 

[R_Daneel]

Just because you would know He is God would you still fallow though? The Jews constantly turned their back, and they “knew”. Absolute knwoledge of his existance does not mean absolute belife in and acceptance of his teachings.

If for nothing else, I would have to follow out of fear. If an infinitely powerful being would threaten me with infinite torture, then of course I would have to do my best to avoid it. But I don’t think that those requirements would have anything to do with those the Catholics (and other Christians) assert. To (mis)quote my favorite Calvin and Hobbs cartoon: “for me the strongest evidence against the Christian God is that he never came and kicked the living daylight out of all the Christians, who spread such nonsensical rumors about him”. (The original text was from Hobbs: “the strongest proof that there are intelligent aliens in the Universe is the fact that they never came to visit us”. I found it hilarious.) A being with infinite power and wisdom would never issue those commands he supposedly did.

You’re proving my point here. You don’t accept anything we can offer as proof or evidence.

How would I know that before I actually heard what you can offer? But you have a point there. So far, I never heard anything substantial. But I am patient. Maybe sometime I will.

Can you tell my any proof that would suffice for you? Is there anything short of personal visitation that would do the trick. Would personal visitaion do the job even? If a massivly powerfull being came to you, turned a city to salt before your eyes etc… Does that PROVE he is the one true God, creator of the universe? Or does it just prove he is a being of power far surpassing any you have?

No mortal being can be that powerful. But, of course I would have a few tests for him…

 

[JRKH]

Exactly. But you realize that they only spend a relatively little time attending those games, and it does not harm the other parts of their lives. It can, of course, if you consider those British soccer-fans, who are simply rabid in their attitude toward to game.

you obviously have never been around the people I use to work with.

I read you five-by-five. And I agree with you. We both have our own point of view, and we see the same thing in a different light.

So - As you can see from this it may not be “double speak”. It might be “bouble hear”

I am so sorry to hear that. I am with you with all my heart - for all it is worth.

Thank you. I am so glad to have my faith to lean on in all of this. Without it I’d go crazy.

If only it would be that simple. But there are many other alleged requirements, too, especially as the Catholic belief goes. Attending mass, doing confessions, and many others…

And yet if you look very carefully at each of these “rules” you’ll find that they all go back to the idea of Love.

But, as you correctly said, belief is a prerequisite. What about those who don’t have it? Or those who have a different belief? Or those who do believe, but believe differently?

That is between them and God. Basically if they seek Him earnestly and do all they can to follow Him faithfully they have teh cahnce to be saved

Naturally, I do not “reject” God. Without belief, rejection is impossible.

That must be one of the “double speak” things. You have heard of God and been exposed to the various evidences and teachings. You refuse to accept them. That qualifies as rejection in my book.

And here is the rub. You say that no matter how I love my neighbors, how much time I may devote to helping those who are need, no matter how many “good works” I do, I am out of luck. It is all for naught. That is completely irrational, as far as am concerned.

So is not believing in the “Bridge” that I referenced in my post. It is completely irrational to not believe in the Bridge.

Possible cancer is the negative side. The actual enjoyment from smoking is the positive one. (I know, I am a smoker…)

Hell is the negative side. Fornication is the positive one.

The point is that those “consequences” are not natural. They must be believed in. If one does not believe that cancer “exists”, all they have to do out there and see the actual, physical evidence.

Same for damnation. All you have to do is wait for the evidence.

Unfortuantely, for me that is not enough. Just because many people believe in something, that does not lend credence to their belief.

Now, if you have time, ponder what I said. How can God’s mercy be “infinite”, if it stops at the moment of death? Don’t you see that this is a contradiction? An infinite love gives infinitely many chances to “mend one’s ways”. Why is this period of life (which I believe is all, but you don’t), when we don’t know, is more important than the next, when we do know? How can the rule: “one strike and you are out” be considered “infinite” love and mercy. (Please don’t say that we have many chances in this life. It does not matter.)

I will give it some thought. I will give you something to consider as well. You speak of and question God’s mercy. What about the need for our response to that grace and Mercy? You say that infinite Love should give infinite chances to reform. What about when the person, given infinite chances in this life refuses to respond?

AHHH – there’s the rub.

Peace
James

 

[R_Daneel]

And yet if you look very carefully at each of these “rules” you’ll find that they all go back to the idea of Love.

Sometimes a very misguided reference. Catholics do believe that honest, self-giving love between two adults of the same sex is either not love (I actually heard that before) or it is unnatural, or perverse.

That is between them and God. Basically if they seek Him earnestly and do all they can to follow Him faithfully they have teh cahnce to be saved

Sorry, that does not wash. Either the belief in God is an actual prerequisite, or it is not. You can’t have both ways.

That must be one of the “double speak” things. You have heard of God and been exposed to the various evidences and teachings. You refuse to accept them. That qualifies as rejection in my book.

I reject the arguments, but that does not mean that I reject what the argument is all about. These are two, very different things.

So is not believing in the “Bridge” that I referenced in my post. It is completely irrational to not believe in the Bridge.

Only if the bridge is there, visible, touchable, etc… it is not irrational to believe the existence of an invisible, untouchable, etc… bridge.

Hell is the negative side. Fornication is the positive one.

There is no law of nature which will condemn loving people to hell, if their love is not expressed in a form which is endorsed by the Catholic Church.

I will give it some thought. I will give you something to consider as well. You speak of and question God’s mercy. What about the need for our response to that grace and Mercy? You say that infinite Love should give infinite chances to reform. What about when the person, given infinite chances in this life refuses to respond?

In a finite life (and this life here on Earth is definitely finite) there are no infinite chances.

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

How would I know that before I actually heard what you can offer? But you have a point there. So far, I never heard anything substantial. But I am patient. Maybe sometime I will.

You have the entire collection of historical documents held in the Bible. Most of the NT is not written as an intended tome on Christ, but rather are letters and such bearing witness of the actions seen by the men who were present when Christ did the things he did.

The NT is, in effect, a collection of eye witness testimonies.

Either the apostles got together and formed an elaborate conspiracy to defraud the world as a whole, or they are truthfully relaying what they saw.

If their statements are true, than we are talking about a man who could raise the dead, walk on water, create something from nothing in violation of all modern understandings of physics, transform matter at will etc… All things beyond the power of man.

Again I ask, what could WE show you that would convince you? All any one has to show you is historical documents, the traditions and teaching passed down from the witnesses, and the certitude we feel in our hearts. You’ve made it abundently clear that you don’t accept any of these forms of evidence.

I’ve seen a great many of the post you’ve made on here, and that you have already seen all the evidence we have to offer. That’s all there is, you can keep coming on here and asking, but no one has anything else to give you. No one here has a secret vault full of undeniable proof that we have been holding back for just the right moment.

You’ve already chosen to ignore all this. So why are you here?

Do you really want to believe, and are just waiting for someone to word it the right way for you? Or do you just like being argumentative and get your jollies off coming to forums like this?

Believe, or don’t, It’s your choice. No one up to and including the Lord is going to make you believe. If you’re really here for answers on the truth of this world, why don’t you try flipping the equation. Try assuming all we’re saying is true. Take it on faith, and see how living your life that way for a bit goes. Then see if you can find any “proof” that we are wrong.

 

[JRKH]

Sometimes a very misguided reference. Catholics do believe that honest, self-giving love between two adults of the same sex is either not love (I actually heard that before) or it is unnatural, or perverse.

Please don’t confuse “love” with “Lust”.

Sorry, that does not wash. Either the belief in God is an actual prerequisite, or it is not. You can’t have both ways.

Your statement, to which I responded, did not have to do with those who do not believe but those who believe differently.

I reject the arguments, but that does not mean that I reject what the argument is all about. These are two, very different things.

Then you leave open the possiblity. This is good.

Only if the bridge is there, visible, touchable, etc… it is not irrational to believe the existence of an invisible, untouchable, etc… bridge.

Agreed.

There is no law of nature which will condemn loving people to hell, if their love is not expressed in a form which is endorsed by the Catholic Church.

At least none that you know of - or will accept at this time.

In a finite life (and this life here on Earth is definitely finite) there are no infinite chances.
As you say, but I hope this particular point will not prevent you from considering the rest of the point. I’ll repeat with a slight modification. You speak of and question God’s mercy. What about the need for our response to that grace and Mercy? You say that infinite Love should give infinite chances to reform. What about when the person, given “every chance” in this life refuses to respond?

Peace
James

 

[R_Daneel]

Please don’t confuse “love” with “Lust”.

I do not confuse them. Do you really say that homosexual people are incapable of honest, true love?

Your statement, to which I responded, did not have to do with those who do not believe but those who believe differently.

What about those who do not believe at all? Jesus said that there is no way to the father, except through him. The Catholic Church says something similar.

At least none that you know of - or will accept at this time.

And do you know of a law of nature of this kind?

As you say, but I hope this particular point will not prevent you from considering the rest of the point. I’ll repeat with a slight modification. You speak of and question God’s mercy. What about the need for our response to that grace and Mercy? You say that infinite Love should give infinite chances to reform. What about when the person, given “every chance” in this life refuses to respond?

Well, in that case an infinitely loving and merciful being would extend it to the next. Isn’t that what inifinite means? I am definitely not of this kind. My tolerance is most certainly finite. But when I was a professor, I kept on asking questions until I was able to “coerce” (not verbatim) an answer which allowed me to pass that poor student. And passing an exam is also infinitely less important than being thrown into the eternal hellfie, where the flames are not quenched.