28 Jul 09
Originally posted by Proper Knoboh Nooby one, what about those of us who do not profess the teaching of hell fire and eternal torment, is our God also guilty of blackmail?
'Live by our rules otherwise you will be sent to hell.........but God does love you'.
What sort of message is that? It is blackmail, and more than that it is a means of control.
Here are some lyrics of a song that best sum it up for me.
Religion is a business, 'cause there's money in sin
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDid he create a scenario where there is only one desirable option, but where to choose that option you must do certain things (like give praise to him)?
oh Nooby one, what about those of us who do not profess the teaching of hell fire and eternal torment, is our God also guilty of blackmail?
28 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead==============================
Notice how you have not given an alternative view to cure my ignorance. I have asked many many times on these forums what purpose the punishment serves and am yet to get a single answer. I fully realize that many Christians do not believe that hell is punishment at all, but my post was addressed to one who does believe it.
Would you care to explain what purpose the punishment serves?
Notice how you have not given an alternative view to cure my ignorance. I have asked many many times on these forums what purpose the punishment serves and am yet to get a single answer.
====================================
What purpose does divine punishment serve ?
I am going to assume that you mean eternal punishment. Temporal punishment is corrective. So I assume you mean what purpose does eternal punishment serve?
Is that the question you'd like me to speak to ?
===============================
I fully realize that many Christians do not believe that hell is punishment at all, but my post was addressed to one who does believe it.
Would you care to explain what purpose the punishment serves?
===================================
I have answered this question in the past. I don't think there is only one way to answer this question. But I will repeat what I have written on this forum before. See if you do recall me saying this before.
God has tremendous longsuffering and patience. Some people insult God many times a day throughout an entire life time. Lightening does not strike them down. Apparently, either God does not exist or God simply allows them to speak and do as they wish. He even blesses them along with other people with many happy days in life and many provisions for which they do not thank God.
Eternal punishment is the rebel losing. God is just. God is righteous. God is loving. But if the rebel refuses to get out of the rebellion, he has to know that he cannot win against the Ultimate Governor. He has to lose.
He cannot break even. He cannot get out of existing. He cannot win. "He has to lose" .
There is no umpire above God. There is no legal recourse transcending God. There is nothing beyond, above, transcendent to God. The Cosmic Buck, if you will, stops with God. There is nothing above, beyond, over, that can correct God.
If the revolter will not accept His loving and righteous salvation but insist to carry out revolt to the uttermost, he has to lose. He cannot win. To be punished forever is the ultimate loss.
I don't like it. I didn't invent it. But I can dimly see that this is God's RESPONSIBILITY. All creatures created have to understand that they they cannot rebel against the Ultimate Governor and Creator and win.
To be non-existent, to be annhilated so that one no longer exists, apparently is a win for the unrighteous revolter. To be punished forever is the portion of the rebel who will not be reconciled to God.
Now there can be two human reactions to this:
1.) To adopt the attitude that God is a terrible arbitrary tyrant, a despot. You can view God as a monster unfairly subjecting all creatures to his petty whims.
2.) To have believe that righteousness, justice, rightness, holiness find their ultimate and infinite source in God. He is right.
I have decided on option #2. When I see the life of Jesus Christ I think rightness, mercy, justice, and holiness are expressed in His life, death, and resurrection.
The reason this is important to me is because it was mostly from HIS MOUTH we derive NOT ONLY the truest expressions of love, mercy, forebearance, longsuffering, kindness and grace. But also the warnings of eternal damnation.
It was mostly from the SAME mouth that we see as Paul wrote "both the kindness and severity of God".
This post has practically all been focused on the negative side of the matter.
The other side of the matter is "Where are you going to go if God eventually rules everywhere?" If He has to prepare a place for you and you want nothing to do with Him, that place by definition (using the vanacular use) must be a HELL.
The rebel wants nothing to do with God's blessings or God Himself. What kind of place can be prepared for such a person ultimately ? It must be a place without blessing.
Maybe, the discriptions of such a state are told to us in terms in which we can understand, are terrible.
This is a post and not a book. The question is not exhaustively addressed here. No doubt you will find objections.
28 Jul 09
1 edit
Twhite,
You've asked me a tough question. Let me ask you a question.
I know you are an atheist.
But if there is a God WHY would we expect God to have only ONE side in this matter? That is why would we expect that God would only show the side of Mercy, Patience, Love, Forgiveness.
Should we not also expect that an ultimate God would have more than one side? There should also be a side of justice - ultimate, of retribution - ultimate, of punishment - ultimate.
What I as a Christian would meditate on is the steps which God has taken to SAVE us from the effects of those latter attributes of God.
The cross of Calvary is where God has acted to SAVE us from that eternal justice. And look at the desperate fight you're putting up against that ?
28 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou mean like choosing either to obey or disobey the law of gravity? well you can choose to disobey it if you like, is it blackmail to suggest that you have a moral choice to disobey it or not? is it blackmail to suggest that you are better off obeying it, even though you have the choice not to? does it call into question the wisdom of the one who set forth the law? hardly, well then, why do you want to bake the cake and eat it all? why must persons insist that obedience to Gods laws and principles is anything more than obedience to other 'natural' laws, like the law of gravity, or aerodynamics or whatever?
Did he create a scenario where there is only one desirable option, but where to choose that option you must do certain things (like give praise to him)?
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by jaywillRevolt against Him ? What kind of revolt could a could small little human wage compared to the Creator of everything ? The story that the Christian church want's us to believe sounds like something out of Harry Potter. The Devil against the God. The you're with us or you're against us mentality also has a wacked out kind of drama to it. Revolting against something all powerfull sounds kind of nut's to me. Obviously communication has broke down when it come's to getting the ultimate story straight. None of us know much about anything, let alone the nature of God or infinite intelligence. We have some screwball Holy Books that are suppose to tell us the Truth, and that's it. No real communication taking place.
I believe that as the Ultimate Governor of all existence and as the ultimate Creator, God is responsible to Himself to allow no possibility that revolt can be carried out against Him forever and without divine and ultimate retribution.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow can you disobey the law of gravity? Are you going to just suddenly fly off into space?
you mean like choosing either to obey or disobey the law of gravity? well you can choose to disobey it if you like, is it blackmail to suggest that you have a moral choice to disobey it or not? is it blackmail to suggest that you are better off obeying it, even though you have the choice not to? does it call into question the wisdom of the one who ...[text shortened]... than obedience to other 'natural' laws, like the law of gravity, or aerodynamics or whatever?
why must persons insist that obedience to Gods laws and principles is anything more than obedience to other 'natural' laws, like the law of gravity, or aerodynamics or whatever?
Because God is a hypothesis, and the natural laws can be measured and proven.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by jaywillSo what you are saying is, as well as having a really nice side God also has a really nasty side. And for us to stay on the nice side of God we have to follow the steps that God has laid down for us.
Twhite,
You've asked me a tough question. Let me ask you a question.
I know you are an atheist.
But if there is a God WHY would we expect God to have only ONE side in this matter? That is why would we expect that God would only show the side of Mercy, Patience, Love, Forgiveness.
Should we not also expect that an ultimate God would have mor ...[text shortened]... us from that eternal justice. And look at the desperate fight you're putting up against that ?
That's just what i said in an earlier post. 'Do as God says or beware of the consequences...........but he does have a nice side'.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by jaywillYes that is the question.
I am going to assume that you mean eternal punishment. Temporal punishment is corrective. So I assume you mean what purpose does eternal punishment serve?
Is that the question you'd like me to speak to ?
See if you do recall me saying this before.
Actually no, I do not recall it. If it was in response to me then my apologies for forgetting and incorrectly stating that nobody has given me an answer.
Eternal punishment is the rebel losing. God is just. God is righteous. God is loving. But if the rebel refuses to get out of the rebellion, he has to know that he cannot win against the Ultimate Governor. He has to lose.
He cannot break even. He cannot get out of existing. He cannot win. [b]"He has to lose" .[/b]
I did read you whole post, not just the bits I have quoted. I don't get it. I do not understand in the least why a rebel has to loose, or why "All creatures created have to understand that they they cannot rebel against the Ultimate Governor and Creator and win."
I would like to point out a couple of things that I think go against the grain of your explanation so far:
1. Many of us who are supposedly going to be punished have no belief in the threat and thus the threat factor you mention does not apply.
2. You imply that the punishment is for rebelling, yet the prevailing wisdom is that Christianity teaches that the punishment is for committing sin - which all are apparently guilty of. So it seems you are saying something very different - ie that the punishment is actually for not doing whatever it takes to get "saved". In fact the whole terminology in popular use ie forgiveness of sins, 'saved', etc does not fit with your explanation of punishment.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by jaywillActually I don't know what to expect from a God other than what I am told by theists, except for one clause - I expect an existent entity to be logically consistent both with itself and with the observable universe.
Should we not also expect that an ultimate God would have more than one side? There should also be a side of justice - ultimate, of retribution - ultimate, of punishment - ultimate.
My main complaint however is not so much with a hypothetical God but with what I am being told by theists which just doesn't seem to be consistent. One moment God is all loving, the next he is punishing people because it is part of his nature or some such thing.
The cross of Calvary is where God has acted to SAVE us from that eternal justice. And look at the desperate fight you're putting up against that ?
If you think I am putting up a fight against something then you clearly misunderstand me.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by jaywillI realize that you believe that, but does it make sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. Does it make enough sense to you that you can explain the rational behind it to me?
I believe that as the Ultimate Governor of all existence and as the ultimate Creator, God is responsible to Himself to allow no possibility that revolt can be carried out against Him forever and without divine and ultimate retribution.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by BadwaterYou said "I don't believe in heaven or hell; neither really makes a lick of sense to me. Jesus talked of Paradise, not heaven, and hell sounds like a place that the living invented to make themselves feel better for the bad ones that got away with it".
Where exactly are you misreading that I am calling Earth paradise/a paradise??
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobnot quite the whole story Noobster my friend, for your assumption that God is a hypothesis is not entirely relevant, for just as you can see the effects in real terms of a so called natural law, you can also discern the effects of a morally independent stance from God, just take a look around you. what has the new morality brought? this adherence to materialism? are we happier, more fulfilled because of our new found purpose? perhaps we are more knowledgeable? is the earth's resources better managed as a consequence? why is one side of the planet starving and the other dying because of obesity, oh it is thoroughly depressing to contemplate , thoroughly!
How can you disobey the law of gravity? Are you going to just suddenly fly off into space?
[b]why must persons insist that obedience to Gods laws and principles is anything more than obedience to other 'natural' laws, like the law of gravity, or aerodynamics or whatever?
Because God is a hypothesis, and the natural laws can be measured and proven.[/b]