[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
See, you are missing the point about free will - Yes, HE knew some would choose to sin freely of their own will and he designated a punishment for that freely made choice and a blessing for those who did not choose to sin or accepted a substitute sacrifice for their sin - this same reality is borne out throughout creation - if you choose to ingest poison it will kill you, if you choose to jump off of a cliff, you will fall - nature is full of examples that our creator designed a world for us to inhabit that was full of many choices - NONE of which have to be made a certain way - we are free to choose.
But you’re still not answering Oleena’s question. If god KNEW that the majority of his creations would make choices condemning themselves to hell, why wouldn’t benevolence lead god not to create these people in the first place? Is it really compassionate to create people that are going to burn for eternity? Eternity is a very, very, very long time.[/quote]
Would you rather he had created robots?
As I see it, if we’re going to take your perspective, God would have three choices. 1. He could create robots who could only choose good over evil, 2. he could choose not to create humans at all, or 3. he could us as we are: endowed with the capacity for free will, the endowment of which makes our choice for good meaningful.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Would you rather he had created robots? [/quote]
It seems the compassionate choice would be not to create them at all. Why would a benevolent god create billions of people that are doomed to suffer forever?
[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Would you rather he had created robots?
It seems the compassionate choice would be not to create them at all. Why would a benevolent god create billions of people that are doomed to suffer forever?
[/quote]
Wow, I anticipated this. Check out my expanded answer.
Forlife, seriously, no one is “doomed.” That’s the whole point.
It’s bad enough that you seem to want to destroy the ontological reality of the human person. Reduce him to molecules, chemicals, social forces, etc. Now, you would prefer that the human - a magnificent creation if there ever was one - was never created at all?
Environmentalists, liberals, lefties…they all seem to truly hate humanity. sigh
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
So I answered both of your questions and I do hold my God to the same high standards he holds for me . . .so, no, there is no FAIL on his part. . . .
If you hold god to the same standards, does that mean you believe he is justified in condemning the majority of his creations to hell? How in any sense is that loving? As Oleena has repeatedly asked, wouldn’t a benevolent god, in his omniscience and omnipotence, choose not to create these people in the first place?[/quote]
You should read the longer post I made today in response to Oleena’s new question of the day.
You guys keep focusing on a single attribute of God and then juxtapose that single attribute against something else without taking the full measure of God and all of his attributes. What about his Justice, Purity, Honor, Faithfulness, Holiness, etc.
Let’s break down this loving aspect once again.
As I posted to O - there is no linear progression for God, he always exists in every time and in every place simultaneously.
As others have tried to explain here, God created man to please Himself and to honor himself (as He is rightly the Greatest of all beings) and so that He could Love us and WE could Love Him - but that had to be of free will or it could not be love.
Let’s use the example of the first Adam - Adam had only one rule in the garden - don’t eat of the fruit of one tree - the rule was set up to test Adam’s love for God to see if it was greater than Adam’s love of self (doing what God wanted rather than what he wanted) - there was no set outcome and Adam did not HAVE to choose to eat the fruit, but he did so anyway demonstrating that his love of self was greater than his love for God.
Why did it have to be tested? - without the challenge, the truth of his love would not be known and because of his choice it was known. We (made in his likeness) do the same with our loves here - we love and want to know that we are freely loved in return and we judge their actions to determine if their professed love is true.
There were consequences for his choice - but even in this God was already promising/providing salvation/redemption for him and for all of mankind.
Now I will not pretend to know what every test of every individual throughout all of time has been- but there comes a point in every person who reaches the age/time of accountability and they are given their first singular moral choice between love for self and love for God and they have to make that choice - their free will gives them the ability/freedom to make that choice - and they bear the consequences of it - but for everyone who made the choice to reject God - God already provided a redemption BECAUSE of his great love for us - all they have to do is confess it for being what is was (love of self), ask for his forgiveness (just as we would do with our own human lovers) and he has already paid the penalty for that choice (and no they do not even have to know Jesus’ name for this to be effective - this would be another thread for another time). His Mercy, his Justice, His Purity and His Holiness all working together to prove his love for us despite our rejection of him . . .
and that is what the punishment is - it is complete separation BY OUR OWN FREE WILL from God for all of eternity because we love ourselves greater than we love Him and choose ourselves over him, while those who chose to love the Creator more than the creation are rewarded with being with Him for all of eternity (and no - it is not a everlasting choral group with all of us forced to stand and sing forever - some people really need to read the Bible for themselves)
And that is the final point - everlasting condemnation is what WE freely choose and it is our reward for that choice - He could LOVINGLY FORCE us to LOVE him - but then free will is destroyed and it is not love that is given, but automatic obedience by design. His love is demonstrated even to those who reject him, because he does not force their love, but grants them their choice - separation from his presence forever (and that is why there is weeping/wailing). (you know the old saying - if you love someone, let them go, if they return it is love, if they don’t return, they did not love you - same principle here)
And that is the conclusion - God loves us unconditionally - his love for us never falters, never fails, even when we reject him completely - he still loves and because of that love does not force us to do what we choose not to do, but gives us exactly what we want - separation from him. It could not be plainer or more simple.
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - now your are substituting influence for cause . . .
What is the difference? If a characteristic influences a choice, by definition it partly causes that choice.[/quote]
No - I was not agreeing with you, just pointing out that your are substituting terms and going in the wrong direction.
As explained in my long windy response above - the choice that condemns us is the free will choice to reject God - this is not caused by anything - it is simply the exercising of our free will.
You are comparing tastes for a particular flavor of ice cream (biological) with the conscious volitional choice to reject God (spiritual) - hardly a similar concept.
[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Forlife, seriously, no one is “doomed.” That’s the whole point.
Are you disagreeing that the majority of people are going to hell? Or are you disagreeing that god knew these people would go to hell?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s predetermined - whether God has foreknowledge or not (and, having studied theology you prolly know this is a debatable point.)
Also, now this is the Anglo-Catholic in me - but I actually don’t believe that MOST people are going to hell. Most people are prolly not immediately heaven bound either. Only the most evil, unrepentant mother fuckers go straight to hell. And only the most sainted among us will go straight to heaven. Most will go to purgatory. I believe in God’s mercy - even for those who are not part of “the faith.”
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
God created man to please Himself and to honor himself (as He is rightly the Greatest of all beings) and so that He could Love us and WE could Love Him - but that had to be of free will or it could not be love.[/quote]
With this standard:
Do you not agree this is a double standard, where god is expecting Adam to behave in a different way than god himself behaves? It is ok for god to please himself and honor himself, but if Adam pleases himself and honors himself, he is condemned?
[quote]And that is the conclusion - God loves us unconditionally - his love for us never falters, never fails, even when we reject him completely - he still loves and because of that love does not force us to do what we choose not to do, but gives us exactly what we want - separation from him. It could not be plainer or more simple.
[/quote]
Is it more loving to give people what they want, knowing that doing so will result in endless suffering for all eternity, or is it more loving not to create them in the first place? What good does it do to give people what they want, if the end result is eternal damnation? Can you imagine burning in hell FOREVER, and how incredibly horrible that would be? Why would any loving god actually create people, knowing that their ultimate destination would be this eternal state of suffering?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
You are comparing tastes for a particular flavor of ice cream (biological) with the conscious volitional choice to reject God (spiritual) - hardly a similar concept.[/quote]
I’m talking about all of the cognition and decisions we make, mundane or otherwise, which psychology has proven are significantly influenced by our values, our thoughts, our attitudes, our intelligence, and our experience.
On your above points, human standards are NOT God’s standards.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Is it more loving to give people what they want, knowing that doing so will result in endless suffering for all eternity, or is it more loving not to create them in the first place? [/quote]
That’s ^^ a false choice.
The most loving thing to do would be to create this beautiful planet and populate it with people who have - GASP! THINK ABOUT IT - the capacity to choose eternal life. Isn’t that extraordinary?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I don’t think it’s predetermined - whether God has foreknowledge or not (and, having studied theology you prolly know this is a debatable point.) [/quote]
I agree there is a difference between foreknowledge and predestination. The point still stands, though. If god had foreknowledge that people he created were going to suffer for all eternity, wouldn’t the compassionate choice be to not create these people in the first place?
What do you believe is the ultimate destination of the majority who go to purgatory? Is purgatory only a temporary state, and are the majority ultimately bound for heaven or hell?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
On your above points, human standards are NOT God’s standards.[/quote]
We’re not talking about human standards per se, but about God’s standards as applied to humans vs. as applied to himself. Oleena has pointed out that God expects humans to follow a different set of standards than he ascribes to himself.
But if God KNOWS, with perfect clarity, that they are going to choose not to capitalize on that capacity for eternal life, but instead will make a different choice which leads to endless suffering, how in any sense is that benevolent? Wouldn’t the loving choice be not to create them in the first place, KNOWING that if you did create them, they would suffer forever?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:He created human to please himself, If you actually took time to read the bible you would understand that.
…if this is true, then the matter of free-will must be revisited:
If God created mankind to please himself, and he gave us free-will, then he must’ve known that we’d make decisions that would not please him. This is illogical. So, how would you reconcile this?
No it’s not illogical. Would it please him if he made us into robots who had no choice but to love and worship him? Of course not. Only love that is freely chosen is meaningful. [/quote]
If God knows in advance all our choices, then we’re just puppets following a script. We just don’t know it. We then have as much free will as the characters in a movie do. They look like they’re making choices and taking important split second decisions, but they’ll get to the pre-ordained end in 90 minutes just like the script says.
[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
I don’t think it’s predetermined - whether God has foreknowledge or not (and, having studied theology you prolly know this is a debatable point.)
I agree there is a difference between foreknowledge and predestination. The point still stands, though. If god had foreknowledge that people he created were going to suffer for all eternity, wouldn’t the compassionate choice be to not create these people in the first place? [/quote]
No, but I’d certainly like to hear why you think so.
[quote]
Most will go to purgatory.
What do you believe is the ultimate destination of the majority who go to purgatory? Is purgatory only a temporary state, and are the majority ultimately bound for heaven or hell?[/quote]
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
No, but I’d certainly like to hear why you think so. [/quote]
I think not creating them would be the compassionate choice, because otherwise you would knowingly create them for a horrible eternity of suffering. Even if that suffering is of their own making, it is an ETERNITY of pain, torment, and damnation. I can’t conceive of any compassionate being creating people, knowing full well that they will ultimately suffer this kind of fate.
How do you reconcile that belief with Jesus’ declaration that many will choose the path of destruction, while only few will choose the path of salvation?
[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
On your above points, human standards are NOT God’s standards.
We’re not talking about human standards per se, but about God’s standards as applied to humans vs. as applied to himself. Oleena has pointed out that God expects humans to follow a different set of standards than he ascribes to himself. [/quote]
Yes, well, this is only a problem if you put yourself on “equal footing” with God. I don’t. Why on earth would you?
[quote]The most loving thing to do would be to create this beautiful planet and populate it with people who have - GASP! THINK ABOUT IT - the capacity to choose eternal life. Isn’t that extraordinary?
But if God KNOWS, with perfect clarity, that they are going to choose not to capitalize on that capacity for eternal life, but instead will make a different choice which leads to endless suffering, how in any sense is that benevolent? Wouldn’t the loving choice be not to create them in the first place, KNOWING that if you did create them, they would suffer forever?[/quote]
So you would prefer that God never embarked upon this lovely creation? That he would never have endowed us with the almost inconceivably wonderful capacity to choose eternal life?
You would rather there be nothing. Is that it? Really?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Yes, well, this is only a problem if you put yourself on “equal footing” with God. I don’t. Why on earth would you? [/quote]
It doesn’t suggest that people are equal with god, only that god’s standards apply equally to himself and to the people he creates. It’s hardly fair for god to seek his own glory, while condemning others for seeking their own glory. Holding people to a different standard would be hypocritical.
If the choices are between nothing and eternal suffering and damnation, I think nothing is by FAR the most compassionate choice.
[quote]jpb wrote:
The Bible says God created all things for His own glory.[/quote]
Why does an omniscient, omnipotent being need to be glorified?
They were restricted by not having the full and complete information to make wise decisions.
So God deceived Adam and Eve so they would fall, only to later sacrifice Himself to Himself to pay Himself for the sin of those He caused to fall in the first place?
Why did he make us so that our wills bend the wrong way? Maybe he prefers sinners after all. I know I do, they’re so much more fun to have around.
We don’t ask a puppet if it likes it before we stick our hand up it’s behind. Why should God?
If you don’t have free will, you can’t be held responsible.
Being born again is such a nice euphemism for “turning off our brain.”
Sounds peachy. I find it odd that omniscience and omnipotence leads to so much insecurity.
Questions are bad. Definitely. You have questions? Shut the fuck up and pray.
The finite cannot comprehend the infinite, but God is not incomprehensible. So then God is comprehensible, and the finite can comprehend the infinite. But the finite cannot comprehend the infinite…
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
So you would prefer a creation where we did not have free will and where we were simply little machines who did what we were told and all lived monotonous controlled lives ever after? Or would you prefer no creation at all?[/quote]
Uncreated Nature rules. God-free too.
How about quantum immortality: Everytime there’s a possibility I die, in at least one parallel universe, I live. Hence, somewhere in the multiverse, we all live eternally while humanity dies around us.
When you’re taking a giant crap, do you pause to think that God is between your ass and the water?
Guess he created grammar later…
No wonder He’s too busy to answer prayers. Everything happens at once for Him.
That’s even harder than forcing sense and reason into a believer.
And when an earthquake topples a school and kills a few hundred children, it’s not Evil, it’s Entertainment. Cancer, Tay Sachs disease, Harlequin Ichthyosis… all Good Godly Fun.
pat wrote:
So you’re just an empiricist. That’s all, if it’s not observable or measurable it does not exist. That’s why science will be forever flawed.
If you can’t detect something’s existence, how do you know then that it doesn’t simply not exist?
[/quote]
You cannot not even know the things you “detect” exist. You cannot prove it. This problem has been agonizing philosophers for years. It is why DesCartes came up with “I think, therefore I am.” He was unable to prove that this things he detected through his five senses where accurate. Hell, he could not prove anything, so he went through the exercise of trying to find something he could prove, which was the above quote. He was wrong in that he could prove something exists, but he could not prove his possession of it. Kant actually improved it somewhat that be saying “Reality exists, but we cannot know what it is.” I disagree with the “we cannot knowâ?¦” part. We might be able to know"
Sensory input is not enough proof for anythingâ??s existence.
The notion Godâ??s existence can be derived through pure reason. Nothing else is required. If we had the ability to fill in small gap, here or there, it could be proven absolutely. Alas, that part will for ever be elusive, we are to limited in reasoning to get there.
Batman, on the other hand, actually does exist in movies and comic books, he is just not a real super hero. Batman also has a verifiable beginning as someoneâ??s brain child from not long ago and pure reason could not lead you to the notion that batman exists especially if you never heard of him.
As for the second part of your question, I never stated my religion is real and others are false. I believe my religion is real as well as others in terms of there belief systems. Most disagreements occur at lower level semantics. The main stuff, Love God, love your neighbor, treat all with respect, etc. are all basically the same as the heart of most religions.
I do believe in that false religions do exist and/or falsly religious people exist…Those would not hold fast to the main tenets and are self servent or intrinsically evil.
As you well know, I love science. But to answer your question, I do not advise anyone to believe, just because they are told to. I advise education, logic and reasonâ?¦.Preferably free from biases. That is the hard part, we all want to hold on to what we believe. There are some many more questions than answers. Why are things ordered the way they are? Why does the universe follow the rules it follows, where did the “rules” come from and why? Why isnâ??t it just totally random? Things like that. Science can recognize and find what the order is or what the “rules” or “laws” are, but it cannot answer where it came from or why they are there. Those are the objects of metaphysics and as far as I know logic and reasoning are our only methods of discovery for such matters.
What I was saying is that those things I mentioned, ideas, thoughts, love, etc. are real things they actually exist in as much as anything else does, yet you cannot measure them.
As far as your toaster’s honesty, you can measure that…If you set it to 'lightâ?? and the bread comes out black, that toaster is a liar.
No they need data and for that they need us, so I guess by proxy they need souls, but computers arenâ??t shit with out us.
Thatâ??s what I said. An object has a finite amount of properties, but you could never know them all…Actually scratch that. There is an infinite component to all mater, smallness. The stuff that makes up matter can be infinitely small. I donâ??t know if there is a “smallest” particle that is the base for all matter. Every time science think they found the tiniest thing, they always discover itâ??s made up of something else. So a single object can have an infinite number of properties.
Try it, and you will see. The process, much like afore motioned DesCartes, will make the possibility of Godâ??s existence seem even more reasonable then your own when you are done with it.