'No Vancancy'

[cvanwey]

(I fat-fingered the title) :0

Hypothetical... (No right or wrong answers here)....

Say God appeared, and stated He is no longer accepting new members, as Heaven and hell are both full. But asked that you still follow the commandments. Would you remain a Christian, and continue to love God anyways; knowing that when you die, you will just be dead?

 

[ewq1938]

It's a test.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's a test.

You would assume God is lying to test you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Every time without fail, Christians will attack the premise of a hypothetical rather than give a straight answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Every time without fail, Christians will attack the premise of a hypothetical rather than give a straight answer.

............................because we already have the necessary and defining "hypothetical"----it's called the Bible. No other hypotheses needed. You either work with the one we've got---as it is---or simply discard it and get on with your existential life.

 

[zippy2006]

............................because we already have the necessary and defining "hypothetical"----it's called the Bible. No other hypotheses needed. You either work with the one we've got---as it is---or simply discard it and get on with your existential life.

This thread is apparently supposed to prove that "Anything one does for themselves is selfish." By that definition I am most certainly selfish. I eat, I sleep, I exercise; therefore I am selfish.

As for Christians, we have always distinguished means from ends in the spiritual life. An example would be servile vs. filial fear. And yet means have a place in Christianity and in religion generally.

 

[Silmarien]

(I fat-fingered the title) :0

Hypothetical... (No right or wrong answers here)....

Say God appeared, and stated He is no longer accepting new members, as Heaven and hell are both full. But asked that you still follow the commandments. Would you remain a Christian, and continue to love God anyways; knowing that when you die, you will just be dead?

That would basically be divine confirmation that Christianity is false.

I'd go back to Absurdism. Or maybe Buddhism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

(I fat-fingered the title) :0

Hypothetical... (No right or wrong answers here)....

Say God appeared, and stated He is no longer accepting new members, as Heaven and hell are both full. But asked that you still follow the commandments. Would you remain a Christian, and continue to love God anyways; knowing that when you die, you will just be dead?

Absurd. God made Heaven for every single person He created. They have the space, but it is their choice to check in.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Amazing how so few understand how to deal with a hypothetical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Amazing how so few understand how to deal with a hypothetical.

Some of us do "get" how to deal with a hypothetical, but we don't necessarily assume that all hypothetical scenarios presented to us are relevant ... at least not for the simple reason that they are being presented to us.

In the case of this thread, I can answer "no." It seems like it would be common sense to answer in this way, but if I did so, all that this would show is that 2PV might actually be doxastically open. My answer wouldn't really reflect upon the ontology of the Christian faith itself.

 

[Tinker Grey]

My answer wouldn't really reflect upon the ontology of the Christian faith itself.

I can't speak for the OP (@cvanwey) but I don't think this is the point of the question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can't speak for the OP (@cvanwey) but I don't think this is the point of the question.

Yeah. I know. ...but I briefly add it so as to buttress against further insinuations.

 

[Tinker Grey]

but if I did so, all that this would show is that 2PV might actually be doxastically open.

So?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So?

...and my response to the OP is, "so what"? And the "what" that I'm getting at here is that cvanwey is trying to pull out a sympathy card so we can supposedly 'better' understand where he's coming from psychologically in not being 'able' to believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So?

...the ironic thing is, I don't need to be presented with a hypothetical scenario in order to be prompted to be sympathetic to the epistemic plight of another person.

 

[cvanwey]

This thread is apparently supposed to prove that "Anything one does for themselves is selfish." By that definition I am most certainly selfish. I eat, I sleep, I exercise; therefore I am selfish.

As for Christians, we have always distinguished means from ends in the spiritual life. An example would be servile vs. filial fear. And yet means have a place in Christianity and in religion generally.

You are half right...

'Selfish' has a multitude of meanings and definitions. This is the beauty of the English language. And yes. Ultimately, if you are doing something for (yourself), anything, then it is 'selfish' to 'some degree'.

However, the 'hypothetical' is to demonstrate a very specific point, to a very specific situation. One in which I will see most here avoid like the plague, most likely.

Meaning, If God told you to follow the commandments, but at the end of the journey, there was no return on investment, (just death and no heaven or hell), would you still claim to love God and also follow? In another words, is your claimed love for God really unconditional, like maybe it is for your kids, parents, family, close friends, etc? It's an honest question. I just hope for an honest answer. That's all. I'm curious. Because quite frankly, I doubt most would follow and love fully and earnestly, for many reasons. Which kind of demonstrates conditional circumstances, to a small or large degree.

Thanks in advance

 

[zippy2006]

Meaning, If God told you to follow the commandments, but at the end of the journey, there was no return on investment, (just death and no heaven or hell), would you still claim to love God and also follow? In another words, is your claimed love for God really unconditional, like maybe it is for your kids, parents, family, close friends, etc? It's an honest question. I just hope for an honest answer. That's all. I'm curious. Because quite frankly, I doubt most would follow and love fully and earnestly, for many reasons. Which kind of demonstrates conditional circumstances, to a small or large degree.

My earlier point about means and ends applies to your question too. Things like the commandments and love of God have both intrinsic and extrinsic value, meaning they are valuable in and of themselves and also in relation to other goods. As a Christian grows they begin to focus more on God in himself and less on extrinsic goods entailed by God. But they may never fully surpass the "means-like" thinking in this life, and that's okay. We move and learn slowly. The mother does not fault the newborn because it is using her for milk, but when the child grows into adulthood it is expected that this "means-like" relation to the mother will diminish. (The other point I would make is that humans are material, temporal, mediatory beings, thus 'means' have a certain commensurability with our way of being.)

Thomas Aquinas gives your objection in a slightly different form (ST Ia IIae, Q 99, A 6, obj. 1):

Objection 1. It would seem that the Old Law should not have induced men to the observance of its precepts, by means of temporal promises and threats. For the purpose of the Divine law is to subject man to God by fear and love: hence it is written (Deuteronomy 10:12): "And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but that thou fear the Lord thy God, and walk in His ways, and love Him?" But the desire for temporal goods leads man away from God: for Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 36), that "covetousness is the bane of charity." Therefore temporal promises and threats seem to be contrary to the intention of a lawgiver: and this makes a law worthy of rejection, as the Philosopher declares (Polit. ii, 6).​

 

[Silmarien]

Meaning, If God told you to follow the commandments, but at the end of the journey, there was no return on investment, (just death and no heaven or hell), would you still claim to love God and also follow? In another words, is your claimed love for God really unconditional, like maybe it is for your kids, parents, family, close friends, etc? It's an honest question. I just hope for an honest answer. That's all. I'm curious. Because quite frankly, I doubt most would follow and love fully and earnestly, for many reasons. Which kind of demonstrates conditional circumstances, to a small or large degree.

You asked whether people would remain Christian, not whether they would continue to love and honor God. Those are two different things.

Without the Resurrection of the Dead, there is no Christianity. This doesn't mean that people only care about winning enough brownie points to get to heaven, but that if you take away the promise at the heart of Christianity, then the whole thing falls apart. There is no point in specifically being a Christian if the hope that it offers is false.

This doesn't mean that they can't embrace a form of Judaism that denies an afterlife, if they so desire.

I wouldn't, since I don't consider any god would arbitrarily save some people and then create and later condemn others to non-existence to be worthy of worship at all. I have no problem saying that in this situation, my response would be rebellion, for reasons that go far deeper than self-interest. Though I am a militant existentialist, so by your definition, probably the very epitome of selfishness.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

"One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.”

Puddleglum, in The Silver Chair by CS Lewis.

 

[Chriliman]

(I fat-fingered the title) :0

Hypothetical... (No right or wrong answers here)....

Say God appeared, and stated He is no longer accepting new members, as Heaven and hell are both full. But asked that you still follow the commandments. Would you remain a Christian, and continue to love God anyways; knowing that when you die, you will just be dead?

I’d ask “how can something that’s infinite ever get full?”