God is POWER, Thus Spoke Calvinuthra

[Received]

And I don't know about you, but I ain't got time or the inclination to have conversations when I'm engulfed in flames.

 

[SarahsKnight]

The sarcasm aside from Received, I do not think the parable in Luke 16 is near enough proof of a vision of the afterlife from Jesus. Yes, he never said it was a parable, but come on, nearly every time he told some kind of story it was clearly a parable. He virtually told his disciples that that was how he rolled with his lessons (Matthew 13:13 and 13:34, for instance). And so if we look at the illustrations, we might see a point other than indicated by the story were it supposed to be a real story. With me, it's the status of the beggar and the rich man that hints at Jesus' point, before they even died. Lazarus sounds a lot like the Gentile woman in Matthew 15:21-28, hanging with the "dogs" and hoping for a scrap of blessing that was normally thought to be for God's chosen people the Israelites alone, and the Rich Man in purple and fine linen could represent the Jews themselves, haughty, thinking they were fine and dandy because they had earthly blessings from God. But it got turned around at death, didn't it? To me the main point, perhaps among more than one, is that salvation is for the Gentiles too, not just the Jews. Jesus seemed to get up in the Pharisees faces a lot about that kind of thing. He is the the Way and Truth, and anyone may find Him if they seek it.


And, be honest: why would the fact that hell as an immediate conscious tormented afterlife be the only thing you take from the story if it's supposed to be literal? If it is a factual event, then wouldn't these things be true, also: 1) the rich man couldn't be in THAT much pain if he asked for one drop of water and there wasn't even an exclamation point at the end of his statement when he called to Abraham and Lazarus, 2) there's something of an indication that failure to help the poor is an immediate ticket to hell, 3) the intermediate state or immediate eternal destination (depending on how you view it if you believe in the inherent immortality of the soul and eternal torment) of the afterlife for the believers is a place called Abraham's Bosom where, apparently since Abraham took charge in this story with his seeming judgment upon the Rich Man and there was no mention of God the Father, then the blessedness of this place (whether temporary until the Ressurection if you believe it to be an intermediate state or the eternal Heaven if you believe people are immediately judged upon earthly death and "wake up" in Heaven or Hell) comes from being with Abraham, not God Himself. And 4) the saved will be in speaking and/or viewing distance of those being tormented in Hell, and virtually mock them as Abraham sort of did by reminding the Rich Man of his mistake. And it'll a cold day in you know where before I believe something so sadistic sounding as that.

 

[lesliedellow]

We also know that "Abraham's bosom" isn't Biblical (mentioned nowhere else)

It is biblical by virtue of the fact that it is in the Bible.

and Jesus really liked to drive home points by using imagery. And heaven forbid we take a story meant to drive home a bigger point literally and forget that if we did so we'd all sort of be going there given our callousness toward the poor. Or at the very least you can't vote Republican (you know, helping rich people and all).

Imagery must either convey an accurate idea of the thing it represents, or else it is dishonest. So do you want to accuse Jesus of dishonesty?

 

[SarahsKnight]

Imagery must either convey an accurate representation of the thing it represents, or else it is dishonest. So do you want to accuse Jesus of dishonesty?

You know, *sigh* I really get tired of hearing an insinutation or outright accusation like that in a debate over theology. And it's almost always from the people defending the harsher sounding doctrines like Calvinism and eternal torment. YOur opponent thinks Jesus was teaching something else, or that you may be misunderstanding what He's talking about, and what do you do? Ask us if or saying flat out that we're calling the Son a liar or accusing Him of dishonesty or whatnot. ... Great way to just shut down your opponent who believes in the same Christ (but just disagrees on what we are to get out of some of His teachings); simply say in some way that they are blaspheming God or being heretical.

 

[lesliedellow]

YOur opponent thinks Jesus was teaching something else, or that you may be misunderstanding what He's talking about, and what do you do? Ask us if or saying flat out that we're calling the Son a liar or accusing Him of dishonesty or whatnot. ..

I was asking him to examine the implication of what he had just said. If he doesn't think that depicting something as far worse than it really is would be, at best, highly questionable, then he (or you) can say why.

 

[Received]

It is biblical by virtue of the fact that it is in the Bible.

So you think the Apocrypha and some Greek poets are Biblical?

Imagery must either convey an accurate idea of the thing it represents, or else it is dishonest. So do you want to accuse Jesus of dishonesty?

I see what you did there. About ten years ago I had another Calvinist who really wanted to drive home the "either Jesus' statements are always taken literally or they're false" point. I'm well experienced in this.

No, imagery works with truth, and truth often fits a metaphorical framework rather than a literal one. Do you think God has feathers? Because if you don't, this means you think he's lying when the psalmist writing on his behalf says he does.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Hell is going to be far worse than any of us can conceive. We have a tiny glimpse of how unimaginably horrific it is in what Jesus said about us plucking our eyes out and cutting our hand off if they cause us to sin. He says we would rather enter into life maimed than to be cast whole into hell. The weeping and gnashing of teeth and the undying worm are all vivid images of a reality necessitated by the fact that some beings do not want to spend eternity in the presence of God. In the Bible, God tells us that we are fundamentally spiritual beings who will temporarily exist in this natural realm but will one day be changed or resurrected. Some will go be with God forever and some will go to hell. Each person's destination is determined by what they want. Those that want to be with God will. Those that don't wont.

Calvinism is the idea that nobody seeks after God by themselves and that we are by nature children of wrath and sons of disobedience. Calvinism also adds that some will come to want to be with and know God and some will not by virtue of God bestowing upon some irresistable grace and not doing so to others. The misconception about Calvinism is that people think Calvinists believe that there are people who really want to be with God and know Him but can't because they have been predestined to hell and therefore they have no say in the matter. But this is not Calvinism but a strawman of it. The Calvinist confesses that for the one who truly wants to know and be with God, God will not turn them away.

 

[lesliedellow]

So you think the Apocrypha and some Greek poets are Biblical?

The Apocrypha is not part of the Bible. The quotations from the Greek poets are biblical by definition.

No, imagery works with truth,

Right so far.

and truth often fits a metaphorical framework rather than a literal one. Do you think God has feathers? Because if you don't, this means you think he's lying when the psalmist writing on his behalf says he does.

Do you think a nice cup of potassium cyanide would be an appropriate metaphor for a refreshing cup of tea?

 

[Received]

The Apocrypha is not part of the Bible. The quotations from the Greek poets are biblical by definition.

Jude, I believe, refers to the Apocrypha, so why not consider the Apocrypha a reliable source of divine inspiration like the Bible?

Anyways, it sounds like you're saying that something is biblical if it's in the Bible. That's a tautology. Regarding Abraham's bosom, the point isn't whether or not it's in the bible, but whether or not it's a legitimate theological concept that tells us something about how hell really is. But if Jesus is using "Abraham's bosom" to make a deeper point, sort of like how Paul quoted Greek poets in Acts 17, then it's definitely not necessarily the case at all that these things used to make a bigger point are to be taken literally or tell us something more about how hell is in this instance.

Why would Jesus refer to Abraham's bosom? Probably to perk up the ears of the Pharisees, who were the target audience he had in mind. Just like Paul quoted Greek poets to perk up the ears of the gentiles. Jesus is using the conceptual ammunition of his enemies to drive home a point of how they're inconsistent with their own theology, sort of like how a Christian might challenge a Buddhist who believes in free will by pointing out the concept of Anatta makes free will impossible. Does this mean the Christian believes in Anatta? Nope. Likewise with Jesus and Luke 16.

Also remember that there's no mention of Hades here being eternal, even if you were to take the passage literally.

Do you think a nice cup of potassium cyanide would be an appropriate metaphor for a refreshing cup of tea?

If you're reading William Blake, maybe. But sure. But again: do you think God has feathers?

 

[SarahsKnight]

Hell is going to be far worse than any of us can conceive. We have a tiny glimpse of how unimaginably horrific it is in what Jesus said about us plucking our eyes out and cutting our hand off if they cause us to sin. He says we would rather enter into life maimed than to be cast whole into hell. The weeping and gnashing of teeth and the undying worm are all vivid images of a reality necessitated by the fact that some beings do not want to spend eternity in the presence of God. In the Bible, God tells us that we are fundamentally spiritual beings who will temporarily exist in this natural realm but will one day be changed or resurrected. Some will go be with God forever and some will go to hell. Each person's destination is determined by what they want. Those that want to be with God will. Those that don't wont.

Calvinism is the idea that nobody seeks after God by themselves and that we are by nature children of wrath and sons of disobedience. Calvinism also adds that some will come to want to be with and know God and some will not by virtue of God bestowing upon some irresistable grace and not doing so to others. The misconception about Calvinism is that people think Calvinists believe that there are people who really want to be with God and know Him but can't because they have been predestined to hell and therefore they have no say in the matter. But this is not Calvinism but a strawman of it. The Calvinist confesses that for the one who truly wants to know and be with God, God will not turn them away.

Great, so, that's the way it was meant from the beginning; God either created most humans solely for being in torment forever (as apparently His wrath is not only predestined but lasts infinitely), or, at least, as you seem to say, created most even though He knows they will be by nature sinful and He has determined to have nothing to do with them. I can think of very few theologies on life, its purpose, and who God is that is more depressing and hopeless than this, Calvinism and eternal torment combined together.

And as for irresistable grace, that too has a serious logical flaw. He is literally forcing you into loving Him. It's not even coercion, it's brainwashing, instead of just influencing. Since when does love involve no choice?


Now, it is true that some Calvinists (I think all except for those who openly believe literal double predestination) do not think there are people who WANT God but will be turned away because of His predestining some, but, really, is it that much better that the unsaved person is just going to live in ignorance of the fact that he's going to hell because he was born that way and God never intended to offer salvation, than to live the seventy or eighty years of life in dread KNOWING about God and wanting Him but beng denied and just waiting for the day he'll go to hell forever in mental anguish about what's coming? After all, any amount of earthly lifetime in ignorant, relative peace will be only a drop in the bucket compared to what's waiting for him in eternity. Infinite is infinite, so supposedly not even the biggest known number in mathematics will compose so much as a tiny fraction of the total amount of time (not that there would be a concept of time) in eternity.

 

[Received]

And Calvinism, again, still has to provide evidence of how God makes the choice that some will be saved and others won't. It can't be, "because he chooses, end of story," because that's begging the question, and making God's choices purely arbitrary. The only reason I can think, from a Calvinist viewpoint, why some are chosen and others not is so God can get a kick out of the few chosen who somehow reveal his power, glory, majesty, whatever more.

Which makes God not only into a sadist, but also a psychopath. Therefore, not God at all.

 

[bhsmte]

And Calvinism, again, still has to provide evidence of how God makes the choice that some will be saved and others won't. It can't be, "because he chooses, end of story," because that's begging the question, and making God's choices purely arbitrary. The only reason I can think, from a Calvinist viewpoint, why some are chosen and others not is so God can get a kick out of the few chosen who somehow reveal his power, glory, majesty, whatever more.

Which makes God not only into a sadist, but also a psychopath. Therefore, not God at all.

Bottom line, if God happens to be real, no one really knows what his traits are.

Judging by the reality of the world we live in, maybe the traits aren't all good.

 

[Received]

Bottom line, if God happens to be real, no one really knows what his traits are.

Judging by the reality of the world we live in, maybe the traits aren't all good.

Which is why religion and trusting our intuition are necessary for knowing God. Religion provides us with symbols, texts, and central figures who reveal to us principles (the way) to salvation. Intuition helps us determine the chaff from the gold. Would I be a Christian if I didn't have a strong intuitive sense that there is something so incredibly right and satisfying about a God who is love, whose goal is to will the good for every person in the world and the entire world itself, and if I didn't find this will-to-good become so apparent in my own life by following the principles Christianity espouses? Nope. Does this mean my intuition is just a strong wish for something to be true? Can't deny it, but there is no proof for this either, and the alternative of not having this worldview and motivation by God for partaking in this divine conspiracy is equally unknowable. So I've got to choose based on my intuition as to whether this intuition is all cultural constructs or there's really something or someone trying to tell me something through it. It's a bit like having two doors and only knowing you went through the right one after looking back and seeing "correct" on the door frame. You still don't know that this "correct" can be itself correct without going through successive doors, and you can't tell if the "correct" on their frames are valid as well. You just have to accept that the universe isn't lying to you.

 

[bhsmte]

Which is why religion and trusting our intuition are necessary for knowing God. Religion provides us with symbols, texts, and central figures who reveal to us principles (the way) to salvation. Intuition helps us determine the chaff from the gold. Would I be a Christian if I didn't have a strong intuitive sense that there is something so incredibly right and satisfying about a God who is love, whose goal is to will the good for every person in the world and the entire world itself, and if I didn't find this will-to-good become so apparent in my own life by following the principles Christianity espouses? Nope. Does this mean my intuition is just a strong wish for something to be true? Can't deny it, but there is no proof for this either, and the alternative of not having this worldview and motivation by God for partaking in this divine conspiracy is equally unknowable. So I've got to choose based on my intuition as to whether this intuition is all cultural constructs or there's really something or someone trying to tell me something through it. It's a bit like having two doors and only knowing you went through the right one after looking back and seeing "correct" on the door frame. You still don't know that this "correct" can be itself correct without going through successive doors, and you can't tell if the "correct" on their frames are valid as well. You just have to accept that the universe isn't lying to you.

Yea, I get that.

We all use intuition, some more than others and our intuitions are unique to each of us.

 

[lesliedellow]

And Calvinism, again, still has to provide evidence of how God makes the choice that some will be saved and others won't.

So amongst the many other things God has to do, in order for you to give him the green light, he has to give us a complete run down on his thought processes (and ask us whether we approve, of course).

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Great, so, that's the way it was meant from the beginning; God either created most humans solely for being in torment forever (as apparently His wrath is not only predestined but lasts infinitely), or, at least, as you seem to say, created most even though He knows they will be by nature sinful and He has determined to have nothing to do with them.

Well, I think we can agree that God actualized a world in which He knew before actualizing it that some of the free moral agents He created would choose to deny Him. I think we can agree on that. Calvinism in this respect is biblical.

I can think of very few theologies on life, its purpose, and who God is that is more depressing and hopeless than this, Calvinism and eternal torment combined together.

I see nothing depressing or hopeless at all about the view that holds that God has created free moral agents, some of which freely choose to deny Him. I am thankful God has made me and this world in which I live, in the way He did. I do not think anyone who truly wants to have an intimate relationship and knowledge of God will be denied by God. So I receive courage, encouragement and hope in knowing that if God can extend His grace to me despite how utterly horrible a person I was and still have the potential to be, He can extend it to anyone.

And as for irresistable grace, that too has a serious logical flaw. He is literally forcing you into loving Him. It's not even coercion, it's brainwashing, instead of just influencing. Since when does love involve no choice?

You misunderstand Calvin's concept of irresistible grace. This grace is not something that forces someone to do something against their will. But rather, it is a grace that causes someone to want to do something freely.

is it that much better that the unsaved person is just going to live in ignorance of the fact that he's going to hell because he was born that way and God never intended to offer salvation,

The Calvinist does not claim that the godless live in ignorance of God's righteous requirements nor do they claim that the unrighteous are ignorant of the fact that they will be judged for their wickedness. Read the letter of Paul to the Romans.

These godless, wicked, unrighteous people know that what they are doing is contrary to God's will and not only do such things, but encourage others to do the same.

You portray the godless and wicked as some group of innocent, "I can't help myself because I was born this way" people. But they are not.

 

[Received]

So amongst the many other things God has to do, in order for you to give him the green light, he has to give us a complete run down on his thought processes (and ask us whether we approve, of course).

But listen to what your statement implies. If God has a thought process, surely there's a reason involved in this thought process. I'm only asking for you to speculate on any possible reason why God could possibly choose one person over another before they're even born. The only answer other than the one I've posed is that there is no answer, and God chooses just because he chooses, which is terribly problematic because this means God has no standard or reason by which to choose. He's purely capricious. Not "we don't understand his ways," because that assumes a reason or standard, but rather that he chooses like a person chooses something based on a coin flip.

And I'm not asking for (a conception of) God to ask for our approval. Just that if God is a jerk, we're able to at least internally represent him as a jerk. Jerks don't tend to ask for approval or give reasons.

 

[SarahsKnight]

I see nothing depressing or hopeless at all about the view that holds that God has created free moral agents, some of which freely choose to deny Him. I am thankful God has made me and this world in which I live, in the way He did. I do not think anyone who truly wants to have an intimate relationship and knowledge of God will be denied by God. So I receive courage, encouragement and hope in knowing that if God can extend His grace to me despite how utterly horrible a person I was and still have the potential to be, He can extend it to anyone.

Right, but I thought you were of the opinion that we AREN'T free moral agents. That it's already decided, we have no choice to accept or deny, thus most of humanity (assuming the apparent mainstream Christian thought that most are not believers, or true believers, is true). And that's what I am saying would be very depressing.

And I do agree that He KNOWS beforehand how the story will end. But I don't think that also means He predestined it in the Calvinist sense.

 

[lesliedellow]

But listen to what your statement implies. If God has a thought process, surely there's a reason involved in this thought process.

Reading the divine mind is not one of the skills which appears on my CV.

 

[Received]

Reading the divine mind is not one of the skills which appears on my CV.

Mine either, but that's a totally different thing than that God does have a thought process on his own.