|
Philosophy part 2 (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
| someone give me the short version couldnt be bothered reading through this thread :o |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
someone give me the short version couldnt be bothered reading through this thread :o |
then dont bother coming in here or posting |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
then dont bother coming in here or posting |
harsh :sadgreen: |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
i've always personally thought so. from the time i was really young and first starting to question God's existence, I always thought that God must be very selfish if he would send someone to eternal suffering simply because that person didnt believe in/love Him. Regardless of what kind of life that person lived, I always felt it was rather selfish. If a person spends the majority of their life helping others, donating to charities, doing work for organizations whom travel the world and help the poor or the starving, etc but simply doesnt believe in God, they would be sent to hell. That always seemed rather weird to me. |
Two potential responses to this..... 1) Hell, as described in the bible, is simply being in a state of existance outside of God's love. Abrahamic theologians would argue that this happens only by the choice of the individual and is not a punishment imposed by God (note, Christianity believes God forgives all sin and Jews do not believe in the existance of a hell.... I don't know the muslim stance on hell). 2) Coming from the Christian tradition.... the Revelation of John contains a passage that describes the "beast" being locked in a cell of some sort and all the damned being freed to return to God. This passage would suggest that damnation is not eternal.
Wow, I just realized I'm coming off as a real bible thumper here... strange because despite being a practicing catholic I really don't put much stock in much of the bible. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Two potential responses to this..... 1) Hell, as described in the bible, is simply being in a state of existance outside of God's love. Abrahamic theologians would argue that this happens only by the choice of the individual and is not a punishment imposed by God (note, Christianity believes God forgives all sin and Jews do not believe in the existance of a hell.... I don't know the muslim stance on hell). |
What a great role-model for omnibenevolence.
God: "Believe in me or exist without my love ... it's your choice*"
*Users should be aware that by choosing to live outside of God's love, they assume the risk of any injury to person or property. They may not recover any damages from God for any injury resulting from any of the inherent dangers and risks of choosing to live in the absence of his love. User should not expect any recourse from God in perpetuity for their "choice". |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What a great role-model for omnibenevolence.
|
i seem to be the only person who doesnt throw an "omni" in front of benevolent. i dont think God is omnibenevolent. what moral said alone shows that he isnt, assuming of course that his explanations are correct. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What a great role-model for omnibenevolence.
God: "Believe in me or exist without my love ... it's your choice*"
|
It's a tricky thing both to explain and understand. The idea of hell does not mean god no longer loves you rather you no longer accept that love. God's love is the only love that is eternal. His love is given freely to all things and persons, however, if one fails to recognize that love that is their failing not god's. Getting back to free will, god would not force one to recognize or accept his love. The key here is that this is something the individual chooses for him/herself and subsequently, one failing to feel the love of god is not evidence that God is not omnibenevolent. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
It's a tricky thing both to explain and understand. The idea of hell does not mean god no longer loves you rather you no longer accept that love. God's love is the only love that is eternal. His love is given freely to all things and persons, however, if one fails to recognize that love that is their failing not god's. Getting back to free will, god would not force one to recognize or accept his love. The key here is that this is something the individual chooses for him/herself and subsequently, one failing to feel the love of god is not evidence that God is not omnibenevolent. |
What exactly does the absence of God's love entail? Let's understand this "choice" in layman's terms here. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What exactly does the absence of God's love entail? Let's understand this "choice" in layman's terms here. |
Good question, I don't exactly know. My understanding is that the absence of God's love would amount to the absence of all love. Maybe a profound emptyness beyond comprehension. The idea of hell being a lake of fire comes from a simily from some theologian (I cannot recall who) that likened the pain of being without God's love as to that of burning for all eternity without the relief of death. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| I should point out here that a lot of what I'm posting is not actually in fitting with my own beliefs.... just arguing a position. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Good question, I don't exactly know. My understanding is that the absence of God's love would amount to the absence of all love. Maybe a profound emptyness beyond comprehension.
|
Why would God create an afterlife whereby an individual is faced with two alternatives:
A)Make the choice to accept God's love and live in enternal bliss
or
B)Make the choice to not accept God's love and live in the absence of all love in profound emptyness beyond comprehension
And bodaciously refer to that as some kind of choice, or even pretend that he is being omnibenevolent to those who refuse his love? If this were a true test of the freedom of choice, there wouldn't be such weighty strings attached don't you think? Hey I have a "choice" for you ... suck me off or I'm going to blow your head off. What?? I endow you with the sanctity of choice and you have the audacity to question my omnibenevolence??? ;)
| quote: |
The idea of hell being a lake of fire comes from a simily from some theologian (I cannot recall who) that likened the pain of being without God's love as to that of burning for all eternity without the relief of death. |
Dante I believe.
| quote: |
I should point out here that a lot of what I'm posting is not actually in fitting with my own beliefs.... just arguing a position.
|
Perfectly understood. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Why would God create an afterlife whereby an individual is faced with two alternatives:
A)Make the choice to accept God's love and live in enternal bliss
or
B)Make the choice to not accept God's love and live in the absence of all love in profound emptyness beyond comprehension
And bodaciously refer to that as some kind of choice, or even pretend that he is being omnibenevolent to those who refuse his love? If this were a true test of the freedom of choice, there wouldn't be such weighty strings attached don't you think? |
Sticking to the traditional arguments of Christian thinkers.... no person can answer why God would do something.
Now giving a slightly better answer... the key here is that the choice exists. Let's face it, there are all sorts of people that make horrible choices for whatever reason. There are people that are mad at god even hate god (granted this is usually only true of very firm believers in god because one must believe in order to hate) that may choose not to accept god's love out of spite or perhapse self-loathing. Getting back to my initial possition.... god wants us to choose to love him therefore he allows us the choice whether or not we are happy with our choice is inconsequential to this argument. It is also worthwhile to note that if we are accepting the existance of god and excepting that the prophecies of the bible are true then we also need to accept that everyone will after some time (in the afterlife) come to know and accept Gods love (if you recall the revelation of John passage I brought up earlier).
I thought Dante borrowed the idea of the lake of fire from whomever first used the analogy, however, I could be mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
