How could we survive the horrors of heaven?

[InterestedAtheist]

I do not believe the bibloe teaches an everlasting hell. There is a hell, all the wi9cked will go to it---and they burn "according to their works. So I'm sure that those that have the greeatesty sins, such as Hitler, will suffer longer, but they all will dioe berfore the easrth is remade. I have a brother that died doing drugs, I have my real mother that did some bad things. I have no doubt that during the 1000 years we will know what all have done and we will acknowledge that God's sentence is just---but I'm sure we will cry for them. After we die, our memories of them will beforgotten. Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

But God remembers them for eternity and He will sorrow for them. But if He forgets our sins, when we ask, then I guess He can make Himself forget them. His sorrow for them is much greater than ours, for He knows what they could have been, and that they could have been with Him, also. He will wipe out the memories that would hurt us---but He alone can make Himself forget them, and He may sorrow for them for eternity.

Not sure I understand what you mean there. God remembers sins but makes himself forget them?
Also, Isaiah wasn't talking about you in heaven. He was talking about the glories to come for Israel. He was saying Israel's sins would be forgotten.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Aye, but you have heard of similar concepts under different names such as purgatory or refinement

Ah, but the thing you are proposing seems rather different. If I remember correctly, a transporter malfunction split Captain Kirk into two parts - the evil and the good Kirks. The idea of purgatory, however, is that the whole person is sent to a sort of hell while the bad parts of them are removed in some way. Not that a person is split into two selves that go in different directions.

All I've really done is to anthropomorphize the perspectives of both the purity and the impurity

Hey, I think the whole idea of hell is...unreasonable anyway, so who am I to say your idea is any stranger?

There are pictures of this here in the natural world, if one were to look for them.

You certainly make a strong case!

Do you consider me a Christian?
If not, what is your definition?
If so, please amend your statement in the future from "never heard any" to "once heard one"

Well, if you say you're a Christian, I'm happy to accept your word for it, so yes, I've met one Christian who espouses your ideas.

 

[mmksparbud]

Not sure I understand what you mean there. God remembers sins but makes himself forget them?
Also, Isaiah wasn't talking about you in heaven. He was talking about the glories to come for Israel. He was saying Israel's sins would be forgotten.

No. When God forgives, He forgets our sins--throws them into the deepest ocean. That is what mGod does---He forgives our sIns, and forgets them.

Isa 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Your position is rather comical as much of Revelation is quoting books like Isaiah. Further, NONE of the Apostles were actually gentiles as such that they "invented" Christianity. Even Apostle Paul at length, uses OT scripture to demonstrate the Truth of the Gospel. They were Jewish and had a Jewish context of the OT. They used the OT to demonstrate certain Truths about Jesus. Revelation is a book of the Bible with a Jewish context in terms of it's relation to who is saved. And further, the idea that Paul "invented" Christianity is terribly misunderstood.

So the idea that Isaiah "wasn't a Christian" is just silly given what the Apostle John said about the new heavens and the new earth in Revelation, in which he quotes things from the book of Isaiah, Ezekiel, ect. It wasn't like the authors of the NT were actually trying to "invent" a new religion as much as how the authors of the NT understood things from their own Jewish perspective.

Now, you can argue that what Christians believe today doesn't reflect its Jewish roots, but that's an entirely different argument altogether.

I could disagree with quite a lot of that, but I'll stick to the main point. And that is that Isaiah was not talking about individual believers in God, but about the nation of Israel. So in the verse quoted, he was not saying - as several people have stated - that people who go to heaven will forget their former lives and associates; he was saying that the nation of Israel will be brought to glory by God, and that Israel's former sins and flaws will be forgotten.
Therefore, this is not scriptural proof that people who go to heaven will not be bothered by memories of loved ones in hell. Indeed, it would be very strange if they were!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Hi all, I’m late to this discussion, since I’m new here. Only just got my 100 posts (go me!)

Welcome to the apologetics forum!

Interestingly, even though the essay that is the topic of discussion here mentions the “many Christian” thinkers who have pondered the nature of Hell, conspicuously absent are those who have argued for some limited, finite Hell. So, not denying that a Hell exists, just insisting that it must necessarily be finite in nature (with reasonable sentencing, possibility of parole, etc ) And this would comprise a great many thinkers throughout the church’s long history. (See DB Hart’s recent book on this issue.) The author mentions Tertullian, Augustine, jumps ahead to Aquinas and then onto Edwards. And that’s about right. If he were to trouble himself with the much more voluminous ancient Christian East, he’d have had a harder time locating defenders of eternal-Hell.

It's quite true that there are many Christian thinkers who have stopped short, in some way or another, of a literal and eternal hell. But there are many Christians who do believe in it. I would even go so far as to say that they form the majority, at least in some countries. And so this thread is a challenge posed to them.

“Christians tell us...” In one sense, some Evangelicals, with their commitment to the Augustinian vision of Hell are, like Aquinas himself, in a bit of a quandary. And although Craig is a prominent Christian apologist, he is very far from speaking for “Christianity.” His memory wipe idea sounds very magical and hints at a peculiar naïveté regarding the psychology of human persons, it seems.

I'd agree with you!

Every mother has a bit of her child in her, and every child, some of her mother within. Their very selves are entangled such that it can some times be difficult to identify where the consciousness of one precisely ends and the other’s begins. So we have expressions like, “the apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree..” Something similar happens in various human relationships like spouses, siblings, best friends, etc. If this intermingled mutuality of personhood can be accepted, it becomes immediately evident that memory-wiping would be, quite literally, dehumanizing. To take away my memories of my child, which themselves form me at my very core, is to take away substantial portions of me. Keep up that process and you’ll have dwindled me down to nearly nothing, depending on how many close ones in my life didn’t make the cut.

Absolutely. Sounds horribly dehumanising. And yet there are plenty of Christians who would be happy to agree with this.

Hell only becomes unjust if we commit ourselves to the Augustinian notions of it being forever and inescapable.

There are, sadly, quite a lot of Christians who have done exactly that.

Plenty of folks have been ok with the very small amount of details provided, so long as it eventuates in a reality much better than this current one in important respects.

I'm sure they have. The problem is, it now leaves them unable to answer a question about the justness of the afterlife because they don't know enough about it.

There is an abundance that unites Christians, both in action and in beliefs. But I don’t see the problem with a lack of uniformity. Aren’t there goods that result from diversity? A tapestry of many colors, if you will. Or a symphonic harmony? There are many such analogies one could draw. It could be that uniformity is itself a less than ideal situation.

Let me look at two analogies to illustrate.
First, imagine that you asked a dozen people to recommend a really good restaurant. They might all have different answers for you. And what's wrong with that? Your life might certainly be enriched by the experience.
But now, imagine the question you asked them is the location of a specific restaurant - one that you have been invited to to celebrate a friend's dinner. And now, imagine that you ask your friends where it is - and again get another dozen answers. That would not be a good experience at all, would it? You don't want a dozen different answers. You want just one: the truth.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No. When God forgives, He forgets our sins--throws them into the deepest ocean. That is what mGod does---He forgives our sIns, and forgets them.

Isa 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

That's fine, I have no problem with God saying he forgets people's sins (although I think he might have been speaking poetically, using "forget" to mean "forgive."
But anyway. This doesn't mean that people, arriving in heaven, find that they have forgotten the existence of any loved ones who have been sent to hell.

 

[Magnanimity]

Welcome to the apologetics forum!

Thanks so much! Happy to be here participating.

It's quite true that there are many Christian thinkers who have stopped short, in some way or another, of a literal and eternal hell.

I’m not suggesting many of Christianity’s best and brightest aren’t “literal” about Hell. St Gregory of Nyssa can believe that such a state is just as real as does St Augustine. It’s just when one starts to ask all the right questions (nature of God, nature of human persons, questions of justice) that person will hopefully arrive at a different function for Hell than the one imagined by St Augustine (and absorbed by the western church due to his immense influence over it).

I'm sure they have. The problem is, it now leaves them unable to answer a question about the justness of the afterlife because they don't know enough about it.

Since we all have consciences and we have a fairly universal notion of justice, we can all address these questions commonly. I don’t need to know a lot of details about the afterlife to answer some questions about it anymore than you do. For example, one could say that reason and the conscience mitigate against infinite punishments for finite crimes. Folks who defend eternal-Hell do so because they feel that their received religious Tradition constrains them to do so. As much as they might admit that it flies in the face of the conscience, the belief that the Augustinian vision is “revelation” on this issue persists. So, Craig and others do their best to defend what they feel they have to defend..

You don't want a dozen different answers. You want just one: the truth.

We are oriented to connect our intellects with reality, so you’re quite right. We want “the truth.” But reality itself being as vast as it is and we ourselves being as limited as we are, often illustrates the difficulty at arriving at the truth. We often approximate it, at least when it comes to generalities (notions of justice, human dignity, etc). But none of us has (or can have) the whole picture of Reality. So whatever truth you or I have will be whatever bit of Reality that we can perceive.

Pope Francis recently used the polyhedron analogy. You’ve likely heard a similar analogy before. Reality itself is like a massive polyhedron and all humans are variously standing around the massive object. Due to our orientation to it, we see a different part of it. Not one of us sees exactly the same thing, and some of us are on completely different sides of the object. So our truth (ie, our apprehension of whatever little bit of the Real we can see) will greatly depend on our orientation to the polyhedron. Rather than making the irrational claim that whatever I can see must be all there is to this object, I’m rather forced to ask others around the object to help me fill in what I can’t see. It creates a system of interdependency where we must trust and value each other, even if what “the other” sees is entirely different from what I see. (Say, this other person is looking from the completely other side of the object or from underneath it.)

We all want to connect our intellects and hearts to the Real. But reality is vast, and we (individually) are not.

 

[mmksparbud]

That's fine, I have no problem with God saying he forgets people's sins (although I think he might have been speaking poetically, using "forget" to mean "forgive."
But anyway. This doesn't mean that people, arriving in heaven, find that they have forgotten the existence of any loved ones who have been sent to hell.

It is pretty clear---no poetry.
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Rev_21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Those that are sent to hell have gone there for a reason. Durng those 1000 years, everyone will have a chance to see the record of their sins. During that time, there will be crying and sorrow for them. But after the earth is remade-=--there will be no sadness, no tears---they have all passed away. Yes, those who have gone to hell will no longer be remembered. The judgement of God has been acknowleged by all, even Satan.
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rev_15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don’t know what to say about your personal judgment that being-vague on these issues of the afterlife is “irresponsible.” Plenty of folks have been ok with the very small amount of details provided, so long as it eventuates in a reality much better than this current one in important respects.

Behind not being clear on salvation the number two thing God should be very clear on is what eternal life is like. If my choices affect being in heaven or hell and God is not clear about these issues it seems to be a bit irresponsible to me at best.

There is an abundance that unites Christians, both in action and in beliefs. But I don’t see the problem with a lack of uniformity. Aren’t there goods that result from diversity? A tapestry of many colors, if you will. Or a symphonic harmony? There are many such analogies one could draw. It could be that uniformity is itself a less than ideal situation.

Diversity of thought or ideas are ok but diversity of truth is not ok. If one Christian says hell does not exist and everyone goes to heaven (which there are) and another says hell is eternal punishment (which there are) then how is this it a good thing when I am supposed to make eternal decisions on these unclear "truths"?

 

[Magnanimity]

If my choices affect being in heaven or hell

Ah, I recognize this attitude—the supremacy of the will! An individual’s human will is the great alter at which he (alone) bows and to which he (alone) submits..? We do like to believe that there is a lot riding on our individualized sets of beliefs. But when all is said and done, I’m not sure that will be the case. The world seems much more interwoven and we are (whether we like it or not) passive receptors of all sorts of influences around us. That fact combined with our severely limited understanding of the totality of things surely puts us all in a position deserving of compassion, yes? Life is not a cosmic, high-stakes game that God is playing with you. At least, no religion worth its salt would say so.

If one Christian says hell does not exist and everyone goes to heaven (which there are) and another says hell is eternal punishment (which there are) then how is this it a good thing when I am supposed to make eternal decisions on these unclear "truths"?

Well, you would do in these scenarios what you do in all such situations—listen to your conscience! One of my favorite quotes on the conscience was given in a letter by St John Henry Newman. He wrote, “Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.” The conscience enjoys a place of primacy in all these matters.
Does your conscience make you recoil at the idea of eternal-Hell, especially for an otherwise good person who ended her life without a belief that Jesus is God?
Does your conscience recoil at the idea of a person who committed horrendous evils in life and died having “gotten away with them,” then rather easily slips into Heaven alongside Mother Theresa, as if nothing ever happened and no justice needed to be served?
In these matters, your conscience will do for you what all properly-functioning consciences do. It’ll help you discern the best view.

If the Christians have it right when affirming that God is love and that he causes all things to exist in every moment, then he will meet you in your deepest interior core. God isn’t the watchmaker. He’s the musician, and we are the music being played.

 

[mmksparbud]

Behind not being clear on salvation the number two thing God should be very clear on is what eternal life is like. If my choices affect being in heaven or hell and God is not clear about these issues it seems to be a bit irresponsible to me at best.



Diversity of thought or ideas are ok but diversity of truth is not ok. If one Christian says hell does not exist and everyone goes to heaven (which there are) and another says hell is eternal punishment (which there are) then how is this it a good thing when I am supposed to make eternal decisions on these unclear "truths"?

Because eternal life is not about what we get---it is about being with God. It is about having a relationship with Him now, that carries us into eternal life with Him. All we can do is develop that relationship, spending time in His word, doing what He asks. As for the finer details, those may end up surprising everyone. It is about living up to the light you do have while praying for greater light and that God will help you learn what the truth is. As an aetheist, you wont have to worry about what He wants, for you won't be there!! All you seem to be interested in---is how much you can get! Those get nothing.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ah, I recognize this attitude—the supremacy of the will! An individual’s human will is the great alter at which he (alone) bows and to which he (alone) submits..? We do like to believe that there is a lot riding on our individualized sets of beliefs. But when all is said and done, I’m not sure that will be the case. The world seems much more interwoven and we are (whether we like it or not) passive receptors of all sorts of influences around us. That fact combined with our severely limited understanding of the totality of things surely puts us all in a position deserving of compassion, yes? Life is not a cosmic, high-stakes game that God is playing with you. At least, no religion worth its salt would say so.



Well, you would do in these scenarios what you do in all such situations—listen to your conscience! One of my favorite quotes on the conscience was given in a letter by St John Henry Newman. He wrote, “Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.” The conscience enjoys a place of primacy in all these matters.
Does your conscience make you recoil at the idea of eternal-Hell, especially for an otherwise good person who ended her life without a belief that Jesus is God?
Does your conscience recoil at the idea of a person who committed horrendous evils in life and died having “gotten away with them,” then rather easily slips into Heaven alongside Mother Theresa, as if nothing ever happened and no justice needed to be served?
In these matters, your conscience will do for you what all properly-functioning consciences do. It’ll help you discern the best view.

If the Christians have it right when affirming that God is love and that he causes all things to exist in every moment, then he will meet you in your deepest interior core. God isn’t the watchmaker. He’s the musician, and we are the music being played.

This is the problem. You believe all of this. Another Christian has different ideas. Why should I believe your version?

If three different math books tell me that 2+2 = 4, 5 and 6 how do I determine which one or if any are correct? The answer is with sufficient evidence. Until then I should not believe any of them.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Because eternal life is not about what we get---it is about being with God. It is about having a relationship with Him now, that carries us into eternal life with Him. All we can do is develop that relationship, spending time in His word, doing what He asks. As for the finer details, those may end up surprising everyone. It is about living up to the light you do have while praying for greater light and that God will help you learn what the truth is. As an aetheist, you wont have to worry about what He wants, for you won't be there!! All you seem to be interested in---is how much you can get! Those get nothing.

All I am interested in is the truth. I am an atheist because I am a skeptic not because I want anything. Can you give me good evidence that what you wrote is true? If so, I will have no choice but to believe.

 

[Hazelelponi]

This is the “Sucks to be you” approach to justice. I got mine, and you’re burning in hell.

Scripture says that hell is reserved for Satan and "his angels".

So what's an angel? A messenger. So, to put this into english, hell is for those who, like satan, actively work against God's plan of salvation or try to prevent mankind from receiving God's mercy.

I'll have to be honest here, since God is a JUST God, and if I had tried to set grandma right time and again, and she continued both refusing God's mercy for her personally and actively working against God in the hopes of preventing others from being saved, then I just don't know how I could feel sorry for her much, regardless of where I found my own end.

I mean, this is like feeling sorry for someone who turned down 5 job offers and still has no job... just how sorry are we supposed to feel?

Sometimes we just have to live with the consequences of our choices...

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Scripture says that hell is reserved for Satan and "his angels".

So what's an angel? A messenger. So, to put this into english, hell is for those who, like satan, actively work against God's plan of salvation or try to prevent mankind from receiving God's mercy.

I'll have to be honest here, since God is a JUST God, and if I had tried to set grandma right time and again, and she continued both refusing God's mercy for her personally and actively working against God in the hopes of preventing others from being saved, then I just don't know how I could feel sorry for her much, regardless of where I found my own end.

I mean, this is like feeling sorry for someone who turned down 5 job offers and still has no job... just how sorry are we supposed to feel?

Sometimes we just have to live with the consequences of our choices...

There is a BIG difference between saying "A person must face the consequences of their actions," and "I do not feel sad because a person that I love is suffering."

Consider how it feels to love someone.

For example: I love my son. And if he made a terrible mistake, I would still love him. And if he made many terrible mistakes, I would still love him. And if he made many terrible mistakes, and ended up having to be punished, and if I agreed with the punishment, I would still love him, and feel terrible pain at his suffering.

Wouldn't you feel like that about a person you loved?

Even assuming that you grant that they belong in hell - which is a huge discussion, but one to be had in another thread - wouldn't you still feel sad about their suffering?

I think that any parent who could say of their child, or any child who could say of their parent, or any friend who could say of their friend - any person who loved another person and saw them suffering terribly, and said that they were not sad at all about it - well, perhaps they never really loved that person in the first place.

This isn't remarkable. It's plain common sense. Nobody would ever disagree with it, unless it was in a religious context, and the context was a person in heaven looking down on a loved on in hell.

 

[Hazelelponi]

There is a BIG difference between saying "A person must face the consequences of their actions," and "I do not feel sad because a person that I love is suffering."

Consider how it feels to love someone.

For example: I love my son. And if he made a terrible mistake, I would still love him. And if he made many terrible mistakes, I would still love him. And if he made many terrible mistakes, and ended up having to be punished, and if I agreed with the punishment, I would still love him, and feel terrible pain at his suffering.

Wouldn't you feel like that about a person you loved?

Even assuming that you grant that they belong in hell - which is a huge discussion, but one to be had in another thread - wouldn't you still feel sad about their suffering?

I think that any parent who could say of their child, or any child who could say of their parent, or any friend who could say of their friend - any person who loved another person and saw them suffering terribly, and said that they were not sad at all about it - well, perhaps they never really loved that person in the first place.

This isn't remarkable. It's plain common sense. Nobody would ever disagree with it, unless it was in a religious context, and the context was a person in heaven looking down on a loved on in hell.

I guess what your missing is that we do care about others potential future suffering, we do relate and we do feel sad for people...

That's precisely why we say something now, while the future of the individual can still be changed. That's why we pray for God to enact change in people's hearts, now... that's why we try to live as light and not darkness, now....

Because now is when we can influence change in others.

When it's too late, when we no longer have any ability to do anything for others, then I'm going to get on with my own afterlife, and enjoy the presence of the God who created me, and who saved me. Then I will spare no tear, because I'll be all cried out before that time.

If you dont think that's love, that's your own problem - not mine. Once it's solely in God's power, I trust Him to do what's right and just. There is no injustice in Him. Period. I will not sit in sorrow for what may have been, because I will have done all I could..

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I guess what your missing is that we do care about others potential future suffering, we do relate and we do feel sad for people...

That's precisely why we say something now, while the future of the individual can still be changed. That's why we pray for God to enact change in people's hearts, now... that's why we try to live as light and not darkness, now....

Because now is when we can influence change in others.

When it's too late, when we no longer have any ability to do anything for others, then I'm going to get on with my own afterlife, and enjoy the presence of the God who created me, and who saved me. Then I will spare no tear, because I'll be all cried out before that time.

If you dont think that's love, that's your own problem - not mine. Once it's solely in God's power, I trust Him to do what's right and just. There is no injustice in Him. Period. I will not sit in sorrow for what may have been, because I will have done all I could..

I'm trying to imagine this.
My (insert dearly loved other person) is suffering the worst fate imaginable.
But I'm happy.
No. I can't imagine that.

Love means something, and we all know what it means. No parent can see their child in horrible agony and not blame themself. Their family and friends will assure them that they did all they could, and they will try to believe it, and maybe it's even true - but still, they will still feel terrible pain, because they love the person, and that's what love means. Even if they are convinced that their loved one actually deserves the punishment, it still hurts them. Yes, we've seen plenty of parents of criminals who say that their children deserve the punishment society is giving them. But I've never seen or heard of any parent who can say they are happy because of it, and feeling no sadness.

You know this is true. We all do. A parent who could see their child in pain and be happy, with no pain of their own...you'd have to question if they actually loved the child. You can't say "I'm sorry that my loved one is in terrible agony, but I'm not going to let it bother me," and have all of those words be true. At least one of them must be false, because that's what love means.

You say that you'll have cried all your tears already. What sort of love is this that you can feel no pain, indeed feel happy, while your loved on is still in agony, and will be forever?

This isn't my problem at all, because I don't think it will ever happen. There is no hell, and there is no heaven, and nobody will ever face this difficulty. But for those Christians who do believe in a hell, the question of how they could be happy in heaven while loved ones are suffering eternally is one that can't really be answered, except in a bad way. Will God give them a mind wipe? Will they somehow enjoy looking down? Or will they decide that they did everything they could, so they may as well just forget about it and enjoy heaven now?

These answers all speak for themselves. I'm not sure which one would be the greatest indictment of Christianity. It's truly hard to tell.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm trying to imagine this.
My (insert dearly loved other person) is suffering the worst fate imaginable.
But I'm happy.
No. I can't imagine that

And I'm trying to imagine this:

Me feeling sorrow that your suffering the consequences of your choices, although you were given plethora opportunity to choose differently...

Nah, just can't imagine that, not even if you were my son.

I'm mean, think about this. You spend every spare minute of your day in the hopes of taking as many people as possible away from God... your around God's people to do this on a daily basis and have a multitude of people preaching the Gospel to you...

Am I supposed to be sad when or if you finally get exactly what your asking for in the afterlife? Really?

I'm with God on this, we reap what we sow... I at least raised my kids to believe that.

 

[Magnanimity]

If three different math books tell me that 2+2 = 4, 5 and 6 how do I determine which one or if any are correct? The answer is with sufficient evidence

Math is not an evidentiary science, is it? Arithmetic operates at a high level of precision not because there is so much evidence for it. But as Kant said, “the exactness of mathematics depends on definitions, axioms, and demonstrations. None of these can be achieved or imitated by the philosopher in the sense in which they are understood by the mathematician.” This view is not unique to Kant—it is shared by philosophers in every age. And the term “theologian” could replace “philosopher” in Kant’s claim above with equal application.

This is the problem. You believe all of this. Another Christian has different ideas. Why should I believe your version?

Until then I should not believe any of them.

Out of curiosity, do you never form ethical or political beliefs because those sciences do not admit of the precision of mathematics? Or how about within the sciences of psychology and biology? Do you never form any strong beliefs because the claims of these sciences are open to further revision and a deeper understanding later on (as more is discovered)?

I’m reasonably certain that no one behaves this way. We all form beliefs in the areas of psychology, politics, religion and ethics, even though we are aware that there is a certain provisional nature to our holding of these beliefs. We know that it’s irrational to expect the same level of precision within them that we expect of much of mathematics. But so what? It seems that humans are perfectly fine proceeding with belief-formation despite all this. But not you?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And I'm trying to imagine this:

Me feeling sorrow that your suffering the consequences of your choices, although you were given plethora opportunity to choose differently...

Nah, just can't imagine that, not even if you were my son.

Really?
I can, very easily.
What kind of parent who loves their child doesn't feel pain when they suffer?
I can imagine my son doing something so wrong that he would be punished, and deserve to be punished.
I can imagine seeing his punishment, and knowing that it is right and just.
But I cannot imagine feeling happy watching it. And I cannot imagine any parent who loves their child feeling like that.