Successful Rebels to the End....

[Freodin]

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.

But that is exactly what Lewis says in the text you quoted.

If you disagree with him, you should at least have said so.

 

[quatona]

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

What is it you want to discuss?

 

[FireDragon76]

. 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

I know because the Bible tells me so. It's a worthwhile goal to pursue because Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, he alone is Lord and judge of the world.

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?

"What profit it a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?"

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.



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

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the idea that it's the journey...not the destination...which is worthwhile. You don't gain knowledge, experience, not even necessarily happiness upon reaching a goal...you get it in the pursuit of that goal.

The fact that the doctrine is biblical doesn't change anything about my perception that it's manipulative. Does not god seek for you to do certain things and avoid doing others? Does he not use carrots and sticks in getting you to follow?

 

[Deidre32]

I think it's funny how some hold up CS Lewis as an authority on Christianity. Great author, no doubt. I love his writings and still hold his writings dear, despite being an atheist myself, now.

But he was a staunch atheist most of his life and he "changes teams" at some point, and now he's an authority on "God?" Because he writes well?

Lol Just strikes me as funny sometimes.

Carry on.... ;-)

 

[Deidre32]

And why I laugh is because I've seen people quote him when debating atheists. Who cares what CS Lewis thinks? He's just another voice among many who believe in something that I don't. Big woop.

 

[Received]

Does not follow.

Some writers are simply better at constructing their arguments so as to hide the flaws in their arguments from both others and themselves.

Oh, now that you mention it, all three of them do that. How silly of me not to look closely.

 

[Received]

Apropos the OP: Lewis says it himself -- God isn't omnipotent if a human will gets its way for eternity in rebellion rather than woos him over with love. It's a very weak love that, after having the subject die and appear in spiritual form (therefore ascertaining with certainty that God is real), isn't able to win the sinner over. And it's a pure imbecilic monster of a deity who knows a sinner is willing to repent but sends him to eternal hell anyways.

 

[Deidre32]

Case in point ^^

Not sure why CS Lewis is being held up as authoritative?

 

[Paradoxum]

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

And I think only morons can think that. I say that assuming you were joking and just making a point... no insult intended.

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.

No actually... I'd be okay with just punishment for wrongs done.

But, by the way, C.S.Lewis, in the OP, wasn't talking about punishment. He said about leaving people alone.

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.

Well I want a God that is moral. If that God disagree with me, it would be nice if he clearly pointed out what I was doing wrong.

So yes, I'm in favour of a God who isn't a tyrannical dictator, like the kind you seem to want. That means allow people to do whatever they want, as long as they don't violate others.

I'm sure you know that I'm against things like murder, etc, so I wouldn't want a God who would allow anything. In fact I'd prefer a God who would stop severe violations. You're just all stressy about sex. You don't really care about people... about love, consideration, and respect for others.

That's what makes people like me better than people like you. I care about others, you just care about arbitrary rules.

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.

You don't think a moral God would be a God? You must have some really messed up theology. You appear to advocate a God who punishes people arbitrarily. I'd say that is evil.

(I know I'm being unnecessarily *insert word* about this, but you did the same thing).

 

[variant]

Oh, now that you mention it, all three of them do that. How silly of me not to look closely.

It is generally the trend with smart religious folks.

 

[variant]

Case in point ^^

Not sure why CS Lewis is being held up as authoritative?

Interesting isn't it?

I wonder as to the method of Lewis's divine inspiration on the nature of hell.

 

[Received]

It is generally the trend with smart religious folks.

I'm sure you have research to support a tight causative influence here.

 

[Deidre32]

Interesting isn't it?

I wonder as to the method of Lewis's divine inspiration on the nature of hell.

Sadly interesting, yes.
Lewis a just another average guy telling his tale of how he views a god. Or "the God." Nothing more or less. Reminds me of when I used to hang with Catholics and they would tout Christopher West as "Thee Authority" on how God wants humanity to treat his "gift" of sexuality. He's just a regular guy.

I don't put people on pedestals. I didn't do it as a Christian, either so I don't understand why many do.

 

[bhsmte]

Sadly interesting, yes.
Lewis a just another average guy telling his tale of how he views a god. Or "the God." Nothing more or less. Reminds me of when I used to hang with Catholics and they would tout Christopher West as "Thee Authority" on how God wants humanity to treat his "gift" of sexuality. He's just a regular guy.

I don't put people on pedestals. I didn't do it as a Christian, either so I don't understand why many do.

People gravitate towards those who have a position that is acceptable to them. This is true for believers and non-believers.

In the end, the great equalizer is objective evidence and some rely more on objective evidence than others, depending on psychological need and how they are wired to think.

 

[Deidre32]

People gravitate towards those who have a position that is acceptable to them. This is true for believers and non-believers.

In the end, the great equalizer is objective evidence and some rely more on objective evidence than others, depending on psychological need and how they are wired to think.

You're right. Good way of putting it.
It's just funny to be authoritative on something that has no evidence. Lol

 

[bhsmte]

You're right. Good way of putting it.
It's just funny to be authoritative on something that has no evidence. Lol

That is why belief in a God requires faith, absent any objective evidence and also why there are so many different views on interpretation of the same, because people gravitate towards what suites them.

I have no issue with those who believe on faith, as long as they stay away from telling those that disagree with them, that they hate God, are not trying to connect with God, are being led by evil, or they have objective evidence to support their belief, because they don't.

Beyond that, if their faith makes them a better person, they should hold onto it.

 

[variant]

I'm sure you have research to support a tight causative influence here.

Why would you be sure of that? Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.

It could be that intelligent people in general have the problem.

(or that those with causes have a greater tendency to be self deluded)

 

[variant]

I don't put people on pedestals. I didn't do it as a Christian, either so I don't understand why many do.

Me neither, personal authority doesn't seem to spring so naturally to mind in a universe that seems to leave so many of the hard questions difficult to answer authoritatively.

I never get a definitive or reproducible answer to how people speak to God either so I'm guessing they probably just don't.

 

[Received]

Why would you be sure of that? Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.

It could be that intelligent people in general have the problem.

(or that those with causes have a greater tendency to be self deluded)

Ok, you didn't get my playfulness.