Why shouldn't saying "no" to God simply excuse one from the whole shebang? If grace is what christians say it is, and "sin" is expiated regardless, and one doesn't want to go to heaven or hell, why can't a person simply return to the state they were in before they were born?
@ChastMastr What is your definition of saying no to God, or rejecting Him eternally? Is it being unable to believe the teachings of the Church, or the contents of the Nicene Creed? Or is it a refusal to love God and for fellow beings? When Lewis said the gates of hell are locked from the inside, what if someone in there wanted to unlock them and get out? If he, or she, couldn't, then they're locked from the outside by God. I've never believed anyone would wish to remain in hell. Does rejecting God's love eternally equate with not believing what someone else tells you to believe?
As 1 John says, if you don't love your neighbour whom you have seen you can't love God whom you have not seen. I don't think the author is merely reporting a contingent psychological fact. Rather loving one's neighbour is how one loves God.
It's been said that certain populist politicians don't get votes because their supporters expect they'll make them better off; they get votes because they make it acceptable to hate the people their supporters want to hate. That attitude or some similar attitude, some willed refusal of responsibility or reality, calcified into a permanent state of the soul is Hell.
(I also think Hell is empty because Jesus saves everyone.)
Very briefly, on praying for the dead ... @KarlLB I can certainly see why you have a problem with this. I don't want to sound patronising or goody-two shoes but obviously as an Orthodox Christian it's something I do as a matter or course and the more I do it the less it feels strange.
The same with any practice, of course.
I once answered a question aboard Ship about the reasons for praying for the dead and my answer was, 'Because I love them.'
I can't think of a better one.
Now, when praying for departed friends or relatives I tend not to be too specific. I don't say, 'Forgive Cousin Bertie, Lord, for that time he cheated at Monopoly...'
But I do pray the set prayers from the prayer book, occasionally adding thoughts of my own.
On the Hell thing, @ChastMastr is right, there are other facets to the Orthodox approach to these things which differ to some extent from what one might find in traditional Roman Catholicism and in 'classic' evangelicalism, for instance.
There are a range of views within Orthodoxy and it's not something we dogmatise - although a full on Universalist position would be seen as heretical. One may hope that all may be saved, but we can't say for certain that they will.
ChastMastr's views as he's expressed them here would very much map across to views I've encountered within Orthodoxy. But as a range of personal views and opinions are permissible, as it were, you'll find Orthodox with quite strict and rigid views on this as well as those with a more 'lenient' or flexible approach.
As with much (most? all?) things in Orthodoxy I find this sort of thing 'makes sense' within the context of the liturgical life of the Church and my own prayer times derived from that - not that I'm on the ball with all that - rather than in the more abstract context of academic debate.
That doesn't mean that we can't debate these things here or that we are trying to close down debate but I hope you get my drift.
Praying for the dead makes sense when I pray for the dead. The Harrowing of Hell makes sense when I venerate an icon of the Resurrection.
I agree with Chastmastr that hell is locked on the inside, and that it is theoretically possible to say no to God permanently--whether this involves a zillion zillion ongoing "noes" or a single permanently fixed one doesn't really matter IMO. But to qualify as a permanent no, it would have to be one taken with intent and understanding.
I also agree that people who put something other than God at the center of their lives will, over time, find that something to be unsatisfying. And then to turn bitter. And then to become toxic--toxic as hell, if you live long enough--because nothing that exists was meant to play that utterly central role in a person's life, and it won't stand up to that treatment, won't bear that weight, no matter how good it was originally. It may take till the next life for the problem to become apparent, or it might show up immediately--doesn't matter, it's still the same problem at root. The word for this is of course "idolatry."
And idolatry is in the end, hell. It's a refusal of the real God who is as necessary to human well-being as oxygen, water, etc. and an attempt to meet those needs through something else. And the something else never holds up. Which creates suffering, bitterness, anger, unhappiness, a tendency to blame everybody else, the works.
I've had a window on this process in the past five years in three cases, and on its reversal in two. We had a friend who was so wed to her family heirlooms that she estranged her family, ruined her health, and nearly lost her own life because she would not leave them behind to move into utterly necessarily supportive housing. By God's mercy a stroke forced her to leave them behind (a combo of legal restrictions meant she couldn't go back) and she is now much, much happier, though she'd never admit the fact, I'm sure. Another relative had centered his life around money (after being an ordinary Christian for years and years, but then he got an inheritance) and it had made him suspicious of everybody, arrogant, unable to maintain loving relationships (because what if they're after my money?) and so forth. A romance scammer relieved him of most of it, and painful as that was, he too is a lot happier.
Of course this is anecdata and anybody who has an idol and wants to hold on to it (and that's what having an idol means, right?) is going to scoff at it. "It would never happen to me." "My x is a worthy cause, or a wonderful person. My x would never go bad." Ha.
As for the question of why people can't just opt out of existing if they don't want to exist on God's terms, well, we didn't make ourselves, and we can't unmake ourselves. You'd have to apply to God for that. And he's not likely to agree, given he takes delight in what he has made, and would much prefer to redeem it than trash it.
But there's also the problem of whether even God can un-make something he has called into existence. We have no idea if that is possible. There might be a deep logical fallacy in the concept that makes it a nonsense, and therefore impossible even to God. Though if he never wishes it, we'll never find out.
No, not quite. What the pope said, when asked how he imagines hell, was: “What I am going to say is not a dogma of faith but my own personal view: I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is.”
I think, @Lamb Chopped , that long before the person has said no to God a zillion zillion times they could be gently picked up like the shepherd would have picked up the lost sheep.
When people may appear to be saying NO to God,how do we know to what god they are saying No. Perhaps it is No to a god whom they see as a vengeful and hateful god and that they have never really known.
How do we know ( and by what right do we judge) whether they are really saying NO to the God of Love and Mercy.
It is certainly an axiom in Catholic thinking that we
cannot really commit a sin unless we really know and understand what the sin is.
Most of those who might have been told that they will go to Hell if they don't do (or do do) something may not be fully clear about the significance and the consequences of their actions. Sometimes it is a bit like children who may have been told that they have been naughty when they have just been silly and yet usually their parents love them all the same.
Not all of us know and accept that God is a God of Love.
You cannot be punished for not going to Mass on a Sunday if you don't really know and understand what the Mass is.
When people may appear to be saying NO to God,how do we know to what god they are saying No. Perhaps it is No to a god whom they see as a vengeful and hateful god and that they have never really known.
How do we know ( and by what right do we judge) whether they are really saying NO to the God of Love and Mercy.
It is certainly an axiom in Catholic thinking that we
cannot really commit a sin unless we really know and understand what the sin is.
Most of those who might have been told that they will go to Hell if they don't do (or do do) something may not be fully clear about the significance and the consequences of their actions. Sometimes it is a bit like children who may have been told that they have been naughty when they have just been silly and yet usually their parents love them all the same.
Not all of us know and accept that God is a God of Love.
You cannot be punished for not going to Mass on a Sunday if you don't really know and understand what the Mass is.
So saying no to God is itself hell? That sounds odd to me. Most of my family could be said to have said no to God, so they are in hell? Pull the other one.
Ultimately saying "no" to God, forever, once all the earthly blinders are off and we are confronted with literal absolute Truth. I don't believe our earthly circumstances ultimately block us off from Him, once we see Him face to Face.
Ah, I notice some caveats coming in, so it becomes empty of meaning. What is forever? What is absolute truth? These words are like Monopoly money.
@ChastMastr What is your definition of saying no to God, or rejecting Him eternally? Is it being unable to believe the teachings of the Church, or the contents of the Nicene Creed? Or is it a refusal to love God and for fellow beings? When Lewis said the gates of hell are locked from the inside, what if someone in there wanted to unlock them and get out? If he, or she, couldn't, then they're locked from the outside by God. I've never believed anyone would wish to remain in hell. Does rejecting God's love eternally equate with not believing what someone else tells you to believe?
I'd say "Or is it a refusal to love God and for fellow beings?" is about right.
Re "When Lewis said the gates of hell are locked from the inside, what if someone in there wanted to unlock them and get out?" Then I believe God would help them to do so. But it wouldn't be Hell in that case. Maybe something like Purgatory. (For a fictional and symbolic idea of that, you might like Lewis' The Great Divorce, about a bus ride from Hell to Heaven.)
"Does rejecting God's love eternally equate with not believing what someone else tells you to believe?" I don't believe so, no, especially if we're talking about here on Earth.
I agree with Chastmastr that hell is locked on the inside, and that it is theoretically possible to say no to God permanently--whether this involves a zillion zillion ongoing "noes" or a single permanently fixed one doesn't really matter IMO. But to qualify as a permanent no, it would have to be one taken with intent and understanding.
I also agree that people who put something other than God at the center of their lives will, over time, find that something to be unsatisfying. And then to turn bitter. And then to become toxic--toxic as hell, if you live long enough--because nothing that exists was meant to play that utterly central role in a person's life, and it won't stand up to that treatment, won't bear that weight, no matter how good it was originally. It may take till the next life for the problem to become apparent, or it might show up immediately--doesn't matter, it's still the same problem at root. The word for this is of course "idolatry."
And idolatry is in the end, hell. It's a refusal of the real God who is as necessary to human well-being as oxygen, water, etc. and an attempt to meet those needs through something else. And the something else never holds up. Which creates suffering, bitterness, anger, unhappiness, a tendency to blame everybody else, the works.
I've had a window on this process in the past five years in three cases, and on its reversal in two. We had a friend who was so wed to her family heirlooms that she estranged her family, ruined her health, and nearly lost her own life because she would not leave them behind to move into utterly necessarily supportive housing. By God's mercy a stroke forced her to leave them behind (a combo of legal restrictions meant she couldn't go back) and she is now much, much happier, though she'd never admit the fact, I'm sure. Another relative had centered his life around money (after being an ordinary Christian for years and years, but then he got an inheritance) and it had made him suspicious of everybody, arrogant, unable to maintain loving relationships (because what if they're after my money?) and so forth. A romance scammer relieved him of most of it, and painful as that was, he too is a lot happier.
Of course this is anecdata and anybody who has an idol and wants to hold on to it (and that's what having an idol means, right?) is going to scoff at it. "It would never happen to me." "My x is a worthy cause, or a wonderful person. My x would never go bad." Ha.
As for the question of why people can't just opt out of existing if they don't want to exist on God's terms, well, we didn't make ourselves, and we can't unmake ourselves. You'd have to apply to God for that. And he's not likely to agree, given he takes delight in what he has made, and would much prefer to redeem it than trash it.
But there's also the problem of whether even God can un-make something he has called into existence. We have no idea if that is possible. There might be a deep logical fallacy in the concept that makes it a nonsense, and therefore impossible even to God. Though if he never wishes it, we'll never find out.
Oh, you said it so much better than I did. This, this, all of this.
Not sure exactly what Karl B means when he says 'missionaries should be shot on sight'
Everyone who claims in any way to be a Christian is ipso facto a missionary.
Most ,but not all, religions claim to have something positive to say to those they come in contact with. If we believe in some idea and we believe that it has been good for us then we would naturally want to share it with others.
Even those who organise Nativity plays in primary schools, whether they are formally Christian believers or not, are saying that there is some positive message in the story of Christ's birth.
How could it be considered 'good' to shoot all those people on sight ?
Not sure exactly what Karl B means when he says 'missionaries should be shot on sight'
Everyone who claims in any way to be a Christian is ipso facto a missionary.
Most ,but not all, religions claim to have something positive to say to those they come in contact with. If we believe in some idea and we believe that it has been good for us then we would naturally want to share it with others.
Even those who organise Nativity plays in primary schools, whether they are formally Christian believers or not, are saying that there is some positive message in the story of Christ's birth.
How could it be considered 'good' to shoot all those people on sight ?
It's a Pterry quote. In the discworld people only go to Hell if they believe they deserve to go there. The idea that people are only guilty of sin if they know they're sinning struck me as a similar idea. Perry's comment there is that it's therefore missionaries' fault fault that people go to Hell, and therefore they should be shot on sight.
Rowan Williams points out that for Lewis, to be in the presence of God brings total self-knowledge. Those who are unable to face that exclude themselves from Heaven, potentially permanently, one assumes.
The logic is that if you can't go to Hell if you haven't heard about Jesus to reject him, then logically missionaries make it possible for people to go to Hell. Therefore killing missionaries reduces the number of people going to Hell.
(Needless to say I think the model of God, sin, and punishment behind the idea that God will only punish people for consciously rejecting him is problematic. It may imply that God is a merciful arbitrary despot but it still implies that God's an arbitrary despot )
Yes. The “arbitrary despot” view covers the notion of unlimited eternal punishment for limited temporal behaviour. “God’s honour requires it”. Defence of claimed honour has led to some despicable human behaviour.
@Eirenist I can easily accept that being in the presence of God brings total self knowledge, and that very few people are there. Therefore entry to the Kingdom of God is a narrow gate. What I can't accept is that we only get these few years on earth to prevent being lost eternally. A God who makes things that way is certainly an arbitrary despot.
Having 'heard' about Jesus does not necessarily mean that one has listened
Having 'listened 'to stories about Jesus does not necessarily mean that one has 'understood' them.
Having 'understood' stories about Jesus does not necessarily indicate that one has 'agreed' with them.
Having 'agreed' with them does not necessarily mean that one has seen the relevance of the stories for one's own life.Nor that one would be willing or able to follow these teachings.
God knows and understands these various difficulties better than we do.
Why shouldn't saying "no" to God simply excuse one from the whole shebang?
What would that state be?
God's love fills and transcends the universe--there's nowhere to go where He is not.
So you say, but I'm suggesting that before we were born, we weren't. We had no existence. It stands to reason that a state of not being is available after death. I don't see a problem here. If the idea of eternity in any form seems disagreeable in any way, why shouldn't people simply opt out? Politely decline. No thank you.
Pablito1954, I think you have misunderstood me. I am paraphrasing Rowan Williams' take on CSL, in his study of the Narnia stories, 'The Lion's Realm'. Neither I, nor he, nor Lewis said there were few people there. The confrontation with God, and onesself, is, if you like, purgatory. You have to face that to enter God's realm. Lewis does seem to have envisaged an eternal hell, that was the tradition in which he was raised, but it is our own pusinallimity that confines us there, and I think that over eternity there will be fewer and fewer inhabitants. Boredom and misery may eventually spur the soul to overcome the dread of the interview with God.
Incidentally, it would be interesting to trace echoes of Lewis' Anglo-Welsh-IrIsh-Ulster heritage in his writings. The supplanting Telmarines are I think the Ulster Scots, but we true-born English need to remind ourselves that we are all descended from pirates.
Another thread, perhaps.
Why shouldn't saying "no" to God simply excuse one from the whole shebang?
What would that state be?
God's love fills and transcends the universe--there's nowhere to go where He is not.
So you say, but I'm suggesting that before we were born, we weren't. We had no existence. It stands to reason that a state of not being is available after death. I don't see a problem here. If the idea of eternity in any form seems disagreeable in any way, why shouldn't people simply opt out? Politely decline. No thank you.
Could you unpick the bit in italics. Especially the "It stands to reason." I cant see any necessary logical connection.
Why shouldn't saying "no" to God simply excuse one from the whole shebang?
What would that state be?
God's love fills and transcends the universe--there's nowhere to go where He is not.
So you say, but I'm suggesting that before we were born, we weren't. We had no existence. It stands to reason that a state of not being is available after death. I don't see a problem here. If the idea of eternity in any form seems disagreeable in any way, why shouldn't people simply opt out? Politely decline. No thank you.
Could you unpick the bit in italics. Especially the "It stands to reason." I cant see any necessary logical connection.
I'm only trying for the simplicity of saying that if at one time our interior selves did not exist, at death we ought to be able to return to that non-state, instead of persist in infinite misery or bliss. If our bodies and all they encapsulate are a tiny aspect of the matter that can neither be created nor destroyed, it seems elementary to me that it all simply recycles. I don't mean reincarnation, mind you.
I don't see your logic. The whole "ought to be able to"--are you speaking in terms of physical possibility, or in terms of "God is morally obliged to let us"? If the first, that doesn't work--there are plenty of processes we can't reverse. Try unburning a log, for instance. If the second, I don't see that either--if he made us, any obligation goes the other way, from made to maker. We could certainly ASK, but ...
My thinking is that the log wasn't always a log. There was a time when the log wasn't. At some point along the great migration of matter and energy a log existed, and at some point in the future even the charcoal from its burning will disintegrate and both cease to exist and reincorporate into something else. "From sawdust thou are, and to sawdust shall you return." Physically, I want to say that it's not a function of reversing anything.
Re: our consciousness, nothing is able to be experienced without our brains. So when the brain goes the way of the log, I can't grasp how we're going to be able to comprehend anything. And since we have no conception of ourselves before we were born, I don't know why it's a stretch to think that being dead will be different.
Any more, I think it's a lot for a religion to claim that all humans are governed by and accountable to a god regardless of whether or not they believe in that god. Especially since god itself isn't making its presence known -- all we have is a segment of humans speaking in god's name. So those humans present the case for god, and some who hear it simply say, "No thank you," and continue to live outside of the religious construct. Theirs is to be neither rewarded nor punished after death. Theirs is simply no longer to be.
I'm sorry if these thoughts are incomplete, or poorly described or linked. My head feels fuzzy today.
Why shouldn't saying "no" to God simply excuse one from the whole shebang?
What would that state be?
God's love fills and transcends the universe--there's nowhere to go where He is not.
So you say, but I'm suggesting that before we were born, we weren't. We had no existence. It stands to reason that a state of not being is available after death. I don't see a problem here. If the idea of eternity in any form seems disagreeable in any way, why shouldn't people simply opt out? Politely decline. No thank you.
I do not know that we can be annihilated like that. It may be part of being made in God’s image if we can’t. I personally consider annihilation far worse than Hell. In any case, it’s not the teaching of the most traditional Christian churches.
Why shouldn't saying "no" to God simply excuse one from the whole shebang?
What would that state be?
God's love fills and transcends the universe--there's nowhere to go where He is not.
So you say, but I'm suggesting that before we were born, we weren't. We had no existence. It stands to reason that a state of not being is available after death. I don't see a problem here. If the idea of eternity in any form seems disagreeable in any way, why shouldn't people simply opt out? Politely decline. No thank you.
And I don’t really know when our actual existence started in terms of spacetime. I don’t know if there was some kind of pre-birth spiritual existence (I don’t believe in something like the Mormon doctrine, though) or if our relationship to time necessarily matches the way a physical object would.
Re: our consciousness, nothing is able to be experienced without our brains.
How do you know this?
How do you not? It’s our physiological condition. It’s Neuroscience. If a person is rendered “brain dead,” that’s it. We are confined by what we know, and to know, a brain is required.
While the vast majority of scientists say that matter produces consciousness, a small but growing number see it the other way round. That consciousness creates matter or, at the very least, our perception of it.
Outside time, can there be a before and after? And, I would add, wnot everyone woud accept that God is a 'religious construct', though that is evidently what The Riv believes. He might find he is mistaken.
While the vast majority of scientists say that matter produces consciousness, a small but growing number see it the other way round. That consciousness creates matter or, at the very least, our perception of it.
I'd like to know more about this. Have you got a book or something you could send me to?
@The_Riv said, “How do you not? It’s our physiological condition.”
Our bodies function that way, but that’s not the same thing as our souls.
Again, so you say, or so you’ll remind me that’s what Christianity says. It’s not the same thing for water sprites, either, I’m told.
Some people don’t see, infer, understand — however you want to couch it — a reason, basis, necessity— however you want to couch that — for the monotheistic requirement of a soul.
Outside time, can there be a before and after? And, I would add, wnot everyone woud accept that God is a 'religious construct', though that is evidently what The Riv believes. He might find he is mistaken.
Even if he did, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’d find the idea of eternal anything more desirable. Hey, he’s right here in this thread. @Eirenist has no reason to speak of him as if he wasn’t.
Hey, @Lamb Chopped — do a quick Google search on “Panpsychism.”
It’s not the same thing for water sprites, either, I’m told.
Probably not, agreed, or any other entities of a similar nature.
Some people don’t see, infer, understand — however you want to couch it — a reason, basis, necessity— however you want to couch that — for the monotheistic requirement of a soul.
Or presumably polytheistic, since belief in the soul isn’t limited to monotheism. In any case, I’m talking about a supernaturalist, specifically traditional Christian, perspective.
or so you’ll remind me that’s what Christianity says
While the vast majority of scientists say that matter produces consciousness, a small but growing number see it the other way round. That consciousness creates matter or, at the very least, our perception of it.
I'd like to know more about this. Have you got a book or something you could send me to?
If so, I did, and I thank you, but I was more interested in the bit where consciousness creates (originates, whatever) matter. I was familiar with the idea of everything having a spirit/mind/whatsit before, from animism, but had never come across the creation idea...
@Lamb Chopped I too was going to suggest checking out panpsychism. Some Hindu philosophies such as Advaita Vedanta say that all creation is an outpouring of Infinite Consciousness.
And particularity is also an issue in advaita, as the One appears in the blade of grass, the sound of the bird singing, the taste of your wine, not in abstractions.
And particularity is also an issue in advaita, as the One appears in the blade of grass, the sound of the bird singing, the taste of your wine, not in abstractions.
That makes sense to me - maybe I need to look into this further?
When people may appear to be saying NO to God,how do we know to what god they are saying No. Perhaps it is No to a god whom they see as a vengeful and hateful god and that they have never really known.
How do we know ( and by what right do we judge) whether they are really saying NO to the God of Love and Mercy.
It is certainly an axiom in Catholic thinking that we
cannot really commit a sin unless we really know and understand what the sin is.
Most of those who might have been told that they will go to Hell if they don't do (or do do) something may not be fully clear about the significance and the consequences of their actions. Sometimes it is a bit like children who may have been told that they have been naughty when they have just been silly and yet usually their parents love them all the same.
Not all of us know and accept that God is a God of Love.
You cannot be punished for not going to Mass on a Sunday if you don't really know and understand what the Mass is.
If we only had the Old Testament to read, would we describe God as a God of Love ?
I would. And given how i came to faith, the OT was all I had for the first two years, maybe. The Prophets are especially good on this.
I genuinely don't get this. The message the OT on its own gives me is "why is God such a murderous shit?". You can barely turn a page without someone being smited for fuck all. Try to steady the ark of the covenant? Splat. Keep some treasure from a sacked city? Splat, along with your whole family. Be an infant at the wrong time in Jericho? Splat, you baby bastard! The OT God needs to calm down a bit. When he's not killing people he's demanding other people do it for him.
Comments
It's been said that certain populist politicians don't get votes because their supporters expect they'll make them better off; they get votes because they make it acceptable to hate the people their supporters want to hate. That attitude or some similar attitude, some willed refusal of responsibility or reality, calcified into a permanent state of the soul is Hell.
(I also think Hell is empty because Jesus saves everyone.)
Very briefly, on praying for the dead ... @KarlLB I can certainly see why you have a problem with this. I don't want to sound patronising or goody-two shoes but obviously as an Orthodox Christian it's something I do as a matter or course and the more I do it the less it feels strange.
The same with any practice, of course.
I once answered a question aboard Ship about the reasons for praying for the dead and my answer was, 'Because I love them.'
I can't think of a better one.
Now, when praying for departed friends or relatives I tend not to be too specific. I don't say, 'Forgive Cousin Bertie, Lord, for that time he cheated at Monopoly...'
But I do pray the set prayers from the prayer book, occasionally adding thoughts of my own.
On the Hell thing, @ChastMastr is right, there are other facets to the Orthodox approach to these things which differ to some extent from what one might find in traditional Roman Catholicism and in 'classic' evangelicalism, for instance.
There are a range of views within Orthodoxy and it's not something we dogmatise - although a full on Universalist position would be seen as heretical. One may hope that all may be saved, but we can't say for certain that they will.
ChastMastr's views as he's expressed them here would very much map across to views I've encountered within Orthodoxy. But as a range of personal views and opinions are permissible, as it were, you'll find Orthodox with quite strict and rigid views on this as well as those with a more 'lenient' or flexible approach.
As with much (most? all?) things in Orthodoxy I find this sort of thing 'makes sense' within the context of the liturgical life of the Church and my own prayer times derived from that - not that I'm on the ball with all that - rather than in the more abstract context of academic debate.
That doesn't mean that we can't debate these things here or that we are trying to close down debate but I hope you get my drift.
Praying for the dead makes sense when I pray for the dead. The Harrowing of Hell makes sense when I venerate an icon of the Resurrection.
That's the only way I can put it.
I also agree that people who put something other than God at the center of their lives will, over time, find that something to be unsatisfying. And then to turn bitter. And then to become toxic--toxic as hell, if you live long enough--because nothing that exists was meant to play that utterly central role in a person's life, and it won't stand up to that treatment, won't bear that weight, no matter how good it was originally. It may take till the next life for the problem to become apparent, or it might show up immediately--doesn't matter, it's still the same problem at root. The word for this is of course "idolatry."
And idolatry is in the end, hell. It's a refusal of the real God who is as necessary to human well-being as oxygen, water, etc. and an attempt to meet those needs through something else. And the something else never holds up. Which creates suffering, bitterness, anger, unhappiness, a tendency to blame everybody else, the works.
I've had a window on this process in the past five years in three cases, and on its reversal in two. We had a friend who was so wed to her family heirlooms that she estranged her family, ruined her health, and nearly lost her own life because she would not leave them behind to move into utterly necessarily supportive housing. By God's mercy a stroke forced her to leave them behind (a combo of legal restrictions meant she couldn't go back) and she is now much, much happier, though she'd never admit the fact, I'm sure. Another relative had centered his life around money (after being an ordinary Christian for years and years, but then he got an inheritance) and it had made him suspicious of everybody, arrogant, unable to maintain loving relationships (because what if they're after my money?) and so forth. A romance scammer relieved him of most of it, and painful as that was, he too is a lot happier.
Of course this is anecdata and anybody who has an idol and wants to hold on to it (and that's what having an idol means, right?) is going to scoff at it. "It would never happen to me." "My x is a worthy cause, or a wonderful person. My x would never go bad." Ha.
As for the question of why people can't just opt out of existing if they don't want to exist on God's terms, well, we didn't make ourselves, and we can't unmake ourselves. You'd have to apply to God for that. And he's not likely to agree, given he takes delight in what he has made, and would much prefer to redeem it than trash it.
But there's also the problem of whether even God can un-make something he has called into existence. We have no idea if that is possible. There might be a deep logical fallacy in the concept that makes it a nonsense, and therefore impossible even to God. Though if he never wishes it, we'll never find out.
How do we know ( and by what right do we judge) whether they are really saying NO to the God of Love and Mercy.
It is certainly an axiom in Catholic thinking that we
cannot really commit a sin unless we really know and understand what the sin is.
Most of those who might have been told that they will go to Hell if they don't do (or do do) something may not be fully clear about the significance and the consequences of their actions. Sometimes it is a bit like children who may have been told that they have been naughty when they have just been silly and yet usually their parents love them all the same.
Not all of us know and accept that God is a God of Love.
You cannot be punished for not going to Mass on a Sunday if you don't really know and understand what the Mass is.
That's God's business, not ours.
I don't spend time mithering as to who is or isn't or will be 'saved'. Some of the Father's said we should even pray for the demons.
We should love everyone. Pray for everyone.
This is why missionaries should be shot on sight
I have no idea what you mean here.
What would that state be?
God's love fills and transcends the universe--there's nowhere to go where He is not.
I'd say "Or is it a refusal to love God and for fellow beings?" is about right.
Re "When Lewis said the gates of hell are locked from the inside, what if someone in there wanted to unlock them and get out?" Then I believe God would help them to do so. But it wouldn't be Hell in that case. Maybe something like Purgatory. (For a fictional and symbolic idea of that, you might like Lewis' The Great Divorce, about a bus ride from Hell to Heaven.)
"Does rejecting God's love eternally equate with not believing what someone else tells you to believe?" I don't believe so, no, especially if we're talking about here on Earth.
Oh, you said it so much better than I did. This, this, all of this.
Everyone who claims in any way to be a Christian is ipso facto a missionary.
Most ,but not all, religions claim to have something positive to say to those they come in contact with. If we believe in some idea and we believe that it has been good for us then we would naturally want to share it with others.
Even those who organise Nativity plays in primary schools, whether they are formally Christian believers or not, are saying that there is some positive message in the story of Christ's birth.
How could it be considered 'good' to shoot all those people on sight ?
It's a Pterry quote. In the discworld people only go to Hell if they believe they deserve to go there. The idea that people are only guilty of sin if they know they're sinning struck me as a similar idea. Perry's comment there is that it's therefore missionaries' fault fault that people go to Hell, and therefore they should be shot on sight.
(Needless to say I think the model of God, sin, and punishment behind the idea that God will only punish people for consciously rejecting him is problematic. It may imply that God is a merciful arbitrary despot but it still implies that God's an arbitrary despot )
Having 'listened 'to stories about Jesus does not necessarily mean that one has 'understood' them.
Having 'understood' stories about Jesus does not necessarily indicate that one has 'agreed' with them.
Having 'agreed' with them does not necessarily mean that one has seen the relevance of the stories for one's own life.Nor that one would be willing or able to follow these teachings.
God knows and understands these various difficulties better than we do.
So you say, but I'm suggesting that before we were born, we weren't. We had no existence. It stands to reason that a state of not being is available after death. I don't see a problem here. If the idea of eternity in any form seems disagreeable in any way, why shouldn't people simply opt out? Politely decline. No thank you.
Incidentally, it would be interesting to trace echoes of Lewis' Anglo-Welsh-IrIsh-Ulster heritage in his writings. The supplanting Telmarines are I think the Ulster Scots, but we true-born English need to remind ourselves that we are all descended from pirates.
Another thread, perhaps.
Could you unpick the bit in italics. Especially the "It stands to reason." I cant see any necessary logical connection.
I'm only trying for the simplicity of saying that if at one time our interior selves did not exist, at death we ought to be able to return to that non-state, instead of persist in infinite misery or bliss. If our bodies and all they encapsulate are a tiny aspect of the matter that can neither be created nor destroyed, it seems elementary to me that it all simply recycles. I don't mean reincarnation, mind you.
Re: our consciousness, nothing is able to be experienced without our brains. So when the brain goes the way of the log, I can't grasp how we're going to be able to comprehend anything. And since we have no conception of ourselves before we were born, I don't know why it's a stretch to think that being dead will be different.
Any more, I think it's a lot for a religion to claim that all humans are governed by and accountable to a god regardless of whether or not they believe in that god. Especially since god itself isn't making its presence known -- all we have is a segment of humans speaking in god's name. So those humans present the case for god, and some who hear it simply say, "No thank you," and continue to live outside of the religious construct. Theirs is to be neither rewarded nor punished after death. Theirs is simply no longer to be.
I'm sorry if these thoughts are incomplete, or poorly described or linked. My head feels fuzzy today.
I do not know that we can be annihilated like that. It may be part of being made in God’s image if we can’t. I personally consider annihilation far worse than Hell. In any case, it’s not the teaching of the most traditional Christian churches.
And I don’t really know when our actual existence started in terms of spacetime. I don’t know if there was some kind of pre-birth spiritual existence (I don’t believe in something like the Mormon doctrine, though) or if our relationship to time necessarily matches the way a physical object would.
How do you know this?
How do you not? It’s our physiological condition. It’s Neuroscience. If a person is rendered “brain dead,” that’s it. We are confined by what we know, and to know, a brain is required.
I saw that movie: “Would you die for him?!!”
Our bodies function that way, but that’s not the same thing as our souls.
I'd like to know more about this. Have you got a book or something you could send me to?
Again, so you say, or so you’ll remind me that’s what Christianity says. It’s not the same thing for water sprites, either, I’m told.
Some people don’t see, infer, understand — however you want to couch it — a reason, basis, necessity— however you want to couch that — for the monotheistic requirement of a soul.
Even if he did, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’d find the idea of eternal anything more desirable. Hey, he’s right here in this thread. @Eirenist has no reason to speak of him as if he wasn’t.
Hey, @Lamb Chopped — do a quick Google search on “Panpsychism.”
Probably not, agreed, or any other entities of a similar nature.
Or presumably polytheistic, since belief in the soul isn’t limited to monotheism. In any case, I’m talking about a supernaturalist, specifically traditional Christian, perspective.
Why, yes.
Is that a recommendation on this?
If so, I did, and I thank you, but I was more interested in the bit where consciousness creates (originates, whatever) matter. I was familiar with the idea of everything having a spirit/mind/whatsit before, from animism, but had never come across the creation idea...
That makes sense to me - maybe I need to look into this further?
If we only had the Old Testament to read, would we describe God as a God of Love ?
And a massive body of commentary and developed tradition.
I genuinely don't get this. The message the OT on its own gives me is "why is God such a murderous shit?". You can barely turn a page without someone being smited for fuck all. Try to steady the ark of the covenant? Splat. Keep some treasure from a sacked city? Splat, along with your whole family. Be an infant at the wrong time in Jericho? Splat, you baby bastard! The OT God needs to calm down a bit. When he's not killing people he's demanding other people do it for him.