To all devout Christians

Schuhart

I’m slightly conscious that we’ve traveled a long distance on a thread addressed ‘To all devout Christians’. Do the mods want to split discussion of this article off into a new thread on ‘Proofs for God’ or somesuch?

Ludwig Feuerbach would argue that people attribute their human qualities to God, i.e. they say ‘God is good’, as a way of affirming ‘I am good’. He terms this process ‘alienation’, i.e. people take a part of themselves and ‘alienate’ it or, in other words, act as it is external to them. I think this concept has a lot of validity in general, and I found myself thinking of it several times as I read this article.

The article seemed to be saying that we have free will, a moral sense, a god-sense, self-awareness, and these things could only come from outside. That seemed to me to be simply alienation. We can equally regard these as simply human features that have developed with us.

For example, if we have difficulty in relating biochemistry to free will, morality and self awareness, can I suggest the simple experiment of sinking a few pints. Also group behaviour, including self-sacrifice for the group, is hardly unknown outside of our species. Do they have souls too?

The god sense question is interesting – I like its expression in an Emmylou Harris lyric ‘If there is no God, what is this longing for’. Personally I’m very interested in how the persistence of religion can be accounted for. I don’t expect that there’s a god at the end of that enquiry, but I do agree that many atheists tend to be uncomfortable looking at religion as something developed in response to some objective need and possibly persisting because that need still exists. Dawkins in 'The God Delusion', to my mind, tries to convince himself that it can only be a byproduct of some more useful thing.

Before we go there, my take on the ‘God in the gap’ type argument (i.e. if we cannot explain something, it must be caused by God) is to bear in mind that if we went back 100 million years, say, there would be no animal on Earth capable of scientific enquiry. So a question like ‘why does the Sun rise every morning’ could not have been asked, let alone answered. I don’t see any reason for assuming that, at this level of evolution, we have to be intellectually capable of explaining everything. But I think we do know enough to know what we are, more or less.

I’ll only mention it briefly, because it comes up so often. Assuming the universe must have a cause, and assuming that cause to be God are two different things. Even if you assume the cause to be God, several more assumptions have to be made before you get to a situation where he made all this just for us and a few more before you get to either cheering the Pope delivering a blessing from the balcony, or getting down on your knees five times a day to pray.

JC 2K3

Barnabas wrote:

So the atheist will then say that God as Creator is an invention or projection by religious people to give them meaning. But if that's the case then where do they get their meaning from and why don't billions of others follow them on their enlightened way?

Why do we need "meaning"?

And there are approx 1.1 billion atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious people in the world and that number is growing all the time.

Barnabas wrote:

God made this, he has presented it to me now so that I might be filled with holy wonder and that I might praise him for his wonderful works.

I can hardly see how that belief gives our lives meaning. We are on Earth to worship some "God" that created us for his own amusement? That's pretty crap...

Schuhart

Schuhart wrote:

I like its expression in an Emmylou Harris lyric ‘If there is no God, what is this longing for’.

Just being pedantic, that line is not exact. Here it is, in context.

We are aging soldiers in an ancient war
Seeking out some half remembered shore
We drink our fill and still we thirst for more
Asking if there's no heaven what is this hunger for?

Our path is worn our feet are poorly shod
We lift up our prayer against the odds
And fear the silence is the voice of God

And we cry Allelujah Allelujah
We cry Allelujah

Zombrex

Barnabas wrote:

Can I invite responses to the following aritcle:
http://www.faith.org.uk/Publications/Magazines/Jan03/Jan03TheImprobabilityOfAtheism.htm

Speaking as an atheist that is a pretty silly article.

Even within the general population of Britain , the proportion disbelieving in God has risen from 2% to 27% since the 1950s, and one third of those who do profess to believe in God, do not believe in ‘a personal God’. This suggests that the popular notion that belief in God springs from a desire for personal security and is therefore a form of wishful thinking from which atheists have emancipated themselves, is far from being true.

I don't understand this conclusion. The evidence appears to support the exact opposite. Atheism is rising because people are more safe and secure, and therefore the "wishful thinking" of God is no longer needed for a lot of people.

Their pride and sense of personal autonomy is wounded by the idea that they are in any sense dependent upon or indebted to some Divine Creator

If the "Divine Creator" doesn't exist why would anyone have a sense of dependency on it? That would just be silly.

Consequently, by keeping God out of the picture, atheism seems to offer a bigger universe and a greater challenge to bold and adventurous spirits

That is true, but the author doesn't understand the reasons for this. The universe works without God. In the entire history of science there has never been a single scientific theory that required that God exists to work. We don't tell the universe that it doesn't need God to function. The universe tells us that it doesn't need God to function. To a lot of atheists that removes another reason to accept the idea of God.

The first and most emotionally compelling is that the existence of evil and suffering cannot be reconciled with the assertion that the world has a good and omnipotent Creator.

I've never used that as an argument for atheism, and I'm not sure anyone on the atheism forum has. I would imagine it is certainly something that theists (religious people) ask themselves a lot, but considering that an evil world is easily compatible with most religious teachings (some would say even necessary) that has never been a core argument for atheism used by myself.

Secondly, modern science - in particular, the theory of evolution - explains the origin and development of the universe, and all its life-forms and structures, without any reference to God, so why do we need Him?

Now, that is an argument I would use for atheism. The universe appears to function just fine without God directly interfering with it. Put simply the universe looks exactly the same if God does or does not exist.

Finally, since enlightened self-interest and the good of society provide a perfectly adequate moral framework for human life, there is no need to invoke the existence of God in order to account for our moral faculties or provide a foundation for ethics

That isn't actually an argument for atheism, it is an argument for secular society. It is debateable if there is a need or not to invoke God when attempting to form moral frameworks (it is certainly easier to control populations with religious frameworks than with secular ones). The point is more that a lot of atheists and secularists believe that it is damaging to do so.

In the first place, our very awareness of evil and suffering underlines the fact that we seem to possess some internal standard of right and wrong, good and evil, by which we are able to judge existence and the universe, and find them wanting. But this raises an obvious question. Is this internal moral standard subjective or objective, true or false?

As an atheists I think our moral framework is initially established by the evolution of our species. But the author seems to completely ignore this possibility.

If it is subjective - that is, merely an expression of our emotions and tastes - the case for atheism collapses, since we cannot condemn the universe, and by extension, God, just because reality doesn’t suit our private fancies

That is a ridiculous argument. Atheists don't condemn God, the reject his existence. The author speaks about atheists as if they are troublesome school kids trying to find a way out of doing detention. Atheists don't reject God simply because they don't wish to follow the teachings of a certain religion. They don't following the teachings of a certain religion because God doesn't exist.

What about the other commonly held view, that it is the long-term interests of society which determine and explain our moral values, rather than our own immediate interests?The problem with that, is that it fails to explain why we should care about society as a whole if we can have a better or happier life by ignoring, as many do, its wider interests.

Most don't have a better or happier life by ignoring society. I have no idea where the author gets that idea from. We, humans, are social creatures. We have developed a huge range of systems for social interaction, on many levels. People who isolate themselves from society, from interaction with others, often end up with depression and other mental illness. It is not in our nature to ignore society. This is in contrast to some animal species that do live isolated existences.

It stands to reason then that evolution has evolved certain systems to help facilitate this social interaction. We call them emotions, and on top of emotions we build our system of morals. For example guilt is an emotion on which one builds morals around the idea that is wrong to hurt others.

What the author concludes must be a result of God's design can also be better explained through evolutionary theory. Evolution isn't perfect, and as such our emotions aren't perfect, and neither are our moral frameworks that we build on top of them. If God designed our moral systems you would imagine they would work a lot better than they do. Often theists seem to think that their moral framework is perfect, how God wants it, and everyone else's who has a different one is just wrong. That doesn't seem to be evidence that a god designed anything.

The first important question it fails to answer is why does anything at all exist? Is the universe self-explanatory?

The author assumes there must be a purpose for the existence of the universe, and then criticises science for not putting forward an explanation of that purpose. Of course that argument breaks down when you get to God. Who made God and for what purpose. Gods purpose is self-explanatory, he is supposed to exist simply because he wants to.

If, on the other hand, the majority of scientists are correct in their belief that the universe came into being through some ‘Big Bang’ explosion, its lack of self-sufficiency and its inability to account for itself is even more apparent

The universe doesn't have to account for itself. We have absolutely no idea what happened before the Big Bang. Time and matter as we understand it did not exist, so attempting to frame the problem within the laws of our universe is nonsensical. Without having any clue about what was before the Big Bang it makes little sense to start saying it must have been created by God.

But if one assumes God did create the universe then all the problems the author has with a non-theistic creation are still hanging around. If something cannot come from nothing then what did God create the universe out of? Where did the material God used to create the universe come from? How does God interact with this material? How does he create it? What is God himself made out of?

The reality is that stating "God did it" doesn't actually answer any more questions than simply saying "we don't know", and it actually raises a few more.

The first point to make is that Darwinism not only fails to explain the existence of the universe in the first place; it also cannot account for the existence of any scientific laws.

I don't have any idea what the author is stating this. Darwinism has never attempted to explain the existence of the universe, nor has it ever attempted to account for the existence of any scientific laws.

Is it not extremely improbable that a few simple laws of physics would underlie all phenomena in a random and accidental universe?

I never understood this argument, that really the universe should be a giant mess, and the fact that it isn't shows something is guiding it. Does the author have another universe that he is comparing ours to and concluding that our universe should most likely be a giant mess?

The reality is we have absolutely no idea what our universe should or should not be because we don't have any other universes to compare ours to. It is more the human nature to be slightly in awe of complex systems that makes use wonder at things like the laws of physics and chemistry. This is because our brains find it quite hard to produce complex systems ourselves. But this isn't a reason to make conclusions about what the universe should or should not be. That is just silly.

Despite the skill and confidence with which Dawkins and other Darwinists state their case, it does not stand up to closer examination for a number of reasons. The first problem is that many Darwinian scientists already disbelieve in God

And....? That is not an argument for our against the theory of evolution. The theory falls or stands on its own, not on the personal beliefs of the scientists that work with it. Lots of theists also accept neo-Darwinian evolution as well.

But if Darwinism is being embraced because of an unexamined philosophical (or emotional) prejudice against God and the idea of creation, why should it be accorded any respect as a scientific theory?

It should be respected as a scientific theory because it works. It is embraced by atheists and theists alike.

It is hard to take the next few paragraphs of the author seriously. He repeatably states that the evidence for evolution is "so weak". "Weak" compared to what exactly? Weak to convincing him, but then I don't think anything would convince him. There is no other theory of how life developed on earth that has stronger evidence than evolution. That is why evolution is the excepted scientific theory. Until something better comes along.

If not, how did these complex organs [eye and ear] evolve given the need for all their components to co-exist and co-operate at one and the same time in order to result in sight and hearing

This is a commonly stated misrepresentation of evolution. It is a result of looking at the evolution of something like the eye in the wrong way. Evolution does not "add bits" to something as it evolves. That isn't how it works.

Think of it this way. I imagine you have a TV at home, probably quite new. It probably is colour, has teletext, has a remote control. If you just opened up the back of it and started pulling out parts pretty soon it would just stop working. The TV needs all the parts in it to function properly.

But now look at a TV from 50 years ago. It doesn't have the parts that make it colour. It doesn't have the parts that have teletext. It doesn't have the parts to control the remove control. Yet it functions. If you took out all the bits in your TV so it only did what this old TV has your TV would not work.

The point is that your TV is not simply the TV from the 50s with bits added on. The design itself has evolved. When something like the eye evolves it is the design of the eye that evolves, the blueprint of how to make the eye stored in the genetic code. Each eye is actually brand new, but based on a slightly evolved design, just as with TVs. New things are added, but they are added within the context of the design as a whole. So as a whole the thing works, you can't just pull things out and hope that it still works.

Why, in an accidental universe, should favourable mutations accumulate in a particular species, and accumulate in such a way and in such an order, as to produce ever more complicated and successful life forms and structures?

Firstly the universe is not accidental. The universe works on the basis of fundamental laws. Secondly mutations accumulate in species because they are benefitial to those that have it. This is decided by the environment. Just like having a coat is benefital to having a T-shirt in a snow storm, yet the opposite is true in a desert. These mutations accumulate because the offspring with the mutation do better (live long, reproduce faster, reproduce for longer etc etc) than the organisms without the mutation, so slowly those with the mutation replace those without the mutation.

Why, if mutations are random, shouldn’t one favourable mutation within a particular animal or species be cancelled out by another unfavourable one?

Because an unbenefital mutation won't hang around long enough to spread throughout the population. Take a wolf species living in a cold climate. One of the wolves mutates so that his coat is not a little thinner than the rest of the wolves. Because of this mutation this wolf is effected by the cold more than the rest of the species. He hunts slightly slower and is more prone to infection. If he is lucky enough not to die off before he can reproduce, his children have the same genetics as him, and as such have the same problems. Eventually a slightly colder winter kills off his children before they can reproduce. The mutation has gone no where.

Alternatively, why shouldn’t some favourable mutation prove to be of only temporary benefit, being eventually counterbalanced by some harmful change in climate and physical environment?

This happens ALL THE TIME :-) If you wish to see this just look at how humans have interacted with nature in the last 100 years. Evolution is having a very hard time keeping up with the rapid changes we are making to the physical environment. As such species are not evolving fast enough to survive, and are going extinct. The only places where this isn't true are in organisms that reproduce very fast, and as such mutate very fast, ie bacteria. Bacteria are evolving resistance to the changes in environment we are imposing upon them, such as antibiotics and antibaterial cleaners, much quicker than other larger organisms because they have very short reproduction cycles.

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist, Francis Crick, one of the joint discoverers of DNA, has also expressed similar sentiments

Crick later explained that the understanding of RNA has lead him to understand better how life worked on Earthly earth.

The author is doing what many Creationists do, taking quotes from years ago that are no longer relevent. Science moves all the time. If I quoted a scientist from 1784 that says he did not think electricity existed would that support my "Intelligent Power" theory?

It is important to remember that just because evolution has not worked everything out yet, that is not evidence that it is wrong, and it certainly isn't evidence that God must have created everything by magic.

BrianCalgary

JC 2K3 wrote:

Why do we need "meaning"?

And there are approx 1.1 billion atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious people in the world and that number is growing all the time....

That is sad

JC 2K3 wrote:

I can hardly see how that belief gives our lives meaning. We are on Earth to worship some "God" that created us for his own amusement? That's pretty crap...

You have it backward. Everything is created for our enjoyment, not God's. He doesn't need us, we need Him.

Please JC add to the discussion, don't just come in with, it' crap.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

That is sad

Not for them

BrianCalgary wrote:

You have it backward. Everything is created for our enjoyment, not God's. He doesn't need us, we need Him.

Then why did God choose to create things so that we must worship God or otherwise face his punishment (and often it is horrific punishment) for not worshipping him?

Mrs. MacGyver

Killaqueen!!! wrote:

...I'd like to ask a few questions if I may.

How old are you? And when did you realise your strong faith? For example were you always a religious person or did you go through a process of not being a very strict Christian (eg not praying, not reading the Bible, not going to church..) to being a 'good Christian'?

I've never been a good Christian. I was born into a Protestant-ish family who didn't find it that important and though the schools I've been to were Christian, it was not a Catholic one and so we did not do mass, I never made my Confirmation or Communion. I barely go to Church and I've always wished that I was born into a strong Catholic family - y'know like all the great Irish people were...

I write this because I'm 15 and really questioning my faith. You must be thinking, 'what faith' but it's not that...I believe in God, I believe in His son Jesus Christ.....well at least I thought i did. Until I thought about evolution.

How can anyone really say that they are a devout Christian who believes in evolution? As much as I'd like to believe that evolution didn't happen..it's becoming more and more evident that it is. Science proves it.

I dunno what I'm getting at here but I'm just so confused about my religion. Are most people in this forum older than me, and so, maybe I have time to rebuild my faith or is it usual for a 15 year old to be doubting her faith? Most of my friends don't have this sort of trouble, although I just learned that one is actually an atheist, and I know a couple of my friends who are strongly involved with their church.

I'm 27, I realised my strong faith after i survived a terrible car acident and by a miracle i escaped meing paralysed after breaking a bone in my spine. I started off being a really devout Christian was raised in a catholic/protestant family. I went off and became a religion teacher! My gran was very devout and died in a horrible way, i felt alone and hurt as she wanted a peaceful death (she was really religious) but she died alone after 2 massive heart attacks. I gave up on chirstianity and anything religious, gave up my job and changed careers. Found God and realised that the Churh Of Ireland answered all the missing bits in my life, i share their beleifs and read the bible. I feel like ive come home.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Not for them

Unfortunately they'll find out it is very sad. And it will be too late.

Wicknight wrote:

Then why did God choose to create things so that we must worship God or otherwise face his punishment (and often it is horrific punishment) for not worshipping him?

You make it sound like worship is an act done for the benefit of God? Worship is an act of benefit for the person doing it.

It amazes me how people think that here is this arrogant sob called God who we have to kowtow to to make happy or else.

Whereas God is quite sufficient in His own being who doesn't need us for any reason at all. Yet He makes us significant adn offers us His love and compassion. That love and compassion is for our benefit, yet we choose to tell Him to (fill in the blank) because we are so arrogant in our attitudes.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Yet He makes us significant adn offers us His love and compassion. That love and compassion is for our benefit, yet we choose to tell Him to (fill in the blank) because we are so arrogant in our attitudes.

Why doesn't he make it very clear that he is there? And please, no "maybe you just don't listen" crap.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

You make it sound like worship is an act done for the benefit of God?

That is the only logical conclusion if one examines the fact that God has set it up like it is.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Worship is an act of benefit for the person doing it.

That makes little sense. God could have set things up so that it is unnecessary to worship him. So why did he set things up so that it is necessary to worship him? If it wasn't for himself then what was the point?

BrianCalgary wrote:

It amazes me how people think that here is this arrogant sob called God who we have to kowtow to to make happy or else.

Hey, its your Bible. I don't believe any of it.

But it does amaze me how many Christians have not actually thought this through properly. You proclaim that there is an all powerful being who decided everything and created everything as he choose to do.

Yet for some reason you think that God has had to set things up the way they are for our benefit, that he in some way did us a favor by creating the rule that says we don't get any extra benefit in life unless we worship him and because of that worship he chooses to grant us this extra benefit, but only if he wants to. And this is some how supposed to have been done for us.

I know this analogy is perhaps a bit unfair on Christians, but seriously I cannot help but think of the "battered wife syndrome" when I listen to this stuff.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Whereas God is quite sufficient in His own being who doesn't need us for any reason at all.

Then why set up the rules so that we know need to know he exists, let alone that we have to worship him? And before you say "So he can give us his love", why did he create us so that we need his love in the first place?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Yet He makes us significant adn offers us His love and compassion.

Yes but we only need His love and compassion in the first place because He decided to make creatures that need His love and compassion. He could have decided that we need His divine milkshakes and then said that we must worship Him in order to get these milkshakes. You could substitute "milkshake" for anything.

He created us so that we need this and then offered it to us under condition. It is like a drug dealer offering his client "the first one free" just to get him hooked.

BrianCalgary wrote:

That love and compassion is for our benefit

That is like saying the drug dealer who gets someone hooked on crack for free then gives out crack to them for their benefit, and all he asks in return for this service is that he pays him a bit of money once in a while. :rolleyes:

God could have created us any way He wanted to yet he decided to created us as creatures who require and seek out love and attention from dieties. He then offers his services in that department to us, but for a small fee of complete obedience and total worship in return, with the threat of horrific punishment if we don't . And we are supposed to be gratefull for this. "Oh thank you Lord for making me need you and then offering yourself to me, and all I have to do is give completely obedience to you. That was swell."

Can you see the paradox here? Can you see why people claim that even if God exists He is not worth worshipping?

BrianCalgary wrote:

, yet we choose to tell Him to (fill in the blank) because we are so arrogant in our attitudes.

Yes, some of us do. In the same way that some crack addicts instead of being grateful praising their drug dealers, will actually say "You know what, I know you get me good drugs, and I know I have to pay for it which is fair it doesn't grow on trees. But you know what? I would have much preferred if you had not got me addicted to the drug in the first place"

If God truly loved us, truly was thinking only of us, he would have not created us as the creatures we are today so that we require Him in the first place. So far no Christian, Muslim or Jew has been able to give a reason why he did actually had to do this. Most replies are "That is just they way he did it, live with it", or "it is not my place to question", which is a non-answer and means the same as "I don't know, but I want the milkshake so I'm not going to think about it"

It wasn't necessary for him to do so for us to be happy. He did it for his own reasons, not for us.

Schuhart

BrianCalgary wrote:

That love and compassion is for our benefit, yet we choose to tell Him to (fill in the blank) because we are so arrogant in our attitudes.

I'd query the association of arrogance with atheism. It could equally be said that its arrogant to assume we must be so important as individuals that a supreme being made the Universe just for us and takes a personal interest in the doings of each and every one of us.

JC 2K3

BrianCalgary wrote:

You have it backward. Everything is created for our enjoyment, not God's. He doesn't need us, we need Him.

I was replying to Barnabas's post , he stated that God created us and gave us a beautiful world so we might worship him....

To this day I've never heard a conclusive argument for why, if a God exists, that he would want us to worship him/we would want to worship him.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Unfortunately they'll find out it is very sad. And it will be too late.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It amazes me how people think that here is this arrogant sob called God who we have to kowtow to to make happy or else.

Contradiction?

BrianCalgary wrote:

yet we choose to tell Him to (fill in the blank) because we are so arrogant in our attitudes.

How the hell am I to know what religion is right?
If I am born in a Muslim country and worship Allah am I going to go to hell for my arrogance in rejecting Jesus Christ as the son of God and our savior?
If I am open minded, look into many religions, realise there is no good reason to believe in any specific one(because I'm not arrogant enough to simply choose one and believe it to be right) and become an Agnostic because I've been too arrogant to choose what is obviously the right one, Christianity, am I going to hell?(paradox much?)
If I cannot fathom to believe how a God could exist am I being arrogant or am I simply not being arrogant enough to believe in one thing and condemn the attitudes of others.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Unfortunately they'll find out it is very sad. And it will be too late.

Cuts both ways.

BrianCalgary wrote:

You make it sound like worship is an act done for the benefit of God? Worship is an act of benefit for the person doing it.

It amazes me how people think that here is this arrogant sob called God who we have to kowtow to to make happy or else.

Perhaps it's badly explained? That business about Hell...it could use some spin. After all, you're pointing out above that unbelievers are going to be pretty sorry after death...

BrianCalgary wrote:

Whereas God is quite sufficient in His own being who doesn't need us for any reason at all. Yet He makes us significant adn offers us His love and compassion. That love and compassion is for our benefit, yet we choose to tell Him to (fill in the blank) because we are so arrogant in our attitudes.

Erm, that's weird. He created us, but doesn't need us? He created us, then, for our own benefit? But, some of us are going to Hell - including all those who didn't get the chance to hear about His Good Word because He happened to give it to a bunch of Middle Eastern tribesmen?

Really Brian, I've a good deal of respect for your character (as far as I can discern it), but your logic sucks hard.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kelly1

Scofflaw wrote:

Erm, that's weird. He created us, but doesn't need us? He created us, then, for our own benefit? But, some of us are going to Hell - including all those who didn't get the chance to hear about His Good Word because He happened to give it to a bunch of Middle Eastern tribesmen?

Hello Scofflaw, this is what the catechism has to say on the purpose of creation:

III. "THE WORLD WAS CREATED FOR THE GLORY OF GOD"

293 Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: "The world was made for the glory of God."
St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things "not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it", for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: "Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand." The First Vatican Council explains:

This one, true God, of his own goodness and "almighty power", not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel " and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . ."

294 The glory of God consists in the realization of this manifestation and communication of his goodness, for which the world was created. God made us "to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace", for "the glory of God is man fully alive; moreover man's life is the vision of God: if God's revelation through creation has already obtained life for all the beings that dwell on earth, how much more will the Word's manifestation of the Father obtain life for those who see God." The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become "all in all", thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude."

Regards,
Noel.

Zombrex

Doesn't that theory support the idea that God did it for himself, for his ego?

He created the world to communicate his "glory" (ie to show off), but he only communicates this glory to us, one of this creations.

It is a bit like a dad showing off to his 5 year old son because he knows what ever he does the 5 year old will be impressed.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote:

Doesn't that theory support the idea that God did it for himself, for his ego?

No, I don't see it that way. God out of His goodness and love created us to share in His Joy! If you have something wonderful to share, wouldn't you find it impossible to keep to yourself? Wouldn't you want to share it with others? Very like the catholic faith really

Wicknight wrote:

He created the world to communicate his "glory" (ie to show off)

Sorry, your way off the mark there! God is all powerful but He's also humble. He doesn't show off. e.g. God the Son came to earth to save us but He didn't do so in a blaze of glory. He was born in a stable, was persecuted and treated like a criminal and finally He suffered a most ignominious death at the hands of evil brutes! He never once complained about His treatment. If God wanted to He could manifest His power to us, but He doesn't. If He showed us His power, who could resist and what would become of free will?

Wicknight wrote:

but he only communicates this glory to us, one of this creations.

Who else could He communicate it to?

Regards,
Noel.

Scofflaw

kelly1 wrote:

No, I don't see it that way. God out of His goodness and love created us to share in His Joy! If you have something wonderful to share, wouldn't you find it impossible to keep to yourself? Wouldn't you want to share it with others? Very like the catholic faith really

Sorry, your way off the mark there! God is all powerful but He's also humble. He doesn't show off. e.g. God the Son came to earth to save us but He didn't do so in a blaze of glory. He was born in a stable, was persecuted and treated like a criminal and finally He suffered a most ignominious death at the hands of evil brutes! He never once complained about His treatment. If God wanted to He could manifest His power to us, but He doesn't. If He showed us His power, who could resist and what would become of free will?

Who else could He communicate it to?

So, I hate to ask, but what then is the point of Hell?

cordially,
Scofflaw

gosimeon

Scofflaw wrote:

So, I hate to ask, but what then is the point of Hell?

cordially,
Scofflaw

A second death for those that chose not to cross the Bridge.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

No, I don't see it that way. God out of His goodness and love created us to share in His Joy! If you have something wonderful to share, wouldn't you find it impossible to keep to yourself? Wouldn't you want to share it with others?

Yes but considering that during the history of humanity most of us didn't "share" in the joy and ended up in Hell (on God command) I'm not really following how this was done for us

kelly1 wrote:

If He showed us His power, who could resist and what would become of free will?

Well we would all still have free will (assuming free will is possible with the god you describe, but that is in another post) we would just have a big God figure in the sky saying "hello", and we could all then share the "joy" as you say.

Its a win win.

The obvious question is why has God not done this? Why keep this joy from his own creations if the point of the whole exercise was to share this joy as much as possible?

kelly1 wrote:

Who else could He communicate it to?

That was kinda my point ...

gosimeon

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but considering that during the history of humanity most of us didn't "share" in the joy and ended up in Hell (on God command) I'm not really following how this was done for us

Those that don't get a chance to hear the word of God are saved by "default", so don't worry about those that lived before the good news was shared!

Scofflaw

gosimeon wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

So, I hate to ask, but what then is the point of Hell?

A second death for those that chose not to cross the Bridge.

Hmm. "Cross the Bridge"?

OK - standard questions: God having created the world, including Hell:

1. if God knew everything that would happen, why did He create the world knowing that particular people would go to eternal torment?

2. if God did not know in advance everything that would happen, why did He create the world knowing that some people would go to Hell?

3. if God did not know for sure that some people would go to Hell, even so, why create the world with the risk that some people would go to Hell? What counterbalances eternal torment?

4. if God is eternal, He has infinite time. Why does He choose to judge us on the basis of such short existences, when both penalties and rewards are eternal?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

gosimeon wrote:

Those that don't get a chance to hear the word of God are saved by "default", so don't worry about those that lived before the good news was shared!

Umm, that isn't really what the rest of them say. There was a discussion about this a while back and the majority of Christian posters seem to think that even those who have not heard the Word still turned away from God themselves and as such deserve Gods punishment.

I'm not an expert but they claimed this was all backed up by passages in the Bible.

Calibos

gosimeon wrote:

Those that don't get a chance to hear the word of God are saved by "default", so don't worry about those that lived before the good news was shared!

Yeah, a lot of Christian denominations say that when probed about how their benevolent God could condemn all those good people of other faiths and pre-faith who had not heard the message.

Hey, its logical isn't it. Obviously he wouldn't punish those who had not heard the mesage of Christ becuase they were born in the wrong millenia or on the wrong continent.....You're thinking logically......follow the logic.....keep going......

Now every single one of you Christian denominations, stop bloody missioning to good people and giving them your particular denominations version of Christs message. Why???? Because before you knocked on those doors or shacks or huts as long as the occupants were good people they were going to heaven no matter what they believed even if they believed in Thor, Krishna, Shiva, Kali, Budha, Ubungu the rain God etc. Sure you said it yourself

Those that don't get a chance to hear the word of God are saved by "default"

By giving them your version of the message which is so obviously the one true correct version, you are giving them a chance to reject it and thus be banished to hell.

So from a 100% chance of getting to heaven if they were good people, now you have reduced their chance of getting to heaven by 50%!! Seeing as for some strange reason :rolleyes: most people remain in the religion of their parents and region of the world and know that by the grace of God they were lucky enough to be born in the right place to be in the one true religion, surely you realise 99.99% of people wont convert for you. Thus rather than saving souls on missions and witnessing you are in fact condemning the souls of 99.99% of those people who's doors you knock on.

Thats why even though I am not a rude person, whenever I answer the door to any religious person, when they start telling me about their religion I put my hands over my ears and start shouting, "I AM NOT LISTENING, I AM NOT LISTENING"

Its not that I am an ignorant atheist to arrogant to debate them, its that I don't want my odds of getting into heaven reduced, assuming at least one of the 100's of religions is right and I am wrong. They less I hear about them the better!!

bmoferrall

A little bit of logic can be a dangerous thing!
(You've probably saved Wolfsbane a post too.)

kelly1

Scofflaw wrote:

So, I hate to ask, but what then is the point of Hell?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hello, the official word from the catechism is this:

V. HELL

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"614

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."616

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."617

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;618 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":619

Regards,
Noel.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but considering that during the history of humanity most of us didn't "share" in the joy and ended up in Hell (on God command) I'm not really following how this was done for us

You don't know who ended up in hell and maybe you underestimate the mercy of God.
Don't forget that parents co-operate with God in bringing a new life into this world. Babies don't just spontaneously appear from no-where.
Also parents have a huge responsibility to raise their children to love God and and neighbour.

Wicknight wrote:

Well we would all still have free will (assuming free will is possible with the god you describe, but that is in another post) we would just have a big God figure in the sky saying "hello", and we could all then share the "joy" as you say. Its a win win.

Consider the fall of Lucifer and his angels. Lucifer was the greatest of the angels who saw God in all His glory but he still became proud and rebelled against God. So seeing God is no guarantee that we'll all do His will.
There is no redemption for satan because he was supremely aware of the glory and goodness of God but he still rebelled. We, on the other hand, are required to have faith but we are redeemed by Jesus Christ.

The catholic encyclopaedia has this to say:

XII. FAITH IS NECESSARY

"He that believeth and is baptized", said Christ, "shall be saved, but he
that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16); and St. Paul sums up
this solemn declaration by saying: "Without faith it is impossible to
please God" (Hebrews 11:6). The absolute necessity of faith is evident from
the following considerations: God is our beginning and our end and has
supreme dominion over us, we owe Him, consequently, due service which we
express by the term religion. Now true religion is the true Now true religion
is the true worship of the true God. But it is not for man to fashion a
worship according to his own ideals; none but God can declare to us in what
true worship consists, and this declaration constitutes the body of revealed
truths, whether natural or supernatural. To these, if we would attain the
end for which we came into the world, we are bound to give the assent of
faith. It is clear, moreover, that no one can profess indifference in a
matter of such vital importance.

Wicknight wrote:

The obvious question is why has God not done this? Why keep this joy from his own creations if the point of the whole exercise was to share this joy as much as possible?

We need to prove ourselves worthy of meriting the joys of heaven and the vision of God. It's God's will that we have faith in Him. To reject Him, our Creator, demonstrates our pride and arrogance.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

gosimeon wrote:

Those that don't get a chance to hear the word of God are saved by "default", so don't worry about those that lived before the good news was shared!

Hello gosimeon, I don't know where you got this from! Would a murderer who's ignorant of the Gospel be saved without asking for the forgiveness of God? Not likely!

From the CCC:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

God bless,
Noel.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

You don't know who ended up in hell and maybe you underestimate the mercy of God.

Possibly ... fall all we know hell was just something made up by some men a few thousand years ago, and everyone goes on to heaven. Which would be nice.

kelly1 wrote:

Don't forget that parents co-operate with God in bringing a new life into this world. Babies don't just spontaneously appear from no-where.

Kelly, when a man really loves a woman he gives her a special "hug" ...

Seriously though, babies come from a quite natural biological process that God appears not to have any influence in. Which one assumes is how he planned it, and it is in line with the idea of free will.

kelly1 wrote:

So seeing God is no guarantee that we'll all do His will.

Its not, but it would certainly help and couldn't hurt.

kelly1 wrote:

We need to prove ourselves worthy of meriting the joys of heaven and the vision of God.

Why exactly?

You claim God created us in the first place to share in his glory. So we didn't need to prove ourselves worthy to exist God did it for us. Despite the fact that God is supposed to view the future and can therefore see the bad things you will do before you do them, he allows "unworthy" people to exist in this life, yet for some reason they don't exist in the next life. If the purpose is to share his glory, and he clearly doesn't mind sharing his glory with unworthy people, why stop?

Is there limited space in heaven?

kelly1 wrote:

It's God's will that we have faith in Him.

Does that not tie back to the idea that this was done for God Himself then?

gosimeon

kelly1 wrote:

Hello gosimeon, I don't know where you got this from! Would a murderer who's ignorant of the Gospel be saved without asking for the forgiveness of God? Not likely!

From the CCC:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

Is the CCC God's word or the utterances of a bunch of old hypocrites sitting in their ivy towers in the Vatican? I can't remember....

Mind you, the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium." Chapter 1, sections 14 to 16 discuss salvation of Catholics and others. An "Assessment of this Council" reads:

"5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."

This os similar to a Bible verse I am trying in vain to remember! Basically, God's law is implanted in all of our hearts and those that never hear the Gospel but still do their utmost to do what is good are saved.
Did Abraham hear the Gospel preached to him? Did Noah? Moses?

I believe that God is fair. If somebody never hears the Word of God and never gets the chance to receive Christ as their saviour, I am sure they are given a chance. I read a piece of scripture about it a while back, in Romans I think. I'll look it up. It seemed to hint that those that have never heard / died before Christ was born are judged on their deeds.

We are told that those who reject Jesus are not saved, not those that do not even get a chance to make up their mind.

Zombrex

gosimeon wrote:

We are told that those who reject Jesus are not saved, not those that do not even get a chance to make up their mind.

Makes you wonder what the point of Jesus was then ...

Also I was under the impression that the Bible actually says that until Jesus only the Hewbrews could be saved, as Gods people. It didn't matter how good a Roman or Celt or Native American you were, only God's people were saved since all others were wicked in the eyes of the Lord.