Love Me or Burn!

[uncompleted99]

@Neildown,

If I’ve read catholic teaching correctly, the catholic concept of evil is that it is the ABSENCE of good. It is NOT a positive thing - it does not exist - it is the absence of what SHOULD be there.

Therefore, there is nothing for god to “control” - nor exploit, nor have “lordship” over.

Because he sees all space-time at once, he can always guide events to their greater “good” based upon whatever is happening “now” - he is not using, nor exploiting evil - he is directing a defective situation to the “complete” or “intended” situation.

But, perhaps I have misunderstood the catholic position and you are correct?

 

[uncompleted99]

@fhansen,

Most of the posts above fall into your line of reasoning - that some punishment would affect someone if they had the choice to, and chose to, “opt-out”. Huh? Why?

The “opt-out” example I gave assumes that god can, in fact, remove you from space-time. Some vaguely argue that he cannot do so. That is the MOST concrete and interesting answer so far.

If you actually read my example, which I am beginning to think nobody did, given the consistent orthogonal responses, the person choosing the “opt-out” would simply NOT exist. They would NOT be punished in hell, nor would they receive any reward in heaven.

They would NOT exist - space-time would be unwound and then replayed without them in it. I see no reason why god could not do such a thing.

Nor do I see why it is JUST to NOT offer such an option like that.

Lacking the option means living through this world, taking the batterings it so kindly offers while trying to conform yourself to god’s will so that you have the honor of going to meet the deity that put into to this dump with this artificial choice in the first place. And, if you are “rude” enough to not want to go to heaven, you burn.

 

[fhansen]

@fhansen,

Most of the posts above fall into your line of reasoning - that some punishment would affect someone if they had the choice to, and chose to, “opt-out”. Huh? Why?

The “opt-out” example I gave assumes that god can, in fact, remove you from space-time. Some vaguely argue that he cannot do so. That is the MOST concrete and interesting answer so far.

If you actually read my example, which I am beginning to think nobody did, given the consistent orthogonal responses, the person choosing the “opt-out” would simply NOT exist. They would NOT be punished in hell, nor would they receive any reward in heaven.

They would NOT exist - space-time would be unwound and then replayed without them in it. I see no reason why god could not do such a thing.

Nor do I see why it is JUST to NOT offer such an option like that.

Lacking the option means living through this world, taking the batterings it so kindly offers while trying to conform yourself to god’s will so that you have the honor of going to meet the deity that put into to this dump with this artificial choice in the first place. And, if you are “rude” enough to not want to go to heaven, you burn.

The question comes down to this, IMO: Is your existence so bad that you’d prefer to opt out this very instance if given the chance? Most people cherish their continued existence enough, even in this messed up world, to want it to continue, even though they never had a hand in its beginning. And what God offers, for those who choose the goodness of existence and the promise that it will be infinitely better yet, is just that-a world where tears are wiped away and love wins the day. If we don’t want goodness for some reason, we can opt for whatever else there is, knowing that whatever other experiences life offers we’ll be dealt with absolute fairness and justice. That’s just the way it is. And victims of horrible abuse in this world will see justice done. Do you prefer non-existence? Would you opt out if the chance was offered to you right now-to stop existing?

 

[chimo]

(n.b. I did the “Ask the Apologist” first, heard no reply for two weeks, so now I am here. I presume that is the correct path. If not, I apologize. )

It seems to me that humans are forced to play a game against our will: Love Me or Burn

This game is called life. According to you catholics, that is the purpose of life on earth - to prove your love for God or suffer eternal torture. Love Me or Burn!

It is unjust to force people to play any game without a real “opt-out” option.

(Arguably, one cannot be asked before one is created, so on the surface my complaint is illogical. But, your god is the lord of history - of space and time, right? Therefore, there is at least one option that could be offered: to never have existed.)

If we are forced to play this game against our will and with no real “opt-out” option, then this game seems like the creation of a sick, sadistic mind. The game itself is evil. Imagine parents doing this to their children - love me or die! Or even, love me or get out of my house! Neither of which is good. But, that is exactly what your god is doing and, literally, on an infinite scale.

Incredibly, you believe this is the entire purpose of your existence: to brainwash yourself into loving an entity that will burn you forever if you don’t.

Love Me or Burn!

Am I wrong?

God is not a love me or burn kind of judge. The fact there is a Purgatory justifies a more loving and generous God. He doesn’t treat as Angels. He is quite more generous than people give Him credit for. Do you want to know why God was more if you can say “disciplined” towards us in the past? He had to so that many good saints would appear. If everyone really knew how generous He really is this world probably would have been worse of. Even Purgatory was not entirely mentioned in the beginning of the formation of the Church so that the Church would not to have all these “couch potatoes” around. You have to be a little more stiffed (disciplined) in the beginning. Yet with this Purgatory teaching that reveals a more generous God we probably see an increase of these “couch potatoes!” No, God is very generous, perhaps too generous.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Thank you for your explanation, I did not know that…I was using a generalisation of all Christian faiths…but that is why I like this site…I learn something new each time I log in

Prometheus. While I may not claim to know your true intentions for coming here, I can certainly speculate that somewhere, someway, you are seeking answers. I don’t know of your other posts, so I can’t yet formulate a solid position on your true stance, and maybe you are just here just to learn, but maybe, just maybe, there is hope that you will find the truth.

Since you are open to learning, may I suggest some reading material? The first is a (long) book called “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel. In it he examines the most serious concerns and objections people have about Jesus and present logical and rational answers to those faced with intellectual barriers to Christianity, with answers provided by experts.

May I also suggest “Made for More” by Curtis Martin? Unless you are a nihilist, then even an staunch atheist believes we are here for some reason, even if it is only to feed the worms. This book presents a series of logical conclusions that take an impartial look at who Jesus was, without throwing a “whole lot of religion” at you.

At the very least, interesting reading, if you are open to it.

God bless.

Joe

 

[Gorgias]

If you actually read my example, which I am beginning to think nobody did

How odd… that’s precisely what I was thinking about you, vis-a-vis my response …

 

[uncompleted99]

@Georgias,

I did read your response, but found it no different than all of the other ones that keep presenting only two options: heaven or hell.

You said that the “opt-out” choice would be like choosing to go into a cage with lions instead of choosing the lottery. Um, no. The opt-out choice is a THIRD choice - NEITHER lottery nor lions. i.e. No suffering, no joy in heaven.

Therefore, I failed to see how your point was any different, because like all the others, you keep focusing on two possible choices/outcomes when that has NOTHING to do with my issue.

My issue is the lack of a third option. Evil is the absence of good. The absence of a third option points to evil, not good.

 

[Gorgias]

You said that the “opt-out” choice would be like choosing to go into a cage with lions instead of choosing the lottery. Um, no. The opt-out choice is a THIRD choice - NEITHER lottery nor lions. i.e. No suffering, no joy in heaven.

That’s all you got from my response? Wow. Read it again.

The “lion/lottery” example was only meant to illustrate one facet of your proposal: namely, that the choice of ‘being’ or ‘non-being’, when made by a person who possesses being, can have only one just outcome: ‘being’. In other words, this has nothing to do with ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’ – but about the injustice of returning to ‘non-being’ a person who possesses ‘being.’

Therefore, I failed to see how your point was any different

Clearly.

like all the others, you keep focusing on two possible choices/outcomes

Certainly not; I focused on your question: could there be an ‘opt-out’? I answered ‘no’; in fact, I demonstrated that, since ‘opt-out’ was illogical, it cannot legitimately be considered an option at all.

My issue is the lack of a third option.

And I showed that a third option is illogical; therefore, its ‘lack’ does not imply evil.

Evil is the absence of good. The absence of a third option points to evil, not good.

Only if you could show that an ‘opt-out’ option was good. If you could demonstrate that, then your claim would have a chance of succeeding. If you cannot, then the lack of a third option does not imply evil.

 

[JRKH]

@Georgias,

I did read your response, but found it no different than all of the other ones that keep presenting only two options: heaven or hell.

You said that the “opt-out” choice would be like choosing to go into a cage with lions instead of choosing the lottery. Um, no. The opt-out choice is a THIRD choice - NEITHER lottery nor lions. i.e. No suffering, no joy in heaven.

Therefore, I failed to see how your point was any different, because like all the others, you keep focusing on two possible choices/outcomes when that has NOTHING to do with my issue.

My issue is the lack of a third option. Evil is the absence of good. The absence of a third option points to evil, not good.

OK - - - not to belabor the points already made - - or to pass judgment on your comment above - - - - but Where do we go from here?

If I might summarize…correct me if I am wrong…
You believe that the lack of a third choice is unjust on God’s part.

Fair enough… for the sake of discussion…God is unjust… he gave us just two choices…

Now what?

Peace
James

 

[Neildown]

@Neildown,

If I’ve read catholic teaching correctly, the catholic concept of evil is that it is the ABSENCE of good. It is NOT a positive thing - it does not exist - it is the absence of what SHOULD be there.

I don’t recall stating evil as being a positive thing. Basically what I said is that it is an altogether negative thing - think along the lines of a black hole or a negative number. It goes a step further than just an absence of good, but that doesn’t raise any legitimate problems as far as I can tell.

Therefore, there is nothing for god to “control” - nor exploit, nor have “lordship” over.

That would largely be a discussion of what I believe are irrelevant technicalities: zero and negative numbers may not actually exist but we are still capable of using them to great measure, even though we may say they’re not actually “there”. You might say God has power over evil in a similar context. You could, if you really wished, say “evil does not exist” due to this but it would only be a true statement on the surface - a statement of cheek at best, as its application in the world is what counts about it - the same as zero and negative numbers. If we didn’t actually “have” negative numbers for what they’re worth, the field of mathematics wouldn’t exist. We could not account for the concept of negation in any legible manner, and I would say evil has a fairly similar standing.

Because he sees all space-time at once, he can always guide events to their greater “good” based upon whatever is happening “now” - he is not using, nor exploiting evil - he is directing a defective situation to the “complete” or “intended” situation.

I don’t see how using or exploiting evil (perhaps using and exploiting “the fruits” of evil would be more accurate) would be inconsistent with the enactment of an intended end or the direction of it to an intended goal. There’s no reason both interpretations cannot coincide.

But, perhaps I have misunderstood the catholic position and you are correct?

I can’t say I’m aware of any legitimate conflict between what I’m professing and what the Church professes, or at very least what it allows.

 

[Ana_v]

This game is called life. According to you catholics, that is the purpose of life on earth - to prove your love for God or suffer eternal torture. Love Me or Burn!

Am I wrong?

Welcome to the forum!

The purpose of our human existence is communion with God. Humans had this in he beginning, and then they lost that communion. Salvation history is about restoring that friendship with God, which is consummated in Heaven.

So yes, we were meant to love God. I mean love the action, not love the emotion which cannot be directly commanded. (Note: Originally our emotions and reason and acts were in harmony – so we were meant to love God even in the emotions, in the sense that that is the natural order, but in our fallen condition, our emotions will not necessarily correspond with our wills).

However, we have the freedom of choice to not love God. Many people are living that freedom now, on earth, which is temporal. Hell then, is the external exclusion from a communion with God.

If we were made out of love (our origin) and for love (our end), then Hell is a condition in which our purpose is eternally frustrated – what is left is despair.

I cannot answer the question of why God chose to create humans in the first place over *not *creating them (non-existence of humans). All we can say is that it did not arise out of a need of God. He has no need. I think the answer is a mystery. No this is not a cop-out. How can we answer this question? We can only identify things that would be relevant to the answer (e.g. God is eternal and unchanging and therefore his decision was eternal, there was never a “time” in which he intended to *not *create humans). But I don’t think we answer have the knowledge to answer the question WHY.

 

[friardchips]

If everyone including you knew how much God loved them the question of opting out wouldn’t ever surface because it wouldn’t be seen as a rational question! That’s why when in heaven you’re there forever! Keep searching

 

[bubba1358]

(n.b. I did the “Ask the Apologist” first, heard no reply for two weeks, so now I am here. I presume that is the correct path. If not, I apologize. )

It seems to me that humans are forced to play a game against our will: Love Me or Burn

This game is called life. According to you catholics, that is the purpose of life on earth - to prove your love for God or suffer eternal torture. Love Me or Burn!

It is unjust to force people to play any game without a real “opt-out” option.

(Arguably, one cannot be asked before one is created, so on the surface my complaint is illogical. But, your god is the lord of history - of space and time, right? Therefore, there is at least one option that could be offered: to never have existed.)

If we are forced to play this game against our will and with no real “opt-out” option, then this game seems like the creation of a sick, sadistic mind. The game itself is evil. Imagine parents doing this to their children - love me or die! Or even, love me or get out of my house! Neither of which is good. But, that is exactly what your god is doing and, literally, on an infinite scale.

Incredibly, you believe this is the entire purpose of your existence: to brainwash yourself into loving an entity that will burn you forever if you don’t.

Love Me or Burn!

Am I wrong?

I normally just lurk on these types of thing, but the armchair philosopher in me just can’t resist, for some unexplained reason.

First of all, I agree with your later comment about receiving the standard Catholic replies. Lines from the Catechism just are not going to provide the answers you seek. They all assume a baseline, and what that baseline is is precisely what is being discussed.

I think what is largely at issue here is what is meant by the word “justice.” Justice, fairness, equity, and so forth have specific meanings to different people. Justice, to the Catholic, means assigning to each their due - no more, and no less. The problem with justice on Earth is that it’s distributed by humans and subject to our finite views of the world. When you extend to the infinite in terms of life, you also have to in terms of justice. It gets a lot stickier to describe and (pardon the pun) do it justice.

Also, there IS a “third option,” as you might put it - and that is never becoming aware of God. True justice would dictate that if one doesn’t know the “rules” of the “game,” then one cannot “win” or “lose.” This hearkens back to the “can a man in a remote village in Africa be saved” debate, but it’s a valid thing to remember here -consequences for willful disobedience and for un-willful ignorance are inherently very different.

As a philosophical exercise, can you imagine a scenario in which, prior to obtaining consciousness, you ARE given the choice by God himself?

I can:

"Alright, uncompleted99, here’s the deal. Everybody calls me God. You can too if you want. You’re now an infinite soul (don’t worry, you’ll thank your mom and dad during potty training and learning to drive). You can go into the world and play the game, leading to either infinite bliss or infinite misery. I’ll send you all these people on the internet and in churches and so forth who have opted to play, and these people I’ve specifically called to help you called ‘priests.’ You’ll have the choice to either forsake the evils of the world (which will feel good at the time) in order to love me a fraction as much as I love you in order to be given pleasure and peace beyond all comprehension after an average of let’s say, 80 years. Yeah, the world is full of pain and suffering, but it’s such a tiny, itsy bitsy piece of your existence, and merits so much through perseverance, that many great saints have actually thanked me for it. You might too, one day. But if you choose to do something different from My Plan, you won’t ever experience that happiness, and you’ll know it - through endless grief - for eternity.

Oh yeah, by the way: you can also choose neither. You’ll never experience the infinite good that I’ve prepared for you, but also not risk the infinite torment if you ‘lose.’ You will simply never become implanted in your mother and will just cease to exist everywhere except in My memory. Nobody will ever know.

But after you make this choice, you won’t remember this conversation until you die, meet me again, and we have a nice, long chat. My people have called this the Particular Judgement, FWIW.

So…I guess it’s now all up to you."

Can that scenario fit into your question?

Is it possible that you already chose to play?

 

[bubba1358]

BTW, to all the Catholics out there who might object to my exercise, and to the OP so you know I’m not just talking out my arse, this scenario (or small variations of it) could be fully consistent with Catholic theology. Let me briefly explain.

First, we all believe that a human being, body and soul, is created at the moment of conception. This is called ensoulment, and (let’s be honest) nobody has any idea how it occurs.

Second, God is in full control of space-time, and at the instant prior to ensoulment, or even simultaneous to it, there are no formal doctrines stating that God cannot “pause time” or “suspend space” for any reason, as he is the master of time to which a thousand years are as a day.

Third, there is no consensus among theologians, nor explanations in Church documents, explaining precisely what occurs with souls who have died in utero. We call them the Holy Innocents, but beyond that, the Church does not teach, specifically, what exactly happens to them. The general consensus, as I understand it, is that they do not reach the full beatific vision, yet God in His mercy provides them eternal happiness. An “opting out” of the choice between heaven and hell, if you will, and an infinitely just and merciful one at that.

Fourth, as a modification to this, perhaps the Holy Innocents are a different category altogether (unjust to the rules of the game?), and those who “opt-out” are never ensouled to begin with.

Just throwing this out there.

 

[Gorgias]

Lines from the Catechism just are not going to provide the answers you seek. They all assume a baseline, and what that baseline is is precisely what is being discussed.

I think what is largely at issue here is what is meant by the word “justice.” Justice, fairness, equity, and so forth have specific meanings to different people. Justice, to the Catholic, means assigning to each their due - no more, and no less. The problem with justice on Earth is that it’s distributed by humans and subject to our finite views of the world. When you extend to the infinite in terms of life, you also have to in terms of justice.

True, but this is the reason that the opt-out ultimately fails – it deprives a person of the justice of experiencing ‘being’. Although uncompleted99 seems not to recognize it, there is a distinct issue of injustice of not allowing a person (who hasn’t experienced ‘being’) to experience ‘being’ (even presuming his own, unknowing, desire not to) or of depriving a person of ‘being’ (who has experienced it), even if he asks for annihilation.

Also, there IS a “third option,” as you might put it - and that is never becoming aware of God.

I’ll take a pass on the rest of your analysis – there are some aspects of it that I have issues with. However, the notion of the injustice of “never being given the opportunity to experience God, as creature to creator,” seems the salient point here. If God is Love/Goodness, then the prospect of not experiencing God, as creature to one’s creator, is the greatest injustice possible.

It’s not, as you posit it here, that following the experience of ‘being’ that a person might (presumably) choose to opt out of, there would be the opportunity for a particular judgment. The injustice of the opt out notion is that this opportunity would be forever lost. Having never experienced life, a person would never quite fathom the stakes, and never be given a chance to decide for himself what his eternal destiny is. Having never ‘been’, a person will never experience ‘being’ in eternity. “I don’t have an eternal destiny” is the cruelest cut of all…

 

[Gorgias]

this scenario (or small variations of it) could be fully consistent with Catholic theology.

I’ve just responded to the OP, by means of your post. I think that your notion, while interesting as a thought experiment, isn’t ‘fully consistent with Catholic theology.’

Third, there is no consensus among theologians, nor explanations in Church documents, explaining precisely what occurs with souls who have died in utero.

Not entirely true. We’re not (theologically) certain how salvation might occur for the unbaptized. Those ensouled who die in utero aren’t a distinct case in themselves, but fall into the general case of those who (having not reached ‘the age of reason’) die unbaptized.

We call them the Holy Innocents, but beyond that, the Church does not teach, specifically, what exactly hap[pens to them. The general consensus, as I understand it, is that they do not reach the full beatific vision, yet God in His mercy provides them eternal happiness.

Actually, that was the notion of theologians centuries ago. If you look at the more recent theological opinion, found here, the consensus isn’t “that they do not reach the full beatific vision [but rather]… eternal happiness”; instead, it’s that “Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision.” Why only ‘hope’? “There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.”

An “opting out” of the choice between heaven and hell, if you will, and an infinitely just and merciful one at that.

That doesn’t follow from the original question. Those who have no existence experience neither ‘heaven’ nor ‘hell’ nor ‘beatific vision’ nor ‘eternal happiness (without beatific vision)’.
[/quote]

 

[bubba1358]

We’re not (theologically) certain how salvation might occur for the unbaptized. Those ensouled who die in utero aren’t a distinct case in themselves, but fall into the general case of those who (having not reached ‘the age of reason’) die unbaptized.
… “Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision.” Why only ‘hope’? “There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.”

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarifications.

So, let’s narrow the thought experiment down to a choice to “opt out” of existence prior to ensoulment.

 

[Ana_v]

Something occurred to me. Is reality better with humans (and all of Creation – Angels, stars, planets, plants, non-rational animals, etc) in existence, or without it?

If we say it is better, then it implies that prior to the existence of Creation, reality was “less good”. That would seem blasphemous though, would it not? Because what did reality consists of prior to Creation? God – and Him alone.

So was it “less good” for God to be “alone” (for lack of a better term – though we know God is Three Persons) than for God to join to Himself the company of non-divine persons?

I ask this question because there are some people who might try to answer uncomplete99’s question by suggesting that God saw that a greater good would come out of creating humans than not creating humans. Maybe so, but it sounds theologically problematic in at least one sense.

I stand by my original response, in which I say that I don’t know why God chose to create humans instead of not creating them. However, I speculate that perhaps by its very nature, a being of a rational kind lives forever. God, Angels, and humans. In other words, we could suppose (granting that my supposition may be wrong) that it is simply not possible for a rational being to not exist everlastingly. In which case, God was to either create rational beings that would live forever, or not create them at all. Rational beings are capable of the experience joy (which is in the intellect) as well as pleasure (which is in the senses). He intends eternal joy and pleasure for them, but because of their rational nature, they have to choose it themselves (and therefore, choose to live the kind of life that merits Heaven).

But this all throws us back to the problem I raised earlier, which is that it implies that somehow reality is “better” with humans in existence than without them. But that doesn’t make sense because God is goodness itself – infinite goodness. Adding “goodness” (the goodness of His creation) doesn’t increase the original goodness of when God was the only being in existence, does it?

And to complicate things further, he is not really “a being” but rather, Being itself.

 

[Ana_v]

The OP’s question is kind of like the question: *Why is there something rather than nothing? *

Only that in this version, the question is: Why are there humans rather than not?

Because God willed it so.

But why?

I don’t know! I don’t think we can reason our way to the answer. The answer probably falls under the category of truth that can only be known through Special Revelation.

 

[Gorgias]

So, let’s narrow the thought experiment down to a choice to “opt out” of existence prior to ensoulment.

Yep. But, even so, I think that this notion speaks of grave injustice.

Let’s take the thought experiment in this direction: imagine that I have a device that enables us to speak with new-born infants. I decide that I want to enter into the maternity ward of a hospital and ask the infants there, “you have a choice today: you can be a spouse/parent; or today, you can choose never to be a spouse/parent, or more to the point, never be placed in a situation in which you’ll ever be faced with the question of whether you want to be a spouse/parent.”

If I were to offer (or worse, enforce!) this choice, you’d be aghast! “Why, how dare you!”, you’d exclaim. “These children have no basis on which to make such an important decision! Asking them to make this decision, today, and never have the chance to consider their decision, is monstrous! They’ll never have the opportunity to hold hands as a teen and feel the thrill of puppy love! They’ll never have the chance to pledge their undying love to their high-school crush! They’ll never be able to know the joy of a marriage that lasts 20, 30, 50, or 60 years! They’ll never have their heart broken – true! – but they’ll never even have the opportunity to feel their heart swell with love. That’s simply unconscionable!”

And, in fact, you’d be right: asking someone who has no basis to make a decision (based on reason and/or experience) to make precisely that sort of decision – without the possibility of reconsidering their choice – is patently unjust. Yet, that’s exactly what our OP is asking us to consider. Worse yet, she’s asking us to agree that the lack of this opt out is unjust! How counter-intuitive! How unreasonable!

No… the ‘opt out’ isn’t a ‘just’ alternative; it’s the request that we take ‘injustice’ and call it by the name of ‘justice’; it’s the request that we take ‘evil’ and call it ‘goodness’.