If God promised an eternity of suffering ...

[ananda]

... for faith in him, would you continue to believe & love God? Why or why not?

 

[Sanoy]

The question is incomprehensible. God cannot be God and "not God" at the same time. You are changing an essential part of His nature in making him punish loyalty, which makes it a "not God".

 

[royal priest]

It would be impossible to sincerely love a god like that. Not very many people love the God that does exist as it is even though He is the epitome of love

 

[Of the Kingdom]

A most interesting question. I am not able to answer it honestly and completely, because I am totally incapable of imagining God choosing to make my existence as miserable as possible.

God does tell me, "In this life you will have tribulation", so I would never have accepted Him without being prepared to suffer, for a time at least. And I do claim that the promise of eternal well-being is no part of my motivation for following Him. Fear may be a motivator for someone to consider coming to Christ, but (in my opinion) it must cease to be a motivator, or there is no true salvation.

In one sense it can be argued that God does indeed "sentence" His followers to "eternal suffering". Jesus gives us eternal life, and according to Buddhist understanding (if I have it right) that seems to imply that suffering will continue also. This needs to be investigated more, since God also says that He will "wipe away every tear", implying that the kind of life we will have then has no suffering associated with it. That makes me wonder if the Buddhist idea of Nirvana can be considered some form of life, and how different our understanding of the ultimate goal for mankind really is.

 

[ananda]

The question is incomprehensible. God cannot be God and "not God" at the same time. You are changing an essential part of His nature in making him punish loyalty, which makes it a "not God".

Why can't promising an eternity of suffering" be an "essential part of His nature"?

 

[ananda]

It would be impossible to sincerely love a god like that. Not very many people love the God that does exist as it is even though He is the epitome of love

In some Buddhist schools (not ones I follow), the fullness of love and compassion means working & suffering through eternity to free others.

In any case, the purpose of my question is to point out that believers follow their chosen deity, not for the deity's own sake, but for the sake of gaining something else - eternal personal peace/happiness/etc. or similar.

 

[ananda]

A most interesting question. I am not able to answer it honestly and completely, because I am totally incapable of imagining God choosing to make my existence as miserable as possible.

God does tell me, "In this life you will have tribulation", so I would never have accepted Him without being prepared to suffer, for a time at least. And I do claim that the promise of eternal well-being is no part of my motivation for following Him. Fear may be a motivator for someone to consider coming to Christ, but (in my opinion) it must cease to be a motivator, or there is no true salvation.

In one sense it can be argued that God does indeed "sentence" His followers to "eternal suffering". Jesus gives us eternal life, and according to Buddhist understanding (if I have it right) that seems to imply that suffering will continue also. This needs to be investigated more, since God also says that He will "wipe away every tear", implying that the kind of life we will have then has no suffering associated with it. That makes me wonder if the Buddhist idea of Nirvana can be considered some form of life, and how different our understanding of the ultimate goal for mankind really is.

You are correct, Buddhism (as I understand it) teaches that life equals change, and change must result in suffering to those attached.

"Life", as it is generally understood, involves thinking and consciousness, among other qualities. The very act of thinking involves change (in the mind); the act of consciousness involves the observance of change (in the "inner" or the "outer" worlds). So, an "unchanging life" cannot exist, since life involves those changes, growth, descent, etc.

At the same time, we suffer when we observe change in the things we wish to stay the same. Therefore, "eternal life" is seen as a form of "eternal suffering".

 

[Sanoy]

Why can't promising an eternity of suffering" be an "essential part of His nature"?

It can be an essential part of someones nature, but you can't change essential properties while maintaining identity. It's like asking if a square circle can go through a square hole. The sentence structure can get your mind to work on the problem of the hole, but you can't get your mind to work on the object.

 

[ananda]

It can be an essential part of someones nature, but you can't change essential properties while maintaining identity.

That's why this is a hypothetical ... what if that was part of "God's" identity?

 

[Sanoy]

That's why this is a hypothetical ... what if that was part of "God's" identity?

I fat thumbed the rating.

It's like asking if a square circle can go through a square hole. The sentence structure can get your mind to work on the problem of the hole, but you can't get your mind to work on the object because it makes no sense. It makes no sense because the essential properties are contradictory.

 

[ananda]

I fat thumbed the rating.

It's like asking if a square circle can go through a square hole. The sentence structure can get your mind to work on the problem of the hole, but you can't get your mind to work on the object because it makes no sense. It makes no sense because the essential properties are contradictory.

For the purposes of this thread, I hold no assumptions about the essential properties of "God", except the idea that it is (supposedly) the greatest/most powerful being that exists.

 

[Sanoy]

I hold no assumptions about the essential properties of "God".

We Christians do. The question refers to the Christian God, whose essential properties have been altered and so no longer refers to the same person. I'm just trying to say it's unanswerable.

 

[ananda]

We Christians do. The question refers to the Christian God, whose essential properties have been altered and so no longer refers to the same person. I'm just trying to say it's unanswerable.

As I stated, it's a hypothetical change, in interpretation (of who "God" really is, as we perceive things in the mind).

 

[Sanoy]

As I stated, it's a hypothetical change, in interpretation (of who "God" really is, as we perceive things in the mind).

A square circle can be hypothetical but it's still incomprehensible. I'm not the only one who can't make sense of the question.

Maybe what you mean to say is would we still commit to God even if His judgment will fall on us? Yes, we do that with the Lord's prayer, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done." I pray that regardless of my fate.

 

[ananda]

A square circle can be hypothetical but it's still incomprehensible. I'm not the only one who can't make sense of the question.

Maybe what you mean to say is would we still commit to God even if His judgment will fall on us? Yes, we do that with the Lord's prayer, "thy Kingdom come, thy will be done." I pray that regardless of my fate.

For the purposes of this thread, I hold no assumptions about the essential properties of "God", except the idea that it is (supposedly) the greatest/most powerful being that exists.

 

[Sanoy]

For the purposes of this thread, I hold no assumptions about the essential properties of "God", except the idea that it is (supposedly) the greatest/most powerful being that exists.

We worship Yahweh alone, who has essential properties. We do not, and would not worship this god because that would not be Yahweh.

 

[ananda]

We worship Yahweh alone, who has essential properties. We do not, and would not worship this god with no essential properties because that would not be Yahweh.

Even within Christianity, there are various factions with different ideas about Yahweh/Jehovah/YHWH/Adonai/Elohim/etc.

 

[Sanoy]

Even within Christianity, there are various factions with different ideas about Yahweh/Jehovah/YHWH/Adonai/Elohim/etc.

Those are different transliterations, pre vowel forms, reverence titles, and categorical terms. I don't know what that has to do with this.

 

[ananda]

Those are different transliterations, pre vowel forms, reverence titles, and categorical terms. I don't know what that has to do with this.

I was pointing out that different groups within Christianity have different ideas about the "essential properties" of Yahweh, not to mention different ideas about what his name/titles/terms should be.

 

[Sanoy]

I was pointing out that different groups within Christianity have different ideas about the "essential properties" of Yahweh, not to mention different ideas about what his name/titles/terms should be.

It doesn't matter. Ask it to a Mormon and it still won't make sense because it is logically incoherent. A thing must have it's essential properties, otherwise it's not that thing.