J
josh987654321
Guest
Most importantly uncompleted99 and what I should have asked first is, may I ask why you want to “Opt-out”? What’s goin’ on man? we might be able to help.
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
- Status
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
W
WonderAndAwe
Guest
Here’s how I see it.
First off, Hell isn’t really the burning cave with monsterous demons who delight in tormenting lost souls at the order of their red pitchfork-toting goatfooted master. That’s the product of cultural depiction that I belive started with The Divine Comedy. A better veiw I find is taking Jesus’ parables of Heaven as a big party and from there, seing Hell as the wet-blankets standing a good 20ft away from the party, backs turned, and fingers in their ears shouting “LALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!” And doing this because the party’s host required his guests to bring a dish and wear a fancy hat and these guys refused to do either and even when the host offered to let them in despite not meeting the requirements, they spit in his face and walk off spouting obscenities as the host sighs and goes back to making his party super awesome.
It’s a self-imposed thing, Hell. The agony and torture isn’t caused by delighted demons as they’re suffering too. They know that God loves them but their pride makes them hate that fact. “We don’t need God” they tell themselves. “And those stupid humans don’t need Him either, what with their sharing in the inheritance of the Kingdom through Christ. Let’s convince as many of them as we can to be as bitter and self-loathing as us.” This is why they tempt. They stand at the outer gate of that awesome party and tell all the geusts walking up to it “Hey that party is awful! The host is a jerk and it’s super boring! Hang with us, we can make our own party right here and it’ll be better than THAT lame old party!”
Hell is a cold, dark void of boredom and self-loathing that teters on the edge of ceasing-to-exist due to it’s distance from God. Sort of like Pluto if Mercury is Heaven and God is the Sun.
First off, Hell isn’t really the burning cave with monsterous demons who delight in tormenting lost souls at the order of their red pitchfork-toting goatfooted master. That’s the product of cultural depiction that I belive started with The Divine Comedy. A better veiw I find is taking Jesus’ parables of Heaven as a big party and from there, seing Hell as the wet-blankets standing a good 20ft away from the party, backs turned, and fingers in their ears shouting “LALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!” And doing this because the party’s host required his guests to bring a dish and wear a fancy hat and these guys refused to do either and even when the host offered to let them in despite not meeting the requirements, they spit in his face and walk off spouting obscenities as the host sighs and goes back to making his party super awesome.
It’s a self-imposed thing, Hell. The agony and torture isn’t caused by delighted demons as they’re suffering too. They know that God loves them but their pride makes them hate that fact. “We don’t need God” they tell themselves. “And those stupid humans don’t need Him either, what with their sharing in the inheritance of the Kingdom through Christ. Let’s convince as many of them as we can to be as bitter and self-loathing as us.” This is why they tempt. They stand at the outer gate of that awesome party and tell all the geusts walking up to it “Hey that party is awful! The host is a jerk and it’s super boring! Hang with us, we can make our own party right here and it’ll be better than THAT lame old party!”
Hell is a cold, dark void of boredom and self-loathing that teters on the edge of ceasing-to-exist due to it’s distance from God. Sort of like Pluto if Mercury is Heaven and God is the Sun.
N
Neildown
Guest
Interesting observation, Uncompleted99, but not entirely accurate with the Catholic model of God. What we believe of God is that He is purely and entirely good. We also believe He is eternally powerful. On that note one *might declare this a paradox, as “good” obviously puts a cap on God’s range of power. What one should *recognize is that if two general claims conclude in a paradox, they’re probably not being interpreted in context. Which means God is eternally and infinitely good and powerful within those respective criteria. That of course means that God does not retain a “direct” lordship over evil. If God controls evil, it is through the use of His own faculties, which are inherently and without exception good in nature. “Control” of evil, within the context of God’s abilities, therefore also includes the exploitation (not the enactment or patronage) of evil itself in order to do more good.
That said, the idea of God establishing life as a game of Love Me or Burn is impossible for the fact that God’s inherent end goal is salvation for His creation - a temperance against evil, which consumes. Whilst it is true God is all-powerful in a context of positivity, evil and/or chaos acts as a power of negation against His creation. It’s not nearly as strong, but it is there nonetheless. Now there is no thing capable of being as perfect or good as God Himself without actually being a part of God Himself, so of course if God is to create individuals other than Himself, those individuals must inherently possess vulnerabilities that God does not have.
Enter the human being. According to the tenets of our faith, we are children of God and therefore inclined towards greatness and virtue in spite of vulnerabilities set in our nature. Adam and Eve make perfect examples in this case. They are given a direct command from God not to eat of a forbidden fruit but due to evil their vulnerabilities were exposed and subsequently their nature became vandalized. Some believe this to be a true-life account, but the idea of successive generations of exposed nerves suits it just as well. The point in any case is that through the exploitation of those vulnerabilities man has become “naturally” inclined towards things that are contrary to its proper nature in the first place. I must say there that man’s nature as a whole has not become dysfunctional, but that we experience an odd dysfunction (if it may be called such) in which we are “naturally” inclined to do things both for and against ourselves and each other. Both for and against good and evil. This dysfunction is the very thing that provides you with the ability to rightly criticize a flawed philosophy of God (which, I hope both of us may be glad, is not truly representative of the Catholic understanding of God).
That said, yes there are obviously bad things that can happen to individuals who must fend off exploitations of their own nature, but that’s a reality you live and breathe every day regardless of whether you’re a Christian, Atheist, or follower of Cthulhu. We can exchange theories all day but it doesn’t change the fact that we do in fact live in a world where we can suffer and die or live long and prosper according to our own initiative. It’s really impossible to criticize the concept unless you’re willing to criticize life on earth entirely along with it; in which case one’s psychological state would almost indefinitely come into play as the answer. Which concludes in the fact that life, insofar as it effects us as individuals, is what you make of it.
N
Neildown
Guest
Continued…
Now given that God is good, and given that we have full reign over our livelihoods as well as our constituent evaluations of our livelihoods, we can safely assume that God does not play an arbitrary game (at very least within the confines of the boundaries set forth by your post) and that He does provide us naturally with the needed faculties to succeed to salvation from evil (The Church as a spiritual body is not exclusive to the Church as a physical body) - for there is no other way humanity could ever hope to be saved. If heaven were only reserved for those who practice the modern Catholic sacraments then we could not hold a legitimate claim to the heritage we establish ourselves upon. It does not make the legitimacy of our mission anything less, but it puts into perspective the benevolence of God’s design. Judaism was not born with fully decorated rites and traditions, but developed from simple actions and payments of homage to God. And the significance of these things has always been primarily with regard to a spiritual value.
Hope that lends some insight to the topic and hope I was able to give you a satisfactory answer, Uncompleted99.
Now given that God is good, and given that we have full reign over our livelihoods as well as our constituent evaluations of our livelihoods, we can safely assume that God does not play an arbitrary game (at very least within the confines of the boundaries set forth by your post) and that He does provide us naturally with the needed faculties to succeed to salvation from evil (The Church as a spiritual body is not exclusive to the Church as a physical body) - for there is no other way humanity could ever hope to be saved. If heaven were only reserved for those who practice the modern Catholic sacraments then we could not hold a legitimate claim to the heritage we establish ourselves upon. It does not make the legitimacy of our mission anything less, but it puts into perspective the benevolence of God’s design. Judaism was not born with fully decorated rites and traditions, but developed from simple actions and payments of homage to God. And the significance of these things has always been primarily with regard to a spiritual value.
Hope that lends some insight to the topic and hope I was able to give you a satisfactory answer, Uncompleted99.
P
Petaro
Guest
Thank you for sticking up for us believers. You are right, hurtful or bitterness will not win arguments. Reason and logic are the best weapons, rather than biblical exegesis when your desired audience does not believe the Bible is inspired, or even was written as we believe.
The argument here was taken up by Descartes and is nothing new, just more bitterly phrased. Firstly one has to believe in a personal God who interacts, in any way, with humans. There certainly seems to be a natural, almost universal belief in any culture of the supernatural, and in God or gods who interact. Thus, it can be argued from anthropological
evidence, that man is hard-wired to a belief in this supernatural phenomena. From the complexity, many people postulate a Creator from creation itself. The laws of existence and permanency are founded in the very “DNA” of creation. Our science is wedded to the belief that it did not always exist, that it arose spontaneously from a “singularity”; thus some may postulate a creating “God”. Good and Bad are terms defined by the observer in many moral frameworks. The issue of a good or bad God depends on one’s faith, to my mind, given that there is both good and bad as defined as being either good or bad for humanity. I prefer to believe in a loving God who created us in His own image, and desires that we live with Him forever in His Love. I feel sorry for the original poster as they are brought to their knees in an unjust and often uncaring world, “fallen” even by the definitions of the most optimistic.
One word of advice, agnosticism is a purer form of dis-belief. To say one is an atheist requires a jump in faith similar to deists. Thanks again for your polite defense.
P
Petaro
Guest
Thank you for sticking up for us believers. You are right, hurtful or bitterness will not win arguments. Reason and logic are the best weapons, rather than biblical exegesis when your desired audience does not believe the Bible is inspired, or even was written as we believe.
The argument here was taken up by Descartes and is nothing new, just more bitterly phrased. Firstly one has to believe in a personal God who interacts, in any way, with humans. There certainly seems to be a natural, almost universal belief in any culture of the supernatural, and in God or gods who interact. Thus, it can be argued from anthropological
evidence, that man is hard-wired to a belief in this supernatural phenomena. From the complexity, many people postulate a Creator from creation itself. The laws of existence and permanency are founded in the very “DNA” of creation. Our science is wedded to the belief that it did not always exist, that it arose spontaneously from a “singularity”; thus some may postulate a creating “God”. Good and Bad are terms defined by the observer in many moral frameworks. The issue of a good or bad God depends on one’s faith, to my mind, given that there is both good and bad as defined as being either good or bad for humanity. I prefer to believe in a loving God who created us in His own image, and desires that we live with Him forever in His Love. I feel sorry for the original poster as they are brought to their knees in an unjust and often uncaring world, “fallen” even by the definitions of the most optimistic.
One word of advice, agnosticism is a purer form of dis-belief. To say one is an atheist requires a jump in faith similar to deists. Thanks again for your polite defense.
C
catybug
Guest
Considering humans don’t have the fullness of knowledge, would it not be even more unfair to give an uninformed being a choice that weighty and consequential as to not exist at all? Besides, if that were the case, and we do have that choice most would choose that, because that would be the easiest option. What would be the point of it at all?
Also from my understanding, something which is created, cannot simply be uncreated. Something has to happen to it, or it has to be put somewhere. The idea just doesn’t make sense, and it comes from a skewed view of what we actually believe. We love God because God is Love, and from where all Love pours forth, and Hell is the absence of Love. If we choose to live in the absence of God in life, if we choose to turn away from Love itself in life, God would not force us too be in presence in eternity. Ultimatley though, God WANTS salvation for everyone, but he is’t going to push it on us either.
Also from my understanding, something which is created, cannot simply be uncreated. Something has to happen to it, or it has to be put somewhere. The idea just doesn’t make sense, and it comes from a skewed view of what we actually believe. We love God because God is Love, and from where all Love pours forth, and Hell is the absence of Love. If we choose to live in the absence of God in life, if we choose to turn away from Love itself in life, God would not force us too be in presence in eternity. Ultimatley though, God WANTS salvation for everyone, but he is’t going to push it on us either.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I’m not quite following. What if I said don’t jump off the cliff or you’ll be killed! Am I unjust to tell it to you straight? Is it unjust that you are, de facto, forced into the free choice to jump or not jump off the cliff?
J
JRKH
Guest
I’m sure many of us made the assumption that you were an atheist from your posts. I know that I did. I hope that at some point you will share your beliefs with us. It can help tremendously in framing answers.
Sorry - but you seem to have switched gears on me here. My response here was to your post complaining that we do not have “free will” - not about what might be considered just. The philosophical issue is what is “free will” - how does one define it?
hhmmmm. It seems from the above that what you are rejecting then is faith. Since heaven “cannot” (or at least has not) been adequately shown or described to your satisfaction, you reject it.
Just a thought…I’m trying to get to know you here…
I would submit to you that neither heaven OR hell can be adequately referenced here on earth. The images that are commonly used are simply that - images.
The description that I like best is also extremely simple.
Since God is Love - then heaven is an eternity of perfect Agape Love shared with all the others who also have embrace the perfection of Agape Love.
Hell is the opposite of this…It is the complete and utter absence of Love…Describe that however you will…It ain’t good…
I agree that there are many things that “the world” considers fun that God and the Church teach are not permissible. This would be a far cry from saying the Catholics can’t indulge in a lot of fun. We most certainly can and do.
Catholics go to ball games, they play sports, they get together with friends for barbeques, go out to dinner, and to all manner of “fun” things.
I find it interesting that - as is quite common - you use sexual activities as your example and seem to (I might be wrong) make this some sort of standard since you go on to say “if the kingdom of heaven on earth is bereft of happy pursuits…”.
Why should sexual pursuits be seen as the standard?
Just one more indication of how obsessed the world is with such things.
And a very wrong guess.
First - as I described above - there are many MANY things that are fun and not forbidden.
Second - in heaven - sex is no longer an issue…Scripture tells us that we will live like the angels, not be given in marriage etc.
Third - as I said earlier - heaven is about love. We must be perfected in Love - in Agape - not in following rules, though that makes it easier.
Now - to tie all of this back into the crux of your question about justice and being “forced”.
In the world - in the universe - there are but two choices. Good or evil - Love or hate - creative order or chaos. That is why we have but two choices - Heaven (Love, Good, Creative, Giving etc.) or hell (hate, evil, chaos, selfishness etc.)
In these things there is no “opt out”. It does not matter whether on believes in God or not - or how one believes or defines God. One makes the choice between good (God) or evil (satan) each and every day. One can “opt out” of belief or they can redefine belief or whatever…but they cannot get away from the binary system of choosing either good or ill - life or death.
Now - from what you describe above I understand that you would willingly give up eternal happiness if you could avoid eternal damnation. You believe that one should have that choice - that it is somehow unjust that this option is not provided for.
Perhaps it is unjust - by our limited human capacity to understand justice.
And I suppose that if one is willing to reject eternal happiness because the option they desire is not provided for…If they are willing to reject God as “unjust” and are willing to accept the consequences of that decision (remember there are still only two choices - Good or ill) then so be it.
Sorry if this sounds harsh - I don’t really intend it to be…but I want us to be honest with each other so we can have a meaningful conversation.
Peace
James
P
PrincessRenae
Guest
I don’t understand the whole “opt out” concept. What in life can you really opt out of? What if we applied the same logic to other circumstances as well? You can’t possibly think that we have THAT MUCH choice in life when it comes to events that someone could not possibly have a say in. I feel like your idea of free will is way too absolute for a realistic application.
S
sw85
Guest
Oh gosh! None of us have ever heard this complaint before! You’ve totally changed our minds!
Yes, you’re wrong. Read books more.
R
Richard_White
Guest
Your concept of “opting-out” is just so wrong and false that it deeply troubles and offends me. The only time ayone should ever want to “opt-out” of something is if they are torn between two undesirables. This is absolutely NOT the case here. We have Heaven as our home and our eternity if we follow Jesus in His Catholic Church the way that we ought according to His Divine Will for us.
Plus, you would not even be alive if God did have you in His Mind from the very beginning of time, if He did not create you, and if He did not have a special place for you with Him in Heaven: a place that no one else but you can ever fill. Therefore, to mock God’s Holy and unfathomable Will, His creation, His plan for us, and His infinite Love for us, is just such a great offense against Him that I can’t even take it anymore.
Done.
Now, may God bless you, grant you peace, and lead you to the Truths of Catholicism!
Plus, you would not even be alive if God did have you in His Mind from the very beginning of time, if He did not create you, and if He did not have a special place for you with Him in Heaven: a place that no one else but you can ever fill. Therefore, to mock God’s Holy and unfathomable Will, His creation, His plan for us, and His infinite Love for us, is just such a great offense against Him that I can’t even take it anymore.
Done.
Now, may God bless you, grant you peace, and lead you to the Truths of Catholicism!
J
JRKH
Guest
uncompleted99,
After I wrote my post above I went to mass and while there it occurred to me that there actually IS a third Choice offered to us by God. It’s not an “opt out” choice but it does rather cover that gap between “love me (perfectly) or burn”.
The third choice is to appeal to God’s Mercy which believers, and even great saints appeal to daily.
This is not the “opt out” as in “I don’t want to play” option that you ask for in your OP, but still it is an alternative to the extremes that are presented in your thread title.
It recognizes that we WANT to choose good…but don’t always…that we DO want to Love but it is hard…that we are incomplete and unworthy…and ask for God’s help rather than criticize, despair, and turn away.
Just something to consider…
Peace
James
After I wrote my post above I went to mass and while there it occurred to me that there actually IS a third Choice offered to us by God. It’s not an “opt out” choice but it does rather cover that gap between “love me (perfectly) or burn”.
The third choice is to appeal to God’s Mercy which believers, and even great saints appeal to daily.
This is not the “opt out” as in “I don’t want to play” option that you ask for in your OP, but still it is an alternative to the extremes that are presented in your thread title.
It recognizes that we WANT to choose good…but don’t always…that we DO want to Love but it is hard…that we are incomplete and unworthy…and ask for God’s help rather than criticize, despair, and turn away.
Just something to consider…
Peace
James
P
polytropos
Guest
This does not really address the problems I have raised. You are not permitted to break the law and go unpunished according to the law. For example, you may not kill a man and go unpunished. Fleeing to another country doesn’t solve this problem; you are still a criminal.
And what your argument entails is that this state of affairs is unjust, that you might be punished for rules that were established apart from your consent.
Even suggesting suicide is a very extreme position, since few hold that there is a general right to suicide. (Even advocates of euthanasia generally don’t hold this.) There is, then, the further issue that people will be inculturated and raised in such a society against their will, since (I assume) you don’t propose for suicide to be made available to people of all ages?
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
You’re complaining about having free will? You would rather have no choice?
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
I feel for your inner struggle as you wrestle with this. There is a certain peace that comes with spending time in the presence of God. I hope you can find that peace sooner rather than later. I remembered you while in church today, that God bring you close, and that you would be ok with that. There are many people who struggle today, are asking why to an unanswerable question. May God be in the midst of it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I agree; your proposal defies logic. It is either unworkable or leads to a tautology in favor of being; therefore, the ‘opt-out’ is untenable as an option.
First, though, let me address your notion that God in His omnipotence might do the illogical for the sake of justice: that doesn’t seem to hold – God does not do the impossible or the illogical… not because He can’t (i.e., because He’s not omnipotent) but because it’s nonsensical. So, we can’t just claim “because He’s omnipotent, He could; and since He doesn’t, He’s unjust.”
But, what about your proposal, asking for an opt-out of ‘being’. The problem is that being – for creatures – is bound up in a temporal framework: one does not exist until he comes into being. So, at what point do we ‘ask’ a person whether he wishes to exist? We cannot ask a non-being anything; he does not exist. So, on one hand, it’s unworkable; one who does not possess being cannot be polled for his opinion on his own existence.
What about the ‘other’ side of the equation, though: what if, once a person comes into being, he’s given the opportunity to choose? One one hand, this makes no sense, either: once a person has ‘being’, he can no longer have ‘non-being’: his existence is already a matter of fact. We might ask “would you prefer death to physical existence?” but that’s not the same question. On the other hand, though, the question might be something along the lines of “do you prefer ‘being’ or ‘non-being’?” Now, in an objective sense, being is superior to non-being: existence, as a gift, is always superior to non-being, which has no value. So, in essence, the question reduces to “you have something (i.e., ‘being’) which is greater than its alternative (i.e., ‘non-being’). Which do you prefer?” If the person answers ‘being’, then they continue to exist. If they answer ‘non-being’, then they’re asking to be denied a gift from God that they’ve already been given. This, then, is clearly a request made in error; if a person were to be asked whether they preferred to win the lottery or be placed in a cage with hungry lions, and they chose ‘lions’, we wouldn’t throw them in the cage, would we? Why, that itself would be the height of injustice! So, even if a person were to choose ‘non-being’, justice would require us to not allow that request to be honored.
Therefore, we’re left with the fact that the ‘opt-out’ doesn’t help us at all: even if logical sense could be made of it (and I assert that it cannot), the decision leads us to the same answer: ‘being’. The tautology means that asking the question is pointless.
Blessings,
G.
F
fhansen
Guest
It’s a lot like God-or anyone else for that matter-warning us about the law of gravity by saying, “If you jump off that cliff you’ll die”. Should we be offended? To argue against such a law is to argue with Reality-an unreasonable but common enough behavior for us humans, incidentally.
F
Faxero
Guest
The purpose of post #17 was to justify God’s ability to send people to Hell by presenting a theory which asserts that we human beings have control over how God treats us and where he will send us after we die.
:yup:
S
sw85
Guest
Bingo. Refusal/inability to deal with reality on its own terms is psychosis.
- Status