Guilt

Originally posted by epiphinehas
And if eternal torment is just recompense for rejecting God, then perhaps you should reconsider your assumptions about what it is to reject God.

The antecedent of this conditional is just what I am asking you to support. I don't like just blindly assuming stuff, especially when it seems so ridiculous (intuitively it's ridiculous to think that a just punishment for failing to love another, God included, is eternal torment). So what can you offer by way of support for it?

Originally posted by LemonJello
So you don't have such an argument, then?

Eternal separation from God is a just judgment for those who refuse to submit their will to His (i.e. believe in Him).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Eternal separation from God is a just judgment for those who refuse to submit their will to His (i.e. believe in Him).

Merely being separated from God is not the issue. If I don't believe in God, say on the basis that I deem there to be insufficient evidence, and that means I will be separated from Him, then I don't see any problems there necessarily. But, purportedly, God has made the world such that if I don't believe in Him, then not only will I be separated from Him but I will also be afflicted and tormented for all eternity. Now I'm asking you why I should think this is just.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Merely being separated from God is not the issue. If I don't believe in God, say on the basis that I deem there to be insufficient evidence, and that means I will be separated from Him, then I don't see any problems there necessarily. But, purportedly, God has made the world such that if I don't believe in Him, then not only will I be separated from Him ...[text shortened]... flicted and tormented for all eternity. Now I'm asking you why I should think this is just.

Separation from God is in itself the source of affliction and torment. For a being specifically created for an intimate love relationship with God eternal separation from His presence is the penultimate source of grief and suffering. Biblically speaking, such a person can only blame himself: he has rejected God's will in pursuit of his own selfish ends, compounded by similarly rejecting God's undeserved grace. And so the saying goes, hell is a prison cell locked from the inside. That is, no person is in hell except by their own volition. While there is hope (i.e. while a person is alive and able to act), a person is still able to unlock that cell from the inside in order to receive God's undeserved grace in Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Separation from God is in itself the source of affliction and torment. For a being specifically created for an intimate love relationship with God eternal separation from His presence is the penultimate source of grief and suffering. Biblically speaking, such a person can only blame himself: he has rejected God's will in pursuit of his own selfi ...[text shortened]... unlock that cell from the inside in order to receive God's undeserved grace in Jesus Christ.

um,,after "separation from His presence is the penultimate source of grief and suffering", what is the last source of grief and suffering ?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Separation from God is in itself the source of affliction and torment. For a being specifically created for an intimate love relationship with God eternal separation from His presence is the penultimate source of grief and suffering. Biblically speaking, such a person can only blame himself: he has rejected God's will in pursuit of his own selfi unlock that cell from the inside in order to receive God's undeserved grace in Jesus Christ.

No, separation from him is not in itself the source of affliction and torment -- at bottom the source is your god's will. There is simply no analytic connection between separation from any agent and an eternal state of torment. So being that your god can successfully bring about any logically possible state of affairs, if there is some connection for us between separation from him and eternal suffering, it's only because he willed it to be as such and acted accordingly. So, again, I'm asking you why I should believe it is just that your god brought about these particular conditions, that we either commune with him or suffer eternally. And unless you're going to claim that propositions regarding future states have indeterminate truth values or some such, he ultimately brings persons into existence that he knows are going to fail to meet this demand of his. These persons, of course, have interests not to suffer, let alone suffer persistently for all eternity. But your god does not seem to take these interests as morally relevant; otherwise, he wouldn't bring them into existence only to cruelly frustrate them for eternity after a comparatively negligible period of time on earth. This is not just or loving behavior. It is callous at very best.

The idea that a person freely chooses by their own volition to suffer for eternity in hell is ridiculous. Every morally considerable agent has a deep abiding interest not to suffer needlessly and for extended periods of time; persons don't willfully choose to suffer needlessly and without respite. When one suffers, things go badly for them from their own perspective, their own interests are subverted, and this hurts. Even ascetics, who may self-impose harsh conditions on themselves, believe they are acting in their own interests and toward some personal improvement. People may freely choose conditions which unwittingly in turn cause them to suffer, but people as a rule do not of their own volition choose to suffer for no good reason. I think this otherwise goes without saying, which is also why I think the idea that the door to eternal suffering is locked from the inside is so deeply dumb.

You should abandon this notion that persons somehow "choose" hell. If a person had what he took as good reasons to think your god, and by extension threat of hell, exists, then he'll also have strong prudential reasons to do what your god demands of him: eternal suffering is probably the worst fate we could imagine, far worse than just ceasing to exist! So, if a person values his own interests and yet does not actively pursue your god's demands, you can probably bet this is based on insufficient evidence for your god's existence (or countervailing evidence). So the idea that this rational agent is "choosing hell" is ridiculous. He is simply (passively) withholding belief in your god in a way that is consistent with his rationality; or perhaps, stronger, he thinks he has enough countervailing evidence to argue against the existence of your god. What's really ridiculous here is the way you trivialize and misrepresent this as some sort of volitional effort toward "selfish ends". (I also find it ironic too, since I think you're the one here who is largely motivated by egoism, evidenced by the fact that your commitments are centered around core notions that are by their very nature selfish and wish-fulfilling, such as heaven, eternal life, permanence of the self, and the like.)

Neither do I think that the believer's "choosing" your god should be considered to carry any moral worth. If you think you have good (de facto) reasons to think god exists, then you're only being consistent and rational by believing in his existence. At the same time, your "choosing" to then follow his demands is not done autonomously, or freely. It is simply coercive from your perspective that you do this or suffer the worst fate one could think up.

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, separation from him is not in itself the source of affliction and torment -- at bottom the source is your god's will. There is simply no analytic connection between separation from any agent and an eternal state of torment. So being that your god can successfully bring about any logically possible state of affairs, if there is some connection ...[text shortened]... perspective that you do this or suffer the worst fate one could think up.

Choosing to surrender one's will to God's will doesn't carry any moral worth in itself, since, as you said, doing so is in recognition of God's rightful place as Lord and quite consistent with prudence. I will freely admit that my submission to Jesus Christ is borne from a recognition of Him as Lord and that I have many prudential reasons for submitting to Him, i.e. for one, I don't want to be cast into outer darkness (for obvious reasons). Indeed, it is faith in the word of God which drives me to do what is necessary to appropriate the grace that is in Jesus Christ toward my eternal benefit. I don't claim to be any less self-seeking in this regard than anyone else. In myself I have nothing to offer the Lord except my worship. Therefore, I don't claim to be 'special' or 'morally superior' simply because I believe in and cleave to Jesus Christ.

I must say, though, that no matter how well thought-out your reasons are for not submitting to Jesus Christ, the word of God still stands. The word of God declares, "Whosoever believes in God's Son, Jesus, shall inherit eternal life. Anyone who rejects God's Son, shall be condemned." Jesus Christ is holy, and everyone rises or falls according to their faith or lack thereof in Him, whether it is intellectually tenable to you or not. Everyone, no matter what, is able to willfully abandon their own wisdom for the foolishness of the cross.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Choosing to surrender one's will to God's will doesn't carry any moral worth in itself, since, as you said, doing so is in recognition of God's rightful place as Lord and quite consistent with prudence. I will freely admit that my submission to Jesus Christ is borne from a recognition of Him as Lord and that I have many prudential reasons for submitting , is able to willfully abandon their own wisdom for the foolishness of the cross.

Okay, well we seem to be at impasse.

Given how little attention I think they deserve under scrutiny, I'm certainly willing to take my chances with the good book's threats of hellfire and damnation. I'm not going to lend credence to what I think amounts to ugly idolatry and strong psychological attachment to illusions of permanence. I'm not going to live in fear and feign reverence toward someone whom I don't think merits it; someone whom I don't even think exists; and someone whose existence I think would implicate absolutely nothing about how I ought to live anyway (excepting some prudential considerations that I would probably find compelling and yet unfortunate at the same time).

Thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Okay, well we seem to be at impasse.

Given how little attention I think they deserve under scrutiny, I'm certainly willing to take my chances with the good book's threats of hellfire and damnation. I'm not going to lend credence to what I think amounts to ugly idolatry and strong psychological attachment to illusions of permanence. I'm not going to ...[text shortened]... bably find compelling and yet unfortunate at the same time).

Thanks for the discussion.

God, of course, would not want you to feign anything. He sees every man's heart clearly anyway. The only way to not feign faith in or reverence for God is to have an encounter with God Himself. That is, true conversion to Christ arises from an experience of God's love. No intellectual proof will suffice to bring you to your knees (I know this from experience).

Likewise, thanks for the discussion. I appreciate greatly the depth of your thought.

Well, I think that underscores the basic conflict on this forum.

Believers take the truth of their views as axioms, unassailable even by logic. Skeptics approach these issues with reason, permitting their original positions to change in the light of better ones.

I realize that this is generalization is a bit strong. There are a few believers here who do not behave this way, and there are some skeptics that border on fundamentalism; however I think it applies fairly well for this forum.

Epi deserves some credit in this as well. Few of the believers are willing to admit the logic of a skeptics reason. He has, but he has always reiterated the believers position. In so doing he has made the conflict above crystal clear with the least amount of twisting and dodging. I must say discussing with him has been far more pleasurable than with many other believers (thinking especially of Darfius).

Originally posted by telerion
Epi deserves some credit in this as well. Few of the believers are willing to admit the logic of a skeptics reason. He has, but he has always reiterated the believers position. In so doing he has made the conflict above crystal clear with the least amount of twisting and dodging. I must say discussing with him has been far more pleasurable than with many other believers

Yes, I agree the discussion was rather refreshing in this respect.