| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ok, hell! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 29 2009, 10:35 PM (3,372 Views) | |
| Nobody's Sock | Mar 30 2009, 02:27 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
"Hell ain't no bad place to be" - AC/DC |
| "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Mar 30 2009, 04:11 PM Post #27 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I've heard that *hell on earth* can be defined as a lifetime of English cooking and a Japanese house in Arctic winter. |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Mar 30 2009, 04:14 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
You aren't far off, Ren. I received my discharge from the Army on Christmas day, 1992, and we moved to a house on the Chiba Peninsula, about 20 minutes from Kujukuri Beach. There were only summer-weight futons. We couldn't afford a bed, so we slept in the tatami room on the floor. It was so bitterly cold, it HURT. That was the most miserable winter. Ever. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Mar 30 2009, 04:19 PM Post #29 |
|
MAMIL
|
The word you are struggling for is 'heretic', and we all know what happens to those.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Mar 30 2009, 04:19 PM Post #30 |
|
MAMIL
|
Close. English food, with American cups of tea to wash it down. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Mar 30 2009, 04:28 PM Post #31 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I am surprised you didn't say American beer. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Wacki Iraqi | Mar 31 2009, 01:08 AM Post #32 |
|
Senior Carp
|
So God will create a soul, knowing it's flawed, knowing it will not correct itself, knowing it will fail, knowing it will suffer in hell, knowing it will finally have to be distinguished? At what ends? what's the challenge. The soul that gets extinguished always was, always had to be conclusively damned by God the designer.......he must have known things would turn out this way......surely he didn't make a mistake and things would turn out ok in the end? Did he not create free will for it to be specifically turned against him, HIS plan? Should people be rewarded for their malfunction......it's what he designed people to do? Should everyone go to heaven for playing Gods game? I think this leads on to a thread about the notion of free will in a theist perspective. |
| You're an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.........I just go one God further. | |
![]() |
|
| Wacki Iraqi | Mar 31 2009, 01:12 AM Post #33 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Let's be honest here......hell isn't really stopping people treating other people as horrifically as they always have done. He's persevering with it as a deterrent though. It's a bit like the US death penalty. |
| You're an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.........I just go one God further. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Mar 31 2009, 04:36 AM Post #34 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The human soul is not flawed. You've said here "So God will create a soul knowing it's flawed," and "Did he not create free will for it to be specifically turned against him." You said something earlier as well, and I didn't have time to reply to that portion of your comment. You're mistakenly equating having designed humans with the *ability* to reject God, with God's intention tht this ability should be made use of to reject God. Having the ability to reject is not a design flaw, but a design necessity. The attribute of will as part of human nature is an important and integral part of our humanity, and is necessary for us to be the kind of creation that God intends for us. However, it is not God's wish - and it is not the intended purpose of having been given will - that we would use that will to reject God. There is a key difference between these two ideas: design with the ability to reject, and design with the intent of rejection. The mistake is not in the design of the creature, but in the creature's misapplication of the tools we've been given. Our will has two aspects. As I already said, it gives us the opportunity to exercise our own daily wishes in conjunction with our intellect and desires, in order for us to be human in the way God intends. But it also functions in the way of making the definition of love possible: Love, by definition, may not be coerced; therefore, if you wish for there to be love between two beings, there must by definition be at least the ability for one of the beings to not love. Otherwise, it's coercion, not love.
Yes, I believe God did know that we would misapply our natures, and that we would ultimately create the problem we currently find ourselves in - separation from the ideal manner of human existence - human "being" - that God created us for. But that is something very different from saying that God *made* us fail. God designed us with a specific type of creature in mind, in order for there to be a specific kind of relationship between the two of us. This relationship is intended to be one between two sentient, loving, reasoning, and creating beings, even if having these attributes in different ways and measures. The relationship isn't intended to be between one Being which has these qualities, and an automatonic creature who only appears to have them. It is the Christian belief that this is at least a key reason (if not the key reason) that God entered into human creation through accepting a physical body, and accepting a human nature in addition to God's divine nature, in order to provide a way out of our dilemma. I believe that your thoughts along the lines of "why should we have to pay the price for the way God designed us?" is, in at least some manner, part of God's rationale in entering our human existence and doing what God did in the person of Jesus of Nazareth - clearly showing God's will for us, not in pie-in-the-sky transcendence, but in very real, comprehensible, human terms; and providing a way for us to avoid paying the price for our misapplication of the nature of our creation. Our problem is still one of our own making, and our responsibility to pay the consequences for. But in an act of love, God has, through Christ, said "Here, let me help you with that..."
To any extent that hell acts as a deterrent, it does so because we humans aren't as sophisticated as we may hope for ourselves. We haven't evolved to a poiint where we're utterly unmoved by the carrot/stick method of deterrence. Having said that, I think you're operating on the mistaken notion that God established hell simply as a tool for deterrence. Hell is first a place of punishment for having rebelled against God's will. It is not first a place to compel people to follow that will through fear. To be honest, that whole thought is contrary to God's desire for an uncoerced relationship of voluntary love between two beings, and anyone who understands hell in that way, or who tries to beat people over the head to "come to Jesus" out of fear of hell, has largely missed the boat. Hell is a real consequence of rejection of God, but it can't be the primary motivator in one's relationship with God. That kind of relationship would be something much more like the Stockholm Syndrome than it would be love. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Mar 31 2009, 04:38 AM Post #35 |
|
MAMIL
|
Even Satan has his limits. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| apple | Mar 31 2009, 05:03 AM Post #36 |
|
one of the angels
|
i love the trappings of Christianity, Catholicism in particular. i love this prayer "Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host - by the Divine Power of God - cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits, who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls." ![]() |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| The Devil Himself | Mar 31 2009, 05:16 AM Post #37 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Think so? Ha. Who do you think created American beer? (Hint: It wasn't Him.) |
| Please allow me to introduce myself | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Mar 31 2009, 06:09 AM Post #38 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Suppose we consider the point before God creates the universe (yes yes starting this way is itself wrong because time and space and matter are not separable - there is no before the beginning of the universe because the beginning of the universe is the beginning of space and the beginning of time, hence it doesn't even make sense to talk about a "creator" but we will pretend this is not the fatal blow that it really is). So he's sitting there in all his omniscience and he can see all possible permutations of possible realities. All hypothetical histories of the universe are laid out in front of him. By a history I simply mean a complete account of everything that happens. (Two different histories, which I'll call two different universes, could be identical upto a point where in one a particle radioactively decays a fempto second later than in the other.) He sees the spectrum of possibility in infinite detail. Put another way what is available to God then is a book where every page tells you everything there is tell (everything that happens) about a hypothetical universe all the way through from from the beginning to either the end if there is an end to that universe or stretching off too infinity if there is not. And then armed with this impossibly deep knowledge he actually creates a universe, this universe. He picks a page from this ultimate book, turning what was before but one possibility amongst an infinite number into reality. So immediately you see how hollow your answer is for he knew as he created reality all that would occur, he knew people would choose to kill and maim each other yet he still picked that universe, this universe, rather than one of the one's where people don't choose to kill and maim each other. He couldn't help but specify the universe because he had infinite knowledge. The "choice" thing doesn't help you - yes we (well some of us) choose to kill and maim but he chose the universe where we choose to kill and maim and he did so deliberately because he had infinite knowledge beforehand. To top it all off he then sends the people who he chose to choose to kill and maim to suffer in hell! Great. From the perspective of infinite knowledge, genuinely infinite knowledge of all possible permutations it doesn't mean anything to talk about coercion or automation or anything like that. Suppose I can send you 5 different messages and I know in infinite detail what your response to each of these hypothetical messages will be. Then I pick one to send you knowing exactly how you will respond. What I have done is specified your reaction, I've deliberately specified your reaction. Whether you call that "coercion" is neither here nor there, but that is exactly what you are claiming God did when he created the universe given that you attribute him omniscience. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Mar 31 2009, 09:34 AM Post #39 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Good, keep your hypothetical hat on. If that's the case, why might it be so?
There's a flaw here, the same flaw in much of what else you wrote. If God creates a world in which people have been granted will - which in very real essence, makes them co-creators with God - and if will means anything vaguely resembling what we'd normally think it does - then divine foreknowledge doesn't negate the reality that in any given situation, the human has the ability to change the score by exercising his will differently - one of the key components of being human is the ability to do so, and not being pre-programmed . In essence, God isn't choosing a single page, but has in fact, selected them all simultaneously. The page layouts can change, with every single exercise of human will. In any case, if the will is preserved, and the human may choose A or B, then God's reward or punishment for that choice is hardly a legitimate grievance against God. I think it's more important to consider the implications of your first comments above. It's related to the core question of, "if God created the cosmos, for what purpose did God create it?" Considering God's purpose for creation will have a significant bearing on one's consideration of how humanity fits into that. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Mar 31 2009, 09:45 AM Post #40 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I guess the flaw in your argument is that, according to Christian theology (which I admittedly don't know much about), God has deliberately designed free will in such a way that even he cannot predict what we are up to If you are omnipotent, then you also have the power to restrict your omnipotence
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 31 2009, 09:53 AM Post #41 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Uhhh... no. The notion of God is being outside of time and space. That is not even a problem, let alone a fatal blow. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 31 2009, 10:08 AM Post #42 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Close Klaus. Love requires free will. We all have the ability to choose to love -- living for others -- or not -- living for ourselves. Also, it has to do with the nature of what God knows -- not things but essence. We know accidents and enunciable things as accidents and enuciable things. God knows everything as simple intelligence. Similarly, God knows contingent things but not as we do, which is successively, but simultaneously. There is a whole section in the Summa Theologiae, Part One, question 14, where Thomas discusses the knowledge of God (16 questions). It all holds together based on the previous syllogisms of the nature and essence of God (about 70 other syllogisms). For a logician as yourself, it would be worthwhile understanding his method and argument. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Riley | Mar 31 2009, 11:09 AM Post #43 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
What are the standards required to be admitted (or not) into heaven? What about an atheist who lives a relatively normal live? A christian who steals money? A regular person who murders in a moment of weakness or anger? How strict are the requirements for admission to heaven? |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Mar 31 2009, 11:16 AM Post #44 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, except that which we create for ourselves. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Mar 31 2009, 11:26 AM Post #45 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Depends who you ask. There are libraries the world over full of musings on the subject. |
![]() |
|
| Radu | Mar 31 2009, 11:28 AM Post #46 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
But then... you can divorce.... |
![]() ------------------------------------------------------------ "Whenever I hear of culture... I release the safety-catch of my Browning!" The modern media has made cretins out of so many people that they're not interested in reality any more, unless it's reality TV (Jean D'eaux) | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Mar 31 2009, 11:36 AM Post #47 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Naw... She's probably the better side of things. LOL
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Mar 31 2009, 12:36 PM Post #48 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
If you accept that he is not omniscient and he does not know the future then you can perhaps let God off the hook on grounds that he didn't know it would turn like this. I've never met a theist who was able to bring themselves to accept that. They'd still be in some trouble though - I don't think the notion of "free will" that is used to justify blame (and invoked by theists) can be saved. Some theists make a big song and dance about God being "outside time" if you try to take that seriously then it must mean that there is a complete history of the universe that God sits outside of. (If the future is indeterminate then what meaning can possibly be given to this "outside of time" claim?). I.e. the story, the complete history of everything is all there frozen in blocktime - and free will vanishes again. Even in an indeterministic universe where for some reason we can't invoke a block time picture it still doesn't hold together - replacing determinism with some kind of true randomness doesn't help you. You just end up laying the blame at the cosmic randomness (and in the theistic picture who is responsible for that?). In fact consider a universe in which there are people who we think of as having "free will" and another universe identical to the first except it's populated with automatons and these automatons happen to do exactly what the people in the universe with "free will" do. Clearly you've described the exact same universe twice - there is no criteria that can be used, even in principle, that can ever distinguish these two universes. And that's without even mentioning the empirical observations which show up the idea (in the sense that theists invoke it) as utterly failing to hold together. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Mar 31 2009, 12:41 PM Post #49 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You've got your hypothetical hat on today; go back and think about what I asked you to consider earlier. It's got a lot to do with this exact issue, and why your claim that these two scenarios is the same is mistaken. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Mar 31 2009, 12:44 PM Post #50 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
What did you ask me to consider earlier? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |














If you are omnipotent, then you also have the power to restrict your omnipotence



10:56 AM Jul 11