Three subjects I'd really, really like to discuss (and questions)

[Storico]

Okay. I've been sorting out, in my own mind, what I'd like to ask. And please, anyone do feel free to answer, but I'd especially appreciate those who answer to have come from any sort of spiritual perspective. After all, I know the arguments for my own perspective.

This isn't one more of my "let's find common ground" or "try to get inside each other's heads" type posts. Those tested the waters, and I found them fine and inviting, so to speak. And generally full of welcoming "fellow swimmers". (okay, enough with the figurative speech...)

Instead, I'd like to ask some serious questions here, and I hope you don't mind answering them to the best of your knowledge. Anything you do or don't want to answer will be respected. And as a disclaimer, I don't mean to offend at all. Just to ask or to comment. The way I'd like to set this up, for convenience's sake: my comments/explanations/examples are just in regular font and my questions are italicized.

First of all, I recognize that the Judeo-Christian concept of God is the strongest in the world right now. People truly value it. Some love it, some can't stand it, some make peace with it while others fight over it. But it's by no means the only concept of God that people feel so strongly about, either now or in the past. I know a fundamentalist Sunni Muslim (his own description) who says he loves Allah dearly (not merely obeys or worships or respects or fears), and LOVES the life he lives serving Allah. I know a Hindu woman who says her religious beliefs and community are so special to her that she'd never give them up for the world. I've read the many, many historical accounts of people who felt great joy when they believed any one of the ancient gods had favoured them, and they wept with sorrow when they thought one of the gods had been angered. Gods have been "very real" to nearly everyone who's ever acknowledged one. It's true that some incarnations or ideas about/of God are more abstract and distant.... but the one thing I really see about Christianity is the emphasis on "knowing God personally" -- and yet others have "known their Gods personally". I've been assured, respectively, by a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Sikh, a Jew and many, many Christians that their views of God are absolute, loving, life affirming and wonderful -- and that they wouldn't trade them. If I can assume that the people I've talked to are honest and trust-worthy and not at all overemphasizing the merits of their own belief system (and I can never be 100% sure of that), then it would seem that all are very nearly on about the same footing, with Christianity being the best well known of them all.

How can this be, if there's actually just ONE god out there to know and love? How do we know for SURE which one it is? Or at the very least, beyond a reasonable doubt? Is there any possibility that if God existed, he could reveal himself to different people in different ways?


Secondly... I'll admit one of my hang-ups when it comes to belief: the way a lot of it across different religions refuses to accept the scientific method. There's such wide disagreement between religions over it. Some say "what we do IS scientific", but others (as well as the nonreligious) maintain that the moment you insert an unchangeable absolute into the middle of science (ie, God), what you're arguing for isn't truly scientific anymore because there's no way to TEST for the presence of God. No physical way, anyhow. We can't mix two chemicals and have a new colour invent itself called "God". (Although I'd be fascinated!) We can't look at the "historical evidence", since no original manuscripts actually survive and the ones we have (ie, copies) were still copied by mortals (who, as we've all heard, are apt to err on occasion).

So how can we understand science (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, astrophysics, etc etc) properly? Do we have to add God into it? Should we, even?

Thirdly and lastly (for now)... biggest hangup: Okay. I'll admit it. I have a negative emotional AND intellectual reaction to the idea of hell. The Christian belief system in particular makes no bones about it: if you believe in Christ, you'll go to heaven. If you don't believe, or refuse to believe or to make a choice for Christ, you'll go to hell. Intellectually, I can understand the "every choice has consequences" idea. But... an eternal consequence for a non-eternal choice? Unchangeable infinity, eternity, for a choice made in (most often) far less than 80 or 90 years here? It doesn't seem quite just. That aside, even if I were to concede the INTELLECTUAL point and say "we don't know for sure how long it is or what hell really consists of, but we KNOW God's Just"....here's my question:

I've had more than one person die who I know for a fact wasn't Christian at all (and had no problem openly denouncing religion in general).

One such person was a friend of mine, and he died in 2003, very suddenly, following a seizure one night. And my friend wasn't Christian. Or religious at all. He was, to be bluntly clear, a raving atheist nut who was obsessed with nature and geology and he was going to go save all the trees on earth as soon as he was done college. And suddenly... he was gone. It goes against every EMOTIONAL aspect OF me to say "he's in hell now", but according to Christian theology, that's precisely either where he is or where he'll be come judgment time, depending on which view you subscribe to. At a campus crusade for Christ meeting, I even had one of the meeting's leaders tell me how sorry she was that my friend died unsaved, because we all "unfortunately know what that means". I walked out. No, I didn't "know what that meant", and no, I wasn't going to get into a big huge flaming fight ending in tears (mine) over it, either. Fact is, he was a good person. He was an ethical person. A funny person. A caring, kind person. Not the sort of person you'd say ought to be in "hell" being punished.

So, my question: A belief in hell is DIRECTLY related to salvation. If it weren't, then what Christ did wouldn't matter much if hell didn't actually exist. If it's merely a 'place of separation from God' or a complete annihilation, that's one thing. But if it's a place of torment... why, exactly, would I benefit from starting to believe in such a place? So I could torture myself daily with the knowledge that that's where a dear friend is, and that's where other family members of mine 'will be' if they don't change their views on God?

I suppose you could answer and say "but you can let them know who God is" -- and it gets back to question one. Even I don't know that. And about my friend... people have told me "you don't know what happened in the last moments of his life. Maybe he finally accepted God in those last few moments." -- well, maybe so. But according to the medical and news reports, he had a massive seizure, his body spasmed and flipped over, and he suffocated on his own pillow. I doubt very much that any part of him was conscious enough to have a conversation with God.



I've probably made myself more vulnerable and personal here than I ever have before on an internet forum. And I might regret it later. But then again, I never regret speaking honestly, I never regret asking questions and growing... so I probably won't regret this in the long run. Please understand that this is the place I'm coming from: I'm an atheist today NOT because I hate God or because I want to advocate secular culture -- it has enough of it's own problems. But I have the beliefs (or lack thereof) that I do because, for the life of me, I don't see how the idea of a good, compassionate, loving Father quite meshes with the reality of actual religious belief, scientific evidence, or the fact that minor mistakes and disobediences don't deserve HELL... forgiveness or the demand for an apology, perhaps, but not eternal punishment. So I lack a belief in God because so far, I haven't seen evidence for one that works for me. That's being brutally honest, I think, and fair to everyone for whom their idea of God DOES work.

I know people who are good, compassionate, and loving. They claim they're that way because of God. But alas... I can only know them, and appreciate them for being that way entirely of their own volition. So I do.

Thanks for your time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hiya Storico. I guess you knew I'd be one of the first to give an answer. For the sake of brevity, I've only left the questions themselves in. You know what you said after all.

How can this be, if there's actually just ONE god out there to know and love? How do we know for SURE which one it is? Or at the very least, beyond a reasonable doubt? Is there any possibility that if God existed, he could reveal himself to different people in different ways?

I will say I have no problem with God revealing himself in different ways to different people. Hebrews 1 tells us that in the past, God spoke in various ways but in these last days, he's spoken by his Son.

I have a problem though with God speaking in contradictory ways.

In Christian thought, God is the basis of all truth. All true knowledge is that which is true in the mind of God. Truth by its very definition cannot contradict. Thus, when I see how God reveals himself, I expect it to not contradict. I find this important when how I interpret Scripture because I know what I read in the Bible is not to contradict what I see when I walk outside my door.

I will say that too much in evangelicalism has built on a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." I understand what that means and all, but I don't see it in Scripture. I don't see prayer as a dialogue in Scripture where I pray, "Good evening Lord" and hear "Good evening Nick. You seem to be doing well today." "I sure am Lord. "Glad to hear it son. Glad to hear it." I don't believe God is beaming down answers into my head to all of my personal questions.

Does this mean God isn't interested in me? No. He definitely is for he sent his Son. He's left his Word also so that I may know him better. I think God just knows how we humans handle experiences and we focus more on ourselves then than on him.

I would say though that the Christian God is uniquely personal in that only the Christian God is triune. This means that God is relational within himself and thus, I am relational as well being in his image. This also applies to my ethics. Each person of the Trinity treats each other for who they are and not what they do. I should treat my fellow man the same way. (I know I fall drastically short!)

Thus, I do think you can find who God is and I would say consult the great religions of the world. Put them to the test. See if they're coherent. I'd also check the great philosophers of the world. Read Plato and Aristotle and see what they said about God. They got a lot wrong and they got a lot right. See what's really true. Remember that truth will not contradict.

So how can we understand science (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, astrophysics, etc etc) properly? Do we have to add God into it? Should we, even?

Excellent question! I would start this way. Archaeology for instance can show us the Bible is reliable in many historical accounts. However, just because we've found the pool of Bethesda as John described it does not prove that Jesus performed a miracle though. I certainly think the reliability of archaeology with the Bible does lead to the conclusion that these were reliable writers.

I will say that the scientific method is NOT the only test for truth though. (Can you scientifically prove the scientific method is the best test for truth?) I believe there are other tests such as something being non-contradictory. The scientific method though works GREAT on physical objects and we should be thankful for it.

My belief is that there really is no war between religion and science. It is only people who misunderstand either who suppose that. However, science is about physical data and can only tell you about the physical world by physical means though. There are some questions science can't answer through physical means.

What is love? How do I treat my neighbor? How should I raise my children? What is the meaning of life? What is worthwhile under the sun?

Science should answer the questions it was meant to answer. For others though, we need philosophers and ethicists and theologians.

So, my question: A belief in hell is DIRECTLY related to salvation. If it weren't, then what Christ did wouldn't matter much if hell didn't actually exist. If it's merely a 'place of separation from God' or a complete annihilation, that's one thing. But if it's a place of torment... why, exactly, would I benefit from starting to believe in such a place? So I could torture myself daily with the knowledge that that's where a dear friend is, and that's where other family members of mine 'will be' if they don't change their views on God?

I suppose you could answer and say "but you can let them know who God is" -- and it gets back to question one. Even I don't know that. And about my friend... people have told me "you don't know what happened in the last moments of his life. Maybe he finally accepted God in those last few moments." -- well, maybe so. But according to the medical and news reports, he had a massive seizure, his body spasmed and flipped over, and he suffocated on his own pillow. I doubt very much that any part of him was conscious enough to have a conversation with God.

We all know people who have died non-Christians. It's not a comforting fact to either of us. Let's set one point straight at the beginning.

How you feel about something does not necessarily determine if it is right or wrong.

Now I find it interesting that you also put this after the scientific method. I think you should consider that since these ideas of justice cannot be determined by the scientific method.

I will also say I do not believe Hell is a literal fiery furnace. I believe it's a figure of speech. I view it more as an eternal quarantine. It is a place of sorrow and darkness and misery where those there will know that they have ultimately blown it for all time by rejecting the only true God of value.

So why in there so long?

Because the length of a crime does not determine how hideous the crime is.

Storico. Let's suppose I find where you live and I study your coming in and out patterns for months and then one day, I break in and rob you of all you have. It's a terrible crime. The poilce arrest me and for theft, I spend 5 years in jail. I spent 6 months let's say watching and then acting and I pay for it with 5 years.

Now suppose I'm just angry with you and you come out one day and I pull a gun out and shoot you.

That was a day and the courts sentence me to life.

The length it took is irrelevant. It's what the crime is.

What is the crime? Well Storico, if God exists and is the greatest good and did send his Son to die for us, what kind of crime is it to say "I don't care about you or what you value or that you sent your Son for me? I'm doing it my own way."

In essence, that is what God lets you do. He lets you do it your own way. You get the consequences. It is an infinite crime because it is committed against an infinite God.

I'd also add what I believe it was either Moody or Spurgeon who said. If a preacher is going to preach on Hell, he'd better have tears in his eyes.

Storico. I hope that helps. If you have more questions, I'm always here. You can also post in the Intro to Christian Theology forum for more one-on-one question and answer.

[Sevivon1913]

First of all, I recognize that the Judeo-Christian concept of God is the strongest in the world right now. People truly value it. Some love it, some can't stand it, some make peace with it while others fight over it. But it's by no means the only concept of God that people feel so strongly about, either now or in the past. I know a fundamentalist Sunni Muslim (his own description) who says he loves Allah dearly (not merely obeys or worships or respects or fears), and LOVES the life he lives serving Allah. I know a Hindu woman who says her religious beliefs and community are so special to her that she'd never give them up for the world. I've read the many, many historical accounts of people who felt great joy when they believed any one of the ancient gods had favoured them, and they wept with sorrow when they thought one of the gods had been angered. Gods have been "very real" to nearly everyone who's ever acknowledged one. It's true that some incarnations or ideas about/of God are more abstract and distant.... but the one thing I really see about Christianity is the emphasis on "knowing God personally" -- and yet others have "known their Gods personally". I've been assured, respectively, by a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Sikh, a Jew and many, many Christians that their views of God are absolute, loving, life affirming and wonderful -- and that they wouldn't trade them. If I can assume that the people I've talked to are honest and trust-worthy and not at all overemphasizing the merits of their own belief system (and I can never be 100% sure of that), then it would seem that all are very nearly on about the same footing, with Christianity being the best well known of them all.

How can this be, if there's actually just ONE god out there to know and love? How do we know for SURE which one it is? Or at the very least, beyond a reasonable doubt? Is there any possibility that if God existed, he could reveal himself to different people in different ways?

First of all, the only reason Christianity is the most popular conception of God is because the British Empire imposed it on 20 % of the globe. It is proliferated today by people out to make money and by vested elitist interests in society.

God has many faces, but they all lead to the transcendent. All are true. Krisha, Christ, Buddha, Dionysus, Baal,........they are all man-made inventions, but the faith and prayer of their adherents ring true and connect with the transcendent God. God hears all prayers, no matter whether you are addressing them to a myth. It isn't the name, or the image you are connecting to. When you reach the transcendent level of "Om" (as Buddhists call it) ...oneness with God and the universe......you join with God, no matter what you call him or how to see him.

Does this make all religions true? no. God is One. What I am saying is that the "Om" people experience during prayer, their oneness with the Creator, is always God, because beside God there is no other. You cannot transcend beyond God, or to any other than God. Unfortunately, idolitory leads people to a lower level of "Om", and they do not fully connect with the transcendent God.......but they do almost touch on him (or her). However, I don't believe many people are genuine idolators. For example, Hindus are essentially monotheist (pantheist) in their view of God, and view Krishna, etc as merely manifestations of the same one God. Christianity, however, is difficult to assess. It worships a man, who is said to be God, and not just a manifestatinof God. In this respect, I would argue that Christianity is among the worst, least truthful, and most incapable of reaching the transcendent God out of all other religions.

The most important thing: to worship *GOD* (ONE deity) and no other.

In all my studies of religion, I have concluded that all religions are based on archetypes which, though they differ in various aspects, are all primordial and the same in every society and culture (see Joseph Campbell's works for great info on that). What they ALL have in common (some better than others) is the belief in the TRANSCENDENT. It doesn't have to be "God"........it's the belief in an abstract oneness that is possible between Creator and Creation.

Secondly... I'll admit one of my hang-ups when it comes to belief: the way a lot of it across different religions refuses to accept the scientific method. There's such wide disagreement between religions over it. Some say "what we do IS scientific", but others (as well as the nonreligious) maintain that the moment you insert an unchangeable absolute into the middle of science (ie, God), what you're arguing for isn't truly scientific anymore because there's no way to TEST for the presence of God. No physical way, anyhow. We can't mix two chemicals and have a new colour invent itself called "God". (Although I'd be fascinated!) We can't look at the "historical evidence", since no original manuscripts actually survive and the ones we have (ie, copies) were still copied by mortals (who, as we've all heard, are apt to err on occasion).

So how can we understand science (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, astrophysics, etc etc) properly? Do we have to add God into it? Should we, even?

If a religion contradicts science, then it is in error and man-made. However, they still may link to the transcendent. No holy book is really written by God --- God has no opposable thumb. Thus, religion must never come before SCIENCE (which IS truelly written by God).

Mystical spirituality doesn't exist in this universe. It transcends it, and cannot be perceived except through abstract thinking. Indeed, there is no evidence it exists. What is for sure is that spirituality does not impose supernatural events in this universe. Miracles do not happen.

Thirdly and lastly (for now)... biggest hangup: Okay. I'll admit it. I have a negative emotional AND intellectual reaction to the idea of hell. The Christian belief system in particular makes no bones about it: if you believe in Christ, you'll go to heaven. If you don't believe, or refuse to believe or to make a choice for Christ, you'll go to hell. Intellectually, I can understand the "every choice has consequences" idea. But... an eternal consequence for a non-eternal choice? Unchangeable infinity, eternity, for a choice made in (most often) far less than 80 or 90 years here? It doesn't seem quite just. That aside, even if I were to concede the INTELLECTUAL point and say "we don't know for sure how long it is or what hell really consists of, but we KNOW God's Just"....here's my question:

I've had more than one person die who I know for a fact wasn't Christian at all (and had no problem openly denouncing religion in general).

One such person was a friend of mine, and he died in 2003, very suddenly, following a seizure one night. And my friend wasn't Christian. Or religious at all. He was, to be bluntly clear, a raving atheist nut who was obsessed with nature and geology and he was going to go save all the trees on earth as soon as he was done college. And suddenly... he was gone. It goes against every EMOTIONAL aspect OF me to say "he's in hell now", but according to Christian theology, that's precisely either where he is or where he'll be come judgment time, depending on which view you subscribe to. At a campus crusade for Christ meeting, I even had one of the meeting's leaders tell me how sorry she was that my friend died unsaved, because we all "unfortunately know what that means". I walked out. No, I didn't "know what that meant", and no, I wasn't going to get into a big huge flaming fight ending in tears (mine) over it, either. Fact is, he was a good person. He was an ethical person. A funny person. A caring, kind person. Not the sort of person you'd say ought to be in "hell" being punished.

So, my question: A belief in hell is DIRECTLY related to salvation. If it weren't, then what Christ did wouldn't matter much if hell didn't actually exist. If it's merely a 'place of separation from God' or a complete annihilation, that's one thing. But if it's a place of torment... why, exactly, would I benefit from starting to believe in such a place? So I could torture myself daily with the knowledge that that's where a dear friend is, and that's where other family members of mine 'will be' if they don't change their views on God?

I suppose you could answer and say "but you can let them know who God is" -- and it gets back to question one. Even I don't know that. And about my friend... people have told me "you don't know what happened in the last moments of his life. Maybe he finally accepted God in those last few moments." -- well, maybe so. But according to the medical and news reports, he had a massive seizure, his body spasmed and flipped over, and he suffocated on his own pillow. I doubt very much that any part of him was conscious enough to have a conversation with God.



I've probably made myself more vulnerable and personal here than I ever have before on an internet forum. And I might regret it later. But then again, I never regret speaking honestly, I never regret asking questions and growing... so I probably won't regret this in the long run. Please understand that this is the place I'm coming from: I'm an atheist today NOT because I hate God or because I want to advocate secular culture -- it has enough of it's own problems. But I have the beliefs (or lack thereof) that I do because, for the life of me, I don't see how the idea of a good, compassionate, loving Father quite meshes with the reality of actual religious belief, scientific evidence, or the fact that minor mistakes and disobediences don't deserve HELL... forgiveness or the demand for an apology, perhaps, but not eternal punishment. So I lack a belief in God because so far, I haven't seen evidence for one that works for me. That's being brutally honest, I think, and fair to everyone for whom their idea of God DOES work.

I know people who are good, compassionate, and loving. They claim they're that way because of God. But alas... I can only know them, and appreciate them for being that way entirely of their own volition. So I do.

Thanks for your time.

Hell is repugnant to me, too. I used to have nightmares about it after I rejected Christianity (I knew it was false, yet in me was a fear of "what if i am wrong".......but only clever people admit they might be wrong, which is why so many christians are so dogmatic and refuse to entertain that they may be wrong)

Don't worry. Your friend is not in hell, and never will be. Why? Because hell isn't just an intolerable idea for you personally.......God finds such a concept intolerable too. Which is why God never created it, and it doesn't exist.

Hell is nowhere in the Torah (the books of Moses). Christians stole the idea from other pagans to frighten people into obedience.

It all comes down to this......... all the so-called expert Christians are wrong. They have spent their entire lives studying to no avail. You conclude that Christianity is not true? Well, do you think these "experts" have access to more information than you, and have higher intellect? I see no reason to think so. They spend their whole lives learning to pretend they're more intelligent than you. They've actually very stupid people. They use the basic teachings in the New Testament and then try to change them into using larger vocabulary, more complex arguments.......but it all comes down to the basics, in the end (and that's where they fail).

In the end, I believe we all return to God.........we were created out of God's spirit, and we will return to him. God is IN ALL OF US. God is in everything. Why? Because the universe exists INSIDE God. The universe and God are one and the same. Nothing exists outside of God, therefore we must be part of God. So, the notion of hell runs contrary to the oneness of the universe and the creator. Why would God put some of creation in hell? This is silly, it would require that God put some of himself in hell. God is ONE. God is not divided.

Ultimately.......Jew or Hindu........the goal is to re-unite with the transcendent God. And everyone will, eventually. Maye there is a purgatory. It is definately a Jewish belief that there is a purgatory, to purify our souls before we go to paradise. But, a hell? NO! Hell is not in the Torah or the Tanakh, and so I seriously doubt Jesus believed in it, either. It's a disgusting idea which sickens me.

What freaks me out the most is that Christians can simulteneously believe in eternal hellfire for non-christians, while at the same time find joy in life. How can you enjoy life with such a morbid belief? Such a thing can't be forgotten or shoved to oneside. How could you enjoy reading a book, knowing its author is in hell? Or watch movies, knowing that the non-christian actors/actresses will burn in hell? etc etc.........I think Christians who don't worry (aren't upset) about hell are false Christians, who care about nobody but themselves. To such people, Jesus will say: "Be gone from me, I know you not"


Sevi

[Storico]

Nick and Sevi, thank you both very much for your responses. Because I've got about 20 minutes before I need to run out the door for the day I can't respond to either, but I wanted to thank you both for your perspectives and I'll certainly get to your ideas later as soon as I can. And if anyone else would like to respond.. I'll likewise get back to you, too.

[Storico]

I had a really positive experience today. It seems like it was just 'lined up'. In my (vaguely religious) philosophy class this morning, I arrived ready to discuss the readings we'd done. Instead, my professor said "we won't be discussing the readings today. I'd like to talk about what this particular philosopher (Bernard Lonergan) thinks about religious experience. How do WE experience religion? What are some of our biggest roadblocks to seeking God?"

I could recite the entire lessor verbatim, nearly, but instead I'll just say what stuck the most with me: KEEP YOUR MIND OPEN to different ways of knowing, and different kinds of experiences. And I honestly want to do that. If I want to really get anywhere in conversation with someone, I need to be at least open. I'm open. I changed my 'religious status' (removed the atheist symbol) as well as my signature to reflect something I'm trying very, very hard to embark on. While I'd like to explain the lecture further (and I might later post my lecture notes here with my professor's permission)... several somethings sunk in today that, I think, are really important... At least two (the first two) of my questions were discussed in class today, in GREAT detail. And it's a lot to think about, but wow, am I ever more interested than I've ever been...

I'll reflect more on all of it later when I have the time, in reference to the comments both of you made (or that others want to make now)... Take care and thank you again, so much, both of you for helping me get the ball rolling so far. I'm taking as much time as I need here, but I'm happy to be taking the time.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's good Storico, I want to answer your last question in a bit more detal (not to step on your toes Nick, but I think it requires a womens' touch). However; I'd like to go to bed soon, it's 3:15AM here. Don't worry... I'll get back to it on the 2nd (since T-web will be closed on the 1st).


Talk to you soon,

Crystal

[Storico]

That's good Storico, I want to answer your last question in a bit more detal (not to step on your toes Nick, but I think it requires a womens' touch). However; I'd like to go to bed soon, it's 3:15AM here. Don't worry... I'll get back to it on the 2nd (since T-web will be closed on the 1st).


Talk to you soon,

Crystal

Crystal, thanks. I'm looking forward to your response. When you get this (on the 2nd or whenever, since it's 10 pm EST right now, Nov 30th) I'm looking forward to your response.

Hope you're doin' great, girl.

Laura

[ApologiaPhoenix]

That's good Storico, I want to answer your last question in a bit more detal (not to step on your toes Nick, but I think it requires a womens' touch). However; I'd like to go to bed soon, it's 3:15AM here. Don't worry... I'll get back to it on the 2nd (since T-web will be closed on the 1st).


Talk to you soon,

Crystal

No toe-stepping felt Crystal. One body. Many parts.

[Storico]

Hi there. I wanted to answer the points you made, or at least, address them. And thank you again for them.

I will say I have no problem with God revealing himself in different ways to different people. Hebrews 1 tells us that in the past, God spoke in various ways but in these last days, he's spoken by his Son.

I have a problem though with God speaking in contradictory ways.

In Christian thought, God is the basis of all truth. All true knowledge is that which is true in the mind of God. Truth by its very definition cannot contradict. Thus, when I see how God reveals himself, I expect it to not contradict. I find this important when how I interpret Scripture because I know what I read in the Bible is not to contradict what I see when I walk outside my door.

That's a very valid point. I was talking about this earlier today with a prof of mine, who was saying that the way we discern which religious experience is the one we're going to follow is to ask whether it's transcendent but whether it's logical and honest and non-contradictory. If we know love is what we ought to hold up as the example, then anything without love can't possibly be real. It was an interesting point, and I like the way you worded it. Something to really think about.

I will say that too much in evangelicalism has built on a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." I understand what that means and all, but I don't see it in Scripture. I don't see prayer as a dialogue in Scripture where I pray, "Good evening Lord" and hear "Good evening Nick. You seem to be doing well today." "I sure am Lord. "Glad to hear it son. Glad to hear it." I don't believe God is beaming down answers into my head to all of my personal questions.

Does this mean God isn't interested in me? No. He definitely is for he sent his Son. He's left his Word also so that I may know him better. I think God just knows how we humans handle experiences and we focus more on ourselves then than on him.

It's interesting that in humanity's search for meaning, we've personified God to such an extent that we've made him no greater than the elderly neighbor next door. (We respect him, wouldn't step on his grass, would maybe expect him to be kindly if we were 'good kids')... but in my OWN reading of the Bible (and other religious texts, for that matter), God's INTEREST seems to be there... but not that kind of casual, open-ended 'personal relationship' stuff where you pray and tell him all about how you flunked your math test or blew a car tire. If prayer's anything, it's GOT to have more significance than that. I can understand the concept that if God were there, he'd likely care and show it in some way. But I couldn't ever personalize it to the extent, I don't think, where I'd be concerned about mundane things like God helping me find the right gift for someone or pass a class or whatever. There are starving, dying people in the world. Maybe prayer is better spent asking a God to help you help them? (And by 'you', I mean a general anybody, not YOU)

I would say though that the Christian God is uniquely personal in that only the Christian God is triune. This means that God is relational within himself and thus, I am relational as well being in his image. This also applies to my ethics. Each person of the Trinity treats each other for who they are and not what they do. I should treat my fellow man the same way. (I know I fall drastically short!)

Could you explain this statement a little more, when you have time? I'm not sure how God being relational to himself makes humans be relational because they're made in his image. If it's the case that we're relational to God so easily, then the idea of sin separating us from God doesn't make sense to me.

And I absolutely agree that we should treat each other with dignity, for being exactly who we are.

Thus, I do think you can find who God is and I would say consult the great religions of the world. Put them to the test. See if they're coherent. I'd also check the great philosophers of the world. Read Plato and Aristotle and see what they said about God. They got a lot wrong and they got a lot right. See what's really true. Remember that truth will not contradict.

Challenge accepted. I'm very familiar with both Plato and Aristotle (as well as with some of their contemporaries and those answering or refuting their claims, like Aquinas, Augustine and Anselm). I've studied world religions GENERALLY so as to be familiar with the ideas behind each, but really putting each one to the test to see about that coherence is worthwhile, I'd say. And no. The truth won't contradict.



*just below about science*

Excellent question! I would start this way. Archaeology for instance can show us the Bible is reliable in many historical accounts. However, just because we've found the pool of Bethesda as John described it does not prove that Jesus performed a miracle though. I certainly think the reliability of archaeology with the Bible does lead to the conclusion that these were reliable writers.

I will say that the scientific method is NOT the only test for truth though. (Can you scientifically prove the scientific method is the best test for truth?) I believe there are other tests such as something being non-contradictory. The scientific method though works GREAT on physical objects and we should be thankful for it.

My belief is that there really is no war between religion and science. It is only people who misunderstand either who suppose that. However, science is about physical data and can only tell you about the physical world by physical means though. There are some questions science can't answer through physical means.

What is love? How do I treat my neighbor? How should I raise my children? What is the meaning of life? What is worthwhile under the sun?

Science should answer the questions it was meant to answer. For others though, we need philosophers and ethicists and theologians.

This is one more thing we were talking about today (my prof and I) -- that there is more than one way of knowing. In fact, there are several. And like you said, there ARE questions science can't answer. And they're questions SOMEONE has to answer, even if it's only ever us answering them for ourselves. To be fair to science, though, scientists don't usually try to answer situational ethics or the meaning of life. They stick with the concrete knowable and observable, because they figure there are enough ethicists and theologians who'll tackle the questions they don't care to.

We all know people who have died non-Christians. It's not a comforting fact to either of us. Let's set one point straight at the beginning.

How you feel about something does not necessarily determine if it is right or wrong.

I know that very, very well. Something can be right or wrong objectively, regardless of what I think of it subjectively. On the other hand, having a very subjective emotional bias REALLY doesn't make dealing with objective "fact" EASY.

Now I find it interesting that you also put this after the scientific method. I think you should consider that since these ideas of justice cannot be determined by the scientific method.

It's coincidence I put ideas of justice right after the scientific method. I actually chopped my original post down by about half, and part of what got hacked was between the two. Had I left it without reformatting and re-phrasing, you'd have something bordering a novella.

I will also say I do not believe Hell is a literal fiery furnace. I believe it's a figure of speech. I view it more as an eternal quarantine. It is a place of sorrow and darkness and misery where those there will know that they have ultimately blown it for all time by rejecting the only true God of value.

So why in there so long?

Because the length of a crime does not determine how hideous the crime is.

Storico. Let's suppose I find where you live and I study your coming in and out patterns for months and then one day, I break in and rob you of all you have. It's a terrible crime. The poilce arrest me and for theft, I spend 5 years in jail. I spent 6 months let's say watching and then acting and I pay for it with 5 years.

Now suppose I'm just angry with you and you come out one day and I pull a gun out and shoot you.

That was a day and the courts sentence me to life.

The length it took is irrelevant. It's what the crime is.

What is the crime? Well Storico, if God exists and is the greatest good and did send his Son to die for us, what kind of crime is it to say "I don't care about you or what you value or that you sent your Son for me? I'm doing it my own way."

In essence, that is what God lets you do. He lets you do it your own way. You get the consequences. It is an infinite crime because it is committed against an infinite God.

I'd also add what I believe it was either Moody or Spurgeon who said. If a preacher is going to preach on Hell, he'd better have tears in his eyes.

While I really appreciate your explanation and your interpretation, I still have a lot of reservations about accepting such a concept immediately and without hesitations. That's understandable, I'm hoping. But I still don't, in particular, think that the punishment fits the crime.

I'll give an illustration of why I think that's the case: here on earth, if you were to murder me, the murder might only take less than a minute and you'd either be given a life sentence or depending on where you lived, a death sentence. But this doesn't correlate to 'eternal' terms. If we refuse God's gift, then at the worst, we're offending God. It's true that that would be pretty bad... bad, that is, if God hadn't given us the option of accepting the gift. As it is, God has said "Take my gift or not. It's your choice." -- It's not truly a free choice with equally good alternatives if offending God lands us in hell.

And that's the other thing. Whether hell's a fiery furnace or not, the punishment also doesn't fit the crime because on earth, we give either a life sentence or death row to a person who murders another. Either way, we've ended freedom for them as they know it. But to reject God's offer would be to offend him. Just offend him. We wouldn't be murdering him, or restricting him, or ending his life. We couldn't, even if we wanted to. When humans killed Jesus they didn't kill God, right? He knew he wasn't going to truly, actually die completely and stay gone. (I mean no offense in saying this. Just saying it the way I've understood it.)

Here's a scenario: a friend of mine is desperately poor. Starving. In financial ruin. I offer to pay off all her debts, give her all the food she needs, and turn her completely around if she'll let me. She doesn't let me. In fact, she's so stubborn that she doesn't even return my first phone call. She gets herself more and more into debt and hungrier by the day. Now understandably, I'd be offended, right? I'd be upset, and frustrated. I'd be offering her something she couldn't give herself, and she'd be refusing to take it -- even if it was the only thing that could save her life.

But even so, it WOULDN'T follow that I'd ignore her and abandon her when she turned my offer down. I couldn't do that to a friend I loved. While I wouldn't be able to HELP her since she refused the help, I also wouldn't get her into MORE trouble or present her with MORE misery. And I wouldn't continue to either torment her OR keep her in misery forever. You might argue that she was making HERSELF miserable and that I couldn't do much about that, but I'd still ALWAYS keep the lines of communication open.

And that's what I see hell as: more misery heaped on people who might have offended, but never did anything more than reject a free gift. Such an action
surely doesn't deserve ETERNAL rejection. What if there were someone in hell BEGGING God to let them out? Would God actually be incapable of doing so? Would his hands be tied? Would he be morally adverse to doing so? Unlike my example, the hell that I've heard of ultimately slams EVERY door shut. No second chances. I find that to be particularly odd. If a human as ordinary as me would be willing to grant them, wouldn't God be even more willing, times a billion or so?

Storico. I hope that helps. If you have more questions, I'm always here. You can also post in the Intro to Christian Theology forum for more one-on-one question and answer.

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate the conversation. It gets me thinking!!

Take care!

[lilpixieofterror]

Thirdly and lastly (for now)... biggest hangup: Okay. I'll admit it. I have a negative emotional AND intellectual reaction to the idea of hell.

Nick is quite correct that emotions do not determine rather or not something exist. However; I do not think or believe hell is a place of tocture. It's a place where sin is contained, in other words, it's your choice in life that sends you to heaven/hell.

The Christian belief system in particular makes no bones about it: if you believe in Christ, you'll go to heaven. If you don't believe, or refuse to believe or to make a choice for Christ, you'll go to hell.

There are quite a wide range of views on this. Some might agree with you while others may say that it's how close you long for a relationship with God... in other words a person who never heard the Gospel; may search for God in their own way and find them. As I recall, this is the offical view of the RCC... I tend to agree with it too.

Intellectually, I can understand the "every choice has consequences" idea. But... an eternal consequence for a non-eternal choice?

It is an eternal choice that is made in the here and now.

Unchangeable infinity, eternity, for a choice made in (most often) far less than 80 or 90 years here? It doesn't seem quite just. That aside, even if I were to concede the INTELLECTUAL point and say "we don't know for sure how long it is or what hell really consists of, but we KNOW God's Just"....

There is a wide range of ideas on hell, it is not a subject the Bible covers much. In fact, this post is longer than what the Bible says about hell. However; what we can tell is that hell appears to be a place where sin is contained. The suffering comes from the person themselves, one view I heard is that people try to get themselves out of the presence of God's glory because they are ashamed of themselves, but never can (because you can't excape God's glory)... This very well could by the reason why hell is refered to as a lake of fire... Anyway, let's move onto the question.

I've had more than one person die who I know for a fact wasn't Christian at all (and had no problem openly denouncing religion in general).

I have too.

One such person was a friend of mine, and he died in 2003, very suddenly, following a seizure one night. And my friend wasn't Christian. Or religious at all. He was, to be bluntly clear, a raving atheist nut who was obsessed with nature and geology and he was going to go save all the trees on earth as soon as he was done college. And suddenly... he was gone.

Yep, that is very sad, but is how life works. You are here one moment and gone the next. Yet again I'd point out that it is your friend's decisions that will decided his ulimate fate. Is hell a place where you are poked with pointed sticks and burned, but never die? No, it's a place where sin is contained and kept from contimanting the rest of creation... Do I know his ulimate fate? No, it's not my judgement to make... that's between him and God. I'm sure there is going to be people in heaven, that we would be suprised to see, others we think would be there... are not.

It goes against every EMOTIONAL aspect OF me to say "he's in hell now", but according to Christian theology, that's precisely either where he is or where he'll be come judgment time, depending on which view you subscribe to.

Remember, it's his choice that has determined his fate. Worrying does not change anything... the only person's fate you can change is yours. Your friend made his decision and his deeds will be judged, just like yours and mine.

At a campus crusade for Christ meeting, I even had one of the meeting's leaders tell me how sorry she was that my friend died unsaved, because we all "unfortunately know what that means". I walked out. No, I didn't "know what that meant", and no, I wasn't going to get into a big huge flaming fight ending in tears (mine) over it, either.

I'm sure he was... I'm not going to tell you that your friend is in hell... because that is not my judgement to make. The only person I can speak for is myself... everyone else is simply a guess, at best.

Fact is, he was a good person. He was an ethical person. A funny person. A caring, kind person. Not the sort of person you'd say ought to be in "hell" being punished.

As Jesus pointed out... John the Baptist he said was the best man who has ever lived... and even a prophet of God was said to have less rightousness than the least in heaven. The point seems to be that we humans tend to measure ourselves to one another, we might say, "At least I am better than him/her." Yet, that is not the standard God measures by, God measures by his standard. One example I can think of is a yard stick. We might look at ourselves and say... "5 inches... Wow I'm a good person." However; God looks at the yard stick and says, "My standard is 36 Inches." In other words, even the most moral of us are tiny to the standard. The best part of is this, God in his love for us, gave us a free ticket... he took that shame and sin we all have and took it upon himself so we can measure up to his standard. However; In order for God to be love, it must be a free choice that we all must make. God to force himself upon us, would not be love, that would be like rape. We must accet him and say, "Lord, I give my life to you."

So, my question: A belief in hell is DIRECTLY related to salvation. If it weren't, then what Christ did wouldn't matter much if hell didn't actually exist. If it's merely a 'place of separation from God' or a complete annihilation, that's one thing. But if it's a place of torment... why, exactly, would I benefit from starting to believe in such a place? So I could torture myself daily with the knowledge that that's where a dear friend is, and that's where other family members of mine 'will be' if they don't change their views on God?

Well, since I don't hold to the view that hell is a place of torment other than the torment that we create for ourselves, I can't answer for those who hold to that postion.

I suppose you could answer and say "but you can let them know who God is" -- and it gets back to question one. Even I don't know that. And about my friend... people have told me "you don't know what happened in the last moments of his life. Maybe he finally accepted God in those last few moments." -- well, maybe so. But according to the medical and news reports, he had a massive seizure, his body spasmed and flipped over, and he suffocated on his own pillow. I doubt very much that any part of him was conscious enough to have a conversation with God.

I'm not going to lie and tell you that happened, it's possible... but at the same time... you make the decision to send yourself to heaven or hell. Don't let his decision effect yours.

I've probably made myself more vulnerable and personal here than I ever have before on an internet forum. And I might regret it later. But then again, I never regret speaking honestly, I never regret asking questions and growing... so I probably won't regret this in the long run.

Oh don't worry about it. Nothing wrong an emotional outlet, God shows constant compassion thoughout the Bible for seekers of the truth.

Please understand that this is the place I'm coming from: I'm an atheist today NOT because I hate God or because I want to advocate secular culture -- it has enough of it's own problems. But I have the beliefs (or lack thereof) that I do because, for the life of me, I don't see how the idea of a good, compassionate, loving Father quite meshes with the reality of actual religious belief, scientific evidence, or the fact that minor mistakes and disobediences don't deserve HELL...

And a loving compassionate father can not force himself upon his children. You can either accept him or hate him... as for scientific evidence, here is something I heard....

1. God makes the evidence for his existance compelling, but not conviencing.
2. God is love and by that nature, he can not force himself upon his creation.
3. Therefore, to trust in the Lord is as much a decision of the heart as of the mind.

Don't forget, that Jesus performed miricles in the presence of many people. How many rejected him, even after seeing him feeding 5,000 people? Or seeing him heal a blind man? The religious leaders plotted to kill him (and many of them, saw his wisdom and the miricles themselves). Why do you think they did this? It just goes to show, that even if God did a miricle today... people will just find an excuse not to believe it.

...forgiveness or the demand for an apology, perhaps, but not eternal punishment.

And God has shown his forgiveness. As yet we were sinners, Christ died for us. The only punishment of hell is the shame that a person has... hell is a place of self suffering and tourment, not anything God has created.

So I lack a belief in God because so far, I haven't seen evidence for one that works for me. That's being brutally honest, I think, and fair to everyone for whom their idea of God DOES work.

And like I said above, the evidence is compelling, but not conviencing.

I know people who are good, compassionate, and loving. They claim they're that way because of God. But alas... I can only know them, and appreciate them for being that way entirely of their own volition. So I do.

I was good, compassionate, and loving before I was a Christian. However; like I said, we are not the standard, God is... that's who we should measure ourselves by.

Crystal

[lilpixieofterror]

Crystal, thanks. I'm looking forward to your response. When you get this (on the 2nd or whenever, since it's 10 pm EST right now, Nov 30th) I'm looking forward to your response.

Oh, I responded to it as soon I was able to.

Hope you're doin' great, girl.

Oh, I'm fine... I should be home this month (sorry I can't tell you the exact date... it's that OPSEC thing). I'll make sure that I tell everyone when I get home though.

Crystal

[Storico]

Oh, I responded to it as soon I was able to.



Oh, I'm fine... I should be home this month (sorry I can't tell you the exact date... it's that OPSEC thing). I'll make sure that I tell everyone when I get home though.

Crystal

thank you for your responses to my questions/comments. I promise to think carefully about them and mull them over and let them sink in for a while. And great, glad you can tell everyone when ya get in!

[zorathruster]

Thirdly and lastly (for now)... biggest hangup: Okay. I'll admit it. I have a negative emotional AND intellectual reaction to the idea of hell.

When humans were developing from independent family bands to larger tribes and later to whole societies, it was necessary to develop some form of bonding mechanism to bring people together and cooperate who have no biological link. Social groups started bringing the people together and doing group activities to form these bonds. Sometimes they would have a dance, sometimes they would tell stories, honor powerful warriors, pay homage to the chief, collect to find mates, some jump off towers with vines on their ankles. By having these groups they identified themselves with the group and became the "in" crowd. To solidify the cohesiveness of the group it was necessary to divide the ins from the outs. To encourage the ins to remain the ins, the groups needed to make the outs objects of disdain. They did this by various forms of dehumanization. With the advent of the afterlife, which only became popular post Christian emergence, it was a useful bonding tool to claim the others who are not part of the group get to burn for eternity while the in group gets to dance through pearly streets and sing songs in the clouds of heaven.

Hell is designed to maintain group cohesion by ensuring group members who follow group rules get some form of reward, and those who are not part of the group get some form of punishment. And it don't cost nuthin!

[lilpixieofterror]

thank you for your responses to my questions/comments. I promise to think carefully about them and mull them over and let them sink in for a while. And great, glad you can tell everyone when ya get in!

Well thanks alot Laura. I'll make sure to do the same.

Crystal

[DesertBerean]

Oh, I'm fine... I should be home this month (sorry I can't tell you the exact date... it's that OPSEC thing). I'll make sure that I tell everyone when I get home though.Crystal

Hoo-HAH!!!!