Upsilon wrote:
There are clearly degrees of sin.
We can categorize sin all we want. That's not my point; I am not saying all sins are the same. I am saying that
any sin demonstrates that you'd rather do your own thing rather than God's. He's not your grandpa, thinking "just let the young people have fun and do whatever they want."
Upsilon wrote:
Perhaps so. But is that any reason to send them to the complete opposite of eternal paradise? Surely simple oblivion or eternal neutrality would be better than Hell. It's hardly the kind of thing it seems to me that God would decide to do: "Although I love this person very much, he never believed that I existed. I guess I'll have to condemn him to eternal torture!" Is there no middle state?
I've not read any scripture about middle states or degrees of separation from God. I'm also not 100% sure that God loves reprobates (that is more along the free will/predestination thread), so I'm not going to venture a guess yet.
One thing to think about: the original rebels against Jehovah are demons, so you'll be in their presence in Hell (although they're co-victims, not rulers, of hell). God doesn't have to make hell bad, it'll get that way on it's own in very short order.
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
The only place outside God's presence is hell (the Bible has no limbo state).
Couldn't one be created? That limbo doesn't exist is no excuse for the being who causes everything to exist.
Well, I don't see any reason why God
couldn't. I see one reason he wouldn't, though (though it's mere reason, not necessarily in the Bible). Many people would choose "leave me alone" over "be in God's presence" and choose Limbo over Heaven. By forcing the decision to be Heaven or Hell, people have to have the ... "constitution" ... to make a real decision instead of just live in oblivious neutrality and then spend eternity there. Earth is not a slot machine, it's a battle field and we must take sides. Neutrality is not a real choice in life (it's a mere academic construct), and it's not a choice in eternity. It's like if you proposed to a young woman, and she remained neutral about whether or not to marry you. That would not be cool. Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 24:15, 2 Samuel 24:12, Proverbs 1:29, Jeremiah 3:14, James 4:4, 1 Peter 4:3.
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
If a Hindu grows up and dies without ever "knowing God", can he be held to blame?
...no one in this discussion or ever reading this is in that category. Each of us reading this
does have the opportunity.
Is that so? Do I know God? In any case, whether or not it applies to any of us isn't relevant: it has applied (and still does) to a lot of people. Will they go to Hell?
You have the chance. You could theoretically be a brain in a jar and all this talk about faceless masses on the other side of the world is merely academic. If God decides all of the people who never heard about him were going to heaven, what is that to you? If he decides to use humans as his voice so no one fails to hear about him, and I've gone to other countries to tell them, what is that to you? It's an uncertainty principle because going across borders and observing what happens to a heathen individual in the afterlife may change what happens to him.
Do you care about a billion Hindus in Asia? If so, what have you done about it? If it's so morally necessary that God care about them but you don't care about them, do you not condemn yourself? Tell me: what group of people goes to India and reaches out to the untouchables with health care, education, and love?
Upsilon wrote:
Christian doctrine claims that masturbation, in all cases, is a sin, and there could be a circumstance where someone else comes to harm from it - but most of the time it's a victimless crime.
The Bible hardly mentions it. I have heard a rumor that one very highly respected Christian psychologist says it's not necessarily a sin, but I haven't been able to verify the claim or it's Biblical justification.
Because of the nature of this online community, I do not wish to discuss this matter around children. But allow me to summarize: I think male masturbation probably hurts women in the long run. PM me if you really want to discuss it, it's not appropriate discussion here.
Upsilon wrote:
Oh, naturally, and I'm not going to pretend I'm innocent, but you'd be surprised what a vast proportion of the "sins" I commit are victimless or justified in my view. In any case, I was just pointing out that immorality is a highly subjective matter and I wouldn't want to take the blame for, say, going to a mosque.
I've been to a Mosque. I had to pay to enter. I even prayed there, that's not a sin. But on the general question of your justification of your own deeds that God calls sins, I'm going to point you to Proverbs 12:15. Sin is what seperates you from God, not some code of principles you yourself come up with on a whim.
I'm probably coming off a bit harsh. It's very hard to convey tone of voice in this kind of communication, and trite emoticons don't really help me here. I feel like I'm in the house of a couple on the verge of a divorce, and I am pleading with one of the spouses to make an effort to try to see the other person's point of view. To that spouse, I would certinly sound like I was being dogmatic, "Listen to your husband for once!" But it's a plea of urgency and hope, not of condemnation for past failures.
Your worldview, Upsilon, is very different from a Biblical one, and the raw information available has to be understood in context. Believe it or not, I
understand muslim terrorists, because I've allowed myself to learn their worldview and looked at the available information though their set of beliefs. I do not agree with them, but I understand them. You and I may never agree, but most of our misunderstandings come not from different information but from different perspectives. If you're ever going to understand Shakespeare, Lewis, a Chinese man, aliens that visit you, or God, you're going to have to have a space in your brain that you dedicated to trying to understand them as they understand themselves.
Upsilon wrote:
The key phrase here is "on logical grounds". If I believe myself to be doing the right thing (or, indeed, not doing the wrong thing), is it really right to punish me? You yourself said a while back that "innocent intention is recognized even in Old Testament law" - why don't the victimless crimes fall under innocent intention?
Because, in victimless crimes, the perpetrator purposely commits the crime. If I swing an axe and the formerly secure axehead flies off and ends a man's life, I had no intention. If I shoot up heroin (illegal here, I don't know what the laws concerning it in the UK are), I do so purposely and in defiance of the law. Very different.
Upsilon wrote:
It's a very different thing to assert "I didn't know it was wrong to murder" and "I didn't know it was wrong to smoke pot" (indeed, without a god who says it's wrong in the equation, the latter can't be said to be wrong at all).
Without a God in the equation, murder can't be said to be wrong either. The principle you use ("hurting someone else") is
only a reasoning for morality because God said it was. Proverbs 3:29, Romans 13:10. I can think of many, many thought experements where there is no God and murder is perfectly fine. It would take up space, so I leave it as an exercize to the reader.
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
I don't have an answer for that.
That's right. Say it again.
I don't have answers for a lot of things. I don't pretend to have answers when I don't. If I seem like a know-it-all here, it's because you happen to be in my area of attempted expertise. In the several dozen threads where I don't know lots, I just don't post. I think InterruptorJones would label me a spammer if I went to all those topics and made a post saying "I don't know."
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
My best guess is that maybe God's presence on earth is what enables us to change our ways for the better. With his absence in the lake of fire, perhaps the capability to repent isn't present.
That seems a bit unfair on the damned...
Fair and Just are two very different adjectives.
Upsilon wrote:
Take into account what happens if you don't form a personal, loving relationship with the wonderful and interesting God... I'd rather have the cold, impersonal tally of deeds than that, thanks.
You don't have to live like that, and those who say you do are mistaken.
Upsilon wrote:
The most fundamental part of a conversation is that there are two people talking. You can’t have a conversation with someone who doesn't talk back.
I once heard an anecdote that I'd like to exercize. A man issues a 900 number (toll charge per minute in USA, I don't know what the UK analaogue is) with the simple principle, "I will listen to you for 5 minutes without interrupting." The story goes that the phone number was called more than he could answer it for. Maybe you need someone to listen to you.
And God does reply to your prayers, though more unpredictibly than people reply to your statements. "Actions speak louder than words." And many people claim they regularly understand what God "says" to them during prayer, though in my experience this is relegated to a weekly or monthly experience.
Upsilon wrote:
Interesting that God uses such an indistinct method to give a response. Is there often a way of distinguishing between a God-given inkling and a natural inkling?
Yup. Learning his voice. Christ says in John 10:27 that his followers can recognize his voice. I recommend careful study of the Word of God (a known constant as his voice) to get the tuning right to the voice. Also, following when you
know something is from God will help you follow him better, like exercize.
Upsilon wrote:
Well, I'd recommend sticking to it. It's very interesting and somehow fulfilling to re-read year-old entries of your own.
Hm. How would you psychoanalyze the fact that when I look over personal entries of my own from 10 years ago, I have no positive emotional result or satisfaction from it? I guess I quit because I read the old stuff and said, "that was dumb, who cares?" and threw it away.
Upsilon wrote:
The question is: did your prayer make a difference? It remains intact, and the only reason I didn't phrase it like this to start out with is that it's awkward and kind of hurts the brain.
I'd like to discuss this in the predestination topic. The reason is that if you believe predestination in the most extreme, not only is God going to do what he would do if you prayed or not, but he even made you pray. If you put weight in the free will side of things, then you necessarily have to philosophically allow God to react to human deeds.
Upsilon wrote:
I don't think that a child suffering from cancer with two months to live would be very convinced either if I told him that suffering and death weren't a big deal.
Ask one. No, really, ask a child in a hospital if it's a big deal. You may not learn anything, but you'll help the kid talk it through. You'll be the person who he needs to listen to him. I guarantee there's someone in your community with a sick child in their family at a local hospital.
Please, do tell us how it goes. I bet you will learn something.
Upsilon wrote:
Ick… so to be a proper Christian, I'm supposed to have an intimate personal relationship with a god that I have no reason to assume existant?
If you don't actually think God is real, then you can't really be a "good Christian," Hebrews 11:6. And there are lots of reasons to believe our God exists (I don't assume it). I think you're looking for an experientiallist manifestation, and man in general isn't promised those kinds of things (though some do receive them, so don't disbelieve it if one comes your way).
Upsilon wrote:
Right, but the thanks and apologies without the personal relationship (as I and countless others were brought up to practice) is pointless, if your claim that prayer needs relational value.
Oh, yes then, you're right. You and countless others were (as you well know) misled.
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
To summarize with a metaphor, what is the H*R Wiki? I mean, really? It is a constructive effort to "praise" the residents of Free Country, USA.
It is? I've always thought of it as just an online encyclopedia of all things Homestar. The only real praise (in some sense of the word – "compliment" would be more appropriate) involved is here.
Yes. You begin to understand, though you don't know it. Exploration of all things God is a form of praise. Explicating details of his being, cataloging nuances of his personality, publicly describing his greatness with attention to detail is praise. Compliments are a small portion of that exercize, but are natural and implied throughout. The very label "fun facts" at the bottom of each cartoon is a compliment. But the whole site is praise.
Upsilon wrote:
And yet there's a difference between natural, healthy appreciation and church services. If you've ever been to a church service, at least the kind I'm most accustomed to, you'll know that the majority of the service is simply ritual...
Oh, yeah, you're right again. That stuff the church you describe passes off as worship is not worship. The church you described is based on the same fallacy I mentioned above: they prefer the list of do's and don't's over a personal relationship, so they have a liturgy of actions they think wins God's favor. It's no wonder you have so many misconceptions about Christianity!
The "church services" in the Bible (specifically Acts and following) are healthy, natural reactions to the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. The services by which you've been bored to tears are actually poor imitations of pre-Christian rituals drawn from sources like Jerusalems' Temple worship and pagan services, as well as non-Christian services like I'd expect from Gnosticism. Sorry to hear you were raised thinking that was what God wanted.
Upsilon wrote:
If praise is a healthy, natural reaction, it should be expressed naturally – not according to the Order of Service.
To prevent the pendulum from swinging to far in my post, let me come back and state that there is great merit to order over chaos. Structure lends a lot to understanding, and think of how you English honor your royalty. You don't just chit-chat with the Queen, no, if you're lucky you get to stand or sit in a big room and listen to what she and others say, and if you're not lucky you have to watch it on TV or miss it altogether. I think your countrymen categorize that as a way to honor people, and try to copycat that in their services, to give the greatest respect and honor that they can. The danger in that line of reasoning, of course, is exactly what you've experienced. But Korean churches like those under Dr. Cho are very very structured (culturally approriate) and very personal, and I find no fault with them. For their culture, structure is natural and healthy.
For you, an expression of appreciation probably has to be spontaneous. Vinyard churches are like that here in the U.S., as are a great number of "non-denominational" churches.
Upsilon wrote:
Well, from what I can infer, somebody has to. If no-one prayed for me, ever, would God let me die shivering in the street? Is he bound by some unbreakable rule which claims that someone has to ask for something before he gives it to them?
Matthew 5:45 says that God does good to all kinds of people, without anyone twisting his arm to do so! And there are people who are prayed for by thousands who do die, metaphorically, "shivering in the street."
Prayer doesn't make God do something, and lack of prayer doesn't prevent him from doing something. And vice versa. It's a great opportunity to talk to him as life happens, and be involved. When you were three, how did you and your father talk? I don't know anything about that relationship, but when I was three there were times I talked to my father about decisions he made, and he still made them. Though talking I understood better than I would have otherwise. Sometimes through talking he chose differently for his three year old son.
You already know this, and I suppose the prayer discussion has almost taken on a life of its own... perhaps we need to split it off from a discussion about reasoning about God's existence?
Upsilon wrote:
Your analogy seems to stand, but it assumes the existence of the father.
Yes it does. The analogy hinges on (and describes) a benevolent father who initiates a relationship with his son.
Upsilon wrote:
...if I doubt that the man exists, shall I (if I may extend the metaphor to breaking point) go out and stand in the rain outside waiting for him to turn up? Or should I just continue my gaming?
What would you tell the child who did? What would you tell the child who refused?
I like how you keep mentioning rain - your life experiences on the isles are showing though more and more clearly. Here in Michigan, we'd say "stand outside in the cold." I hope I'm coming to understand you and your worldview better in this discussion!
Upsilon wrote:
I'm a bit unnerved by what you said about subconscious rebellion. Am I to blame for what I have no control over?
You have control over your subconscious, you just don't know it. Your subconscious
is you, your self-aware ego is merely a slim manifestation of you (according to some psychology I've read). So, is your consciousness to be held responsible for your subconscious? that's a little spooky. But are you to be held accountable for what you do? I think that answer should be clear!
Your subconscious is not some "other" being like your parent or your dog. It's you! You have to embrace that. And anything that is subconscious can be brought under the control (dare I say lordship?) of your will by exposure to your rational thought process. Talking things through with a close friend helps there (oops, did I just allude to prayer? I think I did) by getting your thoughts exposed to your conscious mind. I don't have a degree in psychology or counseling, so I don't want to get into it too much. But no one can master your subconscious
except you, so yes: your subconscious is your responsibility.
Upsilon wrote:
What I take issue with here is that I'm to be condemned for "refusing" that which doesn't exist. It's not a refusal – it's simply non-belief. If we're to be damned for this, all Christians would go to Hell for "refusing" Nonexistant-God-Of-A-Different-Religion.
Unless God did exist. If you start by assuming God doesn't exist, you're going to come to a number of conclusions that are not consistent with conclusions in an extant-God system of thought. This is one.
"If there is no God, then failing to believe in him doesn't amount to anything" is your stand here, and in its encapsualted form, it's correct.
If there is a God, the fundamental assumption is untrue, so the conclusion is not necessary. Newtonian Physics had a concept of absolute space, with Ether, that lent our universe properties. That fundamental assumtion's conclusions were contradicted by experement. But those experemental results were possible in a universe without an absolute frame of reference.
Similarly, the conclusion that "it doesn't matter if you follow God" depends on living in a universe where there is not a God. In a universe with Deity, that conclusion has to be reevaluated. In a universe with an unknown whether God exists or not, that conclusion isn't reliable. It's like a
Modus Tollens.
Upsilon wrote:
Buz wrote:
So a silent friend has great value.
As much as a diar – er, journal.
You can call it a diary if you like. But I would suggest that a silent friend has greater value than a diary. Do you not intuit the same?
Upsilon wrote:
Good point, well made. Prayer seems to me like a bit of an illusion now: when it's done properly, it's not really about what you want God to do for you, but about building a relationship with God? Am I right? Am I left?
That seems re-zon-able.