Fairness of Punishment

ColmDawson

Jakkass didn't want his thread to stray too far from its intended path, so I'll bring my question here. Mods, if it's been asked and answered before, feel free to link me and lock this.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that this is what all human beings deserve, we are justified only by Christ's grace on the cross. As I see it we've all willingly disobeyed God, and we are subject to His punishment for disobeying His authority in His world. If we are willing to believe Jesus took our place on the cross, that is how we are saved.

ColmDawson wrote: »

What about someone who would like Christianity to be true, but is prevented from believing it by a natural tendency for critical thinking? This is no fault of his, but you think he deserves to be tortured for eternity?

Jakkass? Assorted Christians?

Fanny Cradock

A natural tendency for critical thinking, eh? That's more than a little overbearing.

ColmDawson

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A natural tendency for critical thinking, eh? That's more than a little overbearing.

If you'd prefer: someone who wishes they could believe, but just isn't convinced. It's very conceivable that someone might fail to believe.

antiskeptic

ColmDawson wrote: »

If you'd prefer: someone who wishes they could believe, but just isn't convinced. It's very conceivable that someone might fail to believe.

If a person isn't convinced then there are two ways in which that can take place

1) They weren't presented with enough evidence to produce conviction

2) They prevented being presented with enough evidence to produce conviction.

The second of the two possibilities can be further broken down into subsets:

a) Evidence was made available but was suppressed.

b) Evidence was refused admission into court for consideration.

You see that the potential for a lack of conviction being laid at a persons own door. Nothing to do with critical thinking, everything to do with wilful refusal on their part.

An example of this would be a mans response to goodness. The Bible tells us that men have a knowledge of what's good and evil installed in them - they don't need to be taught what's good anymore than they need to be taught to breath. In so far as they suppress this knowledge they can deny that good is good and can instead, call what is evil - good. It is good, for example, that women exert total control over their wombs in aborting children. That is in fact evil rendering good by suppression of the knowledge that abortion is evil.

You can be rightfully held to account for wilful suppression and the evil which follows from doing so. You don't have to believe in God in order to be culpable.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

If a person isn't convinced then there are two ways in which that can take place

1) They weren't presented with enough evidence to produce conviction

2) They prevented being presented with enough evidence to produce conviction.

The second of the two possibilities can be further broken down into subsets:

a) Evidence was made available but was suppressed.

b) Evidence was refused admission into court for consideration.

You see that the potential for a lack of conviction being laid at a persons own door. Nothing to do with critical thinking, everything to do with wilful refusal on their part.

An example of this would be a mans response to goodness. The Bible tells us that men have a knowledge of what's good and evil installed in them - they don't need to be taught what's good anymore than they need to be taught to breath. In so far as they suppress this knowledge they can deny that good is good and can instead, call what is evil - good. It is good, for example, that women exert total control over their wombs in aborting children. That is in fact evil rendering good by suppression of the knowledge that abortion is evil.

You can be rightfully held to account for wilful suppression and the evil which follows from doing so. You don't have to believe in God in order to be culpable.

The willful suppression implies they know it is wrong, but refuse to accept that.

That isn't really what ColmDawson asked. It is when you genuinely don't believe in God, genuinely don't therefore think the Bible has authority to dictate what is moral or not moral. Abortion is probably a bad example since lots of atheists disagree with abortion, a better example is the genocide in the Old Testament, something that only has a justified reason, even by Christians standards, if God exists. Without conviction that God exists and sanctioned it it is wrong by any and all standards.

Or do you believe that you cannot genuinely feel that Christianity has not demonstrated its case for God's existence?

ColmDawson

I'm suggesting that a person may have been presented with all of the 'evidence' for the Christian god's existence, but is not convinced by it. They genuinely wish it were true, but nothing they see convinces them.

By the way, antiskeptic, your first possibility seems to suggest that the unconvinced person isn't at fault for their own lack of belief. Am I reading you correctly?

Vinny-Chase

ColmDawson wrote: »

I'm suggesting that a person may have been presented with all of the 'evidence' for the Christian god's existence, but is not convinced by it. They genuinely wish it were true, but nothing they see convinces them.

I'd simply call that a lack of faith. Ye know what George Michael said don't ye? Oh wait, he's gay, might not be the best example to use around here.

Nothing you see convinces you? Take a look at the world man. Take a look at yourself and the wonder of it all. Evidence of a God in my eyes.

Splendour

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

I'd simply call that a lack of faith. Ye know what George Michael said don't ye? Oh wait, he's gay, might not be the best example to use around here.

I dunno-he also wore a 'Choose Life' T-Shirt so maybe he's a closet Christian

OP, I think if someone is giving that much thought to Christianity and yet critical thinking is standing in the way of their acceptance, imo,they are on the right road. The likes of Dawkins and Hitchens fascinate me with the amount of time and energy they put into trying to refute Christianity and I can't help but wonder why...
Christians too have their times of critical thinking and go through times of doubt...

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

The likes of Dawkins and Hitchens fascinate me with the amount of time and energy they put into trying to refute Christianity and I can't help but wonder why...

Other than the obvious?

PDN

Just to be clear, are we talking about fairness as an absolute moral standard - or as a social construct that happens to have evolved?

Obviously the answer will dictate our views on this matter.

If we believe that fairness is an absolute moral standard, then it may be reasonable to expect God to be fair.

But if we believe that no absolute moral standards exist, and that our concepts of good, evil and fairness are simply evolutionary traits that help our species to survive, then it is hardly reasonable to expect any hypothetical supreme being to conform to these evolved notions.

Vinny-Chase

Splendour wrote: »

I dunno-he also wore a 'Choose Life' T-Shirt so maybe he's a closet Christian

PDN

Originally Posted by ColmDawson
What about someone who would like Christianity to be true, but is prevented from believing it by a natural tendency for critical thinking? This is no fault of his, but you think he deserves to be tortured for eternity?

Leaving aside for a minute the exact nature of hell, let's think about this.

Orthodox (in the sense of non-heterodox) Christian teaching does not say that you are sent to hell as a punishment for anything you believed or failed to believe. It says that people go to hell because of the sins we have all committed - selfishness, bigotry, lying, stealing, ignoring the plight of those who are starving etc. So, the idea is that we all deserve to go to hell. In a perfectly fair world no-one would be saved! We would all receive the punishment we deserve. So, the idea of someone going to hell for 'critical thinking through no fault of their own' is nothing to do with Christian belief.

Now, the Gospel message is one of grace. It isn't actually fair! It means that instead of a fair world (where everyone gets what they deserve and go to hell) instead we have an opportunity to receive something that we don't deserve - salvation.

This undeserved, thoroughly unfair, gift of salvation is offered to everybody. Some people, however, refuse to believe that the offer is genuine, so they refuse to accept it. While that might indicate that they aren't exactly the brightest tools in the shed, it doesn't thereby mean God is unfairly disciminating against them.

A simple parable might explain this better:

A King once gave a gift of a 42 inch HD ready TV to all his subjects. However, his subjects were a weird bunch of people and decided to participate in a National TV chucking competition. Some were able to churck their TV further than others - but naturally enough all the TVs were busted.

Now the subjects of the Kingdom were miserable because they couldn't watch Arsenal hammering Liverpool on live TV the next Sunday. So they moaned among themselves how unfair it was that the king had given them such flimsy TVs that couldn't even withstand being tossed around a bit.

Now, if the King had been totally fair, he would have let those ingrates suffer the pain their actions deserved - being forced to listen to Alan Green's nauseating commentary on Radio Five Live. However, being a merciful King, he took pity on his rather silly subjects and sent them all a voucher for a brand new TV to replace the ones they had so needlessly trashed. All they had to do was take the voucher to their nearest branch of Harvey Normans and go-go-go they would be able to watch Theo Walcott score a hat-trick in glorious technicolour.

Many of the people jumped at the King's offer and formed an orderly line at Harvey Normans to redeem their vouchers. But one stubborn subject of the Kingdom thought that the voucher was a scam and spent his time berating his fellows as they stood in line at Harvey Normans. He used many and varied arguments to try to convince them not to redeem their vouchers or to claim their new TV.

One rather funny argument was when he said, "The King, if He really exists, isn't the kind old King you think He is. If He was really so nice, why would He be so unfair as to condemn me to listen to Radio Five Live just because I'm enough of a critical thinker to reject the validity of that voucher He sent me?"

But the citizens of the Kingdom saw through the poor logic of their poor deluded fellow, and they urged him to claim his TV before the trumpet sounded and the doors of Harvey Norman closed.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Just to be clear, are we talking about fairness as an absolute moral standard - or as a social construct that happens to have evolved?

Obviously the answer will dictate our views on this matter.

If we believe that fairness is an absolute moral standard, then it may be reasonable to expect God to be fair.

But if we believe that no absolute moral standards exist, and that our concepts of good, evil and fairness are simply evolutionary traits that help our species to survive, then it is hardly reasonable to expect any hypothetical supreme being to conform to these evolved notions.

Do you think God is fair?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Now, the Gospel message is one of grace. It isn't actually fair! It means that instead of a fair world (where everyone gets what they deserve and go to hell) instead we have an opportunity to receive something that we don't deserve - salvation.

That is really what it comes down to, Christianity teaches salvation as a gift, not something you have a right to. Therefore there is no requirement on God to ensure that it is as inclusive as possible, if some people can't believe that is there issue they don't have a right to salvation.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think God is fair?

No, I think he is unfair in that He gives us a chance to be saved instead of letting us wallow undisturbed in the consequences of our own sin.

I remember thinking this after visiting Yad Vashem, the memorial to the Holocaust in Jerusalem. I wondered how the victims of the Holocaust would feel to know that some of their tormentors evaded the hell they so richly deserved by repenting and receiving the Gospel.

Then I thought of all the people that I have ever wronged in my life, and I wondered how they would feel at me receiving the Gospel and svoiding the punishment that I so richly deserve.

So no, I think the message of the Gospel is that God is merciful and gracious, but He is not required to conform to either your or my defective standards of fairness.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So no, I think the message of the Gospel is that God is merciful and gracious, but He is not required to conform to either your or my defective standards of fairness.

So you could be wrong? It might not be merciful or gracious?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That is really what it comes down to, Christianity teaches salvation as a gift, not something you have a right to. Therefore there is no requirement on God to ensure that it is as inclusive as possible, if some people can't believe that is there issue they don't have a right to salvation.

I don't believe anyone has a 'right' to salvation. I certainly don't.

Having said that, salvation is as inclusive as it can be in that it is open to all who desire it. The only way it could be more inclusive would be by forcing people to get saved against their will - and that takes us down the terrifying path of the Spanish Inquisition.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

So you could be wrong? It might not be merciful or gracious?

Any of us should have the humility to acknowledge that we might be wrong.

teg23

PDN

I don't think that your parable really works - for there are many different electrical outlets of goodness (and many vouchers of different hues). What about Holy Peats, the many limbs of Currys and her brother Dixons, perhaps even the grand old dame of Arnotts (do they accept the one true standard of True HD)?

Maybe your chap is happy with Setanta on the internets...(now that's weird)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I don't believe anyone has a 'right' to salvation. I certainly don't.

Having said that, salvation is as inclusive as it can be in that it is open to all who desire it. The only way it could be more inclusive would be by forcing people to get saved against their will - and that takes us down the terrifying path of the Spanish Inquisition.

Well getting back to the OP's point, for salvation to be more inclusive it would have to get passed the barrier of critical thinking that the OP points to. That does not require forcing people to be saved (I'm not sure where you get the Spanish Inquisition from, wasn't the bad thing about that the torture?), merely raising the standard of the evidence presented for the offer. Everyone has a different standard as to when they would think the offer is probably genuine, so you probably would never get everyone, but the higher the standard is raised the more inclusive it becomes.

I know what you are going to say, who are we to tell God he has to try harder to convince us of his offer

But the fact remains that some people simply do not believe the stories of the New Testament have been shown to be accurate and thus do not believe the offer of salvation is a real thing.

SonOfAdam

See here about the foolishness of the gospel

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

But the fact remains that some people simply do not believe the stories of the New Testament have been shown to be accurate and thus do not believe the offer of salvation is a real thing.

So their own unbelief stops them from accepting a great offer. Hardly a reason for them to argue with everyone else about unfair it is if they turn out to have made the wrong choices.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So their own unbelief stops them from accepting a great offer. Hardly a reason for them to argue with everyone else about unfair it is if they turn out to have made the wrong choices.

Fair enough, I figured that would be your position.

My point was in response to your assertion that the offer is as inclusive as it can be. It isn't, it is set up in a particular way that a lot of people are simply not going to believe it is true in the first place. But I appreciate that you don't see that as a reason to argue it is unfair.

JimiTime

SonOfAdam wrote: »

See here about the foolishness of the gospel

good read.

ColmDawson

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Take a look at yourself and the wonder of it all. Evidence of a God in my eyes.

In your eyes.

I agree that it would be easy to marvel at the world and think "How pretty, there must be a god". That is, before you see an earthquake kill thousands of people, or before you see a child who is being slowly and painfully blinded because she happened to be born in a country where the masses of poor people have to make do with filthy water.

Even if you think it's evidence for a god, it certainly isn't evidence for one religion's god being real and another religion's god being false. My hypothetical unconvinced man finds this a problem.

PDN wrote: »

A simple parable might explain this better

PDN, your fictional voucher-holders are able to see their king. They can touch him. His pronouncements could be recorded on video for the skeptics to watch in HD. The televisions and vouchers too are tangible. The same is not true of the Christian god, nor of his rewards; not believing (in) the king in the parable would be far less understandable than not being convinced that Yahweh exists.

PDN wrote: »

Now, the Gospel message is one of grace. It isn't actually fair! It means that instead of a fair world (where everyone gets what they deserve and go to hell) instead we have an opportunity to receive something that we don't deserve - salvation.

I think this might actually be the answer to my OP. I have a massive problem with it though. I don't actually think that hell is a fair punishment for anything. Certainly not for something like being an unrepentant liar. Definitely not for simply failing to believe.

Can we explore this area more?

PDN

ColmDawson wrote: »

I think this might actually be the answer to my OP. I have a massive problem with it though. I don't actually think that hell is a fair punishment for anything. Certainly not for something like being an unrepentant liar. Definitely not for simply failing to believe.

Can we explore this area more?

We can.

I see hell as being a place where people who choose to live without God get their wish granted. God leaves them alone and to their own devices, except, of course, that they are immortal and cannot die.

Sounds great, doesn't it? At least it does if you hold to a view that most people are inherently decent and altruistic. Unfortunately my study of history suggests that is not the case. I don't think God needs to create any fire in hell. If we were to live forever in the presence of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan, and those who launched the Crusades (and, of course, with the billions of proles who supported these monsters) then I think we will succeed in fashioning a suitably hellish environment for ourselves.

Btw, you're still spectacularly missing the point. Nobody gets punished in hell for failing to believe. That is like saying a murderer was sent to prison as punishment for not running fast enough from the police.

ColmDawson

PDN wrote: »

We can.

I see hell as being a place where people who choose to live without God get their wish granted. God leaves them alone and to their own devices, except, of course, that they are immortal and cannot die.

Sounds great, doesn't it? At least it does if you hold to a view that most people are inherently decent and altruistic. Unfortunately my study of history suggests that is not the case. I don't think God needs to create any fire in hell. If we were to live forever in the presence of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan, and those who launched the Crusades (and, of course, with the billions of proles who supported these monsters) then I think we will succeed in fashioning a suitably hellish environment for ourselves.

Where are you getting this vision of hell? Are you basing it on some scriptural description?

PDN wrote: »

Btw, you're still spectacularly missing the point. Nobody gets punished in hell for failing to believe. That is like saying a murderer was sent to prison as punishment for not running fast enough from the police.

I'm not following you here ... people go to hell for not believing in Jesus, don't they?

Zombrex

ColmDawson wrote: »

I'm not following you here ... people go to hell for not believing in Jesus, don't they?

People go to hell for sinning (as PDN says being evil, cruel, lying, cheating)

Jesus was a gift of salvation from hell for those who repented and accepted Jesus as savior. It was in effect an amnesty against hell, which you either accepted it or you didn't.

Everyone though is still deserving of hell.

Imagine the government give illegal immigrants an amnesty against jail. That doesn't mean that that the reason they send them to jail if they don't accept the amnesty is because they didn't accept it. They send those who don't accept the amnesty to jail because they are illegal immigrants.

If you don't take it up you are still sent to jail for being an illegal immigrant, not for refusing to taking up the amnesty. There is no law that says if you refuse an amnesty you are sent to jail for refusing it. You are sent to jail for the original crime

ColmDawson

Wicknight wrote: »

People go to hell for sinning (as PDN says being evil, cruel, lying, cheating)

Jesus was a gift of salvation from hell for those who repented and accepted Jesus as savior. It was in effect an amnesty against hell, which you either accepted it or you didn't.

Everyone though is still deserving of hell.

Imagine the government give illegal immigrants an amnesty against jail. That doesn't mean that that the reason they send them to jail if they don't accept the amnesty is because they didn't accept it. They send those who don't accept the amnesty to jail because they are illegal immigrants.

If you don't take it up you are still sent to jail for being an illegal immigrant, not for refusing to taking up the amnesty. There is no law that says if you refuse an amnesty you are sent to jail for refusing it. You are sent to jail for the original crime

The original crime in this case is being born?

PDN

ColmDawson wrote: »

The original crime in this case is being born?

No, I believe that children are innocent when they are born - even though they grow up to be as good as the rest of us at cheating, lying, being selfish, and insisting they need bigger and better toys, houses and cars while ignoring their fellow humans who are starving.

The crimes in our case are the sins that we commit. The first step to salvation is admitting we have a problem, and then accepting responsibility for our own choices and actions (rather than blaming God, Adam, or the government).

ColmDawson

PDN wrote: »

No, I believe that children are innocent when they are born - even though they grow up to be as good as the rest of us at cheating, lying, being selfish, and insisting they need bigger and better toys, houses and cars while ignoring their fellow humans who are starving.

The crimes in our case are the sins that we commit. The first step to salvation is admitting we have a problem, and then accepting responsibility for our own choices and actions (rather than blaming God, Adam, or the government).

This guy does bad things sometimes, like anyone else, but generally tries to be good. He makes monthly donations to Oxfam. He accepts responsibility for his choices and actions.

He would like to believe in the Christian god, but sees no reason to think it is true and all other religions are false. He does not believe things for which there is no evidence. He simply is not convinced.

What is his fate, in your view?

Also:

ColmDawson wrote: »

Where are you getting this vision of hell? Are you basing it on some scriptural description?

Zombrex

ColmDawson wrote: »

The original crime in this case is being born?

No, the original crime is all the crap stuff you have done in your life.

To a Christian (which I'm not by the way) no one but Jesus has ever lived a perfect life. You, like everyone else including PDN Wolfsbane, Fanny and all the other Christians here, have sinned against God, have lied cheated betrayed etc.

Depending on interpretation of hell in the Bible Christians either believe that this deserves punishment or simply the removal of oneself from God.

JimiTime

ColmDawson wrote: »

Where are you getting this vision of hell? Are you basing it on some scriptural description?

I would second that question. Its seems to be a fairly common dogma in modern Christian churches.

Fanny Cradock

After a bad start this thread has turned into a good read.

ColmDawson wrote: »

This guy does bad things sometimes, like anyone else, but generally tries to be good. He makes monthly donations to Oxfam. He accepts responsibility for his choices and actions.

He would like to believe in the Christian god, but sees no reason to think it is true and all other religions are false. He does not believe things for which there is no evidence. He simply is not convinced.

What is his fate, in your view?

Also:

If the only acceptable goal is holiness (or a perfect sinless life, if you will) it's not enough to be a good egg. Perfection isn't measured by gradation. You might finish one millisecond behind the winner in a race or you might finish one minute behind and it amounts to the same thing: you didn't win. Christianity isn't about tipping the scales towards salvation by increasing your Oxfam donations, it's about recognising that there is something broken in each of us. Recognising that even the best of us does, says and thinks evil things and, therefore, falls short of the glory of God.

As for the person who simply can't bring themselves to believe, I don't think that the road to atheism (or any "ism", for that matter) is entirely a journey of rationalism as some would have us believe. The biases and preconceptions that we all carry with us surely influences us in ways that aren't always obvious. To state otherwise - that one can divorce faith from emotional experience and replace the latter with rationalism - is to miss a vital component of what faith and humanness is about. Yes, there are some challenging stories out there - for example, the apostasy (for want of a kinder word) of Dan Barker - but I've yet to hear a story of unbelief that wasn't based in some part on an emotional reaction against the whole concept of God.

PDN

ColmDawson wrote: »

This guy does bad things sometimes, like anyone else, but generally tries to be good. He makes monthly donations to Oxfam. He accepts responsibility for his choices and actions.

He would like to believe in the Christian god, but sees no reason to think it is true and all other religions are false. He does not believe things for which there is no evidence. He simply is not convinced.

What is his fate, in your view?

In my view His fate is separation from God - i.e. hell.

The standard of righteousness to obtain eternal life is not hitting a pass mark of 50% or 60% where the odd donation to Oxfam (which for most of us, if we're honest, is less than we'd spend on a decent bottle of wine when eating out) makes up for all the selfish stuff we do. The standard of righteousness is 100% - and we've all missed it.

As for the reasons why this guy spurns God's offer of salvation, that is neither here nor there. A drowning man drowns whether he deliberately wants to drown or whether he's just unreasonably suspicious of the lifeboatman who threw him the lifebelt.

Originally Posted by ColmDawson
Where are you getting this vision of hell? Are you basing it on some scriptural description?

JimiTime wrote:

I would second that question. Its seems to be a fairly common dogma in modern Christian churches.

Not dogma, just my personal opinion based on my reading of Scripture.

The Bible speaks of eternal separation from God's presence. It doesn't, as far as I remember, stress the idea of God doing the punishing. It seems far more likely, knowing what both Scripture and history teach us about the ways of God and human nature, that man will torment his fellow man and, in the process, become more brutalised and dehumanised when left to his own devices.

ColmDawson

PDN wrote: »

As for the reasons why this guy spurns God's offer of salvation, that is neither here nor there. A drowning man drowns whether he deliberately wants to drown or whether he's just unreasonably suspicious of the lifeboatman who threw him the lifebelt.

It's not as simple as that. The man is being told he's drowning by lifeboatmen from every religion, and he knows that if their claims are true, one lifebelt leads to salvation and all others may not save him.

How can he choose, especially when there is no verifiable evidence for any of the claims (including the claim that he is drowning)?

He remains an unconvinced man, wishing he could believe, on his way to hell.

Splendour

ColmDawson wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. The man is being told he's drowning by lifeboatmen from every religion, and he knows that if their claims are true, one lifebelt leads to salvation and all others may not save him.

How can he choose, especially when there is no verifiable evidence for any of the claims (including the claim that he is drowning)?

He remains an unconvinced man, wishing he could believe, on his way to hell.

I think you'll find that Christianity is the only religion where one is offered the lifebelt without having to 'do' anything to get it. Now if I were drowning, I know which lifebelt I'd pick...

However, he remains unconvinced, (despite the niggling doubts), so obviously not in need of that lifebelt. Therefore he will splash around until he's exhausted and realises that need. Btw, he can't know he's on the way to hell if he doesn't believe...

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

I think you'll find that Christianity is the only religion where one is offered the lifebelt without having to 'do' anything to get it. Now if I were drowning, I know which lifebelt I'd pick...

However, he remains unconvinced, (despite the niggling doubts), so obviously not in need of that lifebelt. Therefore he will splash around until he's exhausted and realises that need. Btw, he can't know he's on the way to hell if he doesn't believe...

The analogy is bad I think. As ColmDawson points out it is not simply a case of picking Christianity or not picking it. There are lots of other religions that say they must be followed.

A better analogy is a man lost on a mountain in a fog.

He comes to a group of people who all turn to him. They each say that the man is in great peril because the mountain is dangerous and he can't see. Each says they know the correct path through the mountain, and each say that if they listen to the other guys they will end up falling to your death.

The man listens to one of the people and heads of in the direction he points. He ends up falling down the mountain, at which all the other people say "T'isk, how silly, he obviously should have listened to me, I know the correct route up the mountain"

The issue of course is that presented with all these options how does the man know which one is the correct route up the mountain?

Even if one of these people actually does know the correct way up the mountain, there is an argument that presenting it as just another voice in the mist, as it were, is not particularly helpful to the guy trying to get up the mountain, particularly if it is in the power of the man with the actual correct route to present it in a more convincing manner.

wolfsbane

ColmDawson wrote: »

This guy does bad things sometimes, like anyone else, but generally tries to be good. He makes monthly donations to Oxfam. He accepts responsibility for his choices and actions.

He would like to believe in the Christian god, but sees no reason to think it is true and all other religions are false. He does not believe things for which there is no evidence. He simply is not convinced.

What is his fate, in your view?

Also:

If he continues in unbelief, hell is his destination.

The picture you present of a sincere seeker after truth, who fails to be convinced by the gospel, is only skin-deep. The reality for us all is that we do have sufficient information from our conscience, informed by creation and an in-built knowledge of good and evil, that God is real. We have suppressed that knowledge, motivated by our love of self and by Satan's lies.

We think we are impartial seekers, but we are at best conflicted seekers - part of us seeks to find God, while another part desperately seeks to avoid Him.

God has given us witness to Himself in creation's majesty and in a moral conscience, and supremely in the gospel. Those who come to the end of their life still refusing to be convinced are guilty of knowingly refusing God's command to repent and believe.

This is where I must go beyond what PDN said: unbelief is itself a sin, as it is a wilful refusal to acknowledge the God whom we know is there. The sinner will in hell be punished for unbelief, as well as for the other offences.

1 John 5:10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.
_________________________________________________________________
Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

The willful suppression implies they know it is wrong, but refuse to accept that.

Indeed. And the suggestion is that aside from belief in God or the Bible-a-moral-authority, all men have installed in them a knowledge of good and evil (as defined by God)

That isn't really what ColmDawson asked. It is when you genuinely don't believe in God, genuinely don't therefore think the Bible has authority to dictate what is moral or not moral.

From above: you don't need to believe to suppress a knowledge of good and evil. You only need to be in possession of that knowlege and wifully suppress it. I was attempting to indicate how a person is declaring on the issue of God quite aside from whether they believe in God or not.

Abortion is probably a bad example since lots of atheists disagree with abortion, a better example is the genocide in the Old Testament, something that only has a justified reason, even by Christians standards, if God exists. Without conviction that God exists and sanctioned it it is wrong by any and all standards.

Whilst accepting that not all atheists agree with abortion, it is at least a good example: something relevant to mans dealing with good and evil for the purposes of explaining the model by which ColmDawson can be rightfully held to account.

I'd agree that a non-believer will see OT genocide as OTT. Not that there's a problem there: they would be in agreement with God due to their seeing the genocide as man-desired and not God-directed. God doesn't approve of man-desired genocide any more than the atheist does.

Or do you believe that you cannot genuinely feel that Christianity has not demonstrated its case for God's existence?

I don't believe Christianity can ever demonstrate it's case for God's existance. Only God can demonstrate the case for his existance.

antiskeptic

ColmDawson wrote: »

I'm suggesting that a person may have been presented with all of the 'evidence' for the Christian god's existence, but is not convinced by it. They genuinely wish it were true, but nothing they see convinces them.

No problem. They won't be condemned for not believing a case that wasn't compelling. It could have been a weak case. It could have been poorly presented by Christians. It's merits could have been hopelessly dissolved by the availability of plenty of equally reasonable explanations.

Not the fault of the unbeliever.

However, God isn't interested in whether you believe this or that intellectual argument. God is interested in what you response it to his call on you - a call delivered without your having to believe in him. The suggestion is that you respond to him all day, every day in your suppression (or no) of the knowledge of good and evil you were installed with when you were born.

You might have a choice as to your response. But you have no choice that respond you must. God will have everyone's answer to his question - we don't get to choose silence.

By the way, antiskeptic, your first possibility seems to suggest that the unconvinced person isn't at fault for their own lack of belief. Am I reading you correctly?

Partially. A person won't be convinced by any reasoned discussion. What happens is that a person is convinced by God (utilising the mechanism outlined above) and once convinced, he will open their eyes so that they see the reasoned discussion makes sense.

Without their eyes being opened a person see the reasoned disscussion and they aren't to blame for not seeing what they cannot see. They are to blamed for ensuring their eyes remain closed however.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

No, I think he is unfair in that He gives us a chance to be saved instead of letting us wallow undisturbed in the consequences of our own sin.

Hmm.

Suppose a child in the womb of a heroin-addicted mother. By the time of birth the child is an addict and will as soon as it is able, begin to inject itself. It comes to know that there is something untoward about it's addiction and struggles to be freed of it. But keeps on falling back into the pit.

Is it fair that the child be consigned to a life of misery for something it didn't bring about in itself?

Me? I think God's attempt to save us is a double-edged sword. If he didn't attempt to save us then we would be like the addicted-through-anothers-actions: we couldn't be justly held to account for the position someone else placed us in. But by attemping to save us we become culpable for our position if we willfully refuse.

Morbert

The most Christian book I have read has to be "The Stand" by Stephen King (Yes, even more than "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe"). And there's a couple of lines relevant to this thread.

"Why is God so forgiving?"
"He has to be. He is so demanding."

Fanny Cradock

Steven King corners the horror theology genre :eek: Will wonders never cease?

ColmDawson

I'm not sure people understand my question fully. Antiskeptic, you're talking about my hypothetical man "ensuring [his] eyes remain closed" and I don't see how any of the details of the man I offered could lead you to think that he's deliberately not seeing some god.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Not dogma, just my personal opinion based on my reading of Scripture.

The Bible speaks of eternal separation from God's presence. It doesn't, as far as I remember, stress the idea of God doing the punishing. It seems far more likely, knowing what both Scripture and history teach us about the ways of God and human nature, that man will torment his fellow man and, in the process, become more brutalised and dehumanised when left to his own devices.

Would you mind providing scriptural basis for this view? From what I can see, it talks about God throwing satan etc into the lake of fire. Jesus talks about gehenna etc. Could you expand on how you decipher the above from scripture?

ColmDawson

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you mind providing scriptural basis for this view? From what I can see, it talks about God throwing satan etc into the lake of fire. Jesus talks about gehenna etc. Could you expand on how you decipher the above from scripture?

I'm interested in this too.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

The most Christian book I have read has to be "The Stand" by Stephen King (Yes, even more than "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe"). And there's a couple of lines relevant to this thread.

"Why is God so forgiving?"
"He has to be. He is so demanding."

LOL, I know it's off topic, but 'The Stand' was one of the best SK books...'The Dome' is a good read too, great characters - but with a crap ending

...back on topic..

I'd say my own view would align pretty much with Antiskeptic

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you mind providing scriptural basis for this view? From what I can see, it talks about God throwing satan etc into the lake of fire. Jesus talks about gehenna etc. Could you expand on how you decipher the above from scripture?

I think I agree with PDN on this one, so may I?

I guess the best scripture reference one can come up with is Matt 1:1 - Rev 22:21. (Un)fortunately there is no single quote from the Bible that would undoubtedly support any particular view on Hell so it really depends on your understanding of the whole Gospel. We all use practically the same Bible but still can understand the Gospel slightly (and sometimes very) differently.

I think those of us who think that God does not punish us in Hell come to this with simple logical conclusions based on some premises gathered from the Bible. For example:

(A) God wants to save all sinners.
(B) Everything God does to us is for us to be saved.
Conclusion: The sole purpose of God punishing us is our salvation.

In the light of the above:
(A) Hell is the punishment with no chances of salvation.
(B) God is only punishing for salvation.
Conclusion: The punishment in Hell is not initiated by God.

Or:
(A) God wills to save everyone and therefore He does not will to punish anyone in Hell.
(B) Godis absolute sovereign and therefore does not do things that He does not want to do.
Conclusion: God does not punish people in Hell.

Another example would be:
(A) Hell is the ultimate death.
(B) God is the ultimate life and the ultimate antagonist of death.
Conclusion: God cannot send people to Hell at His will.

Saying that, I don't agree with PDN that Hell is separation from God's presence (and we use almost the same Bible ). I think it's rather the opposite: it's being eternally in presence of God. Whether that be experienced as Heaven or Hell completely depends on us and not on God as all he could do he has already done on the Cross. In other words, God did not create Hell but our sins do; God won't punish us in Hell but our sins will.

Slav

ColmDawson wrote: »

This guy does bad things sometimes, like anyone else, but generally tries to be good. He makes monthly donations to Oxfam. He accepts responsibility for his choices and actions.

He would like to believe in the Christian god, but sees no reason to think it is true and all other religions are false. He does not believe things for which there is no evidence. He simply is not convinced.

What is his fate, in your view?

I think this very case is dealt with in the New Testament.


Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
He said to Him, "Which ones?"
Jesus said, " 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'Honour your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' "
The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?"
Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
(Matt 19:16-21)

If we look at the history of Christianity, sometimes it's much easier for some criminals and prostitutes to find Christ rather then for some charitable and righteous. Perhaps it's because Hell is more apparent to them.

antiskeptic

ColmDawson wrote: »

Antiskeptic, you're talking about my hypothetical man "ensuring [his] eyes remain closed" and I don't see how any of the details of the man I offered could lead you to think that he's deliberately not seeing some god.

I'm not suggesting it's God that this man is keeping his eyes closed to. Not in the first instance in any case.

I am suggesting that every man is equipped by God to know good from evil - quite aside from whatever belief about God/gods he may have. Furthermore, it is suggested that every man, in suppressing what he knows to be good in order that he can do evil at times, makes a wilful choice w.r.t. this knowledge. These choices of his, for good or evil, go on to construct a mans final response to God in the arena of Gods provision of potential salvation. All without the man being aware that this is what is occurring or even that there is something to be saved from.

A man says yes/no to God indirectly - in other words.

Some will say 'yes' to God by this mechanism of wilful expression. Others will say 'no' by that same mechanism. There is no need for a person to believe in God on their way to giving him that final answer.