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

[Nimeniton]

We are merely babes–not even, if one wants to quantify the finite human mind and compare it to the Infinite Mind–and, even if God were to provide some sort of rationale to explain why He permits suffering would fail. We simply are incapable of understanding.

Just as b2’s 1 yr old niece would not understand.

I think that is a matter of faith told to us by others that God’s reasons for allowing suffering is beyond our understanding. That I would be capable of understanding even if a one year old could not. God has never told me directly I cannot understand it. Also people do give explanations such as “God is testing us like he tested Job”. That is certainly understandable because I understand the concept of a test. It seems to be that the God is beyond our understanding is trotted out when all the other explanations fail to convince.

 

[Nimeniton]

No. I read the entire thing. I guess I don’t understand what you’re positing. In what sense are you proposing that Jesus could have proclaimed to be God yet not be?

I never proposed it it. Could you quote anything I said that gave you that impression?

 

[Nimeniton]

Is that your position? That this is a viable alternative to the fact that Jesus wasn’t actually divine, but that his disciples may have merely gotten it so wrong?

I have no idea if the disciples got it right or wrong and have made no claim either way. What is clear is that Christians have argued about the meaning of scriptures.

 

[Nimeniton]

I get that. But it’s like you’re a detective and you’re saying to another detective, “You say the thief* can only be Person A, B or C. Well, I’m offering this: what about the butler?” Now, when the other detective says, “Why do you say this?” it would be odd for you to say, “I’m not saying he did it. I’m just saying it’s a possibility” but then offer no further argument as to why you’re positing that the butler may be a suspect.

You have to offer arguments as to why you think Jesus, a good teacher by all accounts, was so completely unable to convey a very basic message: I am NOT God but only pointing the way to him.

Why do I have to offer such arguments? I was just trying to demonstrate that C S Lewis had not considered all the options. That I have done. I provided two further options that others have claimed. I could have provided a third. Others have claimed that Jesus did not exist.** I quote others, I do not give my own position.**

It is not my job to prove the claims of others.

*(And please, please, please do not go to “Wow, I can’t believe you’re comparing Jesus to a thief.” I have more confidence in your ability to understand analogies than that!)

Hmm! If you really had that confidence in me you would not have said it! The thought never even occurred to me. Hopefully I will never make such an inane comment. The analogy you give is a perfectly good and understandable.

 

[benedictus2]

I understand the analogy but do not see the necessity of a Perfect being and presumably perfect communicator needing to create chaos in order for us to gain some untold benefit i.e character building or a test etc

That is correct. That is why when we address the problem of evil, we need to approach it from different angles to get a comprehensive view. It cannot be limited to if God is good why does he “allow” evil even though that is a perfectly logical question. And even this word (allow) indicate that God does not “create” chaos. Chaos comes from a fallen world.

To give a comprehensive answer, we need to understand the following:

• The nature of God.
• The purpose of creation,
• The nature of sin / evil,
• The nature of salvation.

Without taking into account the above, my previous statement is not sufficient to answer your question even though it does give the general rationale for it.
I will try to do a summary tomorrow night. It is interesting that a CAF friend just emailed me asking for the same.

Your are referring to C.S. Lewis’ trilemma: “Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.”

Of course it depends in what sense Lewis is using the word deluded. A person can be deluded in certain matters but not necessarily insane.

Yes, that is true but to claim Divinity in the Jewish context is certainly delusional in that sense.

Lots of people believe in re-incarnation. According to the Catholic church that is a false belief. However, I do not think anybody would suggest that they are all demented. I am sure most of them are quite capable of getting on with their lives in a reasonably sane manner.

Believing in re-incarnation if you are Buddhist or Hindu is not delusional because it is part of your theology. In the same, those who keep predicting the end of the world cannot be said to be insane.

But if someone were to go around saying that he is an alien from Mars and believe that with conviction, then that would be another matter altogether. I think Jesus’s claim would be similar to that.

C. S. Lewis does not consider other possibilities such as a.Christ never made the claims attributed to him or even that b. Christ is a composite figure as some have suggested. So I think Lewis is incorrect to say that he has presented a an inexorable trilemma.

As to point A) Christ did make those claims indirectly and directly based on Scripture.

As for point B, all those making those claims take Jesus out of the Jewish setting. One cannot understand Christ without reference to Judaism. What most people who go down point B completely ignore is that Jesus was a Jew.

 

[Nimeniton]

Actually, this was not *Lewis’ logic but an ancient argument offered by the ECFs.
*
Aut Deus aut Homo Malus.


PR-“your Latin-phase lover of late” merger.

Out of curiosity which early church fathers? Not that it matters who originally said it. Who the author is does not change the fact that there is a logical fallacy in the statement.

 

[PRmerger]

I would agree if everyone was given ample evidence to make a true decision.

How do you know what degree of evidence “everyone” has been given?

I would also agree if the creator wasn’t omniscient and therefore not aware of who will end up in hell.

With an omniscient Creator this is no “will”. There is only the Eternal Now.

I would certainly find that evidence in purgatory, as I would be experiencing it. If there is a choice offered then,

There is no “choice offered” in Purgatory, in the sense that one can choose eternal damnation there. All who are in Purgatory are on their way to heaven.

[quoteI cannot understand an intelligent person choosing eternal damnation.
[/quote]

Why would an intelligent person choose eternal damnation? For the same reason that an intelligent person decides to turn away from God every day. It does seem illogical that a soul would not choose God, but reality bears out this sad truth: we choose sin over God multiple times throughout our lives. Why would it be different in eternity?

Unfortunately my background leads me to believe that skeptics such as me will continue to struggle for understanding and wake up in hell. It certainly won’t be from lack of inquiry.

But will it be from lack of prayer? Perhaps you could simply try this prayer: God, I don’t know if you are there, but if you are please give me the Light of wisdom to see you.

See what happens.

Be prepared though, DC. Your world may be rocked!

 

[PRmerger]

I think that is a matter of faith told to us by others that God’s reasons for allowing suffering is beyond our understanding.

Actually, Nimen, it’s a matter of reason. God, by definition, is that which is infinite, inscrutable, unfathomable. If you understand him, he is not God. He would be finite, no?

So, reason tells us that if you compare the finite mind of the human to that of the Infinite God, comparing a 1 yr old to a 40-something adult is not even close to mirroring the great chasm of understanding that exists between the 2 entitites.

Think of it mathematically:

1 yr old>>>finite chasm of inability to comprehend>>>40-something adult.
40 something adult >>>>INFINITE chasm of inability to comprehend>>>God

That I would be capable of understanding even if a one year old could not.

Your understanding, math and logic tells us, is even less than that of a 1 yr old, compared to that which the Infinite Godhead knows.

God has never told me directly I cannot understand it.

Huh? God speaks to you directly? What has he told you?

If you mean that God never speaks to you directly then how is it you know anything about God?

Also people do give explanations such as “God is testing us like he tested Job”. That is certainly understandable because I understand the concept of a test. It seems to be that the God is beyond our understanding is trotted out when all the other explanations fail to convince.

*Abusus non tollit usum. * It may be that this reasoning is proferred in the above example, but it does not change the fact that there is a truth being proclaimed: God is indeed beyond our understanding.

Let’s say my 15 year old DD said, “You always say I can’t take the car whenever you want to use it.”

Ok. That may be true. But it doesn’t change the fact that she still can’t take the car. She is only15 after all.

 

[Nimeniton]

Believing in re-incarnation if you are Buddhist or Hindu is not delusional because it is part of your theology. In the same, those who keep predicting the end of the world cannot be said to be insane.

But if someone were to go around saying that he is an alien from Mars and believe that with conviction, then that would be another matter altogether. I think Jesus’s claim would be similar to that.

I fail to see the difference. For a long time as a young child , my son believed he was sent here by mistake and that he was indeed meant for another planet. He had a whole series of dreams that convinced him of this. He was then and is now perfectly sane. He simply did not have a sense of what was valid evidence.

So I would say that in both the above cases there is no difference. They have reasons for believing what they believe, even if one does not find those reasons convincing. Perfectly sane people have believed that they are prophets of God or even God himself. Look at all those claiming to be avatars in India.

There is another phenomenon that I have noticed from my time in the Buddhist movement. People speculated about the nature of the founder. Some said that he was a Buddha , others just a Bodhisattva on the path and others just a mere human being. Apparently the same speculations were made about the founder of Buddhism. This seems to have been quite a human thing to do. So I am not surprised that the early Christians debated Jesus’ nature

 

[PRmerger]

I never proposed it it. Could you quote anything I said that gave you that impression?

“A person can be deluded in certain matters but not necessarily insane.”

Edit: and you just reinforced the above with this new comment:

"there is a logical fallacy in the statement. " (referring to Aut Deus Aut Homo Malus).

 

[Nimeniton]

As to point A) Christ did make those claims indirectly and directly based on Scripture.

As for point B, all those making those claims take Jesus out of the Jewish setting. One cannot understand Christ without reference to Judaism. What most people who go down point B completely ignore is that Jesus was a Jew.

I am definitely going ga ga. I can’t remember what points A and B are! With regard to A. Some would argue from scripture the opposite. With regard to B Lewis was addressing a modern audience not a Jewish one. So the Jewish setting is not relevant. I accept , of course that in the Jewish context of those days that to claim to be God was shocking indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

Out of curiosity which early church fathers? Not that it matters who originally said it. Who the author is does not change the fact that there is a logical fallacy in the statement.

Not sure. I read it in Peter Kreeft’s “Christianity for Modern Pagans.”

 

[Nimeniton]

Huh? God speaks to you directly? What has he told you?

If you mean that God never speaks to you directly then how is it you know anything about God?

.

First question: He has told me nothing

Second Question: My parents and teachers told me about God and his characteristics.

I have to go to college now.

 

[PRmerger]

Why do I have to offer such arguments? I was just trying to demonstrate that C S Lewis had not considered all the options.

Okay. Then let’s go back to my detective analogy.

You’re Detective 1 telling Detective 2 “You have not considered all the options”.

2 responds: Really? What other options?

You state: Well, what about the butler?

2 responds: Why should we consider him?

And here is where you provide your apologia as to why you proferred that we should consider other options.

If you are proposing that Lewis had not considered “all the options”, please offer what the other options are, and why they are viable.

It is not my job to prove the claims of others.

Indeed it is. Unless you want to be like the Detective who says, “What if the butler did it?” and then when pressed as to why he said that responds, “I didn’t say I believed it. I’m just sayin. And I said it for no reason.” :whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

I Perfectly sane people have believed that they are prophets of God or even God himself.

No, Nimen. Perfectly sane people do NOT claim to be God.

I can’t even believe you said that.

 

[benedictus2]

I am definitely going ga ga. I can’t remember what points A and B are! With regard to A. Some would argue from scripture the opposite. With regard to B Lewis was addressing a modern audience not a Jewish one. So the Jewish setting is not relevant. I accept , of course that in the Jewish context of those days that to claim to be God was shocking indeed.

The points A and B I am referring to are these:

C. S. Lewis does not consider other possibilities such as a

.Christ never made the claims attributed to him or even that b. Christ is a composite figure as some have suggested. So I think Lewis is incorrect to say that he has presented a an inexorable trilemma.

So with reference to your statement that Christ never made the claims attributed to him, going by Scripture He did - both indirectly and directly. Indirectly He made this claim at Caesaria Philipi through Peter and directly to the Samaritan woman at the well. But there are also other allusions to His divinity that He made in scripture.

With regards your point B that Christ is a composite as some has suggested, as I said, these people ignored Christ’s Jewishness. C S Lewis may be addressing a modern audience but any analysis of Christ has to situate Christ within His own milieu. Scripture teaches that He is the fulfilment of Torah so He cannot be seen as a composite figure of several “god like” figures” if that is what you mean by composite.

The error arises when people pluck Jesus out of His Jewish millieu. The New Testament by itself does not make sense if detached from the OT. It has to be read in reference to the Old Testament. The Church Fathers understood scripture this way: the old is revealed in the new, the new is hidden in the old.

 

[benedictus2]

If you look at Christendom you will see that the “words of Jesus” are interpreted in many and even contradictory ways. There are Christians who argue that Jesus never taught an eternal hell. They can quote scripture and verse to that effect. Even in the early days there were many gospels that claimed to quote what Jesus had said though not all have been accepted as scripture. In the early centuries there were many debates on the nature of Christ, from questioning his divinity to questioning his humanity.

So in answer to your question, the claims are made by Christians dependent on their interpretation of books they believe to be authorative that state what Jesus is supposed to have said.

And these are the only truly reliable documents we have. The books that you refer to were not written by “Thomas” or “Magdalen”. These books came much later than the Gospels and they were purported to have been written by some disciple or another to give them credibility. Scholars have confirmed that the dating of these gnostic texts are much later than their proponents claim.

But to go back to C S Lewis, he claimed there were only three options. He presents you with an either or scenario. So if you dismiss the options that Jesus was deluded or a charlatan then you have to accept the third that he was indeed God. But if there are more than three options, then one is not logically forced to conclude that.

So I am questioning Lewis’s logic. I am not positing any position. Just pointing out that Lewis has made the logical fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

The third optiion that you presented is untenable in light of history. I think some are resorting to this kind of interpretation because they realize the goodness and the wisdom of Jesus and want to apportion Him for themselves.

I had a friend who was very New Age and she said to me that Jesus could not have said those things that were attributed to Him in the Bible but how did she know that for a fact? She is almost 2000 years removed from the event and ignorant of the Jewish culture and religion in Jesus time.

 

[benedictus2]

Maybe by my 3rd post I will figure out how to copy someone’s else’s comment into my reply (advice appreciated).

I have been noodling the topic of omniscience since my initial post. In both earlier comments in the thread, as well as a direct response to my post of an omniscient creator knowing everything (including if we will end up in >>
V
V>>

While the above is very interesting, the skeptic in me still has unresolved concerns over the concept of an omniscient creator coupled with eternal damnation. I view omniscience as both “unlimited knowledge” as well as “not limited” knowledge. I cannot dismiss that God has the capacity to understand our concept of linear time or that when he creates a soul the knowledge exists of where that soul would will end up. I would consider a true omniscient creator as able to perceive all, know all, and understand all. Further, even if we are to disagree about the knowledge of damnation at creation, I would at least assume that God would perceive of the billions in death who don’t end up in heaven. Billions of good people, infants, children, mentally challenged, remote villagers never hearing the word, and so forth. To have them enter eternal pain and suffering is not just, kind, or a system you would expect to be designed by an omniscient creator.

I am very curious to see how people in this thread reconcile their own belief of hell and the huge percentage of people who are there eternally. Do you dismiss it as God not knowing this would be the case with caveats of omniscience and time as above? Do you take a Calvinist approach and just accept this as fact and move on? Does it bother you knowing so many of your family, friends, neighbors, and good people worldwide are destined for hell? With 7 billion people living on the planet today, is 5 or 6 billion of them headed for hell justifiable?

I think someone (PR?) has already pointed out the rather alarmist tone in the kind of “statistics” you are providing here. The Church has never taught that we can definitely say how many, if there are any people in hell.

One thing that might help is to clarify our concept of hell. The term “damnation” has been thrown about so much that we get the feeling that there is a Santa Claus up in heaven noting down who is naughty or nice and come Christmas time, the naughties are zapped into eternal fire while the goodies get given dolls and little fire trucks.

Since God is Omniprescent, God is even “in hell”. Interesting thought isn’t it?

I think we can say that God is “in hell” because heaven and hell are both aspects of the same thing or rather the same Being – God. Those who are “good” find God’s Presence – beautiful, good, etc, etc.
Those who are ‘naughty” find the same presence painful and this pain is brought about by their eternal No when even to the very last, they say they do not want God. It must be born in mind that this final No is only the result of the continous No throughout their lives. God does not damn us, we damn ourselves.

The Presence that makes the saints rejoice in Hallelujahs, is the same Presence that the “damned” find excruciating.

I think even in real life, we see this – we like someone that our friends abhor or vice versa.

So why create them at all? Because God never ceases to love them. Creation is an act of love, a willing of the good of the other. God never ceases to will our good. But having given us free will, He cannot violate that free will.

This is where grace comes in. But I’ve already given a link to a thread where that has been discussed quite thoroughly.

 

[Nimeniton]

If you are proposing that Lewis had not considered “all the options”, please offer what the other options are, and why they are viable.

Already done to Benedictus2. I am not interested in opening up a debate on the divinity of Jesus. The subject is of no interest to me. If you want to please start another title

 

[Nimeniton]

No, Nimen. Perfectly sane people do NOT claim to be God.

I can’t even believe you said that.

Well i did and still hold by it. Claiming to be God is not the prerogative of the insane. There are even people who are willing to back their claims and they are not insane either. Their reasons for believing they are God may not be valid but that is another matter.