Successful Rebels to the End....

[variant]

That is correct.

This discussion is not about whether or not my view and Lewis' view of hell and free will is true, but rather, WHAT our view of hell and free will is.

So the charge of arguing in a circle is groundless.

If those are your views you are begging the question by presenting them.

 

[variant]

Horrible reasoning bro...

If a writer is writing in such a manner as to hide the flaws in his arguments, then he has to know what those flaws are to begin with.

So how could such writers hide the flaws from themselves if they already know what they are?

I disagree, self delusion is not always done by self aware people.

One may take the hiding of flaws to be the removal of them for instance.

If you are effective enough you might even hide the flaws in your arguments from yourself.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If those are your views you are begging the question by presenting them.

The initial post was a compilation of excerpts from Lewis' The Problem of Pain.

Prior to the portion quoted, he deals with various issues pertinent to whether or not the paradigm wherein these issues such as free will and hell find their home is indeed tenable.

If you have any misgivings about the Christian paradigm, instead of derailing the thread, just reference his work online. This thread is not about whether or not Christianity is true.

There are plenty of threads for that in existence already.

Thanks.

 

[variant]

The initial post was a compilation of excerpts from Lewis' The Problem of Pain.

Prior to the portion quoted, he deals with various issues pertinent to whether or not the paradigm wherein these issues such as free will and hell find their home is indeed tenable.

If you have any misgivings about the Christian paradigm, instead of derailing the thread, just reference his work online. This thread is not about whether or not Christianity is true.

There are plenty of threads for that in existence already.

Thanks.

Assertions in your reply was what I was speaking about so I see it as fair game in this thread.

If you don't want to argue points don't present them as facts.

The idea you are presenting is indeed a central assumption to some believers views, CS lewis and yourself, so debating it's merit seems entirely appropriate.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I disagree, self delusion is not always done by self aware people.

One may take the hiding of flaws to be the removal of them for instance.

If you are effective enough you might even hide the flaws in your arguments from yourself.

Yea bro, well this thread is not about whether or not Lewis, Chesterton, and Macdonald were engaging in unconscious self-delusion.

If you want to talk about that, start a separate thread.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Assertions in your reply was what I was speaking about so I see it as fair game in this thread.

If you don't want to argue points don't present them as facts.

Just do not derail the thread is all I am asking. As I have stated, there are plenty of threads about the veracity of the Christian paradigm here already without you trying to derail this one into a discussion about whether or not Christianity is true.

You can respect my request or not. Your choice.

 

[Paradoxum]

Before you die, you will be given whatever it takes to make your unbelief and rejection of Christ inexcusable if you indeed reject Him.

God knows what exactly what each person needs in order to make their unbelief inexcusable.

That's nice if it's true, though you can't know that.

Lewis' point here is that for those who have indeed had the light of God's self-revelation shine upon them, and have turned from that light, their turning was a result of them not wanting God.

I'm not sure if any such people exist.

Thus, God gives them what it is that they have turned to, existence without Him. This is fundamentally what hell is.

Well if hell is just that, then I can't be much different from earth. That doesn't seem too bad.

 

[variant]

Yea bro, well this thread is not about whether or not Lewis, Chesterton, and Macdonald were engaging in unconscious self-delusion.

If you want to talk about that, start a separate thread.

What is it about exactly? You wanted to post some C.S. lewis excerpts and not discuss any of the key points relevant to them?

I'll leave you to it if you just want some fawning.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

What is it about exactly? You wanted to post some C.S. lewis excerpts and not discuss any of the key points relevant to them?

I'll leave you to it if you just want some fawning.

I appreciate it.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm not sure if any such people exist.

You are one of them if you have turned from the light God has given you. I do not know your heart personally. Only God truly knows.

Well if hell is just that, then I can't be much different from earth. That doesn't seem too bad.

You say that, but then out of the other side of your mouth you would complain about how evil the world is and how much suffering there is. So much so, that you cannot understand how a Good God would allow it all to go on...

Which is it?

The world ain't so bad, or it is?

 

[Paradoxum]

You are one of them if you have turned from the light God has given you. I do not know your heart personally. Only God truly knows.

Well I don't think I've turned from a light, since I don't believe in God. If God a=gave me a light, God is pretty bad at giving lights that clearly let people know he is there.

You say that, but then out of the other side of your mouth you would complain about how evil the world is and how much suffering there is. So much so, that you cannot understand how a Good God would allow it all to go on...

Which is it?

The world ain't so bad, or it is?

It's bad for many people on earth, but for most it isn't as bad as people say hell is normally. I was assuming a life like mine... but if it's significantly worse, then I might not be so happy.

I don't see why God would put us in a bad place after death. I suppose he did it the first time though. Which is of course is partly why I don't believe this whole thing.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Well I don't think I've turned from a light, since I don't believe in God.

And I don't believe that you don't believe in God. See how easy that is?

But if God is so into respecting us, then he would hopefully respect a choice to die and stay dead (or repentance beyond the grave).

What you really mean to say is that hopefully God will just let people live however they want and not have to account for the things they have done.

What you want is a God made in your own image. Someone who will let you do what you want, when you want, how you want with whoever you want without having to account for anything.

Such a God as you hope exists would be no God at all. And I can agree with you, such a god does not exist. I am an atheist when it comes to your view of God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And I don't believe that you don't believe in God. See how easy that is?

I don't believe you believe in god. Even easier as it has less words, but just as annoying and arrogant sounding as what you said.

 

[Ana the Ist]

IN AN earlier chapter it was admitted that the pain which alone could rouse the bad man to a knowledge that all was not well, might also lead to a final and unrepented rebellion. And it has been admitted throughout that man has free will and that all gifts to him are therefore two-edged.

From these premises it follows directly that the Divine labour to redeem the world cannot be certain of succeeding as regards every individual soul. Some will not be redeemed. [The doctrine of Hell] .... has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord's own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason. If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in self-surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself (though many can help him to make it) and he may refuse. I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully "All will be saved." But my reason retorts, "Without their will, or with it?" If I say "Without their will" I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary If I say "With their will," my reason replies "How if they will not give in?"

... As things are, however, this doctrine is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked as barbarous and the goodness of God impugned. We are told that it is a detestable doctrine—and indeed, I too detest it from the bottom of my heart—and are reminded of the tragedies in human life which have come from believing it. Of the other tragedies which come from not believing it we are told less. For these reasons, and these alone, it becomes necessary to discuss the matter.

The problem is not simply that of a God who consigns some of His creatures to final ruin. .... Christianity, true, as always, to the complexity of the real, presents us with something knottier and more ambiguous—a God so full of mercy that He becomes man and dies by torture to avert that final ruin from His creatures, and who yet, where that heroic remedy fails, seems unwilling, or even unable, to arrest the ruin by an act of mere power. I said glibly a moment ago that I would pay "any price" to remove this doctrine. I lied. I could not pay one-thousandth part of the price that God has already paid to remove the fact. And here is the real problem: so much mercy, yet still there is Hell.

.... but hell was not made for men. It is in no sense parallel to heaven....

Finally, it is objected that the ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence. And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man "wishes" to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved ....

In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a Question: "What are you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them! They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.

... He has his wish—to live wholly in the self and to make the best of what he finds there. And what he finds there is Hell.

... In all discussions of hell we should keep steadily before our eyes the possible damnation, not of our enemies nor our friends (since both these disturb the reason) but of ourselves. This chapter is not about your wife or son, nor about Nero or Judas Iscariot; it is about you and me.

selected excerpts from Chapter 8 of The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis

After reading some of the other posts it seemed unfair to me that I would say Lewis is overrated and not explain at all. Since I don't want to be "that guy", I'll explain a little of what Imean. Let's take a look....

"If the happiness of a creature lies in self-surrender..."

That's a pretty big "if" to build a premise off of. I can't remember a single time in my life where "self-.surrender" led to my happiness. Usually, it's quite the opposite...steadfast determination and a single-minded pursuit of a goal that led to happiness. Even if I didn't reach that goal, the pursuit was entirely satisfying if I never gave up and threw myself into it. For self-surrender leading to happiness as a part of any doctrine immediately sounds off a warning in my mind as that doctrine appears to have been created for the manipulation of others.

"a God so full of mercy that He becomes man and dies by torture to avert that final ruin from His creatures..."

A ruin that was created by none other than that same god. His mercy therefore becomes less about mercy and more about covering his own mistakes....or at least it would be if that mercy were for everyone unconditionally. It isn't. That makes it, once again, about manipulation.

"willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end;..."

This is just a poor analogy. Poetic sure...but far from accurate. A rebel recognizes the authority he rebels against...he just sees no legitimacy in it. I would be branded one of Lewis's "rebels" and yet I see no authority...I'm in opposition to nothing since no authority has made itself apparent to me.

I could go on, but I'm sure anyone reading this gets the idea by now. Lewis is a good writer, undoubtedly...but in the thinking department he's a little weak.

 

[FireDragon76]

...steadfast determination and a single-minded pursuit of a goal that led to happiness. Even if I didn't reach that goal, the pursuit was entirely satisfying if I never gave up and threw myself into it.

What if the goals you throw yourself into are ultimately worthless?

God is the only ultimately worthwhile goal, because everything else passes away and cannot endure.

For self-surrender leading to happiness as a part of any doctrine immediately sounds off a warning in my mind as that doctrine appears to have been created for the manipulation of others.

Or maybe the doctrine was created because it's biblical.

 

[znr]

Possibly he drew that conclusion based on the number of complaints against God? Seems reasonable.

I don't believe you believe in god. Even easier as it has less words, but just as annoying and arrogant sounding as what you said.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Before you die, you will be given whatever it takes to make your unbelief and rejection of Christ inexcusable if you indeed reject Him.

God knows what exactly what each person needs in order to make their unbelief inexcusable.

Lewis' point here is that for those who have indeed had the light of God's self-revelation shine upon them, and have turned from that light, their turning was a result of them not wanting God. Thus, God gives them what it is that they have turned to, existence without Him. This is fundamentally what hell is.

Before you die? How do you know that? How many people have lived out their entire lives without ever hearing of Christ, much less having been given whatever it takes to make their non-belief in him inexcusable? Why must the belief precede death anyway? If our souls are eternal, then belief after death is surely a possibility. Why set the limit at the conclusion of this lifetime, especially given that there is no guarantee one will be exposed to the "correct" doctrines before one dies? What about Christians who believe even though they have not yet received whatever it is that will make their non-belief inexcusable? What are we to make of their belief?

 

[Freodin]

What if the goals you throw yourself into are ultimately worthless?

God is the only ultimately worthwhile goal, because everything else passes away and cannot endure.

That contradicts the view of existence and hell that is presented by the OP.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And I don't believe that you don't believe in God. See how easy that is?





What you really mean to say is that hopefully God will just let people live however they want and not have to account for the things they have done.

What you want is a God made in your own image. Someone who will let you do what you want, when you want, how you want with whoever you want without having to account for anything.

Such a God as you hope exists would be no God at all. And I can agree with you, such a god does not exist. I am an atheist when it comes to your view of God.

Sorry for being completely cynical, but isn't that, in the end, what religion is: justifying one's behaviour by claiming that an unimaginably powerful being condones one's actions? You can do whatever you wish and absolve yourself of genuine accountability by appending the shallow claim that there is a supernatural being that just so happens to condone whatever action you've taken. You can then pretend that your actions are simply in compliance with the directives of that being, and that you are only ever accountable to that being.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What if the goals you throw yourself into are ultimately worthless?

God is the only ultimately worthwhile goal, because everything else passes away and cannot endure.

I take issue with this, from a number of angles, but I'm not yet sure how to put it to words, so forgive me if my comments are a tangled mess. Are you assuming that there is something that does endure forever, and whatever that something is you will call "God", or are you asserting that there is a God who endures forever? The first claim would suggest that you don't know what that something is yet. If you don't know what it is, and all you know is that it endures forever, how can you be certain that it is worthwhile pursuing as a goal? You might be pursuing something that, although it endures, actually isn't worthwhile at all. The second claim seems a little more straightforward, except that it requires justification: how do you know there is a God and that this God endures? Another interesting question is why must something endure forever in order for it to be worthwhile? Isn't that sort of attitude a signpost pointing directly to the path of nihilism? Doesn't it render the overwhelming majority of your goals in life utterly meaningless?