Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

50 Christmases Later

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

December 19, 1971 was a Sunday, the last one before Christmas.  I was ten.  My sister was eleven.  We went with our family to the evening service at Trinity Baptist Church in Boyd, Texas.  After services my parents left us with a group that was going Christmas caroling.  We never made it to the first house.

Our church was on the highway on the western edge of town.   Our group of about 20 carolers walked along the side the highway toward the first neighborhood a few hundred yards away.  The leaders were in the front and back of the group.  My sister and I were with the kids in the middle.  My memories of what happened next are episodic.  I don’t know if this is because I was in and out of consciousness or if my mind will not let me remember.  This is what I do remember.

It is a dark night.  We are walking along the side of the road.  My friends are around me.  Two headlights.  Screeching tires.  Screams.  Darkness.

Laying in a ditch.  Where is Robin?  Grabbing hands full of weeds as I crawl in the ditch.  Why can’t I stand?  Darkness.

Laying on the side of the road.  Someone has laid a coat over me.  A crowd has gathered around a car.  Yelling.  A man is beating someone with his fists.  Darkness.

The flashing lights of ambulances.  My mother is here.  She is hysterical.  She is screaming and fighting with a man who will not let her into an ambulance.  Darkness.

In an ambulance going down the road.  My father is beside me.  He weeps silently.  Darkness.

Bright lights of a hospital.  A doctor is wrapping plaster around my leg.  I see one of my friends on the other side of the room.  Sleep.

Later I learned that a drunken 19 year-old man had swerved toward the group as a joke to frighten us.  He lost control and drove into the middle of the group among the kids.  Eight were injured, including me and my sister, and one nine year-old girl was killed when the car pinned her against a highway post.  This girl was wearing the same style coat as my sister, and my mother had fought to get into the ambulance with her, thinking it was her daughter.  My sister was in a different ambulance, and my father was weeping because the entire trip with me to the hospital in Fort Worth he thought Robin was dead. 

Robin was not dead, but she was badly injured.  She was hit so hard that her body became a projectile that struck another kid and broke his leg.  She sustained a broken nose, a broken leg, a broken arm and injuries to her spinal cord.  She had operations and lived a fairly normal life, though she always struggled with fine motor skills.  Over 40 years later, in 2014, complications from her injuries caused her to become a quadriplegic.  She lived six more years and died in 2020.  By comparison, my injuries were slight, a broken leg from which I fully recovered. 

What to make of all of this?  Terrible, senseless things happen to children as Ivan Karamazov recounted in his famous indictment of God.  How can a loving God allow this?  I have contemplated the theodicy for decades, and in that time I have learned only one thing for certain.  Ivan’s indictment cannot be refuted by logic.  If it can be countered at all, it can be countered only as Alyosha countered it, by faith in God’s love as demonstrated though Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.  Robin trusted.  She forgave.  She did not allow bitterness to consume her soul.  This is our second Christmas without her, but I will see her again.  With joy in my heart, I sing the old song:

I’ll meet you in the morning
With a how do you do
And we’ll sit down by the river
And with rapture old acquaintance renew
You’ll know me in the morning
By the smile that I wear
When I meet you in the morning
In that city that is built four square

Comments
StephenB @145
Personally, I hate the idea of eternal suffering …
I have to wonder. Is God too manly for StephenB’s taste?
... and I wish that it was not a necessary consequence of immortal souls receiving the gift of free will.
I have good news for you: it is not a necessary consequence at all. God could create a neutral world, without the benefits of heaven, but also without being subjected to sadistic torturers.
Would it be better if there were no heaven or hell? I will leave that to God.
Let’s ask instead: Would it be better if there were more options than just heaven & hell? In the context of the self-evident truth that punishment should fit the crime, the answer is an unequivocal “Yes.”
My position is that the souls in hell would be even unhappier than they are right now if they were suddenly forced against their will to live with God in heaven.
According to you, uncle Bob and daughter Suzie would both prefer eternal torment to being in heaven? Ok. Got it.Origenes
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PST
WJM@244
Further, let’s say I have knowledge that a horrendous crime is about to be committed and I’m the only person that can stop it – again, with no personal risk whatsoever. To stop the crime I must physically restrain the person against their own free will, which would be easy for me. Is it not my responsibility to do this in order to prevent the crime? My knowledge of the crime is not causing the crime, right?
I know it is an unwarranted stepping in to a seemingly endless and obstruse theological argument with closed-minded fundamentalists, but I can't resist. I think you forget that God also has the responsibility to maintain the regularity of natural law, for a lot of reasons including that the viability of science and the scientific method needs to be maintained . If He intervened in every instance of impending accident or bad choices on the part of human beings, that regularity would be disrupted repeatedly and often. By far the better solution to the moral dilemma would be that the tradeoffs accomplished in allowing the unfortunate consequences of bad choices and accidental disasters to exist, never be permanent and eternal and forever unforgiven - that humans always eventually after enough suffering can grow in wisdom and come around to a different character and that anyway suffering always will be temporary. Of course, this sort of solution is anathema, heresy, to some sects of Christianity. I think there is a sort of perverse relishing of the notion of eternal torment as the punishment for certain sins.doubter
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST
LCD apparently thinks I'm God because he thinks I created hell.William J Murray
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PST
Tough love.
StephenB @247: If not Hell, where should these God haters spend their eternity. Is it in heaven with the same God they have rejected their whole life?
I have encountered this question several times before. The underlying sentiment here is that justice has to be served, that not all can be just forgiven and ignored, which may indeed very well be right. But, as I have argued in #249, why is it that there is but one punishment that fits all crimes?
Origenes: Why is there only one alternative to heaven to begin with? Why just one place for the billions of people who are unfit for heaven? What is the logic here? Why not create at least one ‘neutral’ world, without the benefits of heaven, but also without sadistic torturers?
I think that in #264 answered my question: one punishment for all is a ‘manly’ thing, a matter of ‘righteous anger’, ‘tough love’ and ‘hard virtues’.
StephenB: That is a little one sided I should think. It’s all very well to characterize goodness as being kind, loving, and compassionate, but whatever happened to the hard virtues, such as persistence, determination, courage, valor, longsuffering, loyalty, trustworthiness, and steadfastness, Does WJM not value the traits of a strong man? Or does he appreciate only the soft qualities of a nurturing woman? WJM never refers to tough love. His references about love are always soft, cushy, and cuddly, as if the only thing that mattered in a loving person was the quality of being “nice.” Maybe that is one reason why he cannot love a Savior who was human enough to express righteous anger and tough enough to endure the worst kind of persecution without complaining. Notice also that, for WJM, being angry is placed in the same category as being malicious or being hateful, as if anger could never be righteous. I have to wonder. Was Jesus Christ too manly for WJM’s taste?
I am sitting here wondering if I read what I just read. God created only heaven and hell, and refrained from creating a neutral world, because he wanted to make a manly statement? Eternal torment for uncle Bob and daugher Suzie because ‘manly love’? Really?Origenes
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PST
If God actually doesn’t want any of us to fall in the pit, all He has to do is not dig the pit.
Me: "As far as we see you dig your own pit and blame God ?" WJM: "Even if I dig my own pit why God created me with hands ? Me:" Your hands are under your control ,your brain control your hand. WJM:"Yes but if God knew that I will dig my own pit He shouldn't have created me with a brain , it's His fault that I have brain " Me:Lieutenant Commander Data
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PST
SB said:
No. Those two outcomes were not the “result” of God’s decision to create or not create..
Would the outcome have occurred if God instead chose to not create? Would we get the same outcome if God chose to create a different kind of world, like the one Swedenborg describes? Yes, the outcome is in fact the result of God's decision. If I dig a giant pit in the road in front of my house, are people and cars falling into the pit not the result of my having dug it? Even if I put warning signs all around the pit, if I have foreknowledge that people and cars are still going to fall into it, I know what the result of my digging the pit is going to be, and I know that the only way to prevent it from happening is to not dig the pit in the first place. The free will of the people that will fall into the pit anyway, deliberately or not, is entirely irrelevant in the matter of my own culpability for not preventing something I 100% knew would happen if I dug the pit. I knew the only way to prevent people from using their free will to jump in the pit was to not dig the pit. If I cared about and loved those people, then I certainly do not dig that pit and then afterwards blame them for doing exactly what I knew they would do. If God actually doesn't want any of us to fall in the pit, all He has to do is not dig the pit. Why is God digging the pit in the first place if he doesn't want anyone to fall or jump into it? It is not required for meaningful free will to exist, as Swedenborg's alternative world demonstrates. Yes, you allow people to make decisions that may result in temporary suffering in order to learn and grow and yes, that is a form of love - "tough love." Swedenborg's worldview allows people to stay in suffering as long as they choose or refuse to learn or change; but it is never hopeless. There is nothing to be gained by setting up a world where there is the possibility of eternal suffering without any hope of getting out of it. There's no good reason to dig that kind of pit in the first place - unless you're just a sadistic monster. God doesn't provide us the free will capacity to do a lot of things; we have limited free will (rather, limited free choice.) If you're going to put limitations on free will, and you're a good person, the one thing you make sure you limit is our capacity to make any choice that will result in eternal torment. If any free will option should be a priority to prohibit by limiting our free will capacities, nothing else even comes close.William J Murray
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PST
SB said:
They call it Geriatric rigidity.
I guess when you need it to justify your God, you're willing to dismiss our free will capacity to change by citing some psychological tendency, while otherwise insisting and relying on our capacity to use free will to overcome all other psychological tendencies that may be affecting our judgement in our lives.William J Murray
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PST
SB said:
That is a little one sided I should think. It’s all very well to characterize goodness as being kind, loving, and compassionate, but whatever happened to the hard virtues, such as persistence, determination, courage, valor, longsuffering, loyalty, trustworthiness, and steadfastness, Does WJM not value the traits of a strong man?
Says the "man" willing to abandon even those he loves to eternal torment as long as God wipes the tears from his eyes and magically make his heart whole and happy again. Wow, did you ever just step in a big pile of dog excrement. You're the one quaking in your boots and being all subservient just because some being is more powerful than you and threatens you with "eternal suffering" and demands your loyalty, worship and love or else. I'm the guy remaining loyal, "risking" eternal suffering (how's that for "longsuffering" and courage?) and being steadfast to those I love. You're not manly, SB, as if those are just "manly" traits. You're a coward that can be bought off with a threat and a bribe.
WJM never refers to tough love.
It hasn't come up. You're talking to someone who has thrown his own children out of his house, his own son into juvenile detention and let him sit there for a weekend. Abandoning them to eternal suffering is not "tough love;" it is callous psychopathy and has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of love, "tough" or "manly" or not.
I have to wonder. Was Jesus Christ too manly for WJM’s taste?
I never met the guy. But, if God/Jesus has these "manly" qualities, then he would respect and honor my loyalty and faithfulness to those I love, my courage and steadfastness against threat of hell and promise of heaven, and the righteous anger some here have expressed against the unjust nature of "eternal suffering," even if those are expressed due to a misconception about the nature of those things. Also, that kind of God would respect and honor that my love, loyalty and commitment cannot be bought on command or through fear and promise of reward. You see, even if I am conceptually wrong about God being the one that deliberately threw me into a perilous situation, a manly God would respect, honor and love me for the fact that I will not, cannot give such a being my gratitude, love or respect for then offering to get me out of that situation. God would honor and respect and love me for doing the best I can to live my life like a man instead of some obsequious weasel who "loves" God because he is commanded to. A "manly" God wouldn't require or demand our worship and devotion and gratitude in the first place. Like a man, I have respected, loved and admired my children, family and friends when they have the courage to stand up to me when they think I'm in the wrong. Nothing has made me more proud of them than that, to hold to the courage of their convictions, even if they are convictions I do not share. The God you describe isn't manly; He is a vain, jealous, abusive psychopath that set up a creation for His own glory, for the purpose of having inferior beings worship and love him and be grateful to him for all eternity, his system resulting in a fate of eternal torture for those who will not or cannot. That is not love of either the masculine or feminine quality, if that's how you wish to categorize things. That is not a "man" that deserves respect or admiration.William J Murray
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PST
Yarrgonaut LCD@257, in what you cited, St. Gregory of Nyssa was arguing that if God in his foreknowledge were
:) Where are Judas and infinity of punishment in your explanation of what I cited? I asked you about a certain citation and you tell me about something else. Anyway the apocatastasis was anathematized and (even was mentioned only Origen by the 5th Council) fall over all writtings that promote this heresy. Origen was one of the most remarkable writers, but he dared to swim too far from shore and drowned in the ocean of divine knowledge. Church didn't throw Origen's works that is very valuable but only the part where he make the mistake. That's why he was not called St. Origen but only Origen.
StephenB
Origenes: Are the following statements in line with your reasoning? (1.) There is a moment in heavenly time, where God makes the decision whether or not to create William J Murray. (2.) At this moment of decision, God knows that, once created, WJM will freely decide to end up in hell. (3.) At this moment God can decide to create WJM, which results in WJM ending up in hell. (4.) At this moment God can decide not to create WJM, which results in WJM not ending up in hell (or anywhere else).
No. I don’t presume to know (or guess) about how God operates at the intersection of time and timelessness,
:) To be in line with "morality" of some people I guess God would have to do evil actions by restricting the free will of parents/ancestors of WJM or somehow to kill WJM or to provoke an "spontaneous" abortion of WJM ,etc.Lieutenant Commander Data
January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PST
WJM
Under Christianity, the Christian God is the one who put all of humanity in harm’s way in the first place; it is the Christian God that continues to force billions of souls into harm’s way by continuing to create them here; it is the Christian God that, even though He is the one that put us in peril in the first place, then continued to force us into it, now demands our love and gratitude before
This is what is known as passing the buck. It’s like the man who murdered a woman and dumped her body in the river, saying to the judge, “if God didn’t want me to kill her, then he should not have made me in the first place, God is to blame.” It is one of the cheapest cop outs that I can imagine – blaming God for the way we behave.
OMG, so, so easily. We don’t even need to “imagine” a new concept, (A God WJM can relate to). there are many such concepts already in existence, and have been for hundreds of years. We can use theologian Emanuel Swedenborg’s view of God, life and the afterlife as one example.
Yes, WJM does, indeed, have a wild imagination.
In his {Swedenborg's] perspective (which he claims he came to by actually, repeatedly visiting afterlife worlds via a process we call astral projection today,) he said that when people die here, they are sorted out to many different afterlife worlds that reflected the content of their heart, deep beliefs and psychology. Regardless of their religious or spiritual beliefs, if they were loving, kind, compassionate and joyful people, they would be sorted into an afterlife world that reflected that nature; if they were malicious, hateful, angry people, they were sorted into that kind of afterlife domain, but this is not a permanent or eternal fate; there is always a way out by changing your heart from “dark” to “light,” so to speak. There is always hope for them, and for those who compassionately love them to help them move beyond that kind of world. Yes, via their free will, they can choose to remain that kind of person and thus stay in that world, but their free will could also gain their passage to a better world.
That is a little one sided I should think. It’s all very well to characterize goodness as being kind, loving, and compassionate, but whatever happened to the hard virtues, such as persistence, determination, courage, valor, longsuffering, loyalty, trustworthiness, and steadfastness, Does WJM not value the traits of a strong man? Or does he appreciate only the soft qualities of a nurturing woman? WJM never refers to tough love. His references about love are always soft, cushy, and cuddly, as if the only thing that mattered in a loving person was the quality of being “nice.” Maybe that is one reason why he cannot love a Savior who was human enough to express righteous anger and tough enough to endure the worst kind of persecution without complaining. Notice also that, for WJM, being angry is placed in the same category as being malicious or being hateful, as if anger could never be righteous. I have to wonder. Was Jesus Christ too manly for WJM’s taste?
There is always hope for them, and for those who compassionately love them to help them move beyond that kind of world. Yes, via their free will, they can choose to remain that kind of person and thus stay in that world, but their free will could also gain their passage to a better world.
More whistling past the graveyard. The human personality tends to get more locked in with age. They call it Geriatric rigidity. I would argue that our attitudes and traits get locked in and stay that way in the next life - we get once chance to determine our destiny. That is why it is too late to repent after death.StephenB
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PST
LCD@257, in what you cited, St. Gregory of Nyssa was arguing that if God in his foreknowledge were to find that the children would have had to undergo eternal correction to purify the evil in their heart, that God would take their life in infancy to prevent it. You're actually making my argument for me here. And technically Origen wasn't anathematized by the council, or at least not directly. https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/05/31/did-the-fifth-ecumenical-council-condemn-universal-salvation/ Anyway, I would think the Origen vs Celsus debate went a lot better for Christianity than most contemporary debates about the ethics of Hell. :/Yarrgonaut
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PST
Origenes:
So, you don’t presume to know that an all-powerful all-knowing timeless God has foreknowledge about WJM’s fate before he creates him.
Strictly speaking, God just knows. However, we use the term "foreknowledge" to capture the notion the God knows the future. In any case, Yes, I hold that, using the imprecise language that we are stuck with, God "knew" that WJM would write anti-Christian posts. My main problem with your formulation is this:
(3.) At this moment God can decide to create WJM, which results in WJM ending up in hell. (4.) At this moment God can decide not to create WJM, which results in WJM not ending up in hell (or anywhere else).
No. Those two outcomes were not the "result" of God's decision to create or not create.. They were the result of WJM's decision to respond or not respond to God's saving initiative.StephenB
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PST
Origenes,
So, you don’t presume to know that an all-powerful all-knowing timeless God has foreknowledge about WJM’s fate before he creates him.
Many presume that an all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless God is indeed capable of creating humans with perfectly free will and is perfectly capable to judge with God-like perfection and JUSTICE those who demand justice, and MERCY to those who repent rather than try to justify their selfish attitudes, motives, and actions. Foreknowledge simply means that God is not trapped in time as we are. God can see our free-will choices in the past, present, and future. Your inability to visualize God's abilities does not limit them. How does watching a video of a football game, remove the free will of the players during the actual event? -QQuerius
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PST
StephenB @
Origenes: Are the following statements in line with your reasoning? (1.) There is a moment in heavenly time, when God makes the decision whether or not to create William J Murray. (2.) At this moment of decision, God knows that, once created, WJM will freely decide to end up in hell.
No. I don’t presume to know (or guess) about how God operates at the intersection of time and timelessness
So, you don’t presume to know that an all-powerful all-knowing timeless God has foreknowledge about WJM’s fate before he creates him. In this context, you may want to clarify the following statements made by you at #229:
StephenB: God knew that you were going to write countless posts attacking Christianity (…) God knows who is going to win the college football championship next week. (...) God knows if and when the stock market will crash (...)
Origenes
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PST
Origenes:
Are the following statements in line with your reasoning? (1.) There is a moment in heavenly time, where God makes the decision whether or not to create William J Murray. (2.) At this moment of decision, God knows that, once created, WJM will freely decide to end up in hell. (3.) At this moment God can decide to create WJM, which results in WJM ending up in hell. (4.) At this moment God can decide not to create WJM, which results in WJM not ending up in hell (or anywhere else).
No. I don't presume to know (or guess) about how God operates at the intersection of time and timelessness,StephenB
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PST
Lieutenant Commander Data @250,
Yep. Somebody have to be psychologically, emotionally damaged to see this distorted image of a loving God that dies for all people not to go to hell and some people double down with their hate and spit God in the face and reject Him .
Nicely stated. And God is all powerful, but is somehow not powerful enough to ensure that we have free will and that everyone will receive either perfect JUSTICE or infinite MERCY? -QQuerius
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PST
Yarrgonaut LCD@242, Clement, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, the entire Alexandrian school.
:) Well Clement was a teacher of Origen that was anathematized by 5th Ecumenical Council(553-Constantinople) regarding to heresy of apocatastasis. As for St. Gregory of Nyssa he wrote about Judas :
namely, that when we think of such men, that which never existed is to be preferred to that which has existed in such sin. For, as to the latter, on account of the depth of the ingrained evil, the chastisement in the way of purgation will be extended into infinity..." ( On Infants' Early Deaths ).
Lieutenant Commander Data
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PST
WJM@230 I'm glad you're aware of the diversity of ideas that exist within the Christian realm, nevertheless, @254, you seem to treat "the Christian theory" as monolithic once again. I would imagine, it's easier in the context of your conversation, but it makes me want to jump in with the same reminder.Yarrgonaut
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PST
LCD@242, Clement, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, the entire Alexandrian school.Yarrgonaut
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PST
Zweston said:
It’s so interesting that the people who want free will and are skeptics appeal to God ..
Nobody's doing that. I'm pointing out how the Christian theory of God and existence is, by any reasonable standard, not just, loving, merciful, kind or compassionate. And, that there theories of God and existence that are actually kind, loving, just, merciful and compassionate - at least far more so than the Christian theory. LCD said:
Nope! The responsability is yours .
"Love me or suffer torment" is 100% psychological/emotional abuse.
That was so sharp you cut through bone. Poor WJM .
I'm not the one claiming to be moral while worshipping a concept of God that demands our love or else! Do you really not see how perverse that is?William J Murray
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PST
It's so interesting that the people who want free will and are skeptics appeal to God to sovereignly change history and take over... God can't win. When you put God on trial, all kinds of nonsense ensues.zweston
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PST
If God knows before he creates someone that this person will end up in hell, and He has the choice to either create him or not, does He not bear responsibility for this outcome?
Nope! The responsability is yours . But there is another solution that God restrict every thought /act of you that would send you to hell. Agree ? ;)Lieutenant Commander Data
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PST
StephenB @
WJM’s argument is that it doesn’t matter what God did after the fact to remedy a problem that man created; as the Creator, He was also morally obliged to remedy the problem before the fact by refusing to create anyone who would, in the end, misuse his gift of free will and lose his soul in the process.
StephenB is completely ignoring the premise that God knew about these problems before he initiated his creation of man. StephenB confirmed God’s foreknowledge when he wrote in @229:
God knew that you were going to write countless posts attacking Christianity.
StephenB would you be so kind to respond to my question to you in @343?
In other words, God should permit man to dictate whom, when, and under what circumstances He may create someone.
If God knows before he creates someone that this person will end up in hell, and He has the choice to either create him or not, does He not bear responsibility for this outcome?Origenes
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PST
StephenB So WJM, who insists that he has no moral duty to anyone or anything, says, nevertheless, that God has a moral duty to observe WJM’s arbitrary rules for a Creator.
That was so sharp you cut through bone. Poor WJM . I guess the debate between WJM and KF over duty... is over.
WJM Only an abusive, evil maniac would cast their own child (or allow that child to cast itself) into eternal torment regardless of that child “rejecting” them. You have to be psychologically, emotionally damaged to not see this.
Yep. Somebody have to be psychologically, emotionally damaged to see this distorted image of a loving God that dies for all people not to go to hell and some people double down with their hate and spit God in the face and reject Him .Lieutenant Commander Data
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PST
The punishment should fit the crime.
One of the most important things is to make sure appropriate sentences are given for each offence – in other words, the punishment should fit the crime. - [source]
Under Christianity there seems to be one punishment that fits all crimes. Why is that?
StephenB @164: If you offend an infinite God, expect infinite repercussions.
So, eternal torment always fits the crime, because God is equally ‘infinitely offended’ by an adulterer who worships Zeus, as he is by Ted Bundy. Really?
StephenB @247: If not Hell, where should these God haters spend their eternity. Is it in heaven with the same God they have rejected their whole life?
Why is there only one alternative to heaven to begin with? Why just one place for the billions of people who are unfit for heaven? What is the logic here? Why not create at least one ‘neutral’ world, without the benefits of heaven, but also without sadistic torturers?Origenes
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PST
SB said:
So WJM, who insists that He has no moral duty to anyone or anything, says, nevertheless, that God has a moral duty to observe WJM’s arbitrary rules for a Creator.
Completely false. I'm pointing out the nature of the Christian concept of God by their own doctrine, the logical ramifications of that nature and that hypothetical God's actions, and leaving it to the reader to decide if that concept of God is behaving morally by their own standards.
So what about WJM’s claim that free will and causation are not the critical factors in this discussion? I say that they are.
Under Christianity, the Christian God is the one who put all of humanity in harm's way in the first place; it is the Christian God that continues to force billions of souls into harm's way by continuing to create them here; it is the Christian God that, even though He is the one that put us in peril in the first place, then continued to force us into it, now demands our love and gratitude before He will "save" us from the horrible fate he threw us into in the first place. It is the Christian God that stands by and allows us to cast ourselves into eternal torment with the lame excuse, "well, it was their free will choice." This is an immoral, horrible excuse, as my illustrations in #244 clearly demonstrate. The "free will choices" of others do not matter when it is clearly your responsibility to act to prevent a tragedy or a crime with eternal consequences.
My question to WJM is this; If not Hell, where should these God haters spend their eternity. Is it in heaven with the same God they have rejected their whole life?
SB thinks the people arguing with him are "God-haters," but they are not. They may hate the Christian concept of God, but why is that? As they have expressed here and in many other places, the reason they "hate" that concept is the same reason SB hates the idea of hell, even though he won't admit it: it's an unjust, unloving, unkind, unmerciful concept of a being without any compassion or honor, who demands our love, worship and gratitude for being saved from the horrible situation that being threw us into in the first place. The only way not to hate that kind being is to make excuses for it like some kind of emotionally, psychologically damaged child trying to win their abusive father's favor. Only an abusive, evil maniac would cast their own child (or allow that child to cast itself) into eternal torment regardless of that child "rejecting" them. You have to be psychologically, emotionally damaged to not see this. SB has to imagine his counterparts here as "hating God" instead of what is actually going on; his counterparts hate the unjust and unloving characteristics of that concept of God - as they should. SB asks, where should they end up? To answer that, we first must hypothesize a God that is not a vain, heartless psychopath who blames His own victims for the outcome of the perilous system he forces them into. So, let's imagine a system under the Christian's own concept of God (loving, merciful, just, etc,) but before he instantiated this world; can we think of a better system? OMG, so, so easily. We don't even need to "imagine" a new concept, there are many such concepts already in existence, and have been for hundreds of years. We can use theologian Emanuel Swedenborg's view of God, life and the afterlife as one example. In his perspective (which he claims he came to by actually, repeatedly visiting afterlife worlds via a process we call astral projection today,) he said that when people die here, they are sorted out to many different afterlife worlds that reflected the content of their heart, deep beliefs and psychology. Regardless of their religious or spiritual beliefs, if they were loving, kind, compassionate and joyful people, they would be sorted into an afterlife world that reflected that nature; if they were malicious, hateful, angry people, they were sorted into that kind of afterlife domain, but this is not a permanent or eternal fate; there is always a way out by changing your heart from "dark" to "light," so to speak. There is always hope for them, and for those who compassionately love them to help them move beyond that kind of world. Yes, via their free will, they can choose to remain that kind of person and thus stay in that world, but their free will could also gain their passage to a better world. In that kind of afterlife with "many mansions," yes, one can move closer to God by cultivating more of those good qualities, in more depth and purity, but it is not a demand put on anyone. It is always a choice, and if we desire, we can remain wherever we find ourselves when we die as long as we want. For any reasonable person, and by any reasonable definition of the terms, this is clearly a more loving, kind, merciful, just and compassionate system than the one offered by our main Christian counterparts here. I suggest that there might be far fewer atheists in the world, and far more Christians, if this was the system Christians offered, and this was the kind of God they claimed.William J Murray
January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PST
WJM
We can easily see from these examples that simply because free will is involved, and simply because knowledge is not the cause, that makes no difference that it is the person who knows, and who has the capacity to act to prevent the crime or the accident, who has the responsibility to act.
First, let’s begin with intentions. God’s desire was that all mean would be saved, as it says in Scripture. This desire was so strong that He backed it up with action, sending His son to take on human flesh and present Himself as a living sacrifice in order to save us from Hell. It was not a cost free initiative: it involved a heavy measure of suffering for the God man. WJM’s argument is that it doesn’t matter what God did after the fact to remedy a problem that man created; as the Creator, He was also morally obliged to remedy the problem before the fact by refusing to create anyone who would, in the end, misuse his gift of free will and lose his soul in the process. In other words, God should permit man to dictate whom, when, and under what circumstances He may create someone. So WJM, who insists that He has no moral duty to anyone or anything, says, nevertheless, that God has a moral duty to observe WJM’s arbitrary rules for a Creator. At every turn, he give himself the benefit of the doubt, but at no time does he give God the benefit of the doubt. So what about WJM’s claim that free will and causation are not the critical factors in this discussion? I say that they are. That raises the question: Who is responsible for the loss of a human soul. It seems evident that the person who should be held accountable is the one who refuses to heed the warning of dangers that lie ahead. In other words, it is the decision maker who is the cause of His ultimate fate. That person has misused the gift of free will by turning against the will of God on the grounds that he will have it so. There is, after all, a cause effect relationship between sin, suffering; and death. Sin is the cause; Spiritual death is the effect. WJM seems to want a God that would create another kind of universe, one where causes cannot produce unwanted effects, - a universe in which nothing can go seriously wrong. Ultimately, the refusal to love is the primary cause of spiritual death. It isn’t God I reject WJM’s argument that God must stop any spiritual disaster by not allowing it to play out. This, in itself, is a violation of free will. If a man chooses Hell, he has every right to go there, I strongly disagree with his decision, but it is not my decision to make. My question to WJM is this; If not Hell, where should these God haters spend their eternity. Is it in heaven with the same God they have rejected their whole life?StephenB
January 2, 2022
January
01
Jan
2
02
2022
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PST
To continue from #244: We can easily see from these examples that simply because free will is involved, and simply because knowledge is not the cause, that makes no difference that it is the person who knows, and who has the capacity to act to prevent the crime or the accident, who has the responsibility to act. However, in the Christian God's case, it is even worse than merely "not acting" in prevention of these things; God is deliberately putting people in harm's way whenever he creates a person into the situation where they can end up in hell, even if they could avoid it through some act of their own volition. Deliberately putting people in harm's way is both a crime and is immoral by any reasonable standard. Deliberately putting a person in harm's way makes you culpable for their eventual harm regardless of whether or not they "could have" prevented themselves from suffering that harm.William J Murray
January 2, 2022
January
01
Jan
2
02
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PST
SB said:
Everything else that you write has already been refuted.
Refutation by appeals to mind-reading are not actually refutations. Such as: Querius said:
And after 200+ posts, you offer to ask them a series of simple questions that will help them. Their response? They evade answering the questions, emit clouds of confusion, definitions, impatience, and vituperation to avoid answering them, and then disappear only to reappear several days later repeating the same flawed arguments from the beginning in a new post. Rinse and repeat.
I answered your questions honestly. I was not attempting to cloud the issue. I can't help it if you don't consider "I don't know" an acceptable answer.William J Murray
January 2, 2022
January
01
Jan
2
02
2022
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PST
SB said:
God’s knowledge has no causal effect on WJMs fate.
I never said it did. But, here's the problem: in my example of building a bridge I know will collapse on a certain date, my knowledge of the future that the bridge I build will eventually collapse is also not the cause. I did not say I caused the bridge to collapse by building it a "certain way." In fact, I didn't say what actually caused the bridge to collapse. Yet you did not hesitate to assign me the responsibility for the bridge collapsing and the death of those 500 people. Why is that? Because the fact of my foreknowledge that it would occur means I have the responsibility to build he bridge a different way so that the collapse does not occur, regardless of what actually causes it to fall and result in the death of those people. To illustrate this more; if I am aware a tragic accident is about to occur, let's say a couple who are so involved in each other as they cross a street that they don't realize a bus is barreling down at them despite several people shouting at them; if I have the capacity without risk to myself to stop that accident from occurring by physically yanking them out of the way, against their own free will volition and despite their own careless disregard for the situation around them, is it my responsibility to act? Or, is it perfectly moral for me to let them get run over by the bus and suffer (along with their friends and family) the rest of their lives for that because of the fact that they chose to not pay attention to what was going on around them? Are you saying I have no responsibility whatsoever to act? I mean, my knowledge that the accident is about to occur is not causing the accident, right? Further, let's say I have knowledge that a horrendous crime is about to be committed and I'm the only person that can stop it - again, with no personal risk whatsoever. To stop the crime I must physically restrain the person against their own free will, which would be easy for me. Is it not my responsibility to do this in order to prevent the crime? My knowledge of the crime is not causing the crime, right? SB seems to think that because knowledge that a thing is about to occur is not causing that thing to occur, or because the people involved have free will,; those facts somehow relieve me of my moral responsibility to act to prevent those things from happening. When, in fact, it is precisely my knowledge of those things, and my capacity to prevent them regardless of the "free will" choices of others, that not only puts the responsibility on me to act, it gives me the moral authority to violate their free will and act.William J Murray
January 2, 2022
January
01
Jan
2
02
2022
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PST
1 2 3 4 5 12

Leave a Reply