Agnosticism

[Contarini]

In counterpoint to Atreyu, I would say go directly to Aquinas. Kreeft is regarded as the Second Coming of Aquinas by many, but I’ve found him to be an insufferable hack, awful writer, and Z-list pop-philosopher.

I would say that he’s somewhere in between! I think he’s a decent writer but certainly not anywhere near the stature of C. S. Lewis, much less Aquinas.

I.e., on a scale on which Lewis is ten, Kreeft might be four or five, and Aquinas would be. . . . 100! (That’s as a thinker–as a writer Lewis is the best of the three, though Aquinas’s crisp technical prose is very impressive, and his hymns are great.)

Edwin

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You’re thinking of at least two different people. Anselm quoted David, ‘the fool hath said in his heart…’; and Blaise Pascal, whose wager is perhaps the most atrocious piece of philosophical tripe to have come out of the great thinkers of Europe. I described it once elsewhere as the cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics, and I stand by that.

Well sorry, it is after all a pure choice is it not? You may describe it however you like, you have offered no argument at all. And it needs none, if as I said, you choose otherwise. Is there some logical superiority held by agnostics or atheists? as they see it?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is called Pascal’s Wager.

The major refutation of the wager is that it is not an either or choice. There are thousands of Gods that have been or are being worshipped all over the world. What if you choose to believe in the wrong God? Will the right God be p*ssed and send you to hell anyway?

Pascal should have stuck to science.

Sorry I mentioned it. Someone has a problem and you guys are all embroiled in a fairly meaningless conversation about Pascal. And yes, Pascal’s audience made the choice quite clear. Sorry to the OP who has the problem…this sure isnt helping I know.

 

[Aleii]

Only the final “mistake” of actually positively REJECTING, not merely “not fully understanding/accepting”, God, gains hell for you.

The only “tiny blip of time” that matters is the minute moment between your being alive and your being dead. If you let that moment pass without saying, “God, as you are, have mercy on me!”, in spirit, then the following eternity will be occupied with none of God’s mercy.

humans err all the time. It is the concept of eternal torture for an err in one small bit of time that looks incompatible for a God of infinite compassion. Would there be anything a child could do to you that you would never welcome them back home, no matter what they did afterwards to try to reconcile with you? Would you not travel to great lengths to rehabilitate your child if they were on drugs, would you not endure tremendous pain to get your child on the right path and spare them from harm? God is infinitely more just and compassionate as humans, so whatever you answer, God has a better answer. There is a huge amount of gray area for hell, and I know there is a potential for this post to debate one of many hypothetical and rebut hypothetical with hypothetical, and thus be not as clear as I would desire.

Many would argue that if you are not Catholic and don’t have faith in Jesus, that you are very unlikely to end up in a place other than hell, even if you worship God in another way and are a good person. If this is true, there are many people who lead good lives, are good husbands and wives, care for their children, do good works, pray, and still would be damned. In an earlier post, people in hell were described as mostly having not believed its existence in the first place. Does not having belief something exists really count for full and clear knowledge of what they are doing? You personally know there exists other religions. If one of them happened to be right, how just would it be to give you eternal punishment for that err? Really though, if the choices were obvious A: heaven or B: hell, how many people would actively choose hell with full and clear knowledge?

Most agnostics actually DO hold that “intent” in their being, but the price for stopping there, and not truly discovering God, is some serious time in the you-know-where place.

Agnostics may be cowards, which is true not because they “reasonably decide that God can’t be proved” but because they don’t do their due diligence in a subject that they DO consider important,… but even cowards are preferable to the inhumilitous (?) [those without humility] atheist who actually thinks he has proof that God doesn’t exist.

There are different types of atheists, not all think that they can prove God doesn’t exist

 

[ricmat]

humans err all the time. It is the concept of eternal torture for an err in one small bit of time that looks incompatible for a God of infinite compassion. Would there be anything a child could do to you that you would never welcome them back home, no matter what they did afterwards to try to reconcile with you? Would you not travel to great lengths to rehabilitate your child if they were on drugs, would you not endure tremendous pain to get your child on the right path and spare them from harm? God is infinitely more just and compassionate as humans, so whatever you answer, God has a better answer. There is a huge amount of gray area for hell, and I know there is a potential for this post to debate one of many hypothetical and rebut hypothetical with hypothetical, and thus be not as clear as I would desire.

**Many would argue that if you are not Catholic and don’t have faith in Jesus, that you are very unlikely to end up in a place other than hell, even if you worship God in another way and are a good person. ** If this is true, there are many people who lead good lives, are good husbands and wives, care for their children, do good works, pray, and still would be damned. In an earlier post, people in hell were described as mostly having not believed its existence in the first place. Does not having belief something exists really count for full and clear knowledge of what they are doing? You personally know there exists other religions. If one of them happened to be right, how just would it be to give you eternal punishment for that err? **Really though, if the choices were obvious A: heaven or B: hell, how many people would actively choose hell with full and clear knowledge? **

There are different types of atheists, not all think that they can prove God doesn’t exist

Actually, Catholic teaching is that you can get to heaven without being Catholic, and even without knowing Jesus - if you lead a good life.

In terms of actively choosing hell with full and clear knowledge - I recommend reading the short book “The Great Divorce” by CS Lewis. You can probably get it at the library. It covers this subject in the form of a sort of sci-fi / fantasy parable PLEASE, if this is truly of interest to you, read this book. It only takes an hour or two.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
You see “the wager” as ineffectual because you don’t accept the basic premise, “singular omnipotent God as the only possibility”, which DOES majorly immasculate the “weapon”.

And because the Wager does not account for any other possibility, it’s a completely useless argument. In fact, Pascal didn’t even account for different mutually exclusive monotheist faiths – or even exclusive denominations within a single one!

That is quite right. It’s a “wager” that only makes sense between parties who agree to the ground rules.

Since you don’t agree with the ground rules, it naturally doesn’t even apply to you as anything near coherent “argument”.

Quote:
But, the “weapon” is not aiming at what your “shield” is protecting.

I am not protecting any part of my person – I probably should start, though, given your seeming intent to violate me with an uncomfortably Freudian metaphor, potentially with olives –

I too very much dislike being violated by anything Freudian, and most especially metaphores of that bent, with or without olives…

I am telling you that your weapon of choice is, shall we say, all too inadequately endowed. It is a toy without batteries. It does not work, it does not do the job, it does not satisfy.

You’re quite right…! It’s not meant to do what you think it is meant to do,… that’s why it is so “ineffectual” in doing what you think it’s supposed to do.

It’s not meant to “harpoon you”,… it’s meant to test for that which you are protecting. Once we know what you’re protecting, which is your intellect and non-understanding of the subject in question, it’s done it’s job without harming what it wasn’t aiming at,… your intellect.

You take that as a win, because no harm was done to the supposed (by you) target. The actual target was exposed quite well though, by the “test” of the wager.

We take that as a win, because it shows clearly that you don’t understand what the argument is about at all.

Quote:
Even a cocktail-saber can kill if “applied well” to an unprotected vital organ.

The only unprotected vital organ Pascal’s Wager is effective against is an uneducated, unreasoning mind.

My point exactly.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Only the final “mistake” of actually positively REJECTING, not merely “not fully understanding/accepting”, God, gains hell for you.

The only “tiny blip of time” that matters is the minute moment between your being alive and your being dead. If you let that moment pass without saying, “God, as you are, have mercy on me!”, in spirit, then the following eternity will be occupied with none of God’s mercy.

humans err all the time. It is the concept of eternal torture for an err in one small bit of time that looks incompatible for a God of infinite compassion.

Your concept of “infinite compassion” equates to “non-justice”.

Another of the mysteries of Christianity is the simultaneous existence of God as “all merciful” and “all just”. The two things can’t logically exist at the same time,… yet they do in God.

You choose to “break” the mystery, in typical “gnostic fashion”, by finding one side of the mystery superior to the other.

You choose God to be “all merciful” and not “all just”.

That is simply incorrect, as we are told that God is both “all merciful” AND “all just”.

Would there be anything a child could do to you that you would never welcome them back home, no matter what they did afterwards to try to reconcile with you?

We are given a timeframe in which to learn. If we fail in that learning, we shall learn the consequences of not learning properly.

There is no “doing afterwards to try to reconcile” because there is no “doing” after the time of doing is passed.

No one remains a child forever. Men grow up.

Would you not travel to great lengths to rehabilitate your child if they were on drugs, would you not endure tremendous pain to get your child on the right path and spare them from harm?

What if the child simply refuses to tread the “right path”?

God does not violate men’s free will to choose, which is what is required to “change the mind” of one who will not have their mind changed.

God is infinitely more just and compassionate as humans, so whatever you answer, God has a better answer. There is a huge amount of gray area for hell, and I know there is a potential for this post to debate one of many hypothetical and rebut hypothetical with hypothetical, and thus be not as clear as I would desire.

Many would argue that if you are not Catholic and don’t have faith in Jesus, that you are very unlikely to end up in a place other than hell, even if you worship God in another way and are a good person. If this is true, there are many people who lead good lives, are good husbands and wives, care for their children, do good works, pray, and still would be damned.

Someone might argue that, but I’d argue that that is God’s business, and no man should concern themselves with the final disposition of ANY other man, especially one who is not seen to be actively doing evil.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

In an earlier post, people in hell were described as mostly having not believed its existence in the first place. Does not having belief something exists really count for full and clear knowledge of what they are doing? You personally know there exists other religions. If one of them happened to be right, how just would it be to give you eternal punishment for that err?

The simple fact is that all religions are more of less “right” about what being “close to God” means.

God knows the hearts of men, and will place them correctly according to His criteria.

You see a competition between religions. Actually, you see all religions as “perversions” of “real religion”. But only the cultural parts of religions can war with one another. The parts that are “right” can only agree with one another.

God doesn’t like seeing the cultural parts warring. God does like seeing the true parts agreeing.

Only those people more concerned with cultural warfare which contradicts their “known” true (God directed) parts such that they sin are “damned” for it.

Really though, if the choices were obvious A: heaven or B: hell, how many people would actively choose hell with full and clear knowledge?

Hell is NOT a choice…! (How many times must this be said!)

The choice is God or not God.

Quote: Most agnostics actually DO hold that “intent” in their being, but the price for stopping there, and not truly discovering God, is some serious time in the you-know-where place.

Agnostics may be cowards, which is true not because they “reasonably decide that God can’t be proved” but because they don’t do their due diligence in a subject that they DO consider important,… but even cowards are preferable to the inhumilitous (?) [those without humility] atheist who actually thinks he has proof that God doesn’t exist.

There are different types of atheists, not all think that they can prove God doesn’t exist

All atheists always have a personal proof that God, for them, doesn’t exist. If they don’t then they are agnostics.

That you choose not to believe that is not my problem.

 

[Aleii]

ricmat:

Actually, Catholic teaching is that you can get to heaven without being Catholic, and even without knowing Jesus - if you lead a good life.

Right, the Church teaches this possibility, but there is still a lot of uncertainty and confusion surrounding this.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=174058
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=182972
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=182114
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=175113

Thanks for the book suggestion, I’ll request it from the library this coming week.

Keikiolu: First off, breathe easy, and smile You seem slightly frustrated in your two posts to me. I’m not here to demean the religion, only dialogue about it and learn something along the way. If my posts are making you upset please realize that I do not hold that intention.

Anyways, on to it.

Your concept of “infinite compassion” equates to “non-justice”.

Another of the mysteries of Christianity is the simultaneous existence of God as “all merciful” and “all just”. The two things can’t logically exist at the same time,… yet they do in God.

Why can’t mercy logically coexist with justice? Punishment can and should be a tool of mercy, such as when used to teach and rehabilitate.

You choose to “break” the mystery, in typical “gnostic fashion”, by finding one side of the mystery superior to the other.

You choose God to be “all merciful” and not "all just”. That is simply incorrect, as we are told that God is both “all merciful” AND “all just”.

A little further in my post I wrote “God is infinitely more just and compassionate [than] humans,” so please clarify where in my post I have conveyed that idea you state, so I may rephrase that portion.

We are given a timeframe in which to learn. If we fail in that learning, we shall learn the consequences of not learning properly.

There is no “doing afterwards to try to reconcile” because there is no “doing” after the time of doing is passed.

No one remains a child forever. Men grow up.

Men still have parents whom they respect and learn from well into old age. A generally accepted analogy often used is that humans are the children of God the parent. I am relating that, in general, parents do not stop giving their adult children chances to make things right. If you disagree with the parent-child analogy then we can instead turn the focus to other points of interest.

Hell is considered a permanence. If humans will generally always give their children more chances, and God is superior in mercy and justice, then it seems as though it is illogical that our chances end after a certain time with God, especially when the conditions warranting eternal punishment are not clearly defined and understood by all humans.

What if the child simply refuses to tread the “right path”?

God does not violate men’s free will to choose, which is what is required to “change the mind” of one who will not have their mind changed.

The door will still be open for the child even if they refuse to tread the right path, in hopes that they may oneday choose to. As to the second part, I fail to see how ensuring men have proper information and understanding would violate their free will.

Someone might argue that, but I’d argue that that is God’s business, and no man should concern themselves with the final disposition of ANY other man, especially one who is not seen to be actively doing evil.

I agree that we should not look at our neighbor and say “you are going to hell because XYZ”. However, as questions about hell are some of the issues that bring people into crisis of faith, overall discussion about general ideas and understandings are valid.

The simple fact is that all religions are more of less “right” about what being “close to God” means.

God knows the hearts of men, and will place them correctly according to His criteria.

Right, and this is the way I have been able to partially reconcile this issue.
continued

 

[Aleii]

You see a competition between religions. Actually, you see all religions as “perversions” of “real religion”. But only the cultural parts of religions can war with one another. The parts that are “right” can only agree with one another.

God doesn’t like seeing the cultural parts warring. God does like seeing the true parts agreeing.

Only those people more concerned with cultural warfare which contradicts their “known” true (God directed) parts such that they sin are “damned” for it.

My quote you mentioned was in relationship to the idea that non-Catholics are likely to go to hell because they are in the wrong religion, and thus, don’t i.e get sacraments such as confession and are therefore much more likely to die in a state of mortal sin.

Hell is NOT a choice…! (How many times must this be said!)

The choice is God or not God.

How am I disagreeing with you? I said that were hell a simple choice laid out on paper, few to none would choose it. I am saying I wish it were that clear cut. I am saying it would be nice if the terms were clear, if people knew what they were thrown into. I am saying that it would be nice if people definitively knew they would have a “test” when they died, and the subject matter, and the grave consequences, so they could adequately prepare, considering its massive significance.

What would you think if I told you that I would give you a test in 1 week; if you failed I’d shoot you? Wouldn’t you want to know exactly what the test was about, the type of test(physical or mental, short answer, essay, multiple choice), the time you could have for the test, what was considered passing, where on your body you would be shot if you failed, if there was extra credit or any substitutions for taking the test? Wouldn’t you like time to ask these and other questions so you could have full clarity about what was going to happen and how to best prepare?

All atheists always have a personal proof that God, for them, doesn’t exist. If they don’t then they are agnostics.

That you choose not to believe that is not my problem.

The line is thin between the definitions of atheists that we are talking about, and is easy to confuse. See the quote below

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. “Weak atheism” is simple skepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. “Strong atheism” is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are “strong atheists.” There is a qualitative difference in the “strong” and “weak” positions; it’s not just a matter of degree.
Some atheists believe in the nonexistence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.
“But isn’t disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn’t exist?”
Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism…

infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

Have a restful Sunday

 

[angelusm]

Faith basically states that you believe in something based on absolutely no evidence at all.

That’s not true. Many catholic miracles are are confirmed and are simply FACTS. Read about Fatima (thousands of witnesses!), padre Pio, Faustina, Lourdes, Guadalupe…

My theory on Gods punishment to sinners is probably the greatest punishment of of all, being thrown into non-existance.

Your soul is immortal so non-existence is impossible. All of us will exist forever, either in heaven or in hell.

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

A generally accepted analogy often used is that humans are the children of God the parent. I am relating that, in general, parents do not stop giving their adult children chances to make things right.

God is our Father. Our Father has set certain conditions. One of those is that, regardless of how He WANTS us to choose Him, we are fully and completely free to not choose Him while we CAN choose Him, and we must make our choice between being “alive” on earth and “alive” after-earth.

If you disagree with the parent-child analogy then we can instead turn the focus to other points of interest.

I do agree with you on the “parent-ness” of God, but you are unclear of what “parent” means.

Hell is considered a permanence. If humans will generally always give their children more chances, and God is superior in mercy and justice, then it seems as though it is illogical that our chances end after a certain time with God, especially when the conditions warranting eternal punishment are not clearly defined and understood by all humans.

But, your “difficulty” is that you insist on YOUR “logic” over that of God…!

God has TOLD us, in no uncertain terms, that there IS in fact a time after which the decision to choose Him ends.

If you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe revelation. If you don’t believe revelation, then the entire subject of “the ends of things” is utterly meaningless to you.

Quote:What if the child simply refuses to tread the “right path”?God does not violate men’s free will to choose, which is what is required to “change the mind” of one who will not have their mind changed.
The door will still be open for the child even if they refuse to tread the right path, in hopes that they may oneday choose to. As to the second part, I fail to see how ensuring men have proper information and understanding would violate their free will.

Your use of the word “proper” shows perfectly where you’re coming from. You impose your views as “more right” than God’s.

Therefore,…

…you see no problem in believing that God sets no timeframes or limits, because to you that would be “cruel” or “rude”.

…you see no problem in believing that God should fully inform all creatures such that they will be guaranteed “heaven”, because to do otherwise is to be “rude” and “cruel”.

Your “arguments” replace God with YOU, which is choosing you over God, which puts you in a curious place relative to the required “final decision”, now, doesn’t it?

Perhaps God WILL give those in hell another choice at some point. Who knows? But we have no hint of that. I’d be a bit nervous of relying on that supposition if I had ANY belief in God as revealed to us.

Quote:

Someone might argue that, but I’d argue that that is God’s business, and no man should concern themselves with the final disposition of ANY other man, especially one who is not seen to be actively doing evil.
I agree that we should not look at our neighbor and say “you are going to hell because XYZ”. However, as questions about hell are some of the issues that bring people into crisis of faith, overall discussion about general ideas and understandings are valid.

Absolutely…! The reality of hell SHOULD drive people into the truth, and not out of it. How and why do some people use hell to LEAVE that which is there only to help them choose truth?

The answer? Because they come up with “fantasies” to explain that hell is not a reality.

Quote:

The simple fact is that all religions are more of less “right” about what being “close to God” means.

God knows the hearts of men, and will place them correctly according to His criteria.
Right, and this is the way I have been able to partially reconcile this issue.

If you are “partially reconciled” with the existence of relative levels of truth in the world’s religions, then you aren’t “reconciled” with it at all.

Until you “choose one”, and see where it takes you, you’ll be hanging out in the “hallway” of God’s presence, and be as interesting to talk to about religion as one who’s never been into any of the rooms of the “mansion” yet claims to tell us of the spectacular particulars of the “Grand Hall”, and the marvelous portraiture of the “Family Dining Room”.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:You see a competition between religions. Actually, you see all religions as “perversions” of “real religion”. But only the cultural parts of religions can war with one another. The parts that are “right” can only agree with one another.

God doesn’t like seeing the cultural parts warring. God does like seeing the true parts agreeing.

Only those people more concerned with cultural warfare which contradicts their “known” true (God directed) parts such that they sin are “damned” for it.

My quote you mentioned was in relationship to the idea that non-Catholics are likely to go to hell because they are in the wrong religion, and thus, don’t i.e get sacraments such as confession and are therefore much more likely to die in a state of mortal sin.

OK. So what? What’s you point in that rather obvious statement?

My point was that you see thorough belief in ANY religion as being a “bad thing” because no one religion can be truly thoroughly believable.

That is where you are wrong. But there IS only one religion that does qualify as thoroughly believable.

Quote:Hell is NOT a choice…! (How many times must this be said!)

The choice is God or not God.

How am I disagreeing with you? I said that were hell a simple choice laid out on paper, few to none would choose it. I am saying I wish it were that clear cut.

The weird thing is that it is,… you just have some, to some extent or other, self imposed “thing” in the way preventing you from seeing “the page” on which is written how to correctly choose things.

You actually DO know how to choose,… you, like me, simply choose what we know is what we shouldn’t choose because we CHOOSE to, under the influence of, well,… you know.

I am saying it would be nice if the terms were clear, if people knew what they were thrown into. I am saying that it would be nice if people definitively knew they would have a “test” when they died, and the subject matter, and the grave consequences, so they could adequately prepare, considering its massive significance.

Uh,… how many times must I say THIS: The fact of the test is certain, if you believe, and the fact of the consequences of the test as “really REALLY important” is certain, if you believe.

So, the real question is why does God leave us to either believe or not to believe?

Because, to give us a choice that no one would choose is to take away our free will to choose in that matter. God doesn’t do that.

What would you think if I told you that I would give you a test in 1 week; if you failed I’d shoot you? Wouldn’t you want to know exactly what the test was about, the type of test(physical or mental, short answer, essay, multiple choice), the time you could have for the test, what was considered passing, where on your body you would be shot if you failed, if there was extra credit or any substitutions for taking the test? Wouldn’t you like time to ask these and other questions so you could have full clarity about what was going to happen and how to best prepare?

But you have all that information…! The only question is whether or not you choose to believe the Teacher is who He says He is, and that He tells only the truth.

If you don’t believe the Teacher exists and has spoken to you, even though He has, whose problem is it that you do as you do on the upcoming test?

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote: All atheists always have a personal proof that God, for them, doesn’t exist. If they don’t then they are agnostics.

That you choose not to believe that is not my problem.

The line is thin between the definitions of atheists that we are talking about, and is easy to confuse. See the quote below

Ugh…

Quote: It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. “Weak atheism” is simple skepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. “Strong atheism” is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are “strong atheists.” There is a qualitative difference in the “strong” and “weak” positions; it’s not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the nonexistence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

“But isn’t disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn’t exist?”

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism…
infidels.org/library/mode…hew/intro.html

Which is utter rubish.

“Weak atheism” is agnosticism, which is simply cowardly atheism.

“Strong atheism” is bold atheism.

Not believing something is true IS believing that it is false, as a truth.

The mind who believes otherwise is of interest only as a freakish carnival amusement.

 

[Keikiolu]

OOPS,… I posted this to the wrong THREAD…!

It preceeds the posting above. Sorry…!

Quote:

Originally Posted by #49 Aleii forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Quote: (Keikiolu)Your concept of “infinite compassion” equates to “non-justice”.Another of the mysteries of Christianity is the simultaneous existence of God as “all merciful” and “all just”. The two things can’t logically exist at the same time,… yet they do in God. Why can’t mercy logically coexist with justice? Punishment can and should be a tool of mercy, such as when used to teach and rehabilitate.​

​

​

Hell is not a punishment. Hell is a result. God doesn’t punish with hell. Hell is the result of finally not choosing God.

Once you accept that the final choice has been directly after that moment between life and death, the result of that choice, which is FINAL as we are told it is final, which therefore CAN’T be “rehabilitated out of” because it’s FINAL, is respected by God because He has said He will never violate our free will.

ABSOLUTE mercy (the forgiveness of ALL errors under any condition) can’t logically coexist with ABSOLUTE justice (the rightful consequences for doing good and evil) because they are definitionally mutually exclusive.

Quote:

Quote:You choose to “break” the mystery, in typical “gnostic fashion”, by finding one side of the mystery superior to the other.You choose God to be “all merciful” and not "all just”. That is simply incorrect, as we are told that God is both “all merciful” AND “all just”. A little further in my post I wrote “God is infinitely more just and compassionate [than] humans,” so please clarify where in my post I have conveyed that idea you state, so I may rephrase that portion.
​

​

My response was “formulated” as it was because your proposition that “all mercy” and “all justice” can’t logically exist simultaneously. My perception of one who chooses one side of a mystery over another (when both are true) to “justify” a “solution” to a mystery is a herecy in the vein of the “gnostics”, who “reason out” mysteries, making them “non-mysteries”.

The fact that God is infinitely more just and merciful than men, which is true of course, has nothing to do with your stated position (though you don’t even see yourself POSITING that position) that both “all merciful” and “all just” exist at the same time in God.

Quote:

Quote:We are given a timeframe in which to learn. If we fail in that learning, we shall learn the consequences of not learning properly.There is no “doing afterwards to try to reconcile” because there is no “doing” after the time of doing is passed.No one remains a child forever. Men grow up. Men still have parents whom they respect and learn from well into old age.
​

​

God has said that there comes a time when men must make the final decision. Since that is true, and since the consequences of that decision are irrevocable, it doesn’t matter in the least how long the “parent” lives relative to the “child”.

You don’t accept that this “final time of decision” is real, because you don’t fully accept mortality as real. Were you a young person, that would be quite a normal thing for you to believe. Were you a “wiser” person, that would be a positive act of self delusion.

 

[Aleii]

God is our Father. Our Father has set certain conditions. One of those is that, regardless of how He WANTS us to choose Him, we are fully and completely free to not choose Him while we CAN choose Him, and we must make our choice between being “alive” on earth and “alive” after-earth. I do agree with you on the “parent-ness” of God, but you are unclear of what “parent” means. But, your “difficulty” is that you insist on YOUR “logic” over that of God…!

God has TOLD us, in no uncertain terms, that there IS in fact a time after which the decision to choose Him ends.

If you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe revelation. If you don’t believe revelation, then the entire subject of “the ends of things” is utterly meaningless to you. Your use of the word “proper” shows perfectly where you’re coming from. You impose your views as “more right” than God’s.

Therefore,…

…you see no problem in believing that God sets no timeframes or limits, because to you that would be “cruel” or “rude”.

Timeframes are not necessarily bad. Timeframes in which you will not ever get another chance? Yes, I see that as cruel for an all-powerful God who knows how fallible His creation is.

…you see no problem in believing that God should fully inform all creatures such that they will be guaranteed “heaven”, because to do otherwise is to be “rude” and “cruel”.

Why would everyone be guaranteed heaven; wouldn’t free will still exist and only ignorance be demolished? How does having accurate information take away free will? Do educators take away your free will by making you less ignorant of the world? No, in most cases you have desired the knowledge and pursued it by enrolling in classes, reading books, etc.

I have wondered about this for a while, and asked this question before, and the answer I have received is: If you have the information, the choice would be obvious to serve God, or I’ve also received: If you have the information, your choice on whether or not to believe God is real is taken away. So how about this then, “God I choose not to be ignorant, please provide me with clear concrete information I can understand so that I can make a decision, not based on error, not based upon deception, not based upon lies I have heard, but based upon truth, about whether or not to follow you” Why is this a bad thing? Why would taking away ignorance take away my free will? I sincerely do not understand this part, and would be more than happy to choose to have the information rather than stumble around in the dark(how much is really gained by that?).

Your “arguments” replace God with YOU, which is choosing you over God, which puts you in a curious place relative to the required “final decision”, now, doesn’t it?

There are a lot of religions out there that are not 100% truth, you agree with that. So you would agree that it would be good to be skeptical about religions that they may be false and lead a person down the wrong trail, correct? I believe this, and am simply applying it to every religion including Catholicism.

Concerning the argument: “if you think you have found logical errors with Catholicism, then you must put your trust in God and follow Catholicism logic, as your own is flawed.”, I have this to say: I could say the same thing to you and just replace “Catholicism” with “Religion XYZ”. I need to make sure I am not being deceived by Catholicism as much as I need to make sure I am not being deceived by religion XYZ. I can overcome seeing a few issues that do not make sense to me in a religion. But when items not only don’t make sense, but seem to be the opposite of what I’d expect, then I have to look deeper. It’s the only way I can honestly look for the truth.

Perhaps God WILL give those in hell another choice at some point. Who knows? But we have no hint of that. I’d be a bit nervous of relying on that supposition if I had ANY belief in God as revealed to us.

Yes, perhaps. There is so much grey surrounding heaven/hell.

Absolutely…! The reality of hell SHOULD drive people into the truth, and not out of it. How and why do some people use hell to LEAVE that which is there only to help them choose truth?

The answer? Because they come up with “fantasies” to explain that hell is not a reality.

Speaking for myself, I did not try to think up ways to explain away hell, it was never a goal. I tried (and wow, am still trying) to find a way to reconcile the issues.

If you are “partially reconciled” with the existence of relative levels of truth in the world’s religions, then you aren’t “reconciled” with it at all.

I guess not. It gave me some newfound religious structure, and kept my faith going a little longer, though the weight of other issues brought the building down.

 

[Aleii]

Until you “choose one”, and see where it takes you, you’ll be hanging out in the “hallway” of God’s presence, and be as interesting to talk to about religion as one who’s never been into any of the rooms of the “mansion” yet claims to tell us of the spectacular particulars of the “Grand Hall”, and the marvelous portraiture of the “Family Dining Room”.

Are you saying I shouldn’t talk about Catholicism when I’m not one? I’ve been a Catholic a good portion of my life, if that is what you are referring to. I was quite involved with the faith: daily masses or devotions, retreats, weekly rosaries, church volunteering, confessions, etc.

OK. So what? What’s you point in that rather obvious statement?

My point was that you see thorough belief in ANY religion as being a “bad thing” because no one religion can be truly thoroughly believable.

That is where you are wrong. But there IS only one religion that does qualify as thoroughly believable.

While religion is what I have issue with, I don’t see it as a bad thing necessarily. See post #17 where I said “Having religion is not a bad thing, it just is.” Just seems easy to make a mistake and follow the wrong religion and be in much danger of hell because of a person’s misunderstanding, which does not seem right (if certain portions about hell are true, again, much grey). The majority of the world is in that predicament right now if Catholicism is true.

Uh,… how many times must I say THIS: The fact of the test is certain, if you believe, and the fact of the consequences of the test as “really REALLY important” is certain, if you believe.

So, the real question is why does God leave us to either believe or not to believe?

Because, to give us a choice that no one would choose is to take away our free will to choose in that matter. God doesn’t do that.

I partially responded to this above. For some reason I am not getting across to you that I know you are saying it is fact if you believe. I am saying it would be nice if the rest of us knew it was fact. I will freely give up my ignorance to know whether or not hell is a fact so I can make an informed choice. Who knows, there probably is a person or two who would choose hell. The bottom line is this: Christians are telling me one thing, Scientologists are telling me another, religion XYZ is telling me another.

But you have all that information…! The only question is whether or not you choose to believe the Teacher is who He says He is, and that He tells only the truth.

If you don’t believe the Teacher exists and has spoken to you, even though He has, whose problem is it that you do as you do on the upcoming test?

That’s the problem! I also have the information about Xenu, Scientologists would argue, and a multitude of others. I can find people of every religion who will tell me of heartfelt visions, their deep faith, and why they are correct over the others. They all look the same to me. I don’t have the information that tells me that the stories in this particular book - the Bible, and not the others, are fact.

Concerning strong/weak atheism definitions, not all atheists would agree with what you state. Perhaps that would be a good discussion to start with the author of that paragraph.

Hell is not a punishment. Hell is a result. God doesn’t punish with hell. Hell is the result of finally not choosing God.

Once you accept that the final choice has been directly after that moment between life and death, the result of that choice, which is FINAL as we are told it is final, which therefore CAN’T be “rehabilitated out of” because it’s FINAL, is respected by God because He has said He will never violate our free will.

see above

ABSOLUTE mercy (the forgiveness of ALL errors under any condition) can’t logically coexist with ABSOLUTE justice (the rightful consequences for doing good and evil) because they are definitionally mutually exclusive.

I defined mercy as compassion, not as letting someone off the hook. The Bible talks about God being both merciful and just. See here for definition of mercy as kind/compassionate that I was using. bibleinsong.com/Promises/Spiritual_blessings/Gods_mercy/Gods_mercy.htm
My thoughts are that God can lovingly forgive and justly punish that same person, and still be considered infinitely fair and kind. Would you say that all punishments are unkind? I would not. Maybe its simply semantics that are getting in the way? Maybe the words perfectly merciful and perfectly just would be better suited? Continued below

 

[Aleii]

I was not sure how to clearly put my response to this in words when utilizing the definition of mercy purely as leniency, so I did a little research and found a paper that explains my thoughts better than I could.

My tentative suggestion is that a judge exercises mercy when she imposes a sentence that is: (1) more lenient than what would normally be expected in a case of this sort; (2) yet just, based on consideration of a range of mitigating factors broader than what would be standard in sentencing a criminal like this one for the same crime. On this understanding, the merciful judge is “doing justice”—is imposing a deserved sentence—in light of all the relevant factors, including the non-standard mitigating factors she believes it appropriate to take into account. Her taking account of those factors is the exercise of mercy. Because she has no obligation to treat those mitigating factors as relevant, this exercise of mercy is “a free gift” that she has no obligation to exercise. But because the judge has in fact decided that these factors are relevant, justice requires that she give them weight in determining what sentence to impose, and in that respect mercy is simply one ingredient in determining what a just sentence would be. In short, the merciful judge is not one who thinks “I see what sentence this criminal deserves—but I feel like giving him a break.” Rather, the merciful judge, like one who does not show mercy, imposes on the defendant the sentence the judge believes he deserves, given the relevant circumstances—but takes a more expansive view than her hard-line colleague as to precisely what those circumstances are.

moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume4_2/Dolinko-PDF-03-11-07.pdf

This portion of our discussion is probably not a very important part, as it is just definitions, but I found the paper to be interesting.

God has said that there comes a time when men must make the final decision. Since that is true, and since the consequences of that decision are irrevocable, it doesn’t matter in the least how long the “parent” lives relative to the “child”.

You don’t accept that this “final time of decision” is real, because you don’t fully accept mortality as real. Were you a young person, that would be quite a normal thing for you to believe. Were you a “wiser” person, that would be a positive act of self delusion.

I fully accept mortality as real. I work in the medical field and am confronted with life and death and must help patients cope with the finality of it all. I am well aware of how fragile and finite this life is.

On that sad note, its time for bed!

Sleep well.

 

[ricmat]

That’s the problem! I also have the information about Xenu, Scientologists would argue, and a multitude of others. I can find people of every religion who will tell me of heartfelt visions, their deep faith, and why they are correct over the others. They all look the same to me. I don’t have the information that tells me that the stories in this particular book - the Bible, and not the others, are fact.

Perhaps this has been said, but even so it’s worth saying again.

Go ahead and take the other religions at face value. And look at Christianity.

Jesus said that he was God. Jesus rose from the dead. What other religions make such claims? How can they all look the same to you?

Yes, perhaps you currently have no reason to believe that these things are true, but again, what other religion even makes similar claims?

 

[Mirdath]

Jesus said that he was God. Jesus rose from the dead. What other religions make such claims? How can they all look the same to you?

Yes, perhaps you currently have no reason to believe that these things are true, but again, what other religion even makes similar claims?

Actually, rising from the dead is an incredibly common theme in myth and ancient religion. Gilgamesh, Aeneas, Orpheus, Heracles, and Odysseus all traveled to the land of the dead and returned. The goddess Persephone/Proserpine dies and rises every year in the summer-winter cycle – a theme one finds repeated in many, many other polytheistic religions. Osiris was killed and dismembered by Set, but sewn together and brought back to life by Isis. Hinduism and Buddhism claim everybody is resurrected until they attain nirvana. The mystery religion Mithraism is centered around a quasi-deity who died and was reborn. And this is barely scratching the surface.

Everybody wants a piece of resurrection. Fear of death is, after all, the great uniter. But selling your faith on a list of features cheapens and undermines it. What will you do when someone else has a resurrection plus a six-CD changer and a sunroof?

Christianity’s appeal, the differences that made it a good choice for someone in the market for a religion, weren’t really connected with the resurrection in the first place. That just got people in the door. Christianity promoted the idea of a loving God – one whom worshipers didn’t have to propitiate constantly, one whom they could see as a loving, close father instead of as a vaguely-interested master, and one who encouraged them to love as he did and would eventually take them to his own abode. The promised afterlife was also a distinctly happier place than, say, the dull and drab Hades.