To my recollection, I have never posted on this forum, although I frequent the football threads, but man, I am really impressed with the minds here. There are some stinging critiques as well as some intelligently thought out positions. I have really enjoyed reading both sides of the debate - all three pages. Gadfly, I recognize you are gracefully bowing out, and I understand why. This thread has gotten quite long and sometimes personal. If you don't answer I don't blame you, but may I ask: When you said...
One may come to the conclusion that the Christian position on Hell is unjust, but I do not think that one could say that the biblical position is inconsistent within the context of its own doctrine. That an eternal Hell (biblical position) for a temporal life (experienced truth) is unjust seems intuitive. I, like the OP, have struggled with this teaching. Three points, that I don’t think I’ve seen above (forgive me if I’m wrong), however, are helpful. I am interested in hearing a critique of these concepts that I’ve heard over the years. Two biblical, and for fun, one philosophical: 1. Fun first. The punishment is not given based on the size or length of the sin, but based on the magnitude of who the sin is against. See “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners” by Jonathon Edwards. He will do a much better presentation of this than I can. For summary sake, all sin, any sin, is sin against the creator who is eternal and infinitely holy. Because of this, the punishment follows. This type of thinking is not altogether unexpected. Treason against a peasant and treason against a king have always produced different results. 2. In Luke 16:19-31 Jesus shares the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man dies and goes into torment and Lazarus dies and is comforted at the bosom of Abraham. Lazarus begs for relief, but it is not allowed. He then begs for Abraham to send Lazarus to go and warn his family about the future punishment, but Abraham said, “They have Moses and the prophets, let them listen to them”. ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ “Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” I think it is the norm that by the time we reach the age of 20 or 25 we have established our positions. More time and information is not likely to change this. Conversion, of course, happens at advanced ages, but not at the culmination of years and years of astute study and research. Once a mind has been made up, why is more time necessary to produce an eternal punishment? 3. The teaching of Scripture is that the only provision for the removal of sin is the shedding of blood (penal-substitutionary atonement) by Christ. This is made effective by grace through faith. If you do not accept this grace then the Bible teaches that the sin remains. One year of Hell and one billion years of Hell do not remove the sin. Our efforts and our works and our suffering have no ability to atone for sin…in this life or the next. Therefore the sin remains and the punishment continues perpetually.
Why bother past the age of 25? Because sometimes, God breaks in. Our prayers move His heart. I was prayed in, for sure....at the tender age of 35. Miracles happen, and I can attest to that, first hand. IF I can be saved at 35, why not a murderer at 70, or a racist at 100? IF we could see us, as He sees us...we wouldnt fear turning to Him. Instead, we walk around in shame, thinking we aren't good enough to go after Him. The truth is, our best will never be good enough for God, and our worst will never be bad enough to not qualify for the sacrifice at Calvary. We view Him as mostly mad and sad...but He is mostly glad. He lvoes us...He likes us..and, He even "gets us"...
stormhorn, I think your explanations are correct. Another way to look at the same things is that what is important isn't necessarily the offenses (though they are involved) it is the relationship with God. Heaven and hell are a result of the relationship. If you are at peace with God through the gospel of Jesus, then you will be with Him at peace. The relationship is forever so the peace is forever. If you are not odds with God then there is separation. God's presence is the very essence of peace, joy, pleasure, so being separated from that is necessarily painful. Someone who doesn't believe in the gospel would not want to be in Heaven anyway because they are in conflict with God. That relationship of conflict is forever, so hell is forever.
Dionysus, Even though I sit behind the theistic table I find your posts pretty enjoyable, on whichever forum. Good brainy humor. …but I think we all have to make a choice. Either matter creates itself or something else, something beyond matter created/creates matter. If you choose the latter then a whole realm of options become available. Aliens, of course, are one of them- assuming they transcend matter. Either way, transcendence is the reasonable choice, yes?
Gadfly, Your transparency is admirable. As is your study and search. You said, “I don’t believe the religious dogma has it right.” I hesitate to agree with this statement because I don’t know exactly what all you have attached to that phrase. However, I can agree that there are many who wear the label “Christian” who do not even remotely act like Christ nor do they understand His gospel. Re: Christ claiming to be God as a later add-on from Roman ideals… You mean an add on to the biblical text or in some other way?
Dionysus, Let’s not forget that in my view, the “invisible magic being” created sexual intercourse. That should score Him some points, just on the outside possibility that He is real. But regarding the choice… haven’t you made it? Even though you are waiting on science to formulate a third option you have chosen the side of matter by despising the theistic one. And regarding the stake… some people don’t like Pascal, but I really like him. He died young, but he discovered much and argued well. He discovered the vacuum, and I give him credit for the vacuum cleaner, which resonates with my wife. His “wager” is fitting here. I think it is a reasonable and compelling argument for placing a stake sooner than later.
Dionysus, Thanks for the kind words. I gather that your tiring of this topic so I won't belabor the issues. I imagine there will be time for others in the future. Take care.
I don’t know if you’re jaded Coel, although you seem to have an emotional reaction to some of my stuff. I recall this one odd moment of exasperation from you a while back:
the wager provides a logical and compelling motivation to look into the Christian claims seriously. While I find something in Pascal's wager, it is neither logical nor compelling. One could take any religion that (arrogantly) presumes to be the only means to salvation and, according to this, each of those religions would thus have both a logical and compelling reason to look into them seriously.
Perham1, I think you make a good point. I would like to respond to it, but i'm too tired right now. I'll get back later, even though my delay will fundamentally weaken my position (you'll see what i mean). The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
No problem. Take your time. Here's my "deal" with the Wager. The first time I heard it, it sounded reasonable, plausible, logical even, and seemed to provide an ostensibly intellectually rigorous defense of believing in Christianity. But that was the first time I became aware of the Wager. Since then, I have found that of those who take this issue seriously, the Wager is viewed as little more than a chimera. First, if faith is the sine qua non of Christianity, then perhaps the Christian god won't look favorably on one whose foundation of faith rests upon the Wager. Second, as I mentioned above, it's an artifice, at worst a ruse. Come on, using expected value theory/analysis as a basis for one's faith and religion? It's crude and mechanistic.
Perham1, I don't take issue with what you said in the post directly above, except for maybe this part:
Let us take the Wager even further. Pascal did not suppose the "god" in question was the "Christian" variety. Or did he? From what a read, it seemed to be a theistic vs atheistic debate - not one which concludes a specific god of mankind is the correct one. Here is where the Wager faults for me… I would have to believe in all the gods defined by man and from man’s history. There are thousands of gods Christians don’t believe in – some are even Christian gods. I don’t see how a Christian could hold to Pascal’s Wager for that reason. At my challenge that the triune concept was not scriptural, for example, Mona used this verse to prove his viewpoints: This bit transpires after the Jews ask if Jesus was the Messiah – which to a Jew does not mean God. “John 10:30 I and the Father are one. “ Mona would conclude this is clear evidence that the god worshiped by Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses is wrong. However, the Mormon would look at that same verse and tell Mona how wrong HE is. For the verse is being pulled from its context: “33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.” Ok, when I read this, I would see the narrative as this: Jesus appears to be claiming to be God. This ticks off the guys around him – they are ready to kill him! Jesus uses this to show how stupid they are. He is not saying he is God, he is showing how God can dwell amongst us. Mormons use this very verse as scriptural evidence that they can become a god like Jesus. To them, this simply suggests the relationship we all have with Jesus and God. There are many instances in the bible which clearly suggest Jesus was a separate consciousness. I pointed out one verse which seemed clear enough to me, but Coel didn’t explain why it was insufficient – just that it was. There is also the problem of the Devil tempting Christ. I’ve heard many unsatisfactory explanations, but if Jesus was God, the Devil would know this, and the entire temptation narrative makes absolutely no sense. The problem is these conversations tend to get people defensive and negative. I don’t find my beliefs being challenged as unhealthy or insulting. I think it’s a good thing. Even if I were a Christian, I think the idea of the triune would cause me some problems. The triune concept doesn’t seem to be scriptural… It seems like a forced interpretation. I still maintain that, scripturally, the gospels show that Jesus was a separate consciousness. Really – the Synoptic Gospels I think are the most reliable. Leaving out John seems unfair, but there has been scholarship that suggests John is more Roman in origin than Jewish. Mona very adequately shows the description of the Son seeming to have a dualistic nature with God. There seems to be an indication of separateness from the Father and togetherness. Jesus then takes the analogy further that everyone is “in” Jesus and “in” the Father – as if to suggest his relationship is not really unique (John 14:20-21). Mona rightfully says we must not look at these verses in a vacuum. Reading all of John 14, I’m not getting that Jesus is God anymore than I can conclude any Christian believer is also God. Very tough one, guys… Hard to really know for sure, but I think the chips stack up in favor of Jesus being a separate consciousness than God. I see this prove how very intelligent people can come to entirely different conclusions on the same material... It makes it so difficult for an outsider to truly trust anything that is said because this is just a mental exercise.... The conclusion will follow where you lead it.
Gadfly, I think the Trinity is the most difficult aspect of Christianity to understand or explain. First, no explanation really covers it. The only thing you can do is quote scripture which point to both aspects. If your definition of Jesus is not God is because He is a different consciousness than the Father, then I can agree and disagree. I don't know that Jesus is completely separate in his conscience but I wouldn't say they share one "brain" either. I guess my question is to you is how would you try to explain the Scriptural evidence that Jesus is both "separate" and "together" with the Father. I thin the doctrine of the Trinity best explains both aspects without contradicting scripture.
Mona, Where is the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible? Where is the word Trinity (or Triune) used and taught? If this concept is so important, I'd like to see it explained explicitly as a 3 in 1 explanation. I would assume something so important would not be left to implicit derivation. Why was the concept of Jesus and Holy Spirit not revealed to Abraham and Moses? If these God crucifixion concepts are critical to salvation, why did God hide these truths? Why do people pray? Is it to worship? Is it to express a need? Why did Jesus pray? Did Jesus request people pray to and worship him? Why did Jesus say he prayed? Did he need help? Is "Son of God" an exclusive title only given to Jesus? If created from God, does that mean Adam and Eve are also God and we should worship them? This is from John 17. I've tried to keep some the context to not appear deceitful. After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." Is God a narcissist? Luke 4 “5The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours.” This fits with the accepted Hebrew belief (at that time) of a flat round earth. Why would being high make Jesus able to see all the kingdoms of the world? Does the devil suggest that he is more powerful than God and is able to bestow authority to Him? Why does the devil not say, “It has been given to me by you”? Why do Christians trust Paul? I can’t see that Jesus “messed up” and come at a time before it was convenient for Paul. Paul appears as an ancient days’ Joseph Smith – a frequently imprisoned liar and murderer of innocent people whose “miracle” story of enlightenment has several versions in the Bible. Who would be more likely to call upon a guy like Paul to do his bidding? Do you notice anything different between what Jesus teaches and what Paul teaches (about following God’s law)? I don't expect answers to these questions. I would expect a dogmatic responce, but I'm hoping to ask questions that maybe you haven't asked yourself. I stay away from the easy ones like "why have you forsaken me" because I'm sure you've already heard man's crazy explination for that one. Funny that God works so hard to obfuscate his true nature in the Bible - lucky we have men to explain it to us. If God had given us a rational mind to question the words of men, that would be cool becaues it would help us to find His true nature.
The trinity is interesting, both as a concept (an attempt at brokering a polythesitic arrangement in a monotheistic religion) and how people have responded to it. Of note is Newton, who ironically was a professor at Trinity. The controversy around the filioque is another. The concept of the Trinity, like much, if not all of religion, is ultimately man-made; webs of significance which we ourselves have spun. There's nothing wrong with that. As you've noted, the trinity is not mentioned in the bible, and one would think that such a vital concept would at least be mentioned. The concept is a muddle one, what with justifications like comparing it to the various states of water/steam/ice.
