Is this analogy accurate?

[Needtostop]

Say that a father tells a young child not to touch a hot stove so that he won’t get hurt, but the child disobeys him and does so anyway. When the father finds out, his first concern probably will be to take care of the child’s injury, then after taking care of the injury, will probably want to talk to the child and discourage him from doing that again. I think this is how God responds when we sin.

 

[Hokomai]

Say that a father tells a young child not to touch a hot stove so that he won’t get hurt, but the child disobeys him and does so anyway. When the father finds out, his first concern probably will be to take care of the child’s injury, then after taking care of the injury, will probably want to talk to the child and discourage him from doing that again. I think this is how God responds when we sin.

Isn’t it more like the child disobeys the father, and because the child does not express sorrow in the right way soon enough, the father puts the child on the hot stove and leaves them there for all eternity, with no hope of ever getting off?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Isn’t it more like the child disobeys the father, and because the child does not express sorrow in the right way soon enough, the father puts the child on the hot stove and leaves them there for all eternity, with no hope of ever getting off?

More like the child keeps putting his hand on the hot stove, despite being repeatedly warned for a life time, and getting repeatedly burnt.

The thief keeps stealing, the rapist keeps raping, the tyrant keeps on being a tyrant, the sex slaver keeps enslaving women and children, and the bully keeps bullying.

At the end of his life, God lets him have his own way with a hotter stove, along with all the others who think the same way, some of whom are quite depraved, and much stronger than we are.

 

[Hokomai]

More like the child keeps putting his hand on the hot stove, despite being repeatedly warned for a life time, and getting repeatedly burnt.

The thief keeps stealing, the rapist keeps raping, the tyrant keeps on being a tyrant, the sex slaver keeps enslaving women and children, and the bully keeps bullying.

At the end of his life, God lets him have his own way with a hotter stove, along with all the others who think the same way, some of whom are quite depraved, and much stronger than we are.

And some of whom loved someone of the same sex, or who was still married in the eyes of the Church, or missed Mass. And I think I am right that the God in which Catholics believe is thought to be able, justly, to condemn children as young as seven in this way. I am not sure either Bob if you have Catholic belief quite right. You don’t have to keep doing it. You can go to hell for doing it once. Or even for wishing you could. Once.

 

[Sillara]

It appears that you are assuming, Hokomai, a couple of things.

1. That these things that you consider “not serious” really are “not serious” in the scheme of eternity.
2. That we do not deserve Hell already.

You are assuming, it seems, that we start from a default of “deserving” Heaven.

We don’t.

We deserve Hell.

Heaven is offered us, by grace and at great cost to Love Himself, but we do not deserve it. We cannot earn it.

 

[seagal]

It appears that you are assuming, Hokomai, a couple of things.

1. That these things that you consider “not serious” really are “not serious” in the scheme of eternity.
2. That we do not deserve Hell already.

You are assuming, it seems, that we start from a default of “deserving” Heaven.

We don’t.

We deserve Hell.

Heaven is offered us, by grace and at great cost to Love Himself, but we do not deserve it. We cannot earn it.

Well said

 

[JRKH]

Say that a father tells a young child not to touch a hot stove so that he won’t get hurt, but the child disobeys him and does so anyway. When the father finds out, his first concern probably will be to take care of the child’s injury, then after taking care of the injury, will probably want to talk to the child and discourage him from doing that again. I think this is how God responds when we sin.

It is a good analogy

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Isn’t it more like the child disobeys the father, and because the child does not express sorrow in the right way soon enough, the father puts the child on the hot stove and leaves them there for all eternity, with no hope of ever getting off?

And some of whom loved someone of the same sex, or who was still married in the eyes of the Church, or missed Mass. And I think I am right that the God in which Catholics believe is thought to be able, justly, to condemn children as young as seven in this way. I am not sure either Bob if you have Catholic belief quite right. You don’t have to keep doing it. You can go to hell for doing it once. Or even for wishing you could. Once.

IF this WERE the God of Catholicism then I would not be Catholic.

Fortunately the entity you describe is NOT our God.

It’s easy to point at and poke fun at some aspect of the faith - It takes real love and desire to see through such things to the Truth that is God our Father.

Peace
James

 

[Typist]

Isn’t it more like the child disobeys the father, and because the child does not express sorrow in the right way soon enough, the father puts the child on the hot stove and leaves them there for all eternity, with no hope of ever getting off?

Yowzer! We’ve got lots of pans going on the hot stove now. Seriously, a fair question.

 

[tonyrey]

More like the child keeps putting his hand on the hot stove, despite being repeatedly warned for a life time, and getting repeatedly burnt.

The thief keeps stealing, the rapist keeps raping, the tyrant keeps on being a tyrant, the sex slaver keeps enslaving women and children, and the bully keeps bullying.

At the end of his life, God lets him have his own way with a hotter stove, along with all the others who think the same way, some of whom are quite depraved, and much stronger than we are.

By selling their soul they compel themselves to dwell in Hell until the knell of doom!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Say that a father tells a young child not to touch a hot stove so that he won’t get hurt, but the child disobeys him and does so anyway. When the father finds out, his first concern probably will be to take care of the child’s injury, then after taking care of the injury, will probably want to talk to the child and discourage him from doing that again. I think this is how God responds when we sin.

I think the parent analogies will fail for most. They sound good at first, but then we can find that it is not a good inference preserving metaphor especially when we start to consider Yahweh’s interactions in the old testament and try to map that to the parent metaphor (or, as Hokomai has done mapping eternal punishment to something an abusive parent might do). That’s let some to see Yahweh as being the type of parent that some one like Saddam Hessein may have been. And I don’t think that’s the direction that you are trying to go in. I know that some also say that Yahweh’s relationship with us is beyond [hu]man’s understanding. If this is the case then using metaphors from human’s relationships is possibly setting some one up for a misunderstanding of the relationship that I believe you wish to describe.

 

[CatherineOH]

My grandmother had a saying…
Those that can’t learn have to feel.

as for sin, we are sinful beings.
God knows this and gives us a way to redeem ourselves.
If we try but still fail and are repentant, that is what His forgiveness and mercy is all about.
If we try, fail and are not repentant
or if we don’t try but continue to burn ourselves, we will burn for eternity.

It matters not how little or much. If we repent, his mercy is infinite.

I was told me in a sort of parable… that his mercy will remove the sin no matter how large.
If the sin were like a single teardrop of water, When we ask his forgiveness, we are throwing that teardrop in to the ocean of his mercy. Can you imagine trying to find one specific drop of water in the ocean? His mercy is that Ocean.
The sin has still been committed the scars may still be there, but we are forgiven.
Also like that scar in the skin, are stronger for the experience.

 

[Hokomai]

It appears that you are assuming, Hokomai, a couple of things.

1. That these things that you consider “not serious” really are “not serious” in the scheme of eternity.
2. That we do not deserve Hell already.

You are assuming, it seems, that we start from a default of “deserving” Heaven.

We don’t.

We deserve Hell.

Heaven is offered us, by grace and at great cost to Love Himself, but we do not deserve it. We cannot earn it.

Yes I know Catholics think that human beings, from the moment of conception deserve to spend eternity in utter torment, that it is possible, but not certain, that unborn children, people who die unbaptised will not go to hell, and that the God who is perfectly entitled to treat people in this way considers these innocents worthy of eternal physical and mental torment because of something a pair of ancestors did. It is why and how you come to believe this that interests, and worries me.

 

[LoyalViews]

Yes I know Catholics think that human beings, from the moment of conception deserve to spend eternity in utter torment, that it is possible, but not certain, that unborn children, people who die unbaptised will not go to hell, and that the God who is perfectly entitled to treat people in this way considers these innocents worthy of eternal physical and mental torment because of something a pair of ancestors did. It is why and how you come to believe this that interests, and worries me.

But you’re (respectfully) looking from the outside…in.

 

[Taestron]

I think the parent analogies will fail for most. They sound good at first, but then we can find that it is not a good inference preserving metaphor especially when we start to consider Yahweh’s interactions in the old testament and try to map that to the parent metaphor (or, as Hokomai has done mapping eternal punishment to something an abusive parent might do). That’s let some to see Yahweh as being the type of parent that some one like Saddam Hessein may have been. And I don’t think that’s the direction that you are trying to go in.

You might be on to something here. C.S. Lewis once said that the most angelic virtues were the ones that became the most demonic vices. This might be the same for metaphors; those that most convey truth will also be the ones that provide the greatest means of deception. I don’t think we should make too much of this because any analogy fails when pushed too far.

I know that some also say that Yahweh’s relationship with us is beyond [hu]man’s understanding. If this is the case then using metaphors from human’s relationships is possibly setting some one up for a misunderstanding of the relationship that I believe you wish to describe.

All truth carries the potential for misunderstanding. The only solution is to try to become more and more specific in our explanations. However, we cannot do this with God, metaphor and analogy is the most we can offer in some places. Does it follow then that we should stop trying to communicate the truth about God? No. Also, it might be good to remember that in this case the metaphor is switched. We do not understand God because of our knowledge of fathers, but we understand fathers because God is Father.

 

[Hokomai]

But you’re (respectfully) looking from the outside…in.

Oddly, I get what you mean. You are saying that if I had the fullness of faith, what appears to me to be nonsense and cruelty would seem sensible and loving. But at that point, I feel I would have surrendered rationality. Catholic thinking is very rational on some points - but when confronted with uncomfortable conclusions, inescapable in Catholic thought, such as ‘unborn children deserve hell, and we don’t know for sure that God does not send the ones who die there’ the logic is rejected in favour of ‘mysteries’ and ‘pious hope’. I apologise to the OP for taking advantage of this well-meaning thread to challenge these beliefs, but it seems to me the original post illustrated much of the cognitive dissonance required to uphold faith.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

And some of whom loved someone of the same sex, or who was still married in the eyes of the Church, or missed Mass. And I think I am right that the God in which Catholics believe is thought to be able, justly, to condemn children as young as seven in this way. I am not sure either Bob if you have Catholic belief quite right. You don’t have to keep doing it. You can go to hell for doing it once. Or even for wishing you could. Once.

I leave the judgement to God. I think it’s a fairly tough judgement personally, but I doubt if any of us are in a position to know just who will and will not be condemned.

However I’m going to give you an example of what I was talking about when I meant that people keep on sinning, and disregard the consequences. I’ll use my own father.

I’ve said numerous times on this forum my own father appeared in my room the night he died. He materialised near the door, he started with an apology (after I yelled out “How the hell did you get in here??”), we argued and talked, and at the end he gave this terrifying scream and disappeared. Going by the incredible terror he displayed during the scream, I think he’s in hell.

I don’t care whether you believe me or not, because I know what I experienced.

Now, amongst other things, he had a very bad temper. In fact, by the time he died it would be more accurate to say he WAS a bad temper. It had a hair trigger, and it took the most trivial, ridiculous thing to set him off.

Now he’d been warned several times where this would lead if he didn’t change, particularly by an uncle of mine (one of his sister’s husbands), but he just took no notice.

So in the end he went to a place where they can indulge their bad tempers as much as they like. But I don’t think they’d like it much. Yet you could say that he got what exactly what he wanted - the freedom to be an eternally bad tempered mongrel. The trouble is, for him, he now has to share that freedom with every other bad tempered mongrel - for eternity. I don’t think I’d like to be in his shoes. Imagine - this state of affairs where all they do is lose their temper with each other, and just get worse and worse.

I suppose when he screamed, that’s the state of affairs he saw coming towards him - along with the associated deterioration of their features, or as St. Paul put it, corruption.

 

[Hokomai]

Bob I accept that this is what you experienced. I do not see a basis for accepting your interpretation of your experience (that it really was your father, that you did communicate) and your conclusion, which is there is a place, hell, and that your father is there, and that this is something which was ‘up to God’.

I think that spiritual experiences are very interesting, and are real in the sense that all thoughts are real. I think of them as biochemical processes. I also know that there are psychiatric states which have anger, and uncontrolled anger as symptoms. our father may have sufferred from one of these, and in Catholic terms had ‘diminished responsibility’, or no responsibility, for his behaviour. Is it of any help to you to look at the Catholic teaching on charity which obliges Catholics to put the best possible interpretation on the actions of others? Perhaps if you did so, you might be more open to a less hurtful interpretation of your experience without harming your faith.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Bob I accept that this is what you experienced. I do not see a basis for accepting your interpretation of your experience (that it really was your father, that you did communicate) and your conclusion, which is there is a place, hell, and that your father is there, and that this is something which was ‘up to God’.

I think that spiritual experiences are very interesting, and are real in the sense that all thoughts are real. I think of them as biochemical processes. I also know that there arepsychiatric states which have anger, and uncontrolled anger as symptoms. our father may have sufferred from one of these, and in Catholic terms had ‘diminished responsibility’, or no responsibility, for his behaviour. Is it of any help to you to look at the Catholic teaching on charity which obliges Catholics to put the best possible interpretation on the actions of others? Perhaps if you did so, you might be more open to a less hurtful interpretation of your experience without harming your faith.

It always intrigues me that atheists write off all and any supernatural experiences as “biochemical processes.” I’m telling you right now he appeared in my room in spiritual person. He even made predictions eg. “You’ll meet a pastor. You’ll think he’s great, but all he’ll do is discourage you even more.” I met the relevant pastor in late 1982 (nearly 4 years later as my father died in January 1979), I indeed came to think he “was great” (and I still respect him immensely), and probably sometime in 1991 (the pastor died in 1992), the pastor himself admitted, “I owe you an apology. You needed encouragement, and all I’ve done is to discourage you even more!”

I then pointed out he’d just quoted my “dead” father back to me almost word for word. He got a shock, and replied, “You really did see your father that night!” It was my father all right, and he wasn’t just a biochemical process. And the terror was very real. However unlike you the pastor didn’t think it was a biochemical reaction, but was concerned it might have been demonic in origin. They do exist - I’ve had the bed shake at night, and felt something like a truck bearing down on me from time to time. We do know our own minds you realise?

Want to inform me how a biochemical reaction makes accurate predictions? Particularly when I wasn’t even a Christian at the time, and had absolutely no intention of meeting a pastor?

 

[Hokomai]

It always intrigues me that atheists write off all and any supernatural experiences as “biochemical processes.” I’m telling you right now he appeared in my room in spiritual person. He even made predictions eg. “You’ll meet a pastor. You’ll think he’s great, but all he’ll do is discourage you even more.” I met the relevant pastor in late 1982 (nearly 4 years later as my father died in January 1979), I indeed came to think he “was great” (and I still respect him immensely), and probably sometime in 1991 (the pastor died in 1992), the pastor himself admitted, “I owe you an apology. You needed encouragement, and all I’ve done is to discourage you even more!”

I then pointed out he’d just quoted my “dead” father back to me almost word for word. He got a shock, and replied, “You really did see your father that night!” It was my father all right, and he wasn’t just a biochemical process. And the terror was very real. However unlike you the pastor didn’t think it was a biochemical reaction, but was concerned it might have been demonic in origin. They do exist - I’ve had the bed shake at night, and felt something like a truck bearing down on me from time to time. We do know our own minds you realise?

Want to inform me how a biochemical reaction makes accurate predictions? Particularly when I wasn’t even a Christian at the time, and had absolutely no intention of meeting a pastor?

Bob I am not trying to dissuade you from your belief, and you can no doubt work out the sort of thing I would say. This is a highly personal experience of importance to you and I wouldn’t be comfortable giving my views in detail as I do not fully understand what happened. As I said, I accept entirely that this was your experience. Incidentally, we don’t (or I don’t) ‘write off’ spiritual experiences as biochemical. I just think they are like all other thoughts. None of our thoughts exactly corresponds with reality, and all are coloured to some extent by our beliefs and experiences. If I could ask one question from your point of view: as your father’s visit has deepened your faith, and as his visit was clearly out of some concern for you, was he not acting in some way ‘for God’, and could you therefore be mistaken about his present place?