All-loving God?

[Fomalhaut]

Hello,

I creating this thread after having read a post on another thread ( the Big Bang one ) and I didn’t want to further derail the dicussion there. Here is the post:

atheistgirl
**
If it turns out I’m wrong and there is life ever after, I’m going to be really really annoyed.**

Ah, you just gave yourself away with that “if.” You are willing to admit that you might be wrong, and yet you are willing to put yourself in the position of being everlastingly wrong, when you could have been everlastingly right. In the one case, you will never know. In the other case you will know, and everlastingly wish you didn’t.

I have a problem with that argument. It’s the good ol’ Pascal argument: why would you risk an eternity in hell ? My problem here is that sounds like a threat. When I read or hear people using that when trying to convert an atheist, I always picture them as a medieval crazy old preacher yelling threats about hell.

To the people agreeing with the post: what do you think can be achieved here ? Do you think a conversion out of fear is a good thing ? Would this kind of faith be sincere ? God is supposed to be an all-loving father, he punishes us because he loves us, etc. What would you think of a father trying to be loved by his children threatening them to lock them in a dark closet if they don’t ?

Moreover, I have an issue with Hell. Parents punish children because they love them: it’s for their own good, to teach them lessons. That way, they can do better choices later and have a better life. But eternal suffering…? That can’t be a lesson about not believing in God: I wouldn’t be able to apply it, ever. God creates a soul, allow it to walk around for ~80 years, and after that, if it didn’t make the right choice, he sends that soul to endure pain and horrible tortures for eternity ?

It sounds really extreme and unfair.

 

[OxygenMan]

It seems to me that using the threat of hell in an attempt to convert comes out of good intentions that have been distorted. It is often a real concern for the soul of the person, a desire that they embrace God’s compassion and seek salvation. But when they see a person deny that, they allow themselves to get angry and then try to threaten. It is not a good way, since it is both inspired by anger and it is not usually persuasive to someone of little faith.

As for the existence of hell itself, it is always difficult to reconcile that with God’s love. But it is not in His nature to allow evil to endure forever. Rejecting him leads to real harm, both physical and spiritual. Possessing free will, that decision lies on us. The prodigal son had two options; he could return to his father and seek forgiveness, or he could spend his days away in misery. It was his own choice. God wants us all to make the right choice.

That is one of the reasons that the Church was commanded to pass its teachings down and spread them at all times. It helps keep people who follow Christ within God’s grace.

 

[Formosus]

My problem with Pascal’s argument is that Truth is not a game of chance. If one truly believes that Christianity is wrong, then why should one lie to themselves and others just on the chance that it is correct. Real faith is not built on probability.

 

[Fomalhaut]

First, I am sorry if my first post seemed agressive or provocative. I had this feeling reading it again, but it was too late to edit. It really wasn’t my intention.

Why create us then ? Why create a consciousness and allow it not to make the right choice, so it suffers eternally ? He knew not everybody were going to abide by His law, so he deliberately created eternally suffering conscious beings ?

 

[Formosus]

I think there can be two ways of looking at hell. Hell is the furthest point from God that one can get, God is sending those who do not want to be with Him as far away from Him as He can, for their own good since being close to God would be a punishment for one who dislikes Him. Or Hell is God’s loving grace washing over one who hates and rejects Him, and thus they are tortured by their own rejection of God’s grace. Just my two cents.

(this was originally an edit to my previous post)

 

[Regina_Love]

I would expect upon hearing about Hell, or other such dangers that a person would investigate such claims to see if they need to be concerned. Inquiry is the first step. Threats are not attractive, however if a danger is real then the person is truely doing them a favor by giving them information.

 

[Fomalhaut]

My problem with Pascal’s argument is that Truth is not a game of chance. If one truly believes that Christianity is wrong, then why should one lie to themselves and others just on the chance that it is correct. Real faith is not built on probability.

That’s exactly what I’m talking about, no sincere faith can come out of this. This is merely a rationalization of faith, which by nature doesn’t need one.

Formosus:

I think there can be two ways of looking at hell. Hell is the furthest point from God that one can get, God is sending those who do not want to be with Him as far away from Him as He can, for their own good since being close to God would be a punishment for one who dislikes Him. Or Hell is God’s loving grace washing over one who hates and rejects Him, and thus they are tortured by their own rejection of God’s grace. Just my two cents.

Ok, so can we say these souls, while they are away from God, are suffering ? Whatever their situation actually is, it is definitely uncomfortable, right ?
Regina Gold:

I would expect upon hearing about Hell, or other such dangers that a person would investigate such claims to see if they need to be concerned. Inquiry is the first step. Threats are not attractive, however if a danger is real then the person is truely doing them a favor by giving them information.

Again, what is the person supposed to do when hearing about Hell ? Investigate on what Hell is ? Then what ? Accept God out of fear ? The very concept of Hell really looks like a manipulation tool for me I would find it all more coherent if the soul were to disappear completely after death if the person didn’t live a faithful life, whereas “good” people get to live forever in God’s bliss.

 

[po18guy]

Like contrition, conversion out of fear is a bare minimum - but excludes love, which must be the driving force in any conversion of heart.

For those who seek the truth, there is no better place to find your answer than in the presence of Christ. Go to a nearby parish when they offer adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Then, just go and sit. Ponder. Ask. Beg to know if He is there. Then, be patient. When you receive your answer, you will be changed. I have experienced too many miracles in Christ’s presence to ever doubt again.

Yet, it is far easier to argue and debate until one dies of old age. That is a harsh way to learn the truth.

 

[Sair]

I have a problem with that argument. It’s the good ol’ Pascal argument: why would you risk an eternity in hell ? My problem here is that sounds like a threat. When I read or hear people using that when trying to convert an atheist, I always picture them as a medieval crazy old preacher yelling threats about hell.

To the people agreeing with the post: what do you think can be achieved here ? Do you think a conversion out of fear is a good thing ? Would this kind of faith be sincere ? God is supposed to be an all-loving father, he punishes us because he loves us, etc. What would you think of a father trying to be loved by his children threatening them to lock them in a dark closet if they don’t ?

The other, more subtle aspect to Pascal’s wager is the idea that if you commit to belief in God, you lose nothing and gain - potentially - everything. This implies that you gain something in this life as well, of course, and I vehemently dispute this.

It’s very hard to quantify or describe what, precisely, one gains by believing in a godless universe. The best way I can explain it is that one’s sense of wonder increases, one’s value for life itself - in all its forms - increases, when you can appreciate it for itself alone, rather than a reflection of the character of a fundamentally human-like deity; when you feel, deep down, that it’s transitory. This might seem like a negative to those who invest belief in God and destiny and eternal life and so forth, but until you’ve experienced it, the difference - the elevating, inspiring difference - is impossible to appreciate.

And let’s not forget what we lose by committing to belief in the God of Classical Theism - Christopher Hitchens was not saying anything very radical when he compared the monotheistic heaven to North Korea - only one could not die and escape it. To be compelled to love a being one is also admonished to fear; to be “created sick and commanded to be well”, as Hitchens was also fond of quoting, is the very framework of a psychologically abusive relationship.

 

[Linux]

Hello,

I creating this thread after having read a post on another thread ( the Big Bang one ) and I didn’t want to further derail the dicussion there. Here is the post:

I have a problem with that argument. It’s the good ol’ Pascal argument: why would you risk an eternity in hell ? My problem here is that sounds like a threat. When I read or hear people using that when trying to convert an atheist, I always picture them as a medieval crazy old preacher yelling threats about hell.

To the people agreeing with the post: what do you think can be achieved here ? Do you think a conversion out of fear is a good thing ? Would this kind of faith be sincere ? God is supposed to be an all-loving father, he punishes us because he loves us, etc. What would you think of a father trying to be loved by his children threatening them to lock them in a dark closet if they don’t?

Moreover, I have an issue with Hell. Parents punish children because they love them: it’s for their own good, to teach them lessons. That way, they can do better choices later and have a better life. But eternal suffering…? That can’t be a lesson about not believing in God: I wouldn’t be able to apply it, ever. God creates a soul, allow it to walk around for ~80 years, and after that, if it didn’t make the right choice, he sends that soul to endure pain and horrible tortures for eternity?

It sounds really extreme and unfair.

Hell is analogously likened to punishment, but it is not punishment. Its not really a lake of fire. Like you said, punishment exists as a form of “teaching”. You are supposed to learn from suffering. Hell is absolute and therefore is not punishment in the human sense of the word. Hell is simply a spiritual state in contrast to the state that God intended for you. Hell is a privation of Heaven. The end purpose of life is eternal happiness. But eternal happiness is not necessarily what we think when humans talk about happiness either, especially when our idea of happiness includes the possession of material things or physical experiences. Heaven itself is intrinsic to the expression and willingness of moral virtue. The two are not separate in Christianity, and thus it is logically impossible to experience heaven if you do not want to be an eternal servant of moral truth. Neither does an individual truly desire heaven if he does not desire to be a servant of love.

It is not a matter of God torturing you because you did not do something he likes doing, but rather it is a matter of us ultimately rejecting Gods grace and therefore necessarily entering a spiritual state where Gods grace is absent in us; and hence the desire for heaven is absent in us also. Hell is eternal because we make it eternal, not because God wants us to suffer for eternity.

On the other hand it is also impossible to go to hell for that which is not in your control. We are all born into ignorance. Nobody has innate knowledge especially regarding spiritual matters. That is why not all people in heaven will be those who lived a Christian life. Rather, those who are honest in their heart, and surely intend that which is truly good, are the ones that will be saved. When speaking to an atheist, i am more interested in their honesty toward the truth rather than their actual conversion to Christianity. Their conversion is a private matter involving the individual and God; it has nothing to do with me, and neither can i claim that they will not go to heaven simply because of disbelief.

 

[Linux]

It’s very hard to quantify or describe what, precisely, one gains by believing in a godless universe. The best way I can explain it is that one’s sense of wonder increases, one’s value for life itself - in all its forms - increases, when you can appreciate it for itself alone, rather than a reflection of the character of a fundamentally human-like deity; when you feel, deep down, that it’s transitory. This might seem like a negative to those who invest belief in God and destiny and eternal life and so forth, but until you’ve experienced it, the difference - the elevating, inspiring difference - is impossible to appreciate.
.

Have you not considered that people become Christians precisely because they appreciate life for itself alone. This is to say that we are inspired by the world.

You value life for fear of death. Your “wonder” is pleasure in the fact of not knowing. And you like things for the different kinds of pleasure it gives to you.

A godless universe has no real or true value. Everything that humanity was will come to nothing. Its worthless. There is no moral value to it. It is a pointless state of being.

 

[Formosus]

That’s exactly what I’m talking about, no sincere faith can come out of this. This is merely a rationalization of faith, which by nature doesn’t need one.

Ok, so can we say these souls, while they are away from God, are suffering ? Whatever their situation actually is, it is definitely uncomfortable, right ?

Again, what is the person supposed to do when hearing about Hell ? Investigate on what Hell is ? Then what ? Accept God out of fear ? The very concept of Hell really looks like a manipulation tool for me I would find it all more coherent if the soul were to disappear completely after death if the person didn’t live a faithful life, whereas “good” people get to live forever in God’s bliss.

Being distant from God is the suffering of hell in the one analogy I gave, but its a suffering of one’s own choice. Or in a sense, it could be even more painful for a soul who rejects God to be in God’s presence, not because of God Himself, but because of the way the soul is rejecting the Grace given to it.

Heaven is hardly like North Korea. God does not compel people to love Him. He freely gives His Grace to all. How one accepts that Grace determines the effects.

 

[Sair]

Have you not considered that people become Christians precisely because they appreciate life for itself alone. This is to say that we are inspired by the world.

You value life for fear of death. Your “wonder” is pleasure in the fact of not knowing. And you like things for the different kinds of pleasure it gives to you.

A godless universe has no real or true value. Everything that humanity was will come to nothing. Its worthless. There is no moral value to it. It is a pointless state of being.

If you appreciate life for itself alone, why become Christian? If one is inspired by the world, why seek inspiration beyond it?

I don’t fear death - death is as much a part of nature as life; life would not be possible without death, in a naturalistic universe. The promise of Christianity is life everlasting, without death - if I truly feared death, I would be a Christian (or one of any number of religions that promise respite from death in one form or another). Of course I take pleasure in living - why should I not? And ‘pointless’ depends entirely on your perspective. If you think the only real meaning in life is to store up benefits for the afterlife, of course you’ll think earthly life is meaningless in itself.

The last depends upon what you consider ‘real’ and ‘true’ value - again, if you conceive this in relation to eternal life, you will think this life is meaningless in itself. And even if our lives are pointless in the universal scheme of things, it actually doesn’t matter, from our subjective point of view, that this is so. Life is plenty long enough and imbued with meaning for us, if we accept that we are temporal beings, alive here and now, with just this one opportunity to make what we can of our existence. The idea of eternity is just one of the ways monotheistic faith limits our possibilities in our earthly - and only, according to my belief - existence.

 

[Polycarp1]

What the Bible means by “the fear of the Lord” is far deeper than mere “respect.” You can have respect for policemen, and for debating partners, and even for money. But the “fear of the Lord” is something that takes its specific character from its object, from the Lord. It is awe. It is worship. It is wonder. It is absolute adoration. It is “islam,” total “submission” to God. This is precisely the thing absent from both modern religious education and from modern liturgy. The reason is simple: You can’t give what you don’t have; you can’t teach what you don’t know yourself. KREEFT

peterkreeft.com/topics/fear.htm

 

[Fomalhaut]

For those who seek the truth, there is no better place to find your answer than in the presence of Christ. Go to a nearby parish when they offer adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Then, just go and sit. Ponder. Ask. Beg to know if He is there.

I did it several times. I love churches, and places of prayers in general. However, I prefer to be alone, or with other people silently praying. The only services I’ve been to were for funerals or weddings, and I didn’t felt really spiritual at the time. For the formal part of faith, I prefer to refer to the Bible, which I am reading now. I tried talking to God, absolutely open-minded, but never felt anything. I don’t see it as a proof of non-existence, just that I remain agnostic.

Sair > It’s interesting to have the point of view of a Pantheist. There is something else about Pascal’s wager that bothers me. It is implied that if we choose to obey to God’s law and resist tentations, we may be loosing a bit of “fun” but we are gaining eternal bliss, which means that we are gaining everything since by definition, a finite period of time is nothing compared to infinity. However, if God doesn’t exist and our spirit disappear in death, whatever we did in our life is the only thing we will ever experience since we don’t exist anymore. “Everything” is eternal life if God exist, and material life is he doesn’t. So if He doesn’t and if we chose not to enjoy some of the pleasure of material life, we actually lose everything too ! There is no compensation ! Some of you may say that living by God’s law is a pleasure in itself, and that sinners are actually miserables, but the argument should be valid for non believers too, which won’t accept this as a fact (I don’t, reading the questions asked on this forum, quite a lot of catholics are pretty tortured with guilt).

Hell is analogously likened to punishment, but it is not punishment. Its not really a lake of fire. Like you said, punishment exists as a form of “teaching”. You are supposed to learn from suffering. Hell is absolute and therefore is not punishment in the human sense of the word. Hell is simply a spiritual state in contrast to the state that God intended for you. Hell is a privation of Heaven. The end purpose of life is eternal happiness. But eternal happiness is not necessarily what we think when humans talk about happiness either, especially when our idea of happiness includes the possession of material things or physical experiences. Heaven itself is intrinsic to the expression and willingness of moral virtue. The two are not separate in Christianity, and thus it is logically impossible to experience heaven if you do not want to be an eternal servant of moral truth. Neither does an individual truly desire heaven if he does not desire to be a servant of love.

It is not a matter of God torturing you because you did not do something he likes doing, but rather it is a matter of us ultimately rejecting Gods grace and therefore necessarily entering a spiritual state where Gods grace is absent in us; and hence the desire for heaven is absent in us also. Hell is eternal because we make it eternal, not because God wants us to suffer for eternity.

On the other hand it is also impossible to go to hell for that which is not in your control. We are all born into ignorance. Nobody has innate knowledge especially regarding spiritual matters. That is why not all people in heaven will be those who lived a Christian life. Rather, those who are honest in their heart, and surely intend that which is truly good, are the ones that will be saved. When speaking to an atheist, i am more interested in their honesty toward the truth rather than their actual conversion to Christianity. Their conversion is a private matter involving the individual and God; it has nothing to do with me, and neither can i claim that they will not go to heaven simply because of disbelief.

Are you catholic ? Your position is interesting of openness. So Heaven and Hell would be just states of souls… Would souls in Hell suffer too ? What about purgatory ? About your last paragraph, do you then believe an atheist can go to Heaven ?

 

[Dave_B]

t sounds really extreme and unfair.

You said it Nice to see a fellow agnostic.

Just close you eyes. Imagine pain. Imagine burning in fire. Imagine this going on for eternity.

Thats the future for the vast majority of people.

Not from me. This is what I learnt from the Anglican church

 

[Pugsly]

Hello,

…and after that, if it didn’t make the right choice, he sends that soul to endure pain and horrible tortures for eternity ?

It sounds really extreme and unfair.

The problem with “the God is too loving” to send anyone to hell argument…is that He doesn’t send people to hell. We’re standing in it.

Suppose you had the ability to CREATE…but if you did it would CREATE a shipwreck where people were thrashing about trying to stay afloat. You decide it is better to CREATE in order to rescue the people who would remain calm and obedient enough to hold on to you for safety…even though others would violently thrash and kick and make it impossible for you to save them…and therefore drown.
Question…did you heartlessly send these drowning people to the bottom in order to save those you rescued?

 

[tonyrey]

About your last paragraph, do you then believe an atheist can go to Heaven ?

Why not? What counts is not what we say but how we live!

 

[Linux]

If you appreciate life for itself alone, why become Christian? If one is inspired by the world, why seek inspiration beyond it?

I don’t fear death - death is as much a part of nature as life; life would not be possible without death, in a naturalistic universe.

If you didn’t fear death, you wouldn’t avoid it. Its in your nature. Say that you don’t fear death with a shotgun aimed at your face. I don’t believe that you are being honest.

As for inspiration, nobody said anything about looking beyond the world for inspiration. I said the world can and has inspired belief in God. Its obvious that one can be inspired by something one knows to be real to believe in something that he does not know to be real. Moral experience has inspired many to believe in God. The beauty of the universe has inspired many to believe in God. The order and laws of the universe has inspired faith in many.

Surely that is obvious?

 

[Dave_B]

The problem with “the God is too loving” to send anyone to hell argument…is that He doesn’t send people to hell. We’re standing in it.

But it is within his power to forgive people. The lack of forgiveness and compassion is telling.