Why did God create me if he knew I would spend an eternity in hell?

[FurtherSuntime]

Wrong. All I did was challenge greylorn’s claim to know that these statements are true.

Please stick to what I have written.

What are you trying to get at here?

Pray tell where did we claim that God is evil.

You’re not making sense firstly because your analogy does not apply, secondly that you are positing that for God to know what is evil He must therefore be evil Himself.

Maybe you can explain it another way.

Pray tell where I even hinted that that is what it meant.

Non- knowledge does not mean non omniscient. If you want to translate that in term of “omniscient” it simply means non “scient” if there is such a word.

Further, what it means is that God reveals true wisdom to those who are humble, who are no puffed up with their own esteem of their learning.

You are not making any sense. What does this all have to do with the above statements that you claim I am objecting to.

Which in your convoluted explanation you have failed to prove.

Since you seem to rush…I will try to explain one concept . Afterwords if you return to my post … it will make sense.

We know God is All Loving. In this we put a limitation on God. God cannot be all deception…God cannot be evil and so on. Thats easy enough to follow.

We also suggest God is All Knowing. The limitations above for All Loving demands that
God is ONLY All Knowing…IN…The All Loving.

God is Love we understand. Therefore the knowing MUST be within the limitations seen above in the All Loving.

God can only be All Knowing…IN…The All Loving…IF…God is Love

Also… Gods Love, relative to human… is relative as we are NOT…as well
all loving as God would be…I can’t make it any more clear.

Benedicus, if you offer a comment which makes sense, I will feel you are interested in this subject. Please take your time. Rash entries will be ignored:thumbsup:.

 

[Qoeleth]

Here’s your answer. It is not the least bit “loverly” and you won’t like it either.

1. God is not omniscient.
2. God did not create the soul, so cannot be responsible for its choices.
3. He has more interesting things to do than be aware of our existence, much less be in love with any of us.

These answers have the advantage of being non-contradictory with one another and with the properties of human nature. They are also consistent with the general human property of low intelligence.

As a Christian, my definition of God is JESUS- i.e. the human being of infinite compassion, who transcended self-interest, and lived according to His principles.For a Christian, “God” is the paradigm of all that is best in humanity.

Every time we experience genuine love or compassion from (or to) another human being, we experience the love of God/Jesus, who is present “in the least of our brothers and sisters.” So God (i.e. Jesus) certainly loved us, and as a symbol of our effort to transcend the broken human condition, still does.

Christians follow Jesus, not some kind of cosmic architect. If there is a cosmic architect, maybe he isn’t omniscient, maybe he doesn’t care about us. Such a cosmic architect has nothing to do with the our God, Jesus.

I think both Christians and non-Christians fall into the error of arguing about the existence and nature of this “Cosmic Architect”. But this is not all that relevant to the real content (i.e. the ethics) of Christianity.

 

[Spock]

What Tantum said was “being apart from Him”. He said nothing about “experiencing” God however you may want to define “experiencing’.

But I do. If something cannot be experienced at all (even in theory) that it does not matter if it is “there” or not. Suppose I would assert that there is invisible dragon in my basement, but there is no way to experience it, and I woull insist that you base your behavior upon this “fact”. You could rightly point out that whether the dragon is there or not is irrelevant, since it cannot be experienced and cannot be proven. And I am sure you would not be swayed even if I brought along hundreds and thousands of people who would support me empty assertion.

Maybe so, but it still does not make them completely unknown things.
The man who, to this day, do not know about the solar system does not negate the fact that the solar system is a known thing.

You are mixing apples and oranges. The existence of the solar system can be proven to those who are not aware of it. There is no such proof for those who are not aware of heaven and hell.

 

[greylorn]

to… Benedictus 2:

b) God did not create the soul…

This is an idea which is not self explanatory. There are many implications and possibilities where there is an assumption of a God.

( the only thing really Greylorn Ive been awkwardly curious about …is the idea regarding the Soul getting cut off in sleep…pretty sure Ive had more than one experience waking up with a terrible bout of conscience worry…a real overwhelmed guilt feeling , or dream where choice and guilt played a major roll…just thought I’d pop that in here)

You are correct that the concept of non-creation of the soul is not self-explanatory, but it is actually supported by the 2nd version of the creation tale in Genesis (which, along with the first, was written by separate Jewish writers in Babylon during the captivity, each of whom cribbed their tales from the Babylonians, who had gotten them from some Greeks). In that version, God “…breathed into man the breath of life.” Aquinas and other Catholic philosophers seem to have incorporated this notion into their view of soul, as that the soul is the breath of life. Now from there one can also say that God did not create the soul because in that version, its creation was not specific.

That of course depends if you want to accept any creation story devised by Greeks. And it is a weak interpretation. But then, the Church has made much more of much less. (E.g: establishment of the sacraments.)

You are also correct that such an hypothesis has major implications. More than I could have imagined upon first investigating them.

Your brain works out unresolved issues during REM sleep. It is inviting you to take a closer conscious look at those issues, Resolve your contradictions. The brain dislikes them, and if you persist in trying to maintain them, your brain will fight you in other ways. When my books comes out, you may find it of value.

 

[benedictus2]

Since you seem to rush…I will try to explain one concept . Afterwords if you return to my post … it will make sense.

We know God is All Loving. In this we put a limitation on God.

This is only a limitation in so far as the principle of non-contradiction applies. If he is All Loving then He cannot be un-loving.

That statement only precludes the opposite, nothing more.

God cannot be all deception. God cannot be evil and so on. Thats easy enough to follow.

This does not automatically follow from the All loving unless we also affirm that to be all loving is to be all good. Only then can you say that it precludes evil.

Also, when we say that God is love, we do not mean that God is simply loving (as in feelings) we mean that God IS Love, because in God which is a Trinity, we have the Lover and the Beloved and the Love between the two.

We also suggest God is All Knowing. The limitations above for All Loving demands that God is ONLY All Knowing…IN…The All Loving.

How about we put it this way : God is All Loving and is All knowing.

The All knowing cannot be said to be , “In” the All loving.

You have somehow constructed this “limitation” as some sort of boundary.

The All loving proceeds from His being Love. “All knowing” is only an attribute.

God is Love we understand. Therefore the knowing MUST be within the limitations seen above in the All Loving. But since they are two different things how is that so?
God can only be All Knowing…IN…The All Loving…IF…God is Love

Only because of the way you approach the “All loving”.

There is no IN. The “All knoving” cannot be said to be IN the “All loving”.
I think that is where the error is.

Also… Gods Love, relative to human… is relative as we are NOT…as well
all loving as God would be…I can’t make it any more clear.

How does the fact that we are not all loving make God’s love relative? In what sense relative, e.g. relative vs absolute? And what are its implication on what you have written above?

 

[greylorn]

As a Christian, my definition of God is JESUS- i.e. the human being of infinite compassion, who transcended self-interest, and lived according to His principles.For a Christian, “God” is the paradigm of all that is best in humanity.

Every time we experience genuine love or compassion from (or to) another human being, we experience the love of God/Jesus, who is present “in the least of our brothers and sisters.” So God (i.e. Jesus) certainly loved us, and as a symbol of our effort to transcend the broken human condition, still does.

Christians follow Jesus, not some kind of cosmic architect. If there is a cosmic architect, maybe he isn’t omniscient, maybe he doesn’t care about us. Such a cosmic architect has nothing to do with the our God, Jesus.

I think both Christians and non-Christians fall into the error of arguing about the existence and nature of this “Cosmic Architect”. But this is not all that relevant to the real content (i.e. the ethics) of Christianity.

If you look more carefully at your belief system you will find it divided into two entirely separate categories of thought. You are focused upon the religious part, which are the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately IMO the Church has allowed Paul to determine the sexual aspects of human behavior.

This aspect of the Church follows Christ’s own marching orders to Peter, to build a church upon his teachings. This worked well until it worked so well that Christianity had become a political force which the Roman emperor Constantine could not entirely resolve by throwing people to lions, which had become an outmoded form of entertainment and ineffective method of maintaining control. Christ’s teachings had exposed the Roman gods as a bunch of inbred soap-opera characters.

Around that period the Church undertook a role which Christ had not assigned it, that of metaphysics and science authority. It set forth a story of creation, and defined God the Father/Creator as omniscient, omnipotent, etc. It spoke for God’s purpose in creating man, and then declared all these metaphysical opinions to be revealed truth.

None of these ideas were valid, IMO, because the information necessary to invent valid ideas on such fundamental subjects was not available to humans. Even with quantum mechanics and telescopes that can look back just shy of the birth of the universe, and microscopes capable of resolving atomic surfaces, our best minds remain confounded.

Had the Church stuck with Christ, exclusively, the terrible conflict between science and religion would not exist. It is sad, and so unnecessary, because the Church had no need to invent a theology, metaphysic, or anything else unrelated to Christ’s teachings.
You said it perfectly: "But this is not all that relevant to the real content (i.e. the ethics) of Christianity.

Unfortunately, theological doctrine is extremely relevant to some posters, as you’ll have noticed. And it is not a subject easily separated. You wrote, “Such a cosmic architect has nothing to do with the our God, Jesus,” but that is incorrect. The Church chose to make Him relevant via the Trinity concept, and other teachings. If you’ve ignored history, you might want to look up an internet biography of the life and times of Galileo Galileo, or the philosopher Giordano Bruno. I recommend secular versions of their histories to a reader looking for the truth without spin.

I have no consequential quibblings with the Christ part of Christianity. However, since I find that various unrelated doctrines of which Christians are fond seem to foster atheism, because educated people cannot accept them, I’m trying to propose some new thinking, an alternative for science fans and atheists. My ideas are perfectly consistent with the teachings of Christ as they appear in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

We seem to be in general agreement, but my focus is clearly not one which you find of value.

 

[benedictus2]

But I do. If something cannot be experienced at all (even in theory) that it does not matter if it is “there” or not. Suppose I would assert that there is invisible dragon in my basement, but there is no way to experience it, and I woull insist that you base your behavior upon this “fact”.

Suppose you were blind, dumb, deaf, with problem with your senses and paraplegic as well.

Suppose that you know that your Mom is looking after you which is how you manage day to day. Now what your Mom may not tell you is that she is not looking after you by herself. There are two other people without whose help she cannot manage at all. But you have no idea.

Does it matter or not? Obviously it does, because by herself she cannot look after you. In which case, without them you’d be dying a slow death.

And before you say that with that condition you’d rather be dead anyway, that is not the point of the example.

You are mixing apples and oranges. The existence of the solar system can be proven to those who are not aware of it. There is no such proof for those who are not aware of heaven and hell.

But proof is not the point of our discussion. You were talking about awareness, about experience. Many people will die without knowledge but it nonetheless is true.

Now, you may not be aware of God, but a lot of people are. You are obviously arguing from a natural view point but since God is supernatural, why would you think that anything natural would be adequate to grasp Him?

 

[benedictus2]

Around that period the Church undertook a role which Christ had not assigned it, that of metaphysics and science authority. It set forth a story of creation, and defined God the Father/Creator as omniscient, omnipotent, etc. It spoke for God’s purpose in creating man, and then declared all these metaphysical opinions to be revealed truth.

So you seriously believe that the Church came up with the story of creation? How old do you think the book of Genesis is?

Secondly around Constantine’s time, who should have been the scientific and metaphysical authorities and in what manner did their findings differ from that of the Church?

Thirdly, is the view of this “should be scientific authority” more in congruence with the modern scientific view such that all views held by the Church at that time should be deemed unscientific?

If not, then why are you complaining about the scientific view of the Church then?

 

[benedictus2]

Had the Church stuck with Christ, exclusively, the terrible conflict between science and religion would not exist.

And it doesn’t exist. It exists only in the minds of those who don’t really think things through - knowing neither the Church nor science all that well.

The truly learned and the truly wise do not see the conflict.

 

[Spock]

Suppose you were blind, dumb, deaf, with problem with your senses and paraplegic as well.

I still have some senses left, namely the touch and my skin, which is able to detect touch.

Suppose that you know that your Mom is looking after you which is how you manage day to day. Now what your Mom may not tell you is that she is not looking after you by herself. There are two other people without whose help she cannot manage at all. But you have no idea.

Does it matter or not? Obviously it does, because by herself she cannot look after you. In which case, without them you’d be dying a slow death.

Not to me, it does not. Besides, my mother in those circumstances can ask the other two helpers to put their hands on me - at the same time - and with this little “trick” they can prove me their existence. Don’t waste your time on making such little traps. They don’t work.

Now, you may not be aware of God, but a lot of people are.

Lots of people say they are, and maybe they even think they do. The trouble is that they cannot prove it.

You are obviously arguing from a natural view point but since God is supernatural, why would you think that anything natural would be adequate to grasp Him?

Well, you just said that a “lot of people” are aware of God. And now you say God cannot be “grasped”. So how are those 'lots of people" can be aware of God? Don’t you see that you are trying to argue a contradiction? And none of these has anything to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[benedictus2]

I still have some senses left, namely the touch and my skin, which is able to detect touch.

You can’t break it off at this point because the example is one complete whole.

Not to me, it does not. Besides, my mother in those circumstances can ask the other two helpers to put their hands on me - at the same time - and with this little “trick” they can prove me their existence. Don’t waste your time on making such little traps. They don’t work.

Did you miss the part where I said that your mother did not tell your about them nor did they make their presence known to you. Put it simply, you are completely ignorant about them. That is part of the example.

Lots of people say they are, and maybe they even think they do. The trouble is that they cannot prove it.

And of course according to you, if you cannot prove something “materially” it does not exist.

Now according to Greylorn he has come up with a proof of God. It would be interesting what he has to say on that score.

Well, you just said that a “lot of people” are aware of God. And now you say God cannot be “grasped”.

Did I say that this awareness is grasped “naturally?”

How do you know that someone loves you? Can you see love? You can see perhaps expressions of it but you can’t really see love can you? It’s not material. And yet, when someone truly loves you, you are aware of it even when they are not “expresssing it”. You just know.

So how are those 'lots of people" can be aware of God? Don’t you see that you are trying to argue a contradiction? And none of these has anything to do with the topic of the thread.

Because if God is who we claim Him to be, then He is quite capable of making Himself known in a non-material way. After all, as I have said, He is Super natural.

Okay, I’m done for the day so talk to you tomorrow.

 

[Spock]

Did you miss the part where I said that your mother did not tell your about them nor did they make their presence known to you. Put it simply, you are completely ignorant about them. That is part of the example.

Sure, but they could. That is the point.

And of course according to you, if you cannot prove something “materially” it does not exist.

No, that is not what I said. I said that if there is way to detect the existence of something, then it does not matter if that “thing” exists or not.

Did I say that this awareness is grasped “naturally?”

How else? Give me an example. Tell me what I must do to achieve that awareness. (But, please, be specific. Don’t say that if I ask for it, long enough and hard enough and sincerely enough, then “sometime, somehow” I will be given that awareness.)

How do you know that someone loves you? Can you see love? You can see perhaps expressions of it…

You just answered your own question. If there is no expression of love, there is no way to know it. Moreover, if there is no expression of love, then it does not matter if I am “loved” or “hated”.

And yet, when someone truly loves you, you are aware of it even when they are not “expresssing it”

Only if they expressed it in the past.

 

[Qoeleth]

If you look more carefully at your belief system you will find it divided into two entirely separate categories of thought. You are focused upon the religious part, which are the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately IMO the Church has allowed Paul to determine the sexual aspects of human behavior.

This aspect of the Church follows Christ’s own marching orders to Peter, to build a church upon his teachings. This worked well until it worked so well that Christianity had become a political force which the Roman emperor Constantine could not entirely resolve by throwing people to lions, which had become an outmoded form of entertainment and ineffective method of maintaining control. Christ’s teachings had exposed the Roman gods as a bunch of inbred soap-opera characters.

Around that period the Church undertook a role which Christ had not assigned it, that of metaphysics and science authority. It set forth a story of creation, and defined God the Father/Creator as omniscient, omnipotent, etc. It spoke for God’s purpose in creating man, and then declared all these metaphysical opinions to be revealed truth.

None of these ideas were valid, IMO, because the information necessary to invent valid ideas on such fundamental subjects was not available to humans. Even with quantum mechanics and telescopes that can look back just shy of the birth of the universe, and microscopes capable of resolving atomic surfaces, our best minds remain confounded.

Unfortunately, theological doctrine is extremely relevant to some posters, as you’ll have noticed. And it is not a subject easily separated. You wrote, “Such a cosmic architect has nothing to do with the our God, Jesus,” but that is incorrect. The Church chose to make Him relevant via the Trinity concept, and other teachings. If you’ve ignored history,
I have no consequential quibblings with the Christ part of Christianity. However, since I find that various unrelated doctrines of which Christians are fond seem to foster atheism, because educated people cannot accept them, I’m trying to propose some new thinking, an alternative for science fans and atheists. My ideas are perfectly consistent with the teachings of Christ as they appear in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

We seem to be in general agreement, but my focus is clearly not one which you find of value.

I understnad your position. Perhaps the Church should keep out of metaphysics, cosmology and ontology. Jesus himself did not seem concerned with such things.

In fact, people like the New Atheists are rejecting Christianity because of its metaphysics and cosmology, but seldom because they reject the ethics of compassion and justice.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

You are correct that the concept of non-creation of the soul is not self-explanatory, but it is actually supported by the 2nd version of the creation tale in Genesis (which, along with the first, was written by separate Jewish writers in Babylon during the captivity, each of whom cribbed their tales from the Babylonians, who had gotten them from some Greeks). In that version, God “…breathed into man the breath of life.” Aquinas and other Catholic philosophers seem to have incorporated this notion into their view of soul, as that the soul is the breath of life. Now from there one can also say that God did not create the soul because in that version, its creation was not specific.

That of course depends if you want to accept any creation story devised by Greeks. And it is a weak interpretation. But then, the Church has made much more of much less. (E.g: establishment of the sacraments.)

You are also correct that such an hypothesis has major implications. More than I could have imagined upon first investigating them.

Your brain works out unresolved issues during REM sleep. It is inviting you to take a closer conscious look at those issues, Resolve your contradictions. The brain dislikes them, and if you persist in trying to maintain them, your brain will fight you in other ways. When my books comes out, you may find it of value.

These are very interesting area’s and on the top shelf in God loving curiosity seekers everywhere. In my view there are many potentially harmful suggestions, going on in this thread.
I wanted to jump in and offer food for thought. On one hand, one could be suffering. Suffering in confusion which we all know can be dis-orientating & destructive On the other hand is judge, jury and executioner. A spoon full of sugar on a bull-dozer.

(getting on topic)

Ive never heard a priest in my life say that if you do not believe in this hell business that your doomed. My great Aunt was a very highly educated Nun of the St Joseph Order
I spent quite a bit of time with her. NEVER, did she speak of hell like the likes I have seen on this forum. In fact…I don’t believe the word ever left her habit. And why should it ?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Benedictus…I’m on the run and will answer tom…

 

[MtnDwellar]

The answer is the same reason that He created angels that would turn against Him and fall. The same reason that He created Adam and Eve who eventually sinned.

If God was to pre-select base upon our future decisions, it would be akin pre-programming our wills.

 

[tonyrey]

I understand your position. Perhaps the Church should keep out of metaphysics, cosmology and ontology. Jesus himself did not seem concerned with such things.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

This is only a limitation in so far as the principle of non-contradiction applies. If he is All Loving then He cannot be un-loving.

That statement only precludes the opposite, nothing more.

This does not automatically follow from the All loving unless we also affirm that to be all loving is to be all good. Only then can you say that it precludes evil.

Also, when we say that God is love, we do not mean that God is simply loving (as in feelings) we mean that God IS Love, because in God which is a Trinity, we have the Lover and the Beloved and the Love between the two.

How about we put it this way : God is All Loving and is All knowing.

The All knowing cannot be said to be , “In” the All loving.

You have somehow constructed this “limitation” as some sort of boundary.

The All loving proceeds from His being Love. “All knowing” is only an attribute.

Only because of the way you approach the “All loving”.

There is no IN. The “All knoving” cannot be said to be IN the “All loving”.
I think that is where the error is.

How does the fact that we are not all loving make God’s love relative? In what sense relative, e.g. relative vs absolute? And what are its implication on what you have written above?

If God is Love, all association within the properties of God including All Knowing must be within
the attribute of Love. If this is true which is hard to argue, God only knows all, pertaining to his
nature which is absolute love.

The inability in Gods association with negativism would not be a limitation but a foreign matter
of the material, relative toThe Trinity.

To know and understand negativism, is to fully experience consequence as well…“motive”

Dis-allowing God to experience motive in negativity, adequately demonstrates that God is not
all knowing in area’s bereft of the Love within The Trinity, as we understand.

Gods all knowing is certain to be, only within the love attribute of our… All Loving God.

Of evil or anti creation momentum, individual dis-order … all God knows is the need for his love.

Otherwise, we are asking God to relate , with understanding through experience, a vacancy of the required God Love.

How then can God know, what it is like to be without God as he is God? Therefore God is not
all knowing in area’s which are not …within the understood composition of what …The Trinity Is.

Re last paragraph in your post:
Genuine Human Love is always true. However it can only be given or received in ability and comprehension of understood expectations. Confusions arise out of stability. ( fear, poor upbringing, possible addictions, general expectations ect) It is the human love which is obviously relative.

Therefore our “perception” of Gods loving attribute is relative. If this is so, which is hard to argue, the active participation in Gods love, is subject to only partial truth . God’s love could not be 100% acknowledged. Thus the virtue humility.

Since we know we are subject to human negativism through motive in experience, our perception of …“God knowing our motives by experience” suggests that God was in fact a human being and not God.

Hence the agreeable known reality, that the human perception of Gods love is definitely relative. Thankyou for reading through.

.

 

[benedictus2]

If God is Love, all association within the properties of God including All Knowing must be within
the attribute of Love.

I have a short lunch break today so I will respond only to one of your points.

The major problem (which is the root of the rest of the errors) is that you regard Love as an attribute of God. It is not. Love IS who God is. It is His essence.

Furthermore, it is not limiting in any sense except that it does exclude the opposite. It would be as limiting as saying that He is God so it precludes Him being NOT God. If you call that limitation then that it is an absurd idea of limitation…

So you will need to restructure your thinking around that.

 

[exnihilo]

I didn’t desire to be created. God created me, and he knew I would go to hell. Free will aside. I Understand free will. I get to choose, but the fact is, God knows the outcome. He knows the path that my free will takes me, so why create something if you know it will fail?

It is an interesting and tough question. But we can also ask the same kind of question about our human parents. Why did they create us knowing we would die someday and knowing that we would suffer mental anguish thinking about our own mortality? God gave us the choice to decide our future. Our human parents created us having no power to defeat death for us.