A real question - alternative

[usmhot]

In Zeno's thread 'A real question' he asks

[ QUOTE ]
For another take on this, change the above parameter to: if you press the button all probability of God's existence, however small or large that may be (up to 100% if you are a firm theist), vanishes. There is no possibility of a God, now - forever. Do you press the button?


[/ QUOTE ]

Which made me think of a related question ...

If you could find out with 100% certainty that God (of the Christian faith) exists, but that in being given that 100% proof you had to accept all of Christ's religious teachings and completely serve Him, would you want to find out?

Remember, if you are going to completely serve Christ, you have to devote your whole life to others - helping the poor and sick and spreading his teachings.

Absolutely. If I were 100% sure, there would be no question that I would dedicate my life to serving God. If I were 50% sure, I'd do it.

First, the god that's described in the New Testament is a benevolent, loving god. It's not like you're serving a god that is actively causing human suffering, like Satan or Moloch. Not even one that's above humans and disinterested in their affairs. Serving the Christian god through helping the poor (as opposed to enforcing church doctrine or "curing" homosexuals) fits with the moral code of just about every religious and nonreligious doctrines of morality. Okay, maybe not Ayn Rand's, but that bitch can go [censored] herself.

Even from a purely self-interested viewpoint, it makes total sense to serve whatever god you're 100% sure of. And it's not even close. The difference between eternal salvation and damnation is much greater than that between driving a Lexus and driving a Geo Metro.

/agnostic

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. If I were 100% sure, there would be no question that I would dedicate my life to serving God. If I were 50% sure, I'd do it.

First, the god that's described in the New Testament is a benevolent, loving god. It's not like you're serving a god that is actively causing human suffering, like Satan or Moloch. Not even one that's above humans and disinterested in their affairs. Serving the Christian god through helping the poor (as opposed to enforcing church doctrine or "curing" homosexuals) fits with the moral code of just about every religious and nonreligious doctrines of morality. Okay, maybe not Ayn Rand's, but that bitch can go [censored] herself.

Even from a purely self-interested viewpoint, it makes total sense to serve whatever god you're 100% sure of. And it's not even close. The difference between eternal salvation and damnation is much greater than that between driving a Lexus and driving a Geo Metro.

/agnostic

[/ QUOTE ]
This is obviously the clear answer. Maybe the real question should be how sure do you have to be of the existence of God to devote your life like this? AvivaSimplex says 50% would do it for him. What would it be for you?

[BradyC]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, if you are going to completely serve Christ, you have to devote your whole life to others - helping the poor and sick and spreading his teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]

You act as if this is a downside. From the Christian perspective, serving others brings great joy.

[usmhot]

For me its a lot more difficult than that.

I agree with Aviva that the God of the New Testament is a good and benevolent God and one who's teachings I would admire.

But, the problem is, to follow Christ completely you basically have to submit your whole existence to his path. For example, I have one child, a daughter, and nothing brings me greater joy than to be with her and see her happy. And, while this in itself is a joy to the Christian God, I would, strictly speaking, have to give that up and devote my whole time to alleviating poverty and suffering. I would have no time to have a beer with some friends, read a good book (as opposed to THE good book /images/graemlins/wink.gif), see a good movie, play some poker online. Now, I know that I could still live the life I lead and the Christian God (probably) would welcome me into heaven. BUT a good and devout Christian, in all conscience, could not sit idly by with all of the suffering in the world.
Some people can devote their whole lives to helping others - Mother Theresa being one of the most notable examples.

On balance I think my answer would be that I would do it, but I'd be very aware of what I was giving up. And, it'd have to be 100% proof.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
usmhot --

But, the problem is, to follow Christ completely you basically have to submit your whole existence to his path. For example, I have one child, a daughter, and nothing brings me greater joy than to be with her and see her happy. And, while this in itself is a joy to the Christian God, I would, strictly speaking, have to give that up and devote my whole time to alleviating poverty and suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure that devotion to Christ implies a life like Mother Theresa. Remember when the woman put expensive oils on the feet of Jesus and someone complained that the oil could have been sold and the money used to feed the poor. Jesus said something like, you will always have the poor but you won't always have me. It might be like that in your example. Your daughter is like the feet of Jesus. Besides, would it be Christian Devotion to deny her what she needs in a father?

I think the insistence on this extreme idea of Christian devotion was advocated by some in the early church, seriously debated, and finally found to be inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. Remember how Jesus was accused of drunkeness and glutonny because he ate and drank with people like a normal joe? In fact, Jesus even ate and drank with "sinners". Jesus was concerned with what's in the heart and the fruits that flow from it. But a life's vocation of love does not necessarily mean making a big show of it. A kind word, a friendly smile, a tolerant attitude, an empathetic response, paying the bills, raising good kids, maybe even having some beers with the guys. Maybe we can do more but we can't do everything. We each have our own mission. The mission of Jesus was to bring the message of the kingdom of heaven amongst us. But he lived life fully while he was doing it.

PairTheBoard

[usmhot]

Very good point.

But then, didn't Jesus teach that "whatsover you do unto the least of God's children, so you do unto me"?
And, didn't he also teach (through the parable of the good samaritan) that you must not refuse to help where help is needed?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
usmhot--
But then, didn't Jesus teach that "whatsover you do unto the least of God's children, so you do unto me"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. What do you think that implies?

[ QUOTE ]
usmhot --
And, didn't he also teach (through the parable of the good samaritan) that you must not refuse to help where help is needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the parable was saying that the samaritan who was considered not one of god's people was really more in tune with god when he stopped and helped, than the so called people of god who did not.

In neither of these do I see Jesus calling us to go out as individuals and try to help every single person on the planet while leaving our wives and families to shift for themselves. Remember that you are also one of the "least of god's children". You deserve to be cared for as well. The weak old man you are going to become also deserves to be cared for.

The verse that troubles people with your concern the most is usually the one where Jesus tells the rich man to sell all his belongings, give the money to the poor, and follow Jesus. I would not be too quick in assuming complete understanding of that verse. Like a lot a verses in the bible, it's figurative meaning may be more truthful than it's literal appearance.

PairTheBoard

[sexdrugsmoney]

I have never in my life seen so many misconceptions about Christianity than from this forum.

Honestly, any non-Christians who say they don't believe in it should really ask themselves if they know what *it* is first, and not Rusell or anyone else's version of it.

God is the ultimate realist, a monastic/mother teresea life is not required per se.

God wants your soul, that is it.

What you do on earth without giving him your soul means [censored]. (ephesians - all works are as filthy rags)

If you do good things you can get 1-5 crowns (I won't go into it here for those that don't know, the Bible is your friend and online) as testament to your deeds.

But anyway, the way I understand Christianity is, underneath it all is the simple premise that:

You are [censored].

But ... I will help you.

Take my hand or slap it away, the choice is yours.

But ... the choice is eternal.

No, things are this way. Don't ask why, I'm God, where were you when the world was made?

I'm offering to help you out because I love you, that's all you need to know, call it 'faith'.

Accept or reject, choice is yours, either way I'm fine, its your decision.

That being said, believing and accepting seems sufficent for the bare minimum if you genuinely give your life and soul to Christ.

Christians often debate over 'once saved, always saved' - ie- David Sklansky (for example) has a near death experience, gives his life to Christ, but a few days later rejects it and says he is an atheist.

In God's eyes is Sklansky saved because he accepted at one point in time and truly mean't it then, or is there a 'deal-breaker' other than the Mark of the Beast?

I've encountered many people who hold the view that 'once saved, always saved', and there seem to be many verses that support it, but who knows.

Cheers,
SDM

[chezlaw]

So god made me a reasonaing creature unable to believe without understanding. He also made be [censured] and will save me if I have the faith he know I cannot have.

So I'm dammed. Thanks a lot god.

You worship this monster?

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
sexdrugsmoney --

Honestly, any non-Christians who say they don't believe in it should really ask themselves if they know what *it* is first, and not Rusell or anyone else's version of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not sexdrugsmoney's version either.

imo, The reason we have Christianity today is because there was something magnificent about Jesus which made him the focal point of a new spritual consciousness for the people he touched and then the people they touched and so on. If you are going to find that magnificence the place you will find it is in your heart. Do not let old sick theologies stand in your way. If you find it, live it. Paul never knew Jesus in person either. He was struck by some kind of conversion experience. If you have such an experience you have as much right to develop a theology to explain it as he did.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]
Very good point.

But then, didn't Jesus teach that "whatsover you do unto the least of God's children, so you do unto me"?
And, didn't he also teach (through the parable of the good samaritan) that you must not refuse to help where help is needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont worry, when you press the button and find out for sure He exists, you can ask Him yourself to clear up any misunderstandings we have down here on earth as to His plan.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were 50% sure, I'd do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that there is a 50% chance that god exists according to that professor from oxford. He either does exist or he doesn't....50%.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Which made me think of a related question ...


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Thank You, Mr. usmhot.

-Zeno

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
So god made me a reasonaing creature unable to believe without understanding. He also made be [censured] and will save me if I have the faith he know I cannot have.

So I'm dammed. Thanks a lot god.

You worship this monster?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy to characterize God in a less than favorable light, but if you 'walk a mile in his shoes' I think you can understand a lot of the frustrations he has felt over the years with the human race.

I mean honestly, a lot of us cnuts at times, well intentioned but we make mistakes and normally that involves being selfish and hurting others.

I think despite what you may think of God's conduct up to date, his plans for the world and the one after, the fact that he sent a sacrifice that all you would have to do is accept & believe is pretty amazing, so you are only damned if you choose to be.

Life's a gamble, your soul is the chip, take a punt mate, it's worthless if you don't put it on the table while you are here, this casino closes for everyone at different times, and we don't know when.

Cheers,
SDM

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

Do not let old sick theologies stand in your way. If you find it, live it. Paul never knew Jesus in person either. He was struck by some kind of conversion experience. If you have such an experience you have as much right to develop a theology to explain it as he did.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expound upon this please mi amigo?

Cheers,
SDM

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do not let old sick theologies stand in your way. If you find it, live it. Paul never knew Jesus in person either. He was struck by some kind of conversion experience. If you have such an experience you have as much right to develop a theology to explain it as he did.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expound upon this please mi amigo?

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suprised I haven't been cursed by now into the ultimate last googolplex chamber of hell for daring to say something so beyond the pale of blasphemy. I'm afraid to say much more for fear of making my already infinitely horrible prospective afterlife even worse.

PairTheBoard

[usmhot]

Simnple question for you then, SDM ...
Is there anything you wouldn't forgive your kids?
In other words, is there anything your kids could do for which you would see them suffer eternally?

If you don't have kids then replace 'kids' with whoever you feel complete and total love for.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
usmhot --
If you could find out with 100% certainty that God (of the Christian faith) exists, but that in being given that 100% proof you had to accept all of Christ's religious teachings and completely serve Him, would you want to find out?

Remember, if you are going to completely serve Christ, you have to devote your whole life to others - helping the poor and sick and spreading his teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something to consider:

" The miracle is not that we do this work, but that we are happy to do it." -- Mother Teresa


PairTheBoard

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Simnple question for you then, SDM ...
Is there anything you wouldn't forgive your kids?
In other words, is there anything your kids could do for which you would see them suffer eternally?

If you don't have kids then replace 'kids' with whoever you feel complete and total love for.

[/ QUOTE ]

suffer eternally has been highlighted in your post because it is a crucial point to be addressed for one to be able to answer your question properly.

3 versions of hell:

1) Book of Revelations/Dante's Inferno (eternal)
2) Book of Revelations/Dante's Inferno (limited)
3) Destruction

Most people believe Hell is hot and forever, I assume this is your idea of eternal suffering.

The other ideas are more based on 'eternal seperation from God/destruction of the soul - ceases to exist'.

The Bible isn't totally clear about hell for those who don't take the Mark of the Beast. (we'll come back to the Mark of the Beast in a minute, read on)

Now I'll answer your question.

Is there anything my kids could do in which I would want to see them suffer eternally? (Dante's hell)

No. I can't concieve of my kids doing anything in that I'd want them to suffer forever, but they could do a few things of which I would want to kill them myself. (destruction - 2nd and 3rd hell - see above)

In regards to 'eternal seperation from God' as in "no fire, just deprived of his prescence" there are many things your kids could do in which you would have to turn your back on them and you can't have them in your house ... one example is if your child was a heroin addict and constantly stole from you and escaped from rehab many times and you have tried everything, eventually you would have to turn your back, and hope that they would make the right choice to come back to you. (this idea resembles Christianity, of man being unclean in sin to enter God's kingdom, but acceptance of Christ allows entry)

The Christian God is supposed to be the 'best father' and 'loves his children', so if I couldn't think of a thing my kids could do in which I'd want to see them suffer eternally therefore logically God is unable to also.

But the Mark of the Beast seems a seperation situation. (at least on the surface of things)

Granted I haven't read the Book of Revelations in a while, it says those who take it go to the lake of fire and the 'smoke of their torment ascends up forever'.

This implies they are tormented forever, I'm not sure if any other passage specifically states they actually are tormented forever, if not, could the smoke of their torment be eternal and survive long after their destruction? (soul is tormented then destroyed, but a memory remains forever in the new heaven, perhaps as a warning for any other angel not to try and pull a 'lucifer' and start a coup d'etat?)

I don't know, its all very hard to understand.

Only reading the Bible cover to cover will give you a proper perspective of the Judeo-Christian God, but it seems he is capable of great love, but also great anger.

The Book of Job is a book I have personally struggled with and have found it very hard to accept its portrayal of God, as it is quite severe.

I don't know if the book is a fake, and granted I haven't read enough scholarly opinion of it to really warrant a proper opinion of my own on it, so I don't know.

Hope i answered your question.

Cheers,
SDM

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do not let old sick theologies stand in your way. If you find it, live it. Paul never knew Jesus in person either. He was struck by some kind of conversion experience. If you have such an experience you have as much right to develop a theology to explain it as he did.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expound upon this please mi amigo?

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suprised I haven't been cursed by now into the ultimate last googolplex chamber of hell for daring to say something so beyond the pale of blasphemy. I'm afraid to say much more for fear of making my already infinitely horrible prospective afterlife even worse.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

No entiendo.

[usmhot]

[ QUOTE ]
Hope i answered your question

[/ QUOTE ]

You more or less did ... in so far as my understanding of your answer is that its difficult for you to reconcile the implications in parts of the Bible of "eternal damnation" with the implications of a perfect, loving God.

[ QUOTE ]
Most people believe Hell is hot and forever, I assume this is your idea of eternal suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good God no!! Not since I was about 8 have I believed such a thing. If you have ever seen the movie "What Dreams May Come" (Robin Williams and Cuba Gooding Jnr.) it's depiction of 'hell' is closer to my understanding of it - i.e. a state of being in which you are stuck forever in a situation which provides the most pain/anguish (not of a physical nature).

What gets to me is that the implications in the Bible, even ignoring the Old Testament (which to be quite honest I personally see as a load of outdated scaremongery and mythology anyway) are that some people will suffer eternal damnation. And by most interpretations 'some people' includes many who live good and decent lives but who do not accept God and Christ as the way to God. (Most religions seem to have this sort of exclusion clause.)

Now
1. Limited damnation is, by definition, not eternal
2. Annihilation is also, by definition, not eternal (rather its instant, though for me this is the worst of all possibilities)

While I haven't read any part of the Bible for many many years, I'm pretty sure the implications are that the 'damnation' is eternal.

And, I personally can't imagine giving up forever on one of my children regardless of what they did. (Certainly, if one was a drug addict etc. etc., as you describe, and I believed ejecting them from my house was the most effective option at that time for their own good then I would do that, even though it would be terribly difficult, but I would not do it permanently, and if it didn't help them in the long run then I would take them back and search for other alternatives.)

If God is perfect in his love then I can't imagine how, even if one rejects Hhim, even if one commits the most appalling and horrific of offences against Him, He will abandon or condemn to eternal damnation (of whatever form you posit).

So, I have serious problems with the Bible (or any other man-written 'word of God'). I believe the Bible to be a collection of stories some based on fact, some based on contextual speculation, some maybe even guided by God (if He exists) which are designed to show us how to lead our lives in a way that will please and glorify God (if He exists). But I certainly don't believe that if I never receive the 'body of Christ' and never acknowledge the existence of God I'll be eternally punished (if He does, indeed, exist).

In one sense, I imagine that a proper 'punishment' for misdeeds is experiencing exactly what the victim of those misdeeds experienced as a result. By which I don't mean doing the same to the wrongdoer, but rather exposing them to exactly what the victim 'felt'. And, this is a punishment that I would be prepared to visit on my own children.

[usmhot]

[ QUOTE ]
" The miracle is not that we do this work, but that we are happy to do it." -- Mother Teresa


[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point! And it gets to the heart of my original question.
If anybody's suffering is also God's suffering, and we are 100% certain that God exists and experiences the suffering, and we know that God loves each and every one of us perfectly, then, for me the reciprocal applies - we must love God as perfectly as we can, and so suffer in his suffering, and so experience true happiness only in alleviating it.

At the moment, I feel guilty enough right now about the fact that I have a place to live, food to eat and time to enjoy myself, while there are people in the world who are subjected to poverty and suffering and the injustices of evil men. But, if I knew, with 100% certainty that God existed and that everything the Bible says about how we should treat God's children was true then I could not live with myself and not spend my life helping others. And I can't see how anyone in the same situation could.

[Lottery Larry]

This forum so far seems like the classy flipside of OOT. :P

I guess I'll have to read more.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
" The miracle is not that we do this work, but that we are happy to do it." -- Mother Teresa


[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point! And it gets to the heart of my original question.
If anybody's suffering is also God's suffering, and we are 100% certain that God exists and experiences the suffering, and we know that God loves each and every one of us perfectly, then, for me the reciprocal applies - we must love God as perfectly as we can, and so suffer in his suffering, and so experience true happiness only in alleviating it.

At the moment, I feel guilty enough right now about the fact that I have a place to live, food to eat and time to enjoy myself, while there are people in the world who are subjected to poverty and suffering and the injustices of evil men. But, if I knew, with 100% certainty that God existed and that everything the Bible says about how we should treat God's children was true then I could not live with myself and not spend my life helping others. And I can't see how anyone in the same situation could.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Wakan Tankan Nici Un" -- Lakota

"May the Great Spirit walk with you."


PairTheBoard

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hope i answered your question

[/ QUOTE ]

You more or less did ... in so far as my understanding of your answer is that its difficult for you to reconcile the implications in parts of the Bible of "eternal damnation" with the implications of a perfect, loving God.

[ QUOTE ]
Most people believe Hell is hot and forever, I assume this is your idea of eternal suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good God no!! Not since I was about 8 have I believed such a thing. If you have ever seen the movie "What Dreams May Come" (Robin Williams and Cuba Gooding Jnr.) it's depiction of 'hell' is closer to my understanding of it - i.e. a state of being in which you are stuck forever in a situation which provides the most pain/anguish (not of a physical nature).

What gets to me is that the implications in the Bible, even ignoring the Old Testament (which to be quite honest I personally see as a load of outdated scaremongery and mythology anyway) are that some people will suffer eternal damnation. And by most interpretations 'some people' includes many who live good and decent lives but who do not accept God and Christ as the way to God. (Most religions seem to have this sort of exclusion clause.)

Now
1. Limited damnation is, by definition, not eternal
2. Annihilation is also, by definition, not eternal (rather its instant, though for me this is the worst of all possibilities)

While I haven't read any part of the Bible for many many years, I'm pretty sure the implications are that the 'damnation' is eternal.

And, I personally can't imagine giving up forever on one of my children regardless of what they did. (Certainly, if one was a drug addict etc. etc., as you describe, and I believed ejecting them from my house was the most effective option at that time for their own good then I would do that, even though it would be terribly difficult, but I would not do it permanently, and if it didn't help them in the long run then I would take them back and search for other alternatives.)

If God is perfect in his love then I can't imagine how, even if one rejects Hhim, even if one commits the most appalling and horrific of offences against Him, He will abandon or condemn to eternal damnation (of whatever form you posit).

So, I have serious problems with the Bible (or any other man-written 'word of God'). I believe the Bible to be a collection of stories some based on fact, some based on contextual speculation, some maybe even guided by God (if He exists) which are designed to show us how to lead our lives in a way that will please and glorify God (if He exists). But I certainly don't believe that if I never receive the 'body of Christ' and never acknowledge the existence of God I'll be eternally punished (if He does, indeed, exist).

In one sense, I imagine that a proper 'punishment' for misdeeds is experiencing exactly what the victim of those misdeeds experienced as a result. By which I don't mean doing the same to the wrongdoer, but rather exposing them to exactly what the victim 'felt'. And, this is a punishment that I would be prepared to visit on my own children.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm gonna have to rent that movie soon, I remember really enjoying it. (although it was sad)

There was some verse in the OT either in Malachii or soforth that some people say is descriptive of hell, it is just the destruction of the soul, but I can't find it and am not quite sure if I believe them exactly.

Re: "loving God", the Bible says God is loving but IMHO people use this argument way too much. (not saying you are saying this, just speaking in general)

The fact is God is all powerful and we are nothing. He holds all the cards and even *if* he was a cruel God, nobody once they crossed over would be foolish enough to refuse to serve him and opt to take hell because they believe it is wrong to worship such a "God". (despite what all these atheists may say while they are here, over there it'll be a different story)

I think though for all God's faults (debatable if he has any, IMHO it doesn't matter because he would theoretically make less than us and is eternal wheras we are not, so we can't judge) it does appear he is fond of humanity and the Bible chronicles this time and time again.

It is very easy to pick parts of the Bible and say God is a prick, God contradicts himself etc, but those people also ignore God's apparent "love" for humanity.

Re: kids; I ofcourse do not have the answer and understand completely where you are coming from.

There is a painting by Jacques Louis David though that may be of help to our discussion, I quote from the wikipedia:

[ QUOTE ]

The painting depicts Brutus, the Roman leader, grieving for his sons. Brutus’s sons had attempted to overthrow the government and restore the monarchy, so the father ordered their death to maintain the republic. Thus, Brutus was the heroic defender of the republic, at the cost of his own family. On the right, the Mother holds her two daughters, and the grandmother is seen on the far right, in anguish. Brutus sits on the left, alone, brooding, but knowing what he did was best for his country. The whole painting was a Republican symbol, and obviously had immense meaning during these times in France.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the pic:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/art/resourcesb/dav_brutus.jpg

I think this may be a good example of the kids example we discussed.

Apparently God cannot tolerate sin and it is impossible for it to enter heaven. While human beings are tainted with sin, he has no choice but to seperate them from himself and his kingdom. That is fair.

If God makes a way for all humans to be with him and enter the kingdom, that also is very fair.

Salvation is called a "free gift", all you have to do is accept it, sweet deal IMHO.

I think we'd have to assume those who never heard the message or couldn't comprehend it (children and persons with mental afflictions) are saved by God's grace also, this is a loving God if this is the case.

Perhaps it is not to our perception always that God is loving, but I think he is if the Bible is right.

Cheers,
SDM