How could I be happy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Laurie_Gibson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all let me say thanks to Nicky39 and JRKH for taking the trouble to answer all my questions.
You are welcome.
Perhaps you will excuse me if I only continue with three points because the topic will expand exponentially if I continue with them all. I will post on:
1] Why do most of the people, who will end in Hell, merit it?
Correction - Everyone in Hell merits it. And in nearly every case, their primary sin is Pride.
2] Why cannot people in Hell repent and have their repentance accepted
Pride
3] Why would Satan rebel against an omnipotent God?
Pride
1] Why do most of the people, who will end in Hell, merit it?
I am going to Hell if I continue as I am. So what have I done to merit this?
(i) I do not believe in God
(ii) I have done actions which I did not think were wrong, like using contraceptives, which turned out to be so.
(iii) I have done wrong things that I acknowledge to be so and have not asked for God’s forgiveness.
Let us now ask if any of these things merit eternal punishment.
(i) I have looked at the evidence for God’s existence and concluded that it is weak so I do not believe. Why is this culpable? Surely I am like one of the students I used to teach who, doing the best they can, get a maths sum wrong, whom I would gently show where their reasoning was amiss? And notice too. I do not reject God – I do not think there is a God to reject – a completely different matter.
(Snip for Space)
[Of course, after death, finding that God did exist, of course, I would ask his forgiveness, which brings me on to the second topic.]
We can dispense with numbers (ii) and (iii) and only deal with number (i).
You ask - “I have looked at the evidence for God’s existence and concluded that it is weak so I do not believe. Why is this culpable?”
I ask you, How can it be Not culpable.
You look at the “evidence” and conclude that there is no God. The same evidence that we believers have and we conclude that God DOES exist.
You claim - “I do not reject God – I do not think there is a God to reject”
It is not the evidence that tis faulty it is your conclusion, and therefore, though you deny it, you do indeed reject God.
JRKH – you say:
That crime is the rejection of God - blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.
Well as explained I have not rejected God. Nor have I blasphemed against the Holy Spirit! Like many ordinary folk I have tried to lead a good life and honestly decided on the evidence that there was unlikely to be a God.
Here you say that based on the evidence, there is “unlikely to be a God”, and yet earlier you say that, based on the evidence, “(you) do not think there is a God to reject”. So which is it… Do you believe there is no God or that there is, “unlikely to be a God”.
Think and answer Carefully - your life hangs in the balance.
Must go now – will post on the remaining two topics tonight.
OK, Talk later.

Peace
James
 
James,
Two of my students try a maths problem. Each tries his very best, revising the topic first, checking his working carefully and so on. They get different answers so one of them at least is mistaken. But they do not know who is wrong. Along comes the teacher who explains who has the right answer and shows the other where his mistake lies. Now should the teacher punish the student for this wrong answer? Obviously not - the student did his best, cannot be blamed and should not be punished.

Now for 50 years and continuing I have examined the evidence for the existence of God and find that evidence wanting. So my conclusion is that there probably is no God such as Christians believe in. You have examined the same evidence and reached the opposite answer. Obviously one of us is mistaken. We do not know who. Suppose it is me - in what way am I to blame? Can I pretend that I am convinced when I am not? I have done my best to find out the truth - if I have made a mistake how could I deserve an eternal punishment.

**Three brothers are told they have a long lost uncle in Australia who wants them to do certain things but the evidence for the existence of the uncle is questionable.
Alf looks at the evidence and is convinced and does what the uncle asks.
Bert looks at the evidence is convinced but rejects the uncle’s advice.
Laurie looks at the evidence and thinks that it is not convincing so does not think there is an uncle at all therefore the question of following his advice does not arise.

Alf accepts the uncle, Bert rejects him but Laurie does not reject him because he does not think there is an uncle to reject.

The Uncle, when he visits England should be pleased with Alf, angry with Bert and, with Laurie he should explain where his thinking went astray. What he cannot say is that Laurie rejected him.**
Laurie
 
For Nicky and JRFH

Why cannot people in Hell repent and their repentance be accepted?
I do not think there is a God. I would like to believe and, if I did, finding that my wrongdoings had upset God, of course I would repent. Now, after death, I find that I am mistaken, how could it be that I do not repent? And, as my repentance would be sincere why would God not accept it. [If I had done so 3 seconds before my death I would have been OK]

Fred deliberately defied God and sinned knowingly and with impunity. However in Hell he realises that he has made a big mistake. The only way a person can be truly happy is in communion with God in Heaven. Where he is now in terrible pain is obviously a choice he now regrets making. If he has acquired character flaws that make him unfit for Heaven, he now wishes to be helped to get rid of them so he can go to Heaven. In despair would he not turn to God imploring him to accept the repentance now offered? And could God, his loving heavenly father refuse?

Nicky - you say;
There are many people on this earth who say; I’d rather have Hell then be told what to do. Perhaps there are people at death who say; I’d rather be tormented then be forced to be with you.
For the sake of the argument suppose there are. They can stay there then. But what of the people like the two I mention above?

JRKH - you say;
Those who choose hell do NOT repent after death. Their punishment only makes them madder at God it only makes them hate more.
You say this but could you explain to me why the two people I describe above would not wish to repent. I have explained why they would wish to repent – please show me where I am mistaken?

Thanks.
 
For Nicky and JRFK

Why did Satan rebel given that he knew God is omnipotent?

Whatever you say about Satan he is not stupid. So he would obviously realise that you cannot beat an omnipotent God. [Omnipotent = All-powerful = Can do anything = More powerful than any other force] A three year old child would know that you cannot have a successful rebellion against an omnipotent power. So a rebellion would be futile. Satan then, no matter how much he would like to rebel due to his pride or whatever, would not in fact have done so.

[Al Capone wants to rob the bank and assembles his whole gang to do so. Just before he sets off comes a report that the police know of the raid and are waiting for them with scores of officers, firearms experts and the army as back up. Al is hardly going to go ahead!]

Nicky – you say of Satan:
Being cunning and vain he started to think he was as powerful, if not more so then God.
If you are in the presence of God you must know what he is like. Satan, however vain he was, knows that God has made the Universe and that he, Satan, could not do such a thing, so there is no way he could think that a rebellion would succeed.

JRFK – Your single word answer ‘pride’ explains why Satan wants to rebel but it does not explain why he actually did rebel when he knows that he cannot succeed. Al Capone wants to rob the bank because he is greedy but he does not attempt to do so because he know he will fail.

All the best

Laurie
 
For Nicky and JRFH

Why cannot people in Hell repent and their repentance be accepted?
I do not think there is a God. I would like to believe and, if I did, finding that my wrongdoings had upset God, of course I would repent. Now, after death, I find that I am mistaken, how could it be that I do not repent? And, as my repentance would be sincere why would God not accept it. [If I had done so 3 seconds before my death I would have been OK]

Fred deliberately defied God and sinned knowingly and with impunity. However in Hell he realises that he has made a big mistake. The only way a person can be truly happy is in communion with God in Heaven. Where he is now in terrible pain is obviously a choice he now regrets making. If he has acquired character flaws that make him unfit for Heaven, he now wishes to be helped to get rid of them so he can go to Heaven. In despair would he not turn to God imploring him to accept the repentance now offered? And could God, his loving heavenly father refuse?

Nicky - you say;
There are many people on this earth who say; I’d rather have Hell then be told what to do. Perhaps there are people at death who say; I’d rather be tormented then be forced to be with you.
For the sake of the argument suppose there are. They can stay there then. But what of the people like the two I mention above?

JRKH - you say;
Those who choose hell do NOT repent after death. Their punishment only makes them madder at God it only makes them hate more.
You say this but could you explain to me why the two people I describe above would not wish to repent. I have explained why they would wish to repent – please show me where I am mistaken?

Thanks.
I propose that at death, no further evidence for God’s existance will be presented. That being the case, on what basis would the two people above change their minds? They have already have firmly committed themselves to the principle of no god. Without further evidence why would they uncommit themselves to that principle. They are presumably happy in their “no-god” world. Why would this change?

The Kingdom of God is present among us today in Love. Those truely happly love truely. The evidence of this happiness is available to us now. Now ends at our physical death. To reject it now is to reject it forever.

Sin in the world causes pain. This pain is a foretaste of the pain of hell. It is offered as evidence of the consequence of rejecting God.

The time is now to make your decision. Will you love God?
 
For Nicky and JRFK

Why did Satan rebel given that he knew God is omnipotent?

Whatever you say about Satan he is not stupid. So he would obviously realise that you cannot beat an omnipotent God. [Omnipotent = All-powerful = Can do anything = More powerful than any other force] A three year old child would know that you cannot have a successful rebellion against an omnipotent power. So a rebellion would be futile. Satan then, no matter how much he would like to rebel due to his pride or whatever, would not in fact have done so.

[Al Capone wants to rob the bank and assembles his whole gang to do so. Just before he sets off comes a report that the police know of the raid and are waiting for them with scores of officers, firearms experts and the army as back up. Al is hardly going to go ahead!]

Nicky – you say of Satan:
Being cunning and vain he started to think he was as powerful, if not more so then God.
If you are in the presence of God you must know what he is like. Satan, however vain he was, knows that God has made the Universe and that he, Satan, could not do such a thing, so there is no way he could think that a rebellion would succeed.

JRFK – Your single word answer ‘pride’ explains why Satan wants to rebel but it does not explain why he actually did rebel when he knows that he cannot succeed. Al Capone wants to rob the bank because he is greedy but he does not attempt to do so because he know he will fail.

All the best

Laurie
I feel quite unequipped to discuss this, I’m sure James is more equipped then I but… I don’t know, I’ll share my thoughts on this anyway. As unrefined as they are. 🙂

You know, I kind of think that because Satan is NOT God but was in the presence of God perhaps he got to the point where he felt he was just as powerful.

On this earth we see men who do this. God grants them a grace. He uses them to heal, or to encourage, or whatever… and after he has done this the man starts thinking ‘I’m doing this! I’m the one doing this!’ and he starts off on his own path completely seperate from God’s will. The healing stops, the other graces stop but the man is determined that he’s done it once he can do it again and sometimes he’s convinced he’s healing even when he’s not and when the person he healed says ‘I am not healed’, the man responds; it’s because you don’t have enough faith, so that he doesn’t have to accept that the grace of God has left him.

Satan, in the presence of God, might have gotten to the point where he felt he was just as powerful, simply because he was so infused with the grace of God he thought it was his own power and not God’s being shared with him?

I think you’re putting too much human reasoning into the question. But that’s just my opinion. 🙂
 
For Nicky and JRFH

Why cannot people in Hell repent and their repentance be accepted?
I do not think there is a God. I would like to believe and, if I did, finding that my wrongdoings had upset God, of course I would repent. Now, after death, I find that I am mistaken, how could it be that I do not repent? And, as my repentance would be sincere why would God not accept it. [If I had done so 3 seconds before my death I would have been OK]

Fred deliberately defied God and sinned knowingly and with impunity. However in Hell he realises that he has made a big mistake. The only way a person can be truly happy is in communion with God in Heaven. Where he is now in terrible pain is obviously a choice he now regrets making. If he has acquired character flaws that make him unfit for Heaven, he now wishes to be helped to get rid of them so he can go to Heaven. In despair would he not turn to God imploring him to accept the repentance now offered? And could God, his loving heavenly father refuse?

Nicky - you say;
There are many people on this earth who say; I’d rather have Hell then be told what to do. Perhaps there are people at death who say; I’d rather be tormented then be forced to be with you.
For the sake of the argument suppose there are. They can stay there then. But what of the people like the two I mention above?

JRKH - you say;
Those who choose hell do NOT repent after death. Their punishment only makes them madder at God it only makes them hate more.
You say this but could you explain to me why the two people I describe above would not wish to repent. I have explained why they would wish to repent – please show me where I am mistaken?

Thanks.
Honestly I believe once a person is in hell they become so angry and hate filled that they don’t wish to be with God. It is only because of God that we experience such things as love and joy and happiness and repentance. Once a person has been completely removed from God’s presence (OR has completely removed themselves from his presence) I kind of think all the other more darker emotions take over.

I sincerely doubt there is anyone in Hell who would rather be with God.

However, we cannot say God absolutely will NOT grant forgiveness to those who genuinely seek Him even after having gone to Hell. Our Bible and our theology teaches us differently but I don’t believe these things touch the fullness of God. They only allow us to see of Him what He has chosen for us to see. Maybe we will understand more after we have passed away, but all He wants from us for the now is to accept the bit He has given and to focus on Him. To trust Him, even when the bits we’ve been given seem frightening or confusing.

I think the people who believe are granted the grace to see more. I really do. It’s the ones who do not believe that are deprived because they have closed their hearts.

It’s kind of like the Bible and Doctrine is Grade One of Faith. You can’t advance to Grade Two, greater understanding, until you grasp the concepts (or at least accept them) taught to you in Grade One.

But, that’s just my opinion.

PS: You might argue people who reject God here and now experience happiness and joy and love but this world was created from God’s love and He is amongst us now. Hell is a place completely removed of God, where no residual of Him remains at all. Completely different from this world.
 
For Nicky and JRFK

Why did Satan rebel given that he knew God is omnipotent?

Whatever you say about Satan he is not stupid. So he would obviously realise that you cannot beat an omnipotent God. [Omnipotent = All-powerful = Can do anything = More powerful than any other force] A three year old child would know that you cannot have a successful rebellion against an omnipotent power. So a rebellion would be futile. Satan then, no matter how much he would like to rebel due to his pride or whatever, would not in fact have done so.

[Al Capone wants to rob the bank and assembles his whole gang to do so. Just before he sets off comes a report that the police know of the raid and are waiting for them with scores of officers, firearms experts and the army as back up. Al is hardly going to go ahead!]

Nicky – you say of Satan:
Being cunning and vain he started to think he was as powerful, if not more so then God.
If you are in the presence of God you must know what he is like. Satan, however vain he was, knows that God has made the Universe and that he, Satan, could not do such a thing, so there is no way he could think that a rebellion would succeed.

JRFK – Your single word answer ‘pride’ explains why Satan wants to rebel but it does not explain why he actually did rebel when he knows that he cannot succeed. Al Capone wants to rob the bank because he is greedy but he does not attempt to do so because he know he will fail.

All the best

Laurie
Satan was depraved. He started to think himself as a God. His pride drove him close to insanity…to the point where he told himself over and over, “I’m just as good. I’m just as powerful. I can beat him.” At first he probably knew it was a ludicrous idea. But eventually his sense of reality got so warped that he believed it. Maybe he even managed to convince himself that God wasn’t omnipotent…that God could make mistakes.

He was, of course, wrong. But he became so depraved, his sense of reality became so warped, that maybe, just maybe, he believed it.

That, or he was stupid. 😃
 
James,
Two of my students try a maths problem. Each tries his very best, revising the topic first, checking his working carefully and so on. They get different answers so one of them at least is mistaken. But they do not know who is wrong. Along comes the teacher who explains who has the right answer and shows the other where his mistake lies. Now should the teacher punish the student for this wrong answer? Obviously not - the student did his best, cannot be blamed and should not be punished.
Has one of the students, after careful examination of the problem and the evidences relating to mathmattics concluded that the evidence for there being such a thing as “Math” is weak and therefore he rejects the being such a thing as math? 😃
Now for 50 years and continuing I have examined the evidence for the existence of God and find that evidence wanting. So my conclusion is that there probably is no God such as Christians believe in. You have examined the same evidence and reached the opposite answer. Obviously one of us is mistaken. We do not know who. Suppose it is me - in what way am I to blame? Can I pretend that I am convinced when I am not? I have done my best to find out the truth - if I have made a mistake how could I deserve an eternal punishment.
Look at the highlighted section above. Are you saying here that you accept the possibility that there is a God of some sort? This is important. I’m not asking you to believe anything you are not convinced of just asking you to be specific on your position.
**Three brothers are told they have a long lost uncle in Australia who wants them to do certain things but the evidence for the existence of the uncle is questionable.
Alf looks at the evidence and is convinced and does what the uncle asks.
Bert looks at the evidence is convinced but rejects the uncle’s advice.
Laurie looks at the evidence and thinks that it is not convincing so does not think there is an uncle at all therefore the question of following his advice does not arise.
Alf accepts the uncle, Bert rejects him but Laurie does not reject him because he does not think there is an uncle to reject.
The Uncle, when he visits England should be pleased with Alf, angry with Bert and, with Laurie he should explain where his thinking went astray. What he cannot say is that Laurie rejected him.**
Laurie
Still don’t see how "not being convinced of somethings existance is any different than “rejecting” it. The result is the same, a failure, or refusal to act appropriately on the instructions.
Lets us add something to the scenerio that you outline above. Suppose that this alleged uncle promises great riches to each of the brothers who successfully completes the tasks outlined by the Uncle.
In this case, the result is the same for brothers number two AND three. The only one to receive the riches is Brother Number one. - so perhaps instead of using the term “reject”, we can use the term “deny” which, as we can see from the above, has the same negative outcome for Bert and Laurie.
Of course, if Brother number one is wrong and there is no uncle there then he will gain no riches, leaving him in the same place, and certainly no worse off, as the other two.

Now before you come back with how God not only promises riches but also threatens punishment, consider how Bert and Laurie are going to feel when Alf has ALL the riches and they have nothing - yet they could have had, if only they had believed in good ole’ Uncle.
They are likely going to feel pretty miserable, let down and perhaps even a bit envious of their brother Alf. This then, in a very small (miniscule) way shows how the absence of God and heaven (supreme hapiness) is a torture.

Peace
James
 
For Nicky and JRFH

Why cannot people in Hell repent and their repentance be accepted?
I do not think there is a God. I would like to believe and, if I did, finding that my wrongdoings had upset God, of course I would repent. Now, after death, I find that I am mistaken, how could it be that I do not repent? And, as my repentance would be sincere why would God not accept it. [If I had done so 3 seconds before my death I would have been OK]
If one repents on their deathbed then yes there is a posibility that they can be forgiven. That is why The Church will not difinitively say that any individual is in hell. we simply cannot know the state oftheir soul at the moment of death.
Fred deliberately defied God and sinned knowingly and with impunity. However in Hell he realises that he has made a big mistake. The only way a person can be truly happy is in communion with God in Heaven. Where he is now in terrible pain is obviously a choice he now regrets making. If he has acquired character flaws that make him unfit for Heaven, he now wishes to be helped to get rid of them so he can go to Heaven. In despair would he not turn to God imploring him to accept the repentance now offered? And could God, his loving heavenly father refuse?
If Fred could do this then he would likely not be in Hell. Having done things bad enough to warrant Hell he would not recognize his mistakes. Look at the arguments atheists offer as evidence that God does not exist. They often begin with “A Truly Loving God would never…” This person then belives that God is NOT loving and forgiving and so the person in Hell does not appeal to the Loving God to get him out, but continues to blame God for putting him there.
JRKH - you say;
Those who choose hell do NOT repent after death. Their punishment only makes them madder at God it only makes them hate more.
You say this but could you explain to me why the two people I describe above would not wish to repent. I have explained why they would wish to repent – please show me where I am mistaken?
I believe I already have - Pride, Arrogance, Selfishness, Hate…All of the things that are “Anti-heaven”…All of the things that they have nurtured through their lives is what they carry with them in death.

Peace
James
 
For Nicky and JRFK

Why did Satan rebel given that he knew God is omnipotent?

Whatever you say about Satan he is not stupid. So he would obviously realise that you cannot beat an omnipotent God. [Omnipotent = All-powerful = Can do anything = More powerful than any other force] A three year old child would know that you cannot have a successful rebellion against an omnipotent power. So a rebellion would be futile. Satan then, no matter how much he would like to rebel due to his pride or whatever, would not in fact have done so.

[Al Capone wants to rob the bank and assembles his whole gang to do so. Just before he sets off comes a report that the police know of the raid and are waiting for them with scores of officers, firearms experts and the army as back up. Al is hardly going to go ahead!]

Nicky – you say of Satan:
Being cunning and vain he started to think he was as powerful, if not more so then God.
If you are in the presence of God you must know what he is like. Satan, however vain he was, knows that God has made the Universe and that he, Satan, could not do such a thing, so there is no way he could think that a rebellion would succeed.

JRFK – Your single word answer ‘pride’ explains why Satan wants to rebel but it does not explain why he actually did rebel when he knows that he cannot succeed. Al Capone wants to rob the bank because he is greedy but he does not attempt to do so because he know he will fail.

All the best

Laurie
I think Marc gave as good an answer as any available. I will offer an example.

Since you seem to be quite intelligent and well read, consider this question.
How could Hitler ever have thought he could beat the whole world?
It was one thing when he defeated France and drove England to the wall, but that was nto enough, he then had to turn on his ally - the USSR, creating a two front war (three if you count North Africa as another Front. And if that wasn’t enough, when Japan Attacked the U.S. In the Pacific he went ahead and declared war on the U.S.

Was Hitler Stupid - No He was driven by Hatred, Pride, Envy, Revenge and other emotions to the point of insanity. he actually believed that he could beat these two huge countires (the US and the USSR). No one could convince him otherwise - No One!!!

Peace
James
 
Thanks to all you have replied so politely. Let me try to cover the points you raise.

Why cannot a person repent in Hell and have their repentance accepted?

DavidV
makes the interesting suggestion that in Hell there is no new evidence for God’s existence and so no new reason to believe and then to repent. I am not sure this is orthodox – in the Dives and Lazarus parable both know what is going on – but no matter.

I would have thought that the fact that the person realises that they have survived death and that they are in the everlasting flames with Satan might provide them with a fair amount of evidence for believing in God now.

Nicky suggests that people in Hell will be filled with hate and not want to repent. But I would like to believe in a good God and so, if in Hell I discovered that after all there was such a being, why would I not want to embrace his love? I would only hate him if he left me in torment after I had sincerely repented. But of course a good god would not do that.

JRKH. Do not get too hung up on the details of the analogies and illustrations I give – they can never be perfect. The ‘maths students’ analogy just makes the simple point that you would not condemn a student who tries his best but fails to get the right answer. Why then condemn to everlasting torment the person who tries his best but gets the wrong answer to the question, ‘Is there a God?’

You also correctly point out that a person who rejects God will probably act no differently to a person who thinks there is no God to reject. True both lose the wonder of a relationship with God while on earth. But we are talking about something else here – blame and punishment. A person who says, “Yes there is a loving god who made me, but I despise and reject him!” merits blame but a person who says, “I have looked very carefully at the evidence and do not think that there is a God” does not, provided he is honest and has looked carefully.

I posited a person [Fred] who has lived a bad life and who in Hell realises his mistake and repents. You say that he would not want to repent if he has done things bad enough for him to go to Hell. But why so – do you not think his terrible torment might not make him realise his mistake? How could it not?

Laurie
 
Why did Satan rebel given that he knew that God was omnipotent?

No matter how proud or whatever Satan was when he contemplated his rebellion he would still know that 2 + 2 = 4! He would still realise that an omnipotent being cannot be beaten. No matter how much he wanted to win or hated God, he could not but know that God’s infinite power was invincible. Hitler, who did not take on the whole world, always fought against other armies and an army can always be beaten by a better one BUT AN OMNIPOTENT BEING CANNOT BE BEATEN BY ANYTHING!

The only possible explanation is that Satan literally went mad so that was incapable of the most simple reasoning. But a madman does not merit punishment – we try to cure them. So God would not have treated Satan as he did.

This question and the answers provided illustrate the point I am trying to make. To defend the medieval story of Satan, you have to make more and more unlikely assumptions. We are discussing three problems our of eleven I raised. I could have posted another six at least. And in each case the defender of Hell comes up with more and more unlikely scenarios to answer the question raised. Surely we reach the point where it is more likely that the whole story is untrue. As indeed most liberal Christians decided long ago.
 
Thanks to all you have replied so politely. Let me try to cover the points you raise.
You are welcome…
Why cannot a person repent in Hell and have their repentance accepted?
DavidV
makes the interesting suggestion that in Hell there is no new evidence for God’s existence and so no new reason to believe and then to repent. I am not sure this is orthodox – in the Dives and Lazarus parable both know what is going on – but no matter.
I would have thought that the fact that the person realises that they have survived death and that they are in the everlasting flames with Satan might provide them with a fair amount of evidence for believing in God now.
In regard to the “new evidence” issue, there is another view that says that, for the person who finishes their life in Love for God, Christ will appear to them as a beautiful and welcoming presence. For those who finish their lives in contempt for God, Christ appears as a fearful Judge. It is not that Christ Changes but that his countenance is seen differently by those who Love him and those who do not.
This ties in with the idea that how you live, what you believe and foster in this life is what you reach out for and accept in the next life.
Nicky suggests that people in Hell will be filled with hate and not want to repent. But I would like to believe in a good God and so, if in Hell I discovered that after all there was such a being, why would I not want to embrace his love? I would only hate him if he left me in torment after I had sincerely repented. But of course a good god would not do that.
This just shows a continued lack of understanding in what gets one into hell in the first place. If the person is capable of making such a change they will do so before they die and choose to go to hell. If the do not, then they simply accept that they, in perfect knowledge of their fault and unworthiness, but still hating God choose hell and satan, who they have made Lord of Their Life.
JRKH. Do not get too hung up on the details of the analogies and illustrations I give – they can never be perfect. The ‘maths students’ analogy just makes the simple point that you would not condemn a student who tries his best but fails to get the right answer. Why then condemn to everlasting torment the person who tries his best but gets the wrong answer to the question, ‘Is there a God?’
You are right - no analogy is perfect and perhaps I was a bit “cheeky” in my response to the math one. But I think that the comparison of a single math problem and the acceptance/rejection of God is a bit out of whack.
I would suggest that getting a single math problem wrong would be similar to a person who believes in God, choosing a “wrong church”, whereas rejecting God altogether, is like rejecting the concept of math (or school in general) altogether.
You also correctly point out that a person who rejects God will probably act no differently to a person who thinks there is no God to reject. True both lose the wonder of a relationship with God while on earth. But we are talking about something else here – blame and punishment. A person who says, “Yes there is a loving god who made me, but I despise and reject him!” merits blame but a person who says, “I have looked very carefully at the evidence and do not think that there is a God” does not, provided he is honest and has looked carefully.
Before continuing this line I really must ask you to clarify your position. I have asked a couple of times before - - -
Do you accept the possibility of God or not. Do you accept the possiblility you are wrong or not?
I posited a person [Fred] who has lived a bad life and who in Hell realises his mistake and repents. You say that he would not want to repent if he has done things bad enough for him to go to Hell. But why so – do you not think his terrible torment might not make him realise his mistake? How could it not?
You hanswered your own question. The fact that he has done things that have caused him to enter hell, the fact that he has lived his life in gross sin - to the point of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, has preconditioned himself to not repenting in Hell.
This all ties into the very reason he is in hell in the first place.

Peace
James
 
Why did Satan rebel given that he knew that God was omnipotent?

No matter how proud or whatever Satan was when he contemplated his rebellion he would still know that 2 + 2 = 4! He would still realise that an omnipotent being cannot be beaten. No matter how much he wanted to win or hated God, he could not but know that God’s infinite power was invincible. Hitler, who did not take on the whole world, always fought against other armies and an army can always be beaten by a better one BUT AN OMNIPOTENT BEING CANNOT BE BEATEN BY ANYTHING!

The only possible explanation is that Satan literally went mad so that was incapable of the most simple reasoning. But a madman does not merit punishment – we try to cure them. So God would not have treated Satan as he did.

This question and the answers provided illustrate the point I am trying to make. To defend the medieval story of Satan, you have to make more and more unlikely assumptions. We are discussing three problems our of eleven I raised. I could have posted another six at least. And in each case the defender of Hell comes up with more and more unlikely scenarios to answer the question raised. Surely we reach the point where it is more likely that the whole story is untrue. As indeed most liberal Christians decided long ago.
I will grant you that we cannot fully know or understand why Satan acted as he did. Perhaps God has told us this story in this way because this is the only way in which we can grasp the concept. It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that the heavenly reality of the issues are different, being outside of our space and time and intellectual framework.

We could ask the same question of the story in the NT where Satan tempts Jesus in the Desert. Why would Saten attempt to trip up the Son of God, when he had to know that he would lose.
The only anser I can come up with is that his pride is so great that he is blinded to the fact that he could never, in the long run, win.

Peace
James
 
Laurie,
There is another factor that feeds into the inability of someone to get out of hell. It is selfishness.

You posit that a person who is in hell for rejecting God will repent that rejection once he realizes that he was wrong, but will he repent for the right reason?
Having spent his life in selfish pursuits - denying God’s Lordship and even God’s existance, has he developed the capacity to properly repent and ask forgiveness?
Or - rather - would any such repentance from hell be merely “crocadile tears” that come from a selfish desire, not to conform His will to God’s Will but merely to escape punishment in the same self centered way that he lived his life.

The Bible teaches that All the Law and All the prophets are based on two commandments - Love of God and Love of neighbor.
The person who has spent their life dismissing God cannot Love God and without that Love, there is no salvation - there is only self interest and any “repentance” from hell would only be more of the same self interest and not Godly Love.

For any Christian - or anyone investigating Christianity I make the same suggestion. Don’t worry about hell and punishment Consentrate instead on Love. Glorious and Godly Love.
Like they say when climbing a long high ladder, “don’t look down”.

Peace
James
 

James wrote: For any Christian - or anyone investigating Christianity…​

I don’t think Laurie is either of these, James. He enjoys leading others on, daring them to “prove” to him that homosexuality is wrong or that Christianity can make you happy. With no belief in God or knowledge of sin, he recalls Dostoyevsky’s line “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

Let me quote Michael Novak: “Just as some people have no ear for music, so others (as Friedrich Hayek put it) “have no ear for God.” Still others say they have no “need” for God. They sense in themselves no round hole into which God fits.

One of the blessings of atheism seems to be that it takes away any sense of Judgment, any sense that by one’s actions one may be offending or injuring a Friend, any awareness of sin. “Sin” seems, indeed, to be a leftover from a bygone age. I’ve challenged Laurie to define Sin and he can’t. He avoids the subject and challenges others to explain how homosexuality is wrong.

“At the heart of Christianity is the sinner,” a very great Christian, Charles Péguy, once wrote. Some of us are aware of doing things that we know we ought not to have done, and of not doing things that we know we ought to have done.

We are aware of sinning against our own conscience – deliberately doing what we know to be wrong, whether from weakness or from powerful desires that are out of control. Afterward, sometimes, we feel a remorse so keen that it hurts – and yet what has been done is done, and nothing we now do can take that fault away. And at times the fault is shamefully grave, at that.

It is to this common, virtually universal experience that Jesus, like John the Baptist before him, first addressed his auditors, “Be sorry! Do penance. Resolve not to sin again.” (Even though the probabilities of sinning again are high, just as a man with a bad knee, though his knee has healed, knows that it will too easily go out on hint)

Christianity is not about moral arrogance. It is about moralism, and moral humility Wherever you see self-righteous persons condemning others and unaware of their own sins, you are not in the presence of an alert Christian but of a priggish pretender.

It was in fact a great revolution in human history when the Jewish and Christian God revealed Himself as one who sees directly into consciences, and is not misled merely by external acts. (This God would be unpersuaded by the external pietas of the numerous Greek and Roman pagan philosophers who – unconcerned about conscience – were sure to be present at religious rites, whether they took the gods seriously or not.)

The biblical respect for conscience greatly dignified and honored inner acts of reflection, commitment, and choice. Laurie has none, James. I wouldn’t waste your time appealing to one.

dj
 

James wrote: For any Christian - or anyone investigating Christianity…​

I don’t think Laurie is either of these, James. He enjoys leading others on, daring them to “prove” to him that homosexuality is wrong or that Christianity can make you happy. With no belief in God or knowledge of sin, he recalls Dostoyevsky’s line “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

Let me quote Michael Novak: “Just as some people have no ear for music, so others (as Friedrich Hayek put it) “have no ear for God.” Still others say they have no “need” for God. They sense in themselves no round hole into which God fits.

One of the blessings of atheism seems to be that it takes away any sense of Judgment, any sense that by one’s actions one may be offending or injuring a Friend, any awareness of sin. “Sin” seems, indeed, to be a leftover from a bygone age. I’ve challenged Laurie to define Sin and he can’t. He avoids the subject and challenges others to explain how homosexuality is wrong.

“At the heart of Christianity is the sinner,” a very great Christian, Charles Péguy, once wrote. Some of us are aware of doing things that we know we ought not to have done, and of not doing things that we know we ought to have done.

We are aware of sinning against our own conscience – deliberately doing what we know to be wrong, whether from weakness or from powerful desires that are out of control. Afterward, sometimes, we feel a remorse so keen that it hurts – and yet what has been done is done, and nothing we now do can take that fault away. And at times the fault is shamefully grave, at that.

It is to this common, virtually universal experience that Jesus, like John the Baptist before him, first addressed his auditors, “Be sorry! Do penance. Resolve not to sin again.” (Even though the probabilities of sinning again are high, just as a man with a bad knee, though his knee has healed, knows that it will too easily go out on hint)

Christianity is not about moral arrogance. It is about moralism, and moral humility Wherever you see self-righteous persons condemning others and unaware of their own sins, you are not in the presence of an alert Christian but of a priggish pretender.

It was in fact a great revolution in human history when the Jewish and Christian God revealed Himself as one who sees directly into consciences, and is not misled merely by external acts. (This God would be unpersuaded by the external pietas of the numerous Greek and Roman pagan philosophers who – unconcerned about conscience – were sure to be present at religious rites, whether they took the gods seriously or not.)

The biblical respect for conscience greatly dignified and honored inner acts of reflection, commitment, and choice. Laurie has none, James. I wouldn’t waste your time appealing to one.

dj
dj,
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

But it is not only for the benefit of Laurie that I speak but for the benefit of anyone lurking around the thread.

You see it as a waste of time and therefore choose not to participate. I see it as planting seeds.

Peace
James
 
dj,
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

But it is not only for the benefit of Laurie that I speak but for the benefit of anyone lurking around the thread.

You see it as a waste of time and therefore choose not to participate. I see it as planting seeds.

Peace
James
But I did participate. And the waste of time was in appealing to Laurie’s conscience who has demonstrated in numerous replies on this thread and others that his questioning attitude is an attack on our Catholicism.

Peace to you, too. Two poem commentaries by Anthony Esolen for you (or Laurie or the rest of you lurkers :)):


  1. *]George Herbert’s Love

    *]Gerard Manley Hopkins Pied Beauty

    They’re really good.

    regards,

    dj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top