Christian

Stephen,

You said: but don’t you ever - in a subversive moment - ask yourself “why?”
Do you ever ask yourself why “You and I deserve eternal punishment completely aside from whether or not we believe in (and trust) Christ for our salvation”?

Odd perhaps, but no. I've done some serious questioning on a lot of issues regarding my faith but I've never doubted that a moral standard exists and that I fall far short of it. That's always been intuitive for me, I guess.

I speculate that if you asked a million different people taken from every nation and culture on earth and asked them to make a list of things that are wrong to do ... you would see an incredibly consistent core of bad things. The standards of morality don't really differ all that much among the religions of the world, IMHO. There is in an inherent moral standard there common to humanity (in large extent) that transcends culture.

You said: Actually, I now know what my mistake was: I was trying to believe in god whereas the people around me were certain of god. They knew of god’s existence as a fact, as I suspect you do. I didn’t know it as a fact. I accepted it was a fact because I was told it was, but when I wanted something substantial to prove it was a fact, there was silence.

I'm absolutely convinced that you do not need to know of God's existence as a fact in order to be saved and to experience God. I'm certain of God's existence personally, but I have no problem admiting that includes a step of faith on my part. I've spoken to people who were pretty uncertain that God exists when they were saved, and they found God.

I've heard a useful distinction drawn between two types of faith in God. The first type of faith is believing (NOT pretending ... big difference) that God exists and that His Son came to earth and died on a cross for our sins, and was resurrected 3 days later. This is the same type of faith by which I can claim that I believe China exists even though I've never actually been to China. I'm basing my belief on something further removed that simply my five senses (I've never seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched China before), but I really do believe that the country China exists. This type of faith extrapolates beyond our sensory experiences to believe in the existence of things we have not encountered in person. It is a belief beyond (not in contradiction to or in absense of) the evidence.

The second type of faith is a matter of trust. It's faith IN a person themself, not in their existence but in them. I can know that my friend Bob is a trustworthy type of guy, not prone to lying or to overstatement, and therefore I can decide to believe that what he says is in fact accurate given his perspective. I trust Bob. Or another example, I know I can count on my wife's support in my career (and many other areas of my life) because in 14 years of marriage her support has always been there. I trust my wife. I can count on her.

The first type of faith doesn't save you. Even the demons have that sort of belief in God. (Jas 2:19) The second sort of faith is what God requires if we are to be saved. But lacking the first type of faith can definitely prevent you from chosing to trust God. (Amazingly enough not always. I've spoken to Christians who were entirely uncertain whether God really existed at the time of conversion, but were willing to stick their necks out and trust in Him at the time anyway.)

The first type of faith can be arrived at without the sort of subjective experience such as you describe that you were seeking. I love what Pascal has to say on the subject of faith and evidence.

"The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it."

All of which to say that if you were flying without the second type of faith back then, then you havn't actually tried Christianity at all.

You said: What I want to know is: why you and not me?

I don't know.

You said: I’m just very glad that I don’t need to try explaining this sort of stuff away so as to retain my certainty of god’s existence!

My certainty of God's existence is not threatened by the fact that you havn't found Him. Scripture is pretty clear that not everyone does. If you were to claim that my wife doesn't exist I wouldn't believe you because I know her and interact with her daily.

BTW ... thank you for the pleasant conversation. I wasn't sure what sort of reception I would get at a board like this.

Respectfully,

Christian

Amos

Yes they do and before we can fully detach from earthly desires we must vacate our ego consciousness . . . which is our kingdom because we created it as if with our own hands. Siddharta did and so did Joseph the whily carpenter when he went to give an account of himself. Both Joseph and Siddharta were "pregant with dispair" and experienced awakening in after they abandonned their own ego consciousness (persona).

My Catholicism is very much orthodox but not exactly pulpit material. It is however plastered all over in their symbols, achitecture, literature and art.

Stephen T-B

Dear Amos - I’m glad you think your Catholicism is orthodox. But have you ever tried it on a priest? And if you did, did his eyes glaze over and did he say: “Yes, yes, Amos. Anything you say...” and then fall off his chair?

Dear Christian - there is, I fear, a chasm of infinite depth between you and me. We can shout at each other across it, but the echo I hear is not what you wanted me to, and the echo you hear is not what I wanted you to hear.
However, we might as well keep shouting because I think others might be able to hear more accurately what each of us is saying.
You quoted Pascal: “But they (prophesies, miracles and proofs) are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them.”
I absolutely disagree with that. What is reasonable about believing in a Virgin Birth, the raising of a dead man, a Resurrection of the Dead, a six-day creation, a world-wide flood, an angel of death slaying the first-born in Egypt, and so on and so on and son on and so on?
It is totally unreasonable to believe in any of these things because they are in utter and total contradiction of everything experience teaches us about what happens in the real world.
If there were indeed “proofs,” it would be impossible for me to NOT know that god exists. Knowing it, I might well decide I don’t want to obey his will, but I would know he existed with the same certainty that I know China does, (and by-the-way I know that China does exist because I have relations who were medical missionaries there and were interned by the Japanese there, and I’ve friends who have been there and friends who were born there and I’ve seen images of it on television and seen photographs of it and read accounts of it - and every single thing I have heard about it, read about it and seen of it has been consistent, besides which, its existence does not break the rules of normalcy with which I have every-day familiarity.)
Then comes this quote: “It is not reason which can determine men not to follow it (the evidence), and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart.”
As you will understand from what I have already written, I vehemently reject such an accusation as being unfounded - or possibly made from sheer ignorance.
It is my reason which shrieks out to me: “Adam and Eve? Codswollop. Original sin? Codswollop. Talking donkeys? Codswollop. Speaking snakes? Codswollop. Noah’s Ark? Codswollop. A burning bush? Codswollop. The sun standing still in the heavens? Codswollop. The Gospels? Codswollop.”
Now, these assessments didn’t arrive in my brain all in a rush, but when pretending there was a god stopped delivering any kind of a reward, I began, gradually and over many years – I am now within a few weeks of being 60 and the pretending stopped about 40 years ago – to review what’s in the Bible. I would now say that about 95 per cent of it is myth, legend and propaganda.

I am a little troubled that an intelligent person can believe the Bible is the world of God and therefore true, but I am ready to accept it.
Please, therefore, try to accept that I cannot.
(I think it is possible for us to reach across that chasm, but only if we both lean out as far as we can. And I’m already just managing not to fall...)

Luiseach

Interesting question, that. The religious background of my extended family is Presbyterian (heavy on the Calvinism), and as far as dyed-in-the-wool calvinists are concerned, no one knows who is going to heaven except God. Predestination and all that...apparently, within the belief system, there are some of us who are born as the 'Elect', and then everybody else. The 'Elect' have been chosen by God to go to Heaven; the rest of us vagabonds have to go to hell. The trouble with this version of Christianity is this: no one knows for sure if he/she is a member of the 'Elect' or not, which apparently causes schisms in the calvinistic soul.

What a load of bunkum. Sheesh.

My definition of Presbyterianism = 'the first step on the road towards atheism'.

Amos

Leave the poor priest out of it because as a shepherd he only needs to know the boundry of the arena wherein salvation must take place. He's just a shepherd, no?

Oh yes, in case you don't understand, in Catholicism salvation is from God, for sinners, through faith.

Christian

Stephen,

Codswollop??? That's a cool word. I'm going to have to remember that one.

I'm not challenging your right to hold the views or do, or denying that you sincerely hold them. I suggest that we simply disagree more than we misunderstand each other ... I could be wrong though.

So many potential rabbits to chase. Validity of scripture, evidence for God. There is some ad hominum speculation in the Pascal quote (which is not what I was trying to emphasize), and I have no problem assuming the best of motives in each other so we don't waste time with that.

Have you really not seen anything in the experience of what normally happens in the real world that suggests resurrection? Ever considered an acorn? Crop cycles? Seasonal patterns? I would argue that miracles are a condensed and up close view of what God does in the world all the time (or occasionally what He will do in the world in the future). God turns water into wine every single year, He just does it so slowly that we don't typically notice it's Him at work. But that's another rabbit trail.

Care to narrow the focus any, now that we are off the thread topic? You have a real live Christian on the line, one whose even conned you into thinking he's "intelligent." Is there anything in particular you would like to discuss or to know my opinion on? I'm game.

Respectfully,

Christian

Proctors_Gambit

Perhaps when you get to heaven, you understand, as God obviously understands, why it is right and just that your 'unsaved' loved ones burn in hell for eternity.

So you can happily sit back in the knowledge that Justice has been served and you understand that this way is the best way.


Further from your idea of memories from earth, the gospel of Luke gives a vivid description of Hell.


Luke 16
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.


So it would seem to me that not only do they remember you, they can see you in your suffering and torment and still have no problem with it.
They see they people they loved on earth but agree with God that this eternal punishment is Just and Fair.

-Gambit

Amos

It is a self inflicted punishment and God had nothing to do with it. It is the misconstrued idea of God that lands people in hell and is promoted by self righteous believers who think they are on their way to heaven and are willing to sacrifice all they have and all they can enjoy on earth the reach this end.

Remember here that God is a human conjecture and therefore is not able to punish people. Things only go wrong when marauders steal peaces from a mythology and create their own little games with it and one of these is the spiritual fornication of immature believers. The extent of this form of suffering is far beyond anything the human mind can comprehend . . . or it would not be called eternal hell [on earth].

Darth Dane

"I asked: “ How can a soul enjoy paradise if those whom it had loved when it possessed a physical body are headed for hell?"
Darth Dane replied: “Because you have freewill to decide for yourself if you believe in God/paradise.”
I don’t see how that answers the question. (I don't even think it's true.) "

The point is, that what you believe is true to you, if you keep not choosing what you believe..either this or that, you'll keepe lingering in limbo so to say. If we don't have freewill, then you are a robot, which doesn't ring true in my ears....but thats just me. What you choose to enjoy is your business!

"He wrote: “Don't assume anything, that’s my advice.”
But hey, if you’re a Christian and don’t assume you’re going to heaven, what’s the point of being a Christian"

I don't know, beats me!


"He wrote: “I know We'll all be forgiven if you earnestly ask for it....” Yes, but if I die tomorrow, suddenly, I’ll never have asked, earnestly or not so-earnestly, to be forgiven."

Thats why the concept doesn't ring true in my ears....I believe all goes to "heaven" if you will, you'll get another chance, get reborn or something, God will always love you, and knows if you get another chance you'll take it.
"turn the other cheek" If God spoke through Jesus here, it seem s odd if God doesn't do the same, he'll keep on forgiving you, to the end of time...

"He wondered why I thought a soul’s loved one’s no longer mattered to it when it was in heaven. Well, I don’t see how they can matter to it if, when in heaven, it doesn’t care if they go to heaven or hell."

I want you to have freewill, even though you choose "evil" I love you for taking your freewill and using it.

I choose to use my freewill for Love.


I know I put in some witticism, but I can't drown myself in seriousness.

I hope this gives a more clear answer to my opinion.


With Love



DD - Loving Spliff

Bill Snedden

You've realized, of course, that this argument cuts just as strongly (perhaps more so) the other way? That all of these things are suggestive of "resurrection" or "new life" simply provides an explanation of how resurrection myths arose. In fact, I feel sure that you, as a Christian, would use this argument to explain Osiris, Demeter, Innana, Zalmoxis, or a host of other, pre-Christian resurrection myths.

I'd also like to respond to the earlier points you made to Stephen, as this question has intrigued me as well:

That may be. I'm sure that the abusive husband continues to tell his wife that he loves her, however his actions betray the malformed nature of his "love." Likewise, you must excuse us for being somewhat wary of a being who assures us of his constant love yet condemns us to eternal torment for the honest "sin" of unbelief.

I rather enjoyed The Great Divorce. I suspect the author(s) of What Dreams May Come may have applied it as well as Dante to their vision of "hell."

However, your application of "choose" strains the definition of the word to its breaking point. I cannot "choose" to separate myself from the invisible, undetectable pile of money sitting on my desk. Choices require information; they require alternatives. I don't believe that a god exists, therefore I have no alternative. I am unable to choose whether or not to separate myself from something whose existence I can neither confirm nor deny.

I can imagine few things worse than the knowledge that my loved ones are suffering interminably. You make heaven sound like hell.

"...anyone actually getting what they deserve"? What does that mean? You made another comment in a later post regarding "what we deserve":

We all deserve eternal punishment? For what? The petty infractions we commit every day? Or is this a reference to the risible doctrine of "original sin"?

I'll leave you with my favorite quote thereon:

Regards,

Bill Snedden