Heaven/Hell/Purgatory

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It shows how intense God's love is for us, that He would do such a thing.

Considering everything God does takes exactly the same amount of effort as anything else he does (ie none) that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

Zombrex

Why when ever we start getting down to the really interesting/difficult questions we (atheists/skeptics/people asking questions) just end up being preached at about how ungrateful we are?

Fair play to Kelly1, he is at least bothering to think about the questions being raised here.

Latchy

=djpbarry;54386895]The universe is an extremely complex system - why the need to make it even more so by introducing the idea of a creator? The next logical question is, who created the creator?

Yes, Somthing we all ask, and sombody might say the answer is irrelevant .

Quote wicknight - Your missing the point. The question doesn't apply, so the answer is irrelevant.

Its like asking "Does toast enjoy being toast?"

Yes, i understand and see what you mean , a bit like saying what colour is black ?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Considering everything God does takes exactly the same amount of effort as anything else he does (ie none) that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

That seems pretty presumptios that you nderstand the efort God puts into things. Although that is not th econtext of the word intense.

The word as it is used here is a measure of emotion. God feels emotion. God is emotional, God is love.

Evertime we sin, He fails pain. When He came to earth, He felt the pain, both physical, during His torture, His 40 days in the desert, etc.

He felt the pain of being abandoned by His closest friends and being rejected by His family.

He felt the pain of being abandoned by His Father when on the cross He bore all the sin of the world upon Himself.

So yes it makes a whole lot of sense.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

That seems pretty presumptios that you nderstand the efort God puts into things. Although that is not th econtext of the word intense.

Well its your definition of God (omnipotent), so either everything God takes no effort or your definition is wrong. Its a paradox to say that a omnipotent God requires effort to do something.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Evertime we sin, He fails pain.

I seriously doubt that. The idea that I can inflict emotional pain on a diety is again nonsensical.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

He felt the pain of being abandoned by His Father when on the cross He bore all the sin of the world upon Himself.

Well a) God is all knowing so he would already know what that felt like, and b)how does God abandon himself and c) being all knowing God would have known that he wasn't going to abandon himself (if such a thing is possible)

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So yes it makes a whole lot of sense.

About as much sense as a happy rock or a depressed chair

Run_to_da_hills

bluewolf wrote: »

Does this affect your relationship with your brother?

At first it did, He is glad now that I have changed as he was worried about my former lifestyle, We have agreed not to discuss the subject of christianity and will only bring it up if he mentions it.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Why were we created to need God/live in union with God in the first place?

We were created because God wants to share His happiness with us. His goodness and love drove Him to create us.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why did God design us to need his Grace in the first place?

Why God created us in need of Him is a more difficult question to answer. My faith tells me that God created us to share in his divinity and thus share in His happiness. This is achieved by intimate union with God. Without this union, the love between the Creator and the creature would be lesser. God doesn't want to hold back anything from us, he wants to give us all He has.

My faith and reason also tells me that all goodness must come from God. There has to be one ultimate source of goodness just like there has to be one source of everthing in the universe. Therefore nothing except God is inherently good (to my amateur philosopher's mind anyway). Goodness can't come from a material universe, can it?

Clearly our happiness lies in doing good because evil only produces sorrow.
So it follows that we must depend on God in order to be happy.

This may not be a philosophically or theologically sound or complete argument, but if I could convince you that all good comes from God, would you accept that as a reason for needing God?

God bless,
Noel.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Well its your definition of God (omnipotent), so either everything God takes no effort or your definition is wrong. Its a paradox to say that a omnipotent God requires effort to do something.

But, wicky, I never said anything about effort. You ran up that tree.

Wicknight wrote: »

I seriously doubt that. The idea that I can inflict emotional pain on a diety is again nonsensical.

You can, you will and you do. You inflict emotional pain on Him everytime you sin. Sometimes I wonder whether or not you understand 'love'.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well a) God is all knowing so he would already know what that felt like, and b)how does God abandon himself and c) being all knowing God would have known that he wasn't going to abandon himself (if such a thing is possible)

God did know what was going to happen, which makes the act all the more loving.

There were things that Jesus as human did not know.

Wicknight wrote: »

About as much sense as a happy rock or a depressed chair

More sense than man from muck and big bang out of nothing.:)

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

I seriously doubt that. The idea that I can inflict emotional pain on a diety is again nonsensical.

God is more than a deity;he is a loving father. Who of us at some stage or other have not inflicted pain on our father (or mother), be it intentional or unintentional.
My kids sometimes hurt me, but I love them unconditionally and would willingly die for them.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

This is achieved by intimate union with God. Without this union, the love between the Creator and the creature would be lesser.

Can I ask what you are basing that assertion on?

To me that would be an unsupported assertion, since God can do anything he wants, and therefore he could create us with all the love we can handle without the union as easily as with the union.

kelly1 wrote: »

Therefore nothing except God is inherently good (to my amateur philosopher's mind anyway).

Again to me that is an unsupported assertion, since it implies God cannot create something that is as "good" as himself, which appears to be limiting God in what he can and cannot do. A paradox on the concept that God can do anything and everything.

I suppose it could be argued that God cannot logically create anything as good as him, but can't think of the logic required for that. To me God creating something as good as him is a logically possible, and one would think easy, thing for him to do.

kelly1 wrote: »

Goodness can't come from a material universe, can it?

Well as I said, it can if God wants it to, since he designed and created the material universe.

kelly1 wrote: »

So it follows that we must depend on God in order to be happy.

Well that justifies it, but it still doesn't explain what that is in the first place.

kelly1 wrote: »

This may not be a philosophically or theologically sound or complete argument, but if I could convince you that all good comes from God, would you accept that as a reason for needing God?

Not really, because the fact that all good comes from God doesn't actually infer either way that we need or don't need God. The two concepts aren't really connected

We need God to be good, but we only need God to be good because he created us like that in the first place. So it explains why we need him, but not why we were created in the first place to need him.

Hope that is clear

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

God is more than a deity;he is a loving father. Who of us at some stage or other have not inflicted pain on our father (or mother), be it intentional or unintentional.
My kids sometimes hurt me, but I love them unconditionally and would willingly die for them.

Well, as I have to say so often when analogies are used between God and humans, my father isn't a diety.

I'm not saying we don't carry out actions that would hurt God if he was human. I'm saying he isn't human, he is a god, and as such the actions that we carry out that would hurt him if he was a human don't hurt him becauase he isn't, he is a diety.

Its the difference between throwing a rock at a green house and thrown a rock at star. Just because you break the green house doesn't mean you are going to break the star.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But, wicky, I never said anything about effort. You ran up that tree.

True, but then you did respond to my original missunderstanding as it that as well was incorrect. I was simply responding to that response.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You can, you will and you do. You inflict emotional pain on Him everytime you sin. Sometimes I wonder whether or not you understand 'love'.

Sometimes I wonder whether or not people understand "omniscient deity"

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God did know what was going to happen, which makes the act all the more loving.

Actually I would argue the opposite. God knew what the pain was like before he did it, so the pain itself was not suffering for him. God knew that it would only go one for a few hours before he would rise to heaven.

It reminds me of the treatment of the British soliders captured by Iran a few months back. They said when they got home that the Iranian guards would take them out blind folded and cock their guns. The point of doing that was to make the British soliders think that they were about to be shot. That is a recognised form of torture, as it induced a state of panick in the person it is being done to. But imagine if the British knew that they weren't going to be shot. Then it isn't anything, it is just a bunch of guys standing around cocking their guns for no particular reason.

It is all very well to say that Jesus suffered the pain and suffering of a typical victim of cruxafication. But he didn't really. He knew what the pain would be, since God knows all, and he knew it wouldn't mean death. In fact God knew what the whole experience would be like before Jesus was born, nah before the universe was created. God didn't learn anything from the experience, such an assertion is an oxymoron since God doesn't learn anything, he knows everything already. Of all the people on those crosses the person to feel the least sorry for was Jesus.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There were things that Jesus as human did not know.

God knew them though. Whether or not Jesus knew them or not is rather irrelevant

BrianCalgary wrote: »

More sense than man from muck and big bang out of nothing.:)

Man didn't come from muck, and the big bang didn't come out of nothing.

Do you listen at all BC

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well, as I have to say so often when analogies are used between God and humans, my father isn't a diety.

I'm not saying we don't carry out actions that would hurt God if he was human. I'm saying he isn't human, he is a god, and as such the actions that we carry out that would hurt him if he was a human don't hurt him becauase he isn't, he is a diety.

Its the difference between throwing a rock at a green house and thrown a rock at star. Just because you break the green house doesn't mean you are going to break the star.

I see no logical reason why a deity cannot be hurt. Care to offer one?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I see no logical reason why a deity cannot be hurt. Care to offer one?

Certainly. A deity is all knowing. The process of being hurt implies a negative reaction to an event that one did not anticipate or expect. For example I was hurt when my girlfriend broke up with me. One is hurt from the moment that one discovers the information that hurts them. God doesn't discover information, all information is known to him.

It also implies a change of state of emotions. I was happy, my girlfriend broke up with me which hurt me, now I am sad. My emotional state has change as I have moved through the time line.

In fact all change itself is a property of being in a time line.

God isn't in a time line. To put it simply God never changes. God just is. God is the same constant state because God does not move through a time line, and therefore there is not "present"

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

God isn't in a time line. To put it simply God never changes. God just is. God is the same constant state because God does not move through a time line, and therefore there is not "present"

You're absolutely right Wicknight-God does not move through a timeline like we do.Everthing with Him just is in the now.

If you were at a parade in Dublin and had a decent enough viewing point, you would see the parade going by bit by bit. God, on the other hand has the 'advantage' of being in the helicopter hovering overhead and he can see the participants of the parade,before they start marching, as they are marching and when they are finished marching. In other words he see's all that is happening past present and future at the one time.

And because God feels our pain and emotions too, he also experiences this within the 'now' frametime.

PDN

Splendour wrote: »

You're absolutely right Wicknight-God does not move through a timeline like we do.Everthing with Him just is in the now.

If you were at a parade in Dublin and had a decent enough viewing point, you would see the parade going by bit by bit. God, on the other hand has the 'advantage' of being in the helicopter hovering overhead and he can see the participants of the parade,before they start marching, as they are marching and when they are finished marching. In other words he see's all that is happening past present and future at the one time.

And because God feels our pain and emotions too, he also experiences this within the 'now' frametime.

Indeed, which means that when an eternal deity chooses to place Himself in a situation where He will experience great pain (which it is not unreasonable to suggest that an omnipotent being can do) such as both experiencing crucifixion and watching His Son being crucified, then that pain may well be suffered for eternity. Therefore, the objections that the crucifixion was only a temporary suffering may be very wide of the mark indeed. If God is outside of a timeline, and the Cross was always part of His plan, then He eternally suffers the pain of crucifixion. In other words, God has chosen to condemn Himself to hell (eternal suffering) in order to provide salvation for mankind.

Obviously some of this is speculative. All of us should be humble enough to admit that our finite minds struggle to comprehend an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent God and what He may or may not be able to do and experience (all of us, that is, except Wicknight who feels qualified to make sweeping pronouncements about whether a deity can be hurt or not).

However, the idea of a God eternally suffering would explain why Jesus is described in Scripture as, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8) and will still appear in heaven as "a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain" (Revelation 5:6). If Calvary was indeed an eternal act of redemptive suffering then the words of an old children's hymn (written by the wife of a Church of Ireland archbishop) become even more poignant:

We may not know, we cannot tell,
What pains He had to bear;
But we believe it was for us
He hung and suffered there.

PDN

Allow me to indulge myself in a little theological musing. (Quite reasonable for a Christian pastor on a Sunday morning on the Christianity board).

If an eternal God suffers pain for an eternity, rather than for an instant, then that would also address another issue - why we as humans (even Christian humans) consistently underestimate the awfulness of sin. We debate free will and sin purely in terms of the effects they have on us - but if sin causes eternal suffering to God then that should change our perspective.

For example, we talk about God giving free will to Adam in terms of the consequences for us (human suffering). Our assumption is that God is sitting somewhere far away untouched by such suffering, and that therefore free will was a cruel gamble on His behalf. However, what if God, by giving Adam free will, opened up Himself to an eternity of suffering?

One conclusion from this would be that being God isn't much fun!

Another conclusion would be that the OP may have a point about heaven not necessarily being a place of pure unalloyed joy. Scripture indicates that in heaven we will become like God (1 John 3:2). Therefore heaven may be similar to where a mountain rescue team saves a climber but only after the guy's companions have died. His relief and joy at being saved are tempered by his grief at the deaths of his comrades. Of course the logical outcome of such thinking is for Christians to redouble their efforts to convert others, thereby annoying the atheists even more with our evangelistic zeal.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

You're absolutely right Wicknight-God does not move through a timeline like we do.Everthing with Him just is in the now.

If you were at a parade in Dublin and had a decent enough viewing point, you would see the parade going by bit by bit. God, on the other hand has the 'advantage' of being in the helicopter hovering overhead and he can see the participants of the parade,before they start marching, as they are marching and when they are finished marching. In other words he see's all that is happening past present and future at the one time.

And because God feels our pain and emotions too, he also experiences this within the 'now' frametime.

I've no doubt that he "feels" (if that is the right word) our pain and emotions. The point is that this does not cause him to change his emotions, becaue God doesn't change and nothing is new to him.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, which means that when an eternal deity chooses to place Himself in a situation where He will experience great pain (which it is not unreasonable to suggest that an omnipotent being can do)

Actually it is unreasonable (by which I mean illogical) to suggest that an omnipotent being do. Not because he can't do it, but because such an act would be unnecessary and pointless.

If God placed himself into a situation where he experiences great pain that would suggest that before he did that he didn't experience the pain. That, for an omniscient being, is illogical. God knows and experiences everything all at the same time (if same time is a relevant to a god). He already knows exactly what "great pain" is like (I find it funny that we could consider a human man being tortured to be great pain from a God's perspective. I'm sure God can imagine pain infinitely worse), it is rather unnecessary and illogical for him to place himself in a position to experience that. He is constantly in a position of knowing what that is like, and much more.

PDN wrote: »

In other words, God has chosen to condemn Himself to hell (eternal suffering) in order to provide salvation for mankind.

Again you are not understanding an omniscient diety. God knows about infinite suffering. He also knows about infinite joy. He knows this at the same time and has always known this. He didn't learn anything from the cruxification.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

He already knows exactly what "great pain" is like (I find it funny that we could consider a human man being tortured to be great pain from a God's perspective. I'm sure God can imagine pain infinitely worse), it is rather unnecessary and illogical for him to place himself in a position to experience that. He is constantly in a position of knowing what that is like, and much more.

Again you are not understanding an omniscient diety. God knows about infinite suffering. He also knows about infinite joy. He knows this at the same time and has always known this. He didn't learn anything from the cruxification.

It's nice that someone who doesn't believe in an omniscient deity is so quick to lay down rules for said deity.

There is a world of difference between knowing about pain and experiencing pain. Josef Mengele knew about pain. The subjects of his experiments experienced pain.

The point of the crucifixion was not to provide God with a learning experience (totally irrelevant to any of this discussion) but to provide salvation while still remaining just.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It's nice that someone who doesn't believe in an omniscient deity is so quick to lay down rules for said deity.

Well belief is rather irrelevant. Omniscient is a defined concept ("all knowing") and it is perfectly possible to discuss the logical consequences of such a being without believing in one.

PDN wrote: »

There is a world of difference between knowing about pain and experiencing pain. Josef Mengele knew about pain. The subjects of his experiments experienced pain.

No if a being is "all" knowing. Which God is supposed to be. Megnele wasn't all knowing when it came to pain because he had not experienced the pain himself. He knew about it from the reaction of his victims, but that isn't the same thing.

BTW this is before we get into the whole problem of a deity actually experiencing physical pain in the form of suffering. God can know and understand every aspect of pain (since he is all knowing), but it makes little logical sense to suggest that he actually suffers from this knowledge. How does a god suffer physical pain? Pain after all is simply a chemical reaction in the brain created by evolution to inform the being about threat to the function of the body. God neither has a body nor can anything physically threaten him. It makes little sense then to suggest that he has a nervous system that would suffer pain.

PDN wrote: »

The point of the crucifixion was not to provide God with a learning experience (totally irrelevant to any of this discussion)

I didn't suggest it was, in fact such an idea is nonsense since as I've said God wouldn't have a) learned anything new b) suffered. I was simply responding to the suggestion by many Christian posters here that this was an aspect of the crucifixion, that God loved us "so much" that he was prepared to suffer.

PDN wrote: »

but to provide salvation while still remaining just.

And why was the crucifixion necessary for this? How is it "just" to kill oneself?