by jimwalton » Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:42 pm
> Not if I die without believing. None of the evidence you described is good or convincing to me.
If you die without believing, it's not because God is at fault, that He is not good, or that He made a mistake. It's because you persist in not coming to Him.
Suppose we crash on a deserted island. After weeks of starvation and problems surviving, I find a source of food and safe shelter, and I invite you to come. You claim you don't believe me and refuse the invitation. I show you that I have food and offer it to you. You refuse to come. Can you blame me if you "die without believing" because my evidence wasn't convincing?
> I described some.
Those are alternatives that don't take you anywhere different. If you think the evidence I describe is not good or convincing, then that wouldn't change if you were given another life or reincarnated. If you're aware of the conditions of acceptance and rejection now, then choose the truth now.
> This doesn't make my 3 other options not possible.
It does. You seem to want a different life to make a choice. If in that life you have the same consciousness, then you wouldn't choose God any different then than you do now. If in that life you have a different consciousness, then we can't really say it's you. If you want God, then choose Him in this life with this consciousness.
> If there is a being that didn't want me to fall, he would allow for and ensure the other options.
You're missing the point of the analogy. The point is not that there's a being who can stop you from being susceptible to gravity, but rather that if you choose to jump you choose gravity (in the analogy). That's the analogy. Falling is the only choice in a system governed by gravity. Living separated from God is the only possible consequence in a system where you have chosen to separate from God.
> Option 2 is different in that it's the same life over and over. Unless you think this life is hell, looping the same instance of lifetime over and over would be a more merciful option than hell.
If you want God, choose Him now. He offers you His mercy even today, even now.
> Hell is infinite, so yeah.
Not all Christians, you should know, believe in the traditional concept of hell and its being infinite. There are theories about reconcilationism, semi-restorationism, modified eternalism, and annihilationism, all with some kind of scriptural backing. In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who refuse to be reconciled.
I also don't believe that hell is fire. Hell is not "One Fire Tortures All." Fire is just the image of untold suffering, which is what one will experience when separated from God. We have strong hints that there are different degrees of punishment in hell (totally unlike the different levels of hell as in Dante's Divine Comedy, which is not Scripture).
* Matthew 11.22-24 & Luke 10.12: Jesus says it will be “more tolerable” for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah than for the people of Capernaum. That would indicate to me a more harsh punishment and a less harsh punishment.
* Matthew 23.14: Jesus tells the Pharisees they will be punished more severely for the way they are deceiving the people and living as hypocrites.
* Revelation 20.13: Each is going to be judged according to what he has done. Since that is the case, then the punishments and rewards can’t be the same for everybody.
* and finally, Luke 12.47-48 (workers are punished with more or fewer blows). There are degrees of punishment, and even sins of ignorance are treated differently than sins of intention.
Why I bother to point this out is because often those who consider hell to be unfair are picturing the same punishment for all, which is most likely not the case, and infinite punishment for finite crimes, which may also not be the case. People will be punished according to the works they have done (2 Corinthians 5.10).
C.S. Lewis makes some interesting observations about hell. I'll reword them and summarize some of them here: You object to the doctrine of hell. What are you asking God to do? To wipe out past sins at all costs and to give anyone who wants it a fresh start, smoothing difficulties and offering help? But He has DONE that. That's what his death and resurrection were all about. OK, then, are you asking God to forgive you? It's a RELATIONSHIP. He will forgive anyone who wants it, and cannot forgive those who choose not to be forgiven. To leave you alone then? Well, I'm afraid that's what hell is.
If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If there is a way that must be found by the will, and by love, then it must be possible to refuse it. If the happiness of a person is honestly the result of self-surrender, then no one can make that decision except himself, and he may refuse. I would love to say everyone will be saved. But then I'd have to ask, "Will they be saved against their will, or with it?" If I say "against their will," I'm in the middle of a contradiction; how can self-surrender and love be involuntary? But if the answer is "With their will," it begs the question: "What if they will not give in?"
So, with all that has been said, and with all the disagreements, even from Christians, about hell, I can conclude with confidence with this statement: Those who turn away from God will be separated from the life of God. Though we can’t be sure about the form or duration of that separation, this we can be sure of: it will be a horrible experience, and God will be fair about the form and duration of it. If you reject God, you take your chances.
> Could God possibly be unjust, unmerciful, or bad or is this an impossibility? Would you say it's possible, but not the case?
Good question. If it were possible for God to be unjust, then He couldn't possibly be God. So I would have to say it's impossible, but logic and definition. It like saying, "If God were not God, would He still be God?" So we look at his teachings and actions to determine if He could truthfully be God (is not unjust, unmerciful, or bad) or if he's another false god (a poser, hypocrite, and pretender). When we look at His actions and teachings, we find by evidence that He could very well be the true God. When we combine that observation and tentative conclusion with other evidences, we infer the most reasonable conclusion, that He is God.
> Not if I die without believing. None of the evidence you described is good or convincing to me.
If you die without believing, it's not because God is at fault, that He is not good, or that He made a mistake. It's because you persist in not coming to Him.
Suppose we crash on a deserted island. After weeks of starvation and problems surviving, I find a source of food and safe shelter, and I invite you to come. You claim you don't believe me and refuse the invitation. I show you that I have food and offer it to you. You refuse to come. Can you blame me if you "die without believing" because my evidence wasn't convincing?
> I described some.
Those are alternatives that don't take you anywhere different. If you think the evidence I describe is not good or convincing, then that wouldn't change if you were given another life or reincarnated. If you're aware of the conditions of acceptance and rejection now, then choose the truth now.
> This doesn't make my 3 other options not possible.
It does. You seem to want a different life to make a choice. If in that life you have the same consciousness, then you wouldn't choose God any different then than you do now. If in that life you have a different consciousness, then we can't really say it's you. If you want God, then choose Him in this life with this consciousness.
> If there is a being that didn't want me to fall, he would allow for and ensure the other options.
You're missing the point of the analogy. The point is not that there's a being who can stop you from being susceptible to gravity, but rather that if you choose to jump you choose gravity (in the analogy). That's the analogy. Falling is the only choice in a system governed by gravity. Living separated from God is the only possible consequence in a system where you have chosen to separate from God.
> Option 2 is different in that it's the same life over and over. Unless you think this life is hell, looping the same instance of lifetime over and over would be a more merciful option than hell.
If you want God, choose Him now. He offers you His mercy even today, even now.
> Hell is infinite, so yeah.
Not all Christians, you should know, believe in the traditional concept of hell and its being infinite. There are theories about reconcilationism, semi-restorationism, modified eternalism, and annihilationism, all with some kind of scriptural backing. In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who refuse to be reconciled.
I also don't believe that hell is fire. Hell is not "One Fire Tortures All." Fire is just the image of untold suffering, which is what one will experience when separated from God. We have strong hints that there are different degrees of punishment in hell (totally unlike the different levels of hell as in Dante's Divine Comedy, which is not Scripture).
* Matthew 11.22-24 & Luke 10.12: Jesus says it will be “more tolerable” for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah than for the people of Capernaum. That would indicate to me a more harsh punishment and a less harsh punishment.
* Matthew 23.14: Jesus tells the Pharisees they will be punished more severely for the way they are deceiving the people and living as hypocrites.
* Revelation 20.13: Each is going to be judged according to what he has done. Since that is the case, then the punishments and rewards can’t be the same for everybody.
* and finally, Luke 12.47-48 (workers are punished with more or fewer blows). There are degrees of punishment, and even sins of ignorance are treated differently than sins of intention.
Why I bother to point this out is because often those who consider hell to be unfair are picturing the same punishment for all, which is most likely not the case, and infinite punishment for finite crimes, which may also not be the case. People will be punished according to the works they have done (2 Corinthians 5.10).
C.S. Lewis makes some interesting observations about hell. I'll reword them and summarize some of them here: You object to the doctrine of hell. What are you asking God to do? To wipe out past sins at all costs and to give anyone who wants it a fresh start, smoothing difficulties and offering help? But He has DONE that. That's what his death and resurrection were all about. OK, then, are you asking God to forgive you? It's a RELATIONSHIP. He will forgive anyone who wants it, and cannot forgive those who choose not to be forgiven. To leave you alone then? Well, I'm afraid that's what hell is.
If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If there is a way that must be found by the will, and by love, then it must be possible to refuse it. If the happiness of a person is honestly the result of self-surrender, then no one can make that decision except himself, and he may refuse. I would love to say everyone will be saved. But then I'd have to ask, "Will they be saved against their will, or with it?" If I say "against their will," I'm in the middle of a contradiction; how can self-surrender and love be involuntary? But if the answer is "With their will," it begs the question: "What if they will not give in?"
So, with all that has been said, and with all the disagreements, even from Christians, about hell, I can conclude with confidence with this statement: Those who turn away from God will be separated from the life of God. Though we can’t be sure about the form or duration of that separation, this we can be sure of: it will be a horrible experience, and God will be fair about the form and duration of it. If you reject God, you take your chances.
> Could God possibly be unjust, unmerciful, or bad or is this an impossibility? Would you say it's possible, but not the case?
Good question. If it were possible for God to be unjust, then He couldn't possibly be God. So I would have to say it's impossible, but logic and definition. It like saying, "If God were not God, would He still be God?" So we look at his teachings and actions to determine if He could truthfully be God (is not unjust, unmerciful, or bad) or if he's another false god (a poser, hypocrite, and pretender). When we look at His actions and teachings, we find by evidence that He could very well be the true God. When we combine that observation and tentative conclusion with other evidences, we infer the most reasonable conclusion, that He is God.