The four requirements of justifyable pain, suffering or harm

[pnewton]

If God only allows choices which are there for learning purposes - as a loving God would do - then there are no final, fatal choices. Every bad choice is reversible. That is the point. A loving God will never create a hell, which is a one-way establishment.

What is illogical is to assume that we know more about what a loving God would do than God does. That is the lesson that Job needed to understand.

As hard as it may sound, God did not choose to make automatons. He made beings that were free to choose an eternity of friendship with God, or an eternity of enmity with God. We have no more business judging God for this choice than Deep Blue has complaining that it never gets to watch T.V. or play football instead of chess.

For the Christians here, who would like a philosophical insight into the meaning of suffering, I have recently finished and excellent book on the subject by Peter Kreeft. I was fortunate enough to come across this at a garage sale. It is titled Making Sense Out of Suffering. It is much more than a feel-good book, but rather it addresses the issues and problems of suffering from an intellectual Christian viewpoint.

 

[Spock]

What is illogical is to assume that we know more about what a loving God would do than God does. That is the lesson that Job needed to understand.

There is nothing illogical about saying that love - which is acting in the best interest of the loved one - does not allow the loved one to make fatal choices. By the way the story of Job is one of the worst, most horrifying stories in the Bible. To “play” with Job’s family as discardable pieces on a chessboard negates their dignity.

As hard as it may sound, God did not choose to make automatons.

The scenario I presented does not contain any automatons.

He made beings that were free to choose an eternity of friendship with God, or an eternity of enmity with God.

Now that is illogical. And not just illogical, but totally unfounded.

 

[vz71]

If God only allows choices which are there for learning purposes - as a loving God would do - then there are no final, fatal choices. Every bad choice is reversible. That is the point. A loving God will never create a hell, which is a one-way establishment. It may be there for learning purposes, and then when the person learned what there was to learn there, then he can “repent” and gets out.

I know that this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. But this is the logical corollary of a loving God. The Church’s teaching is illogical.

Your logic is flawed.
A loving God allows you to make your choices.

Else we are mere automotons and are incapable of real choices at all.
We would be rendered incapable of loving God.

As I stated before, you want freedom without consequence.
I know you claim otherwise, but you cannot deny the logical progression your view leads us to.

 

[vz71]

The scenario I presented does not contain any automatons.

Really? OK, place someone that chooses forever to be seperated from God.
How does that work?

Unless they are automotons, God cannot prevent this choice.
Free will is not a half way venture. You either have freedom or you do not.

You wish to lay out a scenario of freedom without freedom to choose…yours is an illogical view.

 

[Spock]

A loving God allows you to make your choices.

Certainly. Within the constraints that are available to us. Are there no physical constraints, which will limit our choices? Are there no physchological boundaries, which will influence our desires?

Else we are mere automotons and are incapable of real choices at all.

So the child who is prevented by the parents to touch a scorching surface is just an automaton? Is that what you call “logic”? What is a “real” choice?

We would be rendered incapable of loving God.

Is the child now “prevented” from loving his parents? Not much of a “logic” here.

As I stated before, you want freedom without consequence.
I know you claim otherwise, but you cannot deny the logical progression your view leads us to.

Where is your “logic”?

Really? OK, place someone that chooses forever to be seperated from God.

Do you have an example? Is “forever” now over? Otherwise you cannot say that there is someone who will “choose” forever to be separated from God. Remember the last sentence from 1984: “He loved Big Brother”.

Unless they are automotons, God cannot prevent this choice.
Free will is not a half way venture. You either have freedom or you do not.

Sheer nonsense. Our freedom is always limited. Can you fly by flipping your arms? Can you imagine yourself to torture and kill your child? So, are you now an “automaton”? Give me a break.

 

[vz71]

Someone that is not free to choose against love can likewise not choose love.

You wish God to prevent any choice contrary to his will, yet you also wish to claim freedom.
Your logic fails.

 

[vz71]

Sheer nonsense. Our freedom is always limited. Can you fly by flipping your arms? Can you imagine yourself to torture and kill your child? So, are you now an “automaton”? Give me a break.

Red herring argument.

The choices under discussion here (as you well know) involve rejection or acceptance of God. Not flying around by flapping our arms.

The sheer nonsense I see in this discussion is the attempt to have it both ways.
To claim liberty to choose against God and then decry the consequence of the choice.

One may as well complain to the fire the injustice of being burned after having set your hair on fire.

 

[Spock]

Someone that is not free to choose against love can likewise not choose love.

Love is not a “choice”. To act on love is a choice. But, I will not argue any further. If someone prefers hell, after having experienced both heaven and hell, and if someone has the option to change his mind, and still chooses hell, I see no problem with that.

 

[The_Exodus]

Sheer nonsense. Our freedom is always limited. Can you fly by flipping your arms? Can you imagine yourself to torture and kill your child? So, are you now an “automaton”? Give me a break.

Spock,

The ability to do evil is essentially the ability to commit a fatal action, since evil is a turning from God who is goodness, to the self which is a limited good and only good by participation. If evil is possible, it is also possible to go to Hell.

 

[pnewton]

The scenario I presented does not contain any automatons.

Now that is illogical. And not just illogical, but totally unfounded.

You know that just because you spout something is illogical does not make is so. There is nothing about free will that is self contradictory. Likewise, there is nothing illogical or self-contradictory about a creator that made people with no free will. It is true, that my statement was unfounded, because I choose not to argue that point here, thus there is no support. But illogical, please understand that word better before using it again.

You did not use the word automaton. However, if you are saying that people have not chance to choose good or evil, Heaven or Hell, then that is a biological automaton. It is the ability to choose that makes us persons instead of animals. Likewise, one can not love freely if one does not also have the options of hate and indifference.

I think it goes without saying that understanding of suffering is not something that we will arrive at in this thread. Indeed, if all the great minds throught the ages have not been able to understand suffering, it is doubtful this spot will yield a sudden epiphany for the ages. Which brings us to the one characteristic about God that we Christians so often forget. He is transcendent. At some point, we must say God is God. We are not.

 

[Spirithound]

If God only allows choices which are there for learning purposes - as a loving God would do - then there are no final, fatal choices. Every bad choice is reversible. That is the point. A loving God will never create a hell, which is a one-way establishment. It may be there for learning purposes, and then when the person learned what there was to learn there, then he can “repent” and gets out.

And what of the person who continually chooses evil? Does this person get to live forever? Or where do they go after death?

 

[Spock]

And what of the person who continually chooses evil? Does this person get to live forever?

Last time I looked it was the Christian and Catholic position that we all “live” forever, albeit in a slightly modified fashion.

Or where do they go after death?

Is there now death after all? Not just a transition to the next life?

The problem is that you guys assume that free will stops at this transition point. You keep saying that free will is essential, and yet God takes it away when we “die”. Why don’t you think in a consistent fashion?

 

[vz71]

Why don’t you think in a consistent fashion?

Please do not advise us on the consistancy of our thoughts.
It reads like a port calling the kettle black.

But onward we go…
I was giving this thread some thought this morning, and it occurred to me that I had similar thoughts and still wrestle with similar thoughts from time to time.
I have the power of the decision available to me.
I CAN choose hell. It is a horrible thought and it scares me quite a bit.
I have often wished the decision could be taken from me as I have worried that I would make the wrong decision when the time came.
I suppose it would draw a measure of comfort if I could convince myself that the decision is notr really there and that it is all an illusion of control.
But that bit of comfort cannot be had at the expense of compromising what I know is truth.
The truth does hurt. And it is frightening.
Nevertheless, the choice is ours to make.
And there is much comfort to be had in the fact of Christ, his sacrifice, and the promises he has made.

 

[Spock]

Please do not advise us on the consistancy of our thoughts.
It reads like a port calling the kettle black.

A good Port (say a Sandeman Ruby Port) can call the kettle black I am simply pointing out that to say that God is good, and that God does not interfere with our freedom cannot be reconciled with also assuming that God takes away our freedom of choice when we “die”. If God is good, then it makes no sense to say that God is “impatient”, and our freedom to choose is limited to this existence. If you say that this is not a consistent point of view, please show me where the inconsistency is. I do agree that this view is different from the “official” teaching, so I am calling the “official” teaching inconsistent.

But onward we go…
I was giving this thread some thought this morning, and it occurred to me that I had similar thoughts and still wrestle with similar thoughts from time to time.
I have the power of the decision available to me.
I CAN choose hell. It is a horrible thought and it scares me quite a bit.
I have often wished the decision could be taken from me as I have worried that I would make the wrong decision when the time came.
I suppose it would draw a measure of comfort if I could convince myself that the decision is notr really there and that it is all an illusion of control.
But that bit of comfort cannot be had at the expense of compromising what I know is truth.
The truth does hurt. And it is frightening.
Nevertheless, the choice is ours to make.
And there is much comfort to be had in the fact of Christ, his sacrifice, and the promises he has made.

Why would you be afraid? If you get a guided tour of heaven and hell, and you are free to choose which one you prefer, what is there to be afraid of? What can be frightening is the lack of adequate information. Now that is a scary prospect. But, you believe that God is just, and justice does not allow to demand full responsibility when there is no full information.

An old joke is due:

The Microsoft software engineer dies. He is given the opportunity to choose where to go, to heaven or hell. So an angel leads him a beautiful, sunny beach, with a lot of beer, people playing volleyball and having fun with pretty girls. He exclaims: “Wow, heaven is great!”. The angel says: “Actually, this is hell”. The engineer gasps, and says: “I can hardly wait to see heaven”. The angel nods, and brings him to a place, where old people sit on benches, and they feed some old pigeons, and says: “This is heaven!”. The engineer looks at the angel, and says: “Well, I guess, I will choose hell”. “Ok”, says the angel, and the guy immediately finds himself is red-hot lava. “Hey”, he screams, “where is the beach? The beer? The pretty girls?” The angel winks: “Well, that was the demo version. This is the production release”.

 

[vz71]

I do agree that this view is different from the “official” teaching, so I am calling the “official” teaching inconsistent.

What is inconsistent?

Yes, I did read your post. But I want to know specifically so it can be addressed properly.

 

[Spock]

What is inconsistent?

Yes, I did read your post. But I want to know specifically so it can be addressed properly.

It is inconsistent to say that God’s infinite love and/or patience stops at the moment of death and from that moment onwards we cannot change our mind - in other words, no more “free will”. A few, very few believers expressed similar concerns, but they have been “shouted down”, figuratively speaking. I don’t know if this qualifies as clarification, I merely repeated the same concept, since I have no idea how to make it clearer.

 

[vz71]

It is inconsistent to say that God’s infinite love and/or patience stops at the moment of death and from that moment onwards we cannot change our mind - in other words, no more “free will”. A few, very few believers expressed similar concerns, but they have been “shouted down”, figuratively speaking. I don’t know if this qualifies as clarification, I merely repeated the same concept, since I have no idea how to make it clearer.

Got it.
My limited understanding is thus:

The decision we make at judgement is a perfectly free decision, but it is forever fixed.
From that point onward, any decision there is involving morality has already been answered. If we say yes to God, then that yes is said forever. If we say no to God, then that no is said forever.

Further, the decision builds onto itself.
A ‘no’ to God places us in hell. God is not there, so there is no turning back, the grace of God that would help us to resist temptation and sin is not there because God is not there. So we forever sin without repentence for the lack of God being there.
That ‘no’ that places us there turns into an endless series of ‘no’ for eternity.

I am sure others with a better understanding will correct me.

 

[BKulash_eski]

What is the definition of pain? Who is capable of determining whether it is worth it? I have a very big problem with this. Anyone who would believe that pain and suffering is worth a possitive outcome has, and has exhausted ALL other possibilities, should leave the problem and pray for resolution. Now do not get me wrong, Jesus Christ endured pain, but it was God alone that determined its worth, pretty capable I would say.

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

Another thing about free will and the after life:

I have always heard that there is no sin in Heaven (not sure if this is official Church teaching. Maybe somebody can clarify?) Many here have argued that if you eliminate the choice to sin, you eliminate free will. Does this mean that in Heaven, people become automatons, since they are incapable of sin?

 

[Spock]

Got it.
My limited understanding is thus:

The decision we make at judgement is a perfectly free decision, but it is forever fixed.
From that point onward, any decision there is involving morality has already been answered. If we say yes to God, then that yes is said forever. If we say no to God, then that no is said forever.

Further, the decision builds onto itself.
A ‘no’ to God places us in hell. God is not there, so there is no turning back, the grace of God that would help us to resist temptation and sin is not there because God is not there. So we forever sin without repentence for the lack of God being there.
That ‘no’ that places us there turns into an endless series of ‘no’ for eternity.

I am sure others with a better understanding will correct me.

First, there is no “better understanding”. Yours is as good as any. It is all assumption piled upon conjectures based upon unverifyable hypotheses. No one has the foggiest idea what “goes on” in hell.

But I have a few questions. You say “The decision we make at judgement is a perfectly free decision…” and that makes me wonder. Isn’t it God who makes the judgment? And, of course, where does this “forever fixed” come from? Assume that hell is incredible pain, torture, separation from God, whatever. Who would “choose” that? And why is there no way to “repent”? If God is “prefectly” merciful, why doesn’t he extend his mercy to those who really need it? And, of course, God is supposed to be omnipresent, which means that God is “everywhere”. If God is not present in hell, he is not “omnipresent”.

You see, all these conjectures are not only unsupported, but they also contradict each other.

Another thing about free will and the after life:

I have always heard that there is no sin in Heaven (not sure if this is official Church teaching. Maybe somebody can clarify?) Many here have argued that if you eliminate the choice to sin, you eliminate free will. Does this mean that in Heaven, people become automatons, since they are incapable of sin?

Well said. If heaven is filled with automatons, why cannot this place be filled with them, too? Allegedly the “love” of automatons is meaningless. Is it meaningful in heaven?

My major problem with the posts around here is not that they make no rational sense. They do not, but it is worse that they are self-contradictory, too. And that is unpardonable. At the very least they should be logically consistent, even if they are irrational.