Sin/Salvation (redux)

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Until you come up with a reason which has some basis beyond 'Because he's God and he says so' I'll remain oblivious to this need to worship you seem to be so concerned with

This is like asking someone else to seek God for you.

If you want an encounter with God, seek Him in His word. I can't do your seeking nor your finding for you. That is, assuming you really do want a reason to worship Him.[/b]

Smoke and mirrors, you're perfectly happy to spout rhetoric about the need to seek god, but you can't give a single reason for why, nor explain how. The fact of the matter is that your god's purely subjective. You've got your own view which cannot be substantiated in any way other than through faith, a process which requires acceptance without justification and the presupposition of belief in existence. You can't even demonstrate why there should be a necessary connection between god's existence and obedient worship.

Originally posted by vistesd

However— If I refuse, or fail to recognize, this whole thing, I don’t simply die; nor do I simply continue much as I am now (sans a relationship with God): I still receive eternal life, but with a huge increase in suffering and torment. God does not allow me to choose simple death; that is not part of the scenario. I now become like those people who are born into dreadful suffering, also without their choice.

How much suffering is too much suffering? Is it a year? Is it ten years? Is it a life time? Is it an eternity? The simple fact of the matter is that we do suffer. The question then must be asked as to why if there is a God? It seems to me that if suffering is indured short term it stands to reason that it probably is possible long term as well. Does the fact that suffering can end make such suffering acceptable? In fact, is any suffering no matter how small unacceptable in terms of there being a loving God at the helm? My response is that it is because of sin and even God suffered on the cross for such sin even though he did not contribute to such sin.

As far as hell goes, the Bible refers to it as the "second death". However, for me death is death. Suffering is suffering. Seperation from God is seperation from God. You can chop it up any way you like but in the end it is all suffering. The only way to escape such suffering is to be free of sin, hence we have the cross as a refuge.

Originally posted by vistesd

Now, if a God of love was able to create our life to begin with without our consent—that is, if that act is consistent with a perfectly loving God—why is bestowal of eternal bliss without our consent unloving? After all, once we have received that gift, we are unlikely then to reject it. And if that gift entails being infused with love, then w ...[text shortened]... fused with love, realize the beauty of it, and not want to relinquish either it or its source...[/b]

It is true that we did not ask to have life in the first place. However, we do the same when we have children? We know for a 100% certaintly that they will suffer yet we have them because we wish to share our love with them. However, when they arrive to we brow beat them once they are of age to fend for themselves and force them to "do the right thing"? If you are loving parent at some point you must set them free....

I am sure someone will say that we do not know how much suffering the child will have compared to God who does know. However, if you did know your child would suffer is there a limit to such suffering that would cause you to have an abortion? At what level on the "suffering meter" is it unacceptable to bring them into the world? Put another way, at what point is it not worth sharing your love with them in comparison to the suffering they will experience?

Originally posted by whodey
We know for a 100% certaintly that they will suffer yet we have them because we wish to share our love with them. However, when they arrive to we brow beat them once they are of age to fend for themselves and force them to "do the right thing"? If you are loving parent at some point you must set them free....

But we must set them free, only because we are not omnipotent. If we were gods then we would not set them free, as allowing them to harm themselves would not be the loving thing to do.
In fact if our children go to extremes to harm themselves even when they have come of age, we would still be more loving if we force a change on them. For example:
1. Your child starts doing hard drugs.
2. Your child tries to commit suicide.
3. Your child joins a dangerous cult.
In all the above cases, the loving parent will actually intervene, forcibly if necessary.

As for the issue of giving life to children which will suffer:
I do believe that it is wrong to bring a child in this world if you know that its suffering will not be offset by its joy. So if you believe your child will go to hell for example or you know your child will be born with a terrible genetic disorder then it is wrong and not loving to have a child.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]With Epi, I confess that I have no idea what the word means in his discourse.*

Is that due to misrepresentation, do you suppose? Possibly. However, I have in mind the fullness of the Transcendent God as He is revealed throughout scripture. The Lion and the Lamb. Not only the bloody brow of the Messiah, suffering and dying for souls in ruin, ...[text shortened]... fire can pour forth into one's life.

All of which can only be accomplished by faith.[/b]

Is that due to misrepresentation, do you suppose?

I wouldn’t think so. I simply don’t know what you mean by love. I have gone to great lengths to try to communicate (albeit poetically) what I mean by the word. And since you have some background in Sufism, I have drawn upon the Sufis (well, I draw upon them myself; not only in this case). Still, perhaps you do not know what I mean by love, either.

God is love, and His love is an all-consuming fire -- transcendent, supernatural and ineffable.

Speaking poetically, I can accept this, with the following qualifiers (which I don’t expect you to accept):

(a) I do not understand, nor use the word, God to be a being, as you know.

(b) I scratch the word “supernatural” almost as a technical matter (depending on how it is being used).

(c) In a sense, love itself is ineffable. And we speak of it poetically, rather than clinically; and we sing of its effects—which is the argument here.

—I have always claimed that ______________ is ultimately ineffable. Ineffable, however, does not mean fraught with contradiction. (Although some writers use contradiction, negation, paradox as signal that what they are talking about really can’t be talked about in normal discourse; in such cases, they do not expect the contradictions to stand as such.)

To remove the teeth from love is to misrepresent the Truth.

Taken by itself, I agree with this—though I wouldn’t use the word “teeth.” It ought to be clear that I don’t think of love strictly in terms of warm-fuzzy coziness and comfort.

Translated into judgment, for those who reject the terms of reconciliation which God mercifully extends to all in Christ Jesus, they will be consumed by the fires of God's wrath and know only anguish, while those who are obedient to the gospel of Christ will be consumed by the fires of God's love and know only peace, joy and rest. Same fire, different relationship.

And this is where we break down. You are not only translating love into judgment (by which I assume you mean something more than discernment/decision), you are translating love into wrath: at which point it is simply no longer love.

Is the husband really loving who says to his wife: “I love you; and if you ever leave me I will [lovingly] torture and kill you”? If the Inquisitor says that he burns heretics alive at the stake out of love, do we not conclude that he has a warped notion of love?

The healing “spirit-fire” of love may well cause suffering, but only in the process of caring and healing. Love cannot be punitive, cannot be put into juridical terms. Even in terms of the kind of parent/child relationship that whodey sometimes brings up, any “punishment” is for the child’s well-being—otherwise it’s simply abuse. I cannot beat or psychologically abuse my wife into submission and claim that I love her—that would make me either a liar or deranged.

An eternally punitive “love” that is not aimed at healing/restoration—making whole, making well—is not ineffable: it’s a contradiction. It is as much a contradiction to say that love is wrath as to say that harmony is chaos, while somehow still remaining harmony.

In my view, it is the lover who bears the risk of rejection; in your view, it is the beloved. In my view, the lover loves—or ceases to be lover. I may fail to love, I may neglect to love, I may refuse to love: but I cannot still claim to be lover vis-à-vis those who are the objects of my failure, neglect, refusal.

______________________________________

Now, perhaps the Christian God is not essentially love; perhaps love is simply one of a cluster of aspects that make up God’s multiple personality. In which case knowing love would not necessarily mean knowing God! (Interesting that John does not put it the other way around, though: he does not say “know God, and then you will know love” ). In which case, John is again wrong. In which case, God is free to love whom he chooses, and to not love whom he chooses—and to insist on the conditions.

In which case, Starrman’s questions seem on point.

Originally posted by Starrman
Smoke and mirrors, you're perfectly happy to spout rhetoric about the need to seek god, but you can't give a single reason for why, nor explain how. The fact of the matter is that your god's purely subjective. You've got your own view which cannot be substantiated in any way other than through faith, a process which requires acceptance without justificati e why there should be a necessary connection between god's existence and obedient worship.

If you don't believe God exists, then you aren't going to seek Him. I can give plenty of reasons why you should seek Him, and I could also tell you how you can seek Him, but since you don't believe He exists, then what's the point? You are right when you say that belief in God's existence is a requirement for seeking Him. How could it be otherwise? But belief that He exists is a far cry from actually knowing Him. If you sincerely and diligently seek Him, you will find Him; that is, God will reveal Himself to you, if you seek Him wholeheartedly. He doesn't reveal Himself to naysayers or unbelievers. If you don't seek, you won't find, and (of course) you will be resistant to the idea of worship and unable to make the connection between God's existence and obedient worship, if God doesn't reveal Himself to you. And nothing I say will persuade or satisfy you.

"Anyone who wants to approach God must believe both that he exists and that he cares enough to respond to those who seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
If you don't believe God exists, then you aren't going to seek Him. I can give plenty of reasons why you should seek Him, and I could also tell you how you can seek Him, but since you don't believe He exists, then what's the point? You are right when you say that belief in God's existence is a requirement for seeking Him. How could it be otherwise? B ...[text shortened]... he exists and that he cares enough to respond to those who seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

Well done, you've completely tangentialised the topic from why I should be obedient to god to your view on why I cannot seek him.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
If you don't believe God exists, then you aren't going to seek Him. I can give plenty of reasons why you should seek Him, and I could also tell you how you can seek Him, but since you don't believe He exists, then what's the point? You are right when you say that belief in God's existence is a requirement for seeking Him. How could it be otherwise? B ...[text shortened]... he exists and that he cares enough to respond to those who seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

Okay, finally some clarity.

This "free gift" everyone has been on about lately apparently does, in fact, *require* that we make a leap of faith and seek something that we do not believe exists. Otherwise He will not *reveal* himself to us and we, in turn, get to burn in hell for all eternity because we were unable to suspend disbelief in the unbelievable.

How lovely...

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]But we must set them free, only because we are not omnipotent. If we were gods then we would not set them free, as allowing them to harm themselves would not be the loving thing to do.
In fact if our children go to extremes to harm themselves even when they have come of age, we would still be more loving if we force a change on them. For example:
1. You ...[text shortened]... ous cult.
In all the above cases, the loving parent will actually intervene, forcibly if necessary.

I am not talking about a child who has not become of age of accountability, rather, I am talking about those who have reached the age of accountability. For example, the story of the prodigal son comes to mind. The father realizes that his son has come of age and is able to decide whether to leave him or not. The son then decides to leave and asks for his inheritance so he can blow it on booze and fast women. The father then gives him his inheritance while knowing all the while that his son is headed down the wrong road but at the same time is hoping that his son will return.

In your example of the child doing drugs, or who tries to commit suicide, or who joins a dangerous cult, if your child is of age you may try to intervene by trying to talk some sense into them and appeal to them but so long as they are of age in regards to being accountable as an adult, what can you do to force them to do anything? God also tries to appeal to us as well by showing us the error of walking in unrighteousness and the suffering that is sure to ensue.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As for the issue of giving life to children which will suffer:
I do believe that it is wrong to bring a child in this world if you know that its suffering will not be offset by its joy. So if you believe your child will go to hell for example or you know your child will be born with a terrible genetic disorder then it is wrong and not loving to have a child.[/b]

So at what point is ones suffering offset by ones joy or vise versa? Put another way, at what point is love not worth while if suffering is involved? Is not suffering an inherent risk in terms of having a loving relationship? Who here has not suffered in regards to the effects of having loving relationships? I realize that not everyone will agree as to how much suffering is too much suffering when one risks loving another. However, we all must recognize that we are all willing to take some risk. How much risk is really a personal matter.

Originally posted by Starrman
[b]Two main thrusts which you need to deal with:

1) Originally posted by whodey
One must choose the gift rather than having the gift thrust upon them. This isn't what a gift is, a gift is something which is given without talk of force or choice. So the rest of your point is somewhat undermined already. God either gives a gift or he doesn't, if t ...[text shortened]... not a gift, it's a contract/bargain/sale. Either redefine your terms or your argument suffers.

So are you saying that you have never taken back a gift you really never wanted to begin with?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Is that due to misrepresentation, do you suppose?

I wouldn’t think so. I simply don’t know what you mean by love. I have gone to great lengths to try to communicate (albeit poetically) what I mean by the word. And since you have some background in Sufism, I have drawn upon the Sufis (well, I draw upon them myself; not only in this case). Still ooses—and to insist on the conditions.

In which case, Starrman’s questions seem on point.[/b]

And this is where we break down. You are not only translating love into judgment (by which I assume you mean something more than discernment/decision), you are translating love into wrath: at which point it is simply no longer love.

My point is, for a sinner, i.e., a person who rejects God's will and prefers his own way, the love of God is wrathful. The love of God is the wrath of God for anyone willingly estranged from Him, since it threatens and tortures the egotism which the sinner insists on and clings to.

We naturally think of mercy as the relaxation and compromising of justice, and justice as prior. But in God, love is more primordial than justice. Justice is simply a form that love takes. Scripture never says, "God is justice," but it does say that "God is love." Love is God's essence, justice is one of its works, and mercy is another. Justice is the structure of love, if you will. The "wrath" of God is without a doubt an anthropomorphic image which sinful man projects upon the face of God, when man's actions contradict God's holiness. However, it is wrath against sin, not against sinners. Every sin must meet its necessary fate: exclusion from heaven. Only if we glue ourselves to our sins do we glue ourselves to that fate.

God is love -- it is not our own conception of love which is God. In order to understand love we need to understand God. And the structure of God's love is found in holiness and justice. (You're right, perhaps, "teeth," was too anthropomorphic on my part.)

It is God's love which created free creatures. It is God's love which respects the free will of His creatures. And it is God's love which refuses to force Himself on anyone. God knocks on the door of our hearts, beckoning us to open and take of Him freely. Yet, as the popular illustration goes, the door to our heart is locked from the inside. We can refuse Him, but in doing so we refuse life.

This brings me to my next bone to pick. The false concept that hell is something which God created specifically for our punishment, per your example about the controlling husband, "I love you; and if you ever leave me I will [lovingly] torture and kill you." The punishment for the wife leaving the husband is unnecessary. That is, he could have chosen a different punishment.

But it is wrong to conceive of the punishment of hell in this way: as something God chose but could have chosen differently. On the contrary, the punishment which unrepentant sinners inherit is a necessary rather than an unnecessary punishment, e.g., "If you eat a cookie before supper, you will spoil your appetite," or, "If you jump off a cliff, you will die." That is, if we choose disobedience to God's will, divorcing our will and spirit from God's, then the inevitable result will be disaster and death, since God is the source of all joy and life. Any human soul that freely refuses the one Source of all life and joy must find death and misery as its inevitable punishment.

Is this punishment eternal? Christ says it is eternal, and if we say it is not, then we are calling Christ a liar. Pure and simple. If Christ is a liar in this respect, how can He be trusted in any other?

The punishment fits the crime because the punishment is the crime. Saying no to God means no God. To object to hell's over-severity is to misunderstand what sin really is. If we see sin sociologically, legalistically, or as merely "behaving badly," then we fail to see the true horror of sin and the real greatness and goodness and joy of the God who is refused in every sin. Instead of judging God as being over-severe according to our own conception of sin, we need to grasp the true horror of our sin according to its just punishment (assuming God is just).

But to get back to your main point, that a God who sends sinners to hell is by definition not a loving God. Well, of course hell is contrary to the God of love. That is its very essence. But its essence does not refute a loving God's existence. For love wants the beloved to be free, like itself. Love created freedom, love appeals to freedom, love respects freedom. It is this freedom that chooses hell

True, God is perfect mercy and forgiveness. But let us be clear about what that means. Forgiveness appeals to freedom; it must be freely given and freely accepted, like any gift. If we do not repent and ask for God's forgiveness, we do not receive it -- not because God holds it back but because we hold ourselves back.

God's love is also truthful. Love is not blind; love is accurate. God's love is not a subjective feeling but is utterly realistic. In fact, it is reality itself. In a sense there is nothing else. All who refuse that love refuse reality, and there is no alternative to reality except "outer darkness."

If we are really free to choose to respond to God's marriage proposal to our souls, if God is not a rapist but a gentleman, then we must be free to turn him down. And if our souls at death enter eternity in that state, after there is no more time for change and repentance, then we must endure the identity we have chosen eternally.

Consider what C. S. Lewis says here:

"If the happiness of a creature lies in (free) self-surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself, though many can help him make it, and he may refuse. I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully, "All will be saved." But my reason retorts, "Without their will, or with it?" If I say, "Without their will," I at once perceive a contradiction: how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say "With their will," my reason replies "How if they will not give in?"

"In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a question: "What are you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But he has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what he does."

-- From, The Problem of Pain.

If there is no reason for believing in the detested doctrine of hell, there is also no reason to believe in the most beloved doctrine in Christianity: that God is love. Why do we believe that God is love? There is one and only one reason anyone ever came to the idea that God is love, mercy and forgiveness -- and only one good proof that this idea is true. That reason is the character of God revealed in the Bible, culminating in Jesus Christ. The exact same authority which is our only authority for believing God is love also assures us that there is a hell. Either we accept both on the same ground or reject both on the same ground, since they both stand on the same ground.

Originally posted by Starrman
2) Where in the bible does any of this get formalised? Your opinion is all well and good, but your prescription to an institutionised religion carries with it either an adherence to its dogma, or logical inconsistencies which arise from following the god of a religion you disagree with. In the bible all I see is the threat of force poorly veiled with ill defined terms such as gift and reward.[/b]

I would like to start a new thread about how I view the God of the Bible. I view the study of God much in the same way as the study of love. What is love, why are we so dependent on it, why can there be so much pain associated with it, why does it seem to illogical at times, etc.? As far as religous dogma, who cares? As the Bible says, if you have love and have all faith and all knowledge and know your dogma inside and out but have not love you are nothing. Therefore, I invite you to join me in the thread.

Originally posted by Starrman
Well done, you've completely tangentialised the topic from why I should be obedient to god to your view on why I cannot seek him.

You are perfectly capable of seeking Him, and you know it. If you say you aren't capable based on "the fact" that He does not exist, you are asserting God's non-existence based on faith. How reliable are your sources? Not very. It is just as unreasonable to trust your senses, theoretical science, or the testimony of scholars, as it is to trust the evidence of scripture - both require faith in the reliability of their sources. And in neither case can the sources be proved absolutely trustworthy, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In light of the reliability of scripture, your disdain for it is entirely irrational and prejudiced. If you could find some sort of neutrality or indifference, maybe you would be willing to judge the good book on it own merits. Again, you are perfectly capable of seeking God. You just choose not to.

What differentiates a born-again Christian from an unbeliever, is that the born-again Christian has received the power to believe, as a gift for seeking God sincerely and diligently. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You are perfectly capable of seeking Him, and you know it. If you say you aren't capable based on "the fact" that He does not exist, you are asserting God's non-existence based on faith. How reliable are your sources? Not very. It is just as unreasonable to trust your senses, theoretical science, or the testimony of scholars, as it is to trust the ev ...[text shortened]... ve he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12).

And again. I'm not discussing your tangent.