Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82

Posted 7/22/2002 5:27 AM (GMT -6)

I am a Christian who is going to "act" atheistic.

For the sake of love it has been possible establishment that we are born free with the ability to choose good or reject it, thus "choosing" evil.

I have often wondered how fair that is. How many people would choose hell if they could first experience it some way? Some people are not cognitively aware that they are even going to hell. Some are not convinced that such a place exists. Yet, they are all damned to it because they do not choose between the two choices that they have whether they know it or not. How is this fair?

The choices are not between two options of the same quality. If we don't want endless torture and agony we must chose only one option that is heaven. It is not like choosing between different flavors of ice cream, it is like choosing between ice cream and rat poison.

I am very confused about this philosophically. I myself would rather choose heaven because that it the only "good" option.

We are given freedom but this freedom is in a sense limited by God because he chose what we got to chose he chose what we "must" choose if we don't want endless torture.

Ok, I am done ranting. Can someone that understands what I am saying help my mind through this?

Thanks

Questions should be more prominent than answers

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/22/2002 11:42 AM (GMT -6)

Well, first, man has never had total freedom in any area. So to conclude that his freedom to choose God or hell is limited, because man can't get a taste of hell first, doesn't really mean a whole lot with regard to the decision man must make: serve God or spend eternity in hell.

The freedom that man has to make a spiritual decision between God and hell is just that: spiritual. The purpose of instilling mankind with freedom to choose is to limit WHERE man expresses that freedom. Man isn't suppose to decide for God or hell by having experiences of both. That's both outside the scope and safety of man's freedom in this area; to have mankind experience both hell (and God--can't forget that either) is to destroy the beauty of freedom, freedom of choice in spiritual areas.

And remember, too, that God has given well enough evidence for sound reasoning and intelligent choosing for either God or hell--the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ being supreme.

Hope that sheds some light.

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/22/2002 5:57 PM (GMT -6)

OrthodoxBerean: Question concernig freedom

@: I stronlgy resemlbe that tpying jbo!!!

(I'm really bad.)

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 7/22/2002 10:18 PM (GMT -6)

My own, rather simple, view of this question is that collective choices in this lifetime are not really directly between God's kingdom or hell. We do not consciously consider both alternatives, with full knowledge of their nature, and then make our selection.

Rather, our decision is between God and ourselves. Whether we choose to devote our life to following Jesus' words and allowing Him to abide within - or whether we shut that door and prefer to follow our own desires and preferences.

It is a choice of whether we allow God to determine the route that our lives will take or whether we prefer to walk our own paths.

It is the choice whether we trust in God's justice or whether we lean on our own judgement.

Whatever hell may be, its essence is separation from God. Those that choose separation from God during their own lifetimes will also remain separated beyond mortal death.

Those that choose to deny the desires of this life in preference for God's way- at least whereever they clash with God's Will - will find their compensation for their endurance in God's company.

It is a battle of substituting God for "me" in our priorities. If we choose not to do this, then we are only exercising our right, as God gave it to us, to choose the nature of our future lifetime as well.

But so great is God's love, and His desire that all who desire will succeed, that He does not even require our success in living according to His will - only our total belief and trust. He knows, and indeed forewarned, how difficult this choice would be whilst in this mortal world, but assures us that those who persevere will get there.

We know when our belief and trust is total, in that we see it reflecting in our increasing love towards others and in the gradual changing character of our desires, priorities, and works.

To live in God builds humility before His greater being, and respect for His commandments and judgement.

To live in self builds pride and ego, and defence of one's own set of standards and moral judgement.

Basically, as I see it, the choice is not between heaven and hell, but between God and me.

But I emphasise - this is only my personal view :)

Markus

Edited by - markus on 07/23/2002 03:19:41 AM

RidingTheRapids
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 6

Posted 7/23/2002 4:23 AM (GMT -6)

Here is what comes to my simplistic mind:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is a gift from God -- not by works, so that no one can boast." Eph. 2:8

We didn't choose it, God choose each of us but we have the choice to accept this by faith or decline.

Here is another bible verse that comes to my simplistic mind:
And Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 18:3

Faith is a simple thing. Christianity is a simple thing until we begin to make it complicated. God knocks on the door and we choose to open it and accept His grace and love or we choose to decline.

There are special circumstances such as with the mentally handicapped, or people who live in remote villages, and other extreme cases where they may or may not be able to accept this invitation but this is where we need to walk childlike faith knowing God can make exceptions.

RidingTheRapids (With Jesus)

bruisedheart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 8

Posted 7/23/2002 9:22 AM (GMT -6)

Does the question of "fairness" arise from ones desire to; (for lack of a better phrase) have their cake and eat it too?

Because if you look at the situation from a step back, it could be said that there are those in this world who would love to live life gaining of all its pleasures. And while gaining in that sense, not acknowledging how some of those acts may hurt the heart of our Lord. But one does these things because it feels good now! And that's how so many of us live.. here and now.

A couple of weeks ago, David Clark spoke at WHC and made a comment that has stuck with me. He said, "It is foolish to give up something of infinite value, to gain temporary satisfaction." And though the idea of instant gratification is ample in our society- we should clearly see that it doesn't hold much on the longitudinal spectrum.

It is foolish on a grand scale to think that we can splurge in our life of the flesh, and hope that it pays no consequence later on. The spiritual realm may be too huge of an area to comprehend this easily. So take everyday life for example. It is foolish to think that we can act rebelliously in our teenage, and young adult lives without it having some sort of consequence later on. Look at the lives of our politicians to give great example of that. So why is it any different on the larger scale? Why should it be okay for us to mess around with our life here on earth and just assume that it isn't going to hold any bearing when it comes to the question of heaven or hell?

I don't know that my examples of answered anybody's question. I would answer "I don't know" to most any other thing that someone posed. It makes sense in my own head and I hope it made a little sense to you who reads it.

-Carrie

leth
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 26

Posted 7/23/2002 3:03 PM (GMT -6)

LETH:
If we are speaking of fairness, then it seems that both options must be REAL to the person choosing. If you told me that I have the choice between either deeply embarrasing myself in public and being forced to continually eat something that I dislike with the result being that my best friend would not die tommrrow, and instead not doing these things and having my best friend die tomorrow, I would not perform the requirements of the first option.

NOT because I didn't care whether my best friend died tomorrow, but because I DID NOT believe that there was a REAL choice to be made. In fact, it would be entirely unfair to condemn me for not acting unless you had provided sufficient reason for me to believe that I was presented with a choice between real options, and that despite this, I refused to act to save the life of my friend.

Unless you accept that all non-believers are liars and hate God, I think that you will have a very difficult time demonstrating that non-believers actually find themselves presented with a REAL choice of Heaven v Hell, and God v Man. It often seems to be the slogan of Christians that non-believers are choosing Man over God; "making themselves God". However, unless they find God to be a real option, there is no choice at all; they can not help but choose the only option that they see themselves presented with. If we wish to say that this is fair, then I certainly think that we must be prepared to describe to the non-believer why this is so.

You may of course also say that being condemned despite not finding onself presented with a real choices is fair, or that we are not beings that deserve to be treated fairly. Either way, you must square your conclusion with your understanding of those qualities taken to be ascribed to God in Scripture (Justice, Love).

bruisedheart:
It is foolish on a grand scale to think that we can splurge in our life of the flesh, and hope that it pays no consequence later on.

LETH:
It is not inherently foolish. Unless the "splurging" non-believer believes that there is some reason that they shouldn't be doing what they are doing; unless they believe that there is a "grand scale". What possible reason would they have for believe that there would be any consequences whatsoever? What possible reason would they have for believing that there is someone to bring about these consequences.

Are you prepared to accept things such as all non-believers being liars and hating God and actually knowing that God exists but denying him? If not this, then what do you propose? Certainly many non-believers adamantly assert that they see no reason to believe that God exists, or that God requires of them what you or a book say that he does.

If God does not conform to the standard of what most non-believing humans take to be "fair", I think that we should always be ready to state as much.

Edited by - leth on 07/23/2002 8:12:57 PM

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 7/23/2002 10:52 PM (GMT -6)

It is a very valid point that any true atheist cannot be called a liar or hater of God as they do not accept the existence of God:

LETH:

quote:

Are you prepared to accept things such as all non-believers being liars and hating God and actually knowing that God exists but denying him?

But equally, this question of choosing between "heaven" and "hell" does not apply to them - anyone who does not accept the existence of any form of afterlife must surely remain outside the scope of the issue.

However, non-believers DO have a moral code and conscience, and the same issue applies to them, but in the context of how they choose to live their lives in this world. I believe it is perfectly possible that some people are not called on during certain times in their lives and they still try to lead exemplary lives by their own free-choice. How this is viewed by God is another question.

I believe that there are few people who have not been given sufficient awareness of God's existence (through nature, conscience, etc) and the Bible to claim that they are totally unaware of God. Therefore those that are non-beleivers are either denying God or have not bothered to seek God, or have genuinely not felt any response to their efforts and cannot allow themselves to believe in God without "evidence".

The issue in this conversation, I think, is targetted at those that are aware of at least the option of God, but despite their awareness, choose to follow their own preferences rather than sacrifice their self before God.

It is a very difficult situation to take a "snapshot" of all people and assess their situation at that same moment in time. For some, faith comes early in life, for others it may come very late and after a very sinful existence, but all will be saved regardless of when they found God and turned to Him - and regardless of what they may have done during their time of ignorance.

So if the question is really one of making a considered, deliberate choice, it can only be amongst those with full awareness of the options.

I guess the question is really more one of why do people choose not to seek God - those who postpone it until some tomorrow in order to live for today, precarious in the belief that there IS going to be a tomorrow.

Markus

bruisedheart
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 8

Posted 7/24/2002 10:19 AM (GMT -6)

Non-believers and their code and conscience.....

I thought about that idea for a while and came up with the following thoughts:

What is a conscience? for anyone? Is it not a voice from within you that reminds you of what is right and wrong? And when, where, and by whom was it decided what in fact IS right or wrong?

Of course there is the long standing psychological contreversy between nature vs. nurture; but within that there is still the question of beginning. If a persons idea of right and wrong were to come from the manner in which they were nurtured, it would be said to have been inforced by their parents. And so the chain continues when we ask where the parents came up with the notion. And as we continue down that chain, there has to be a beginning somewhere. And with the shortened attention span that I have, I chalk it up to a common belief in the Golden Rule- to treat others as you want to be treated. And as far as the Ten Commandments go- the two (Golden Rule and Ten Comm.) are somewhat synonamous. And in my mind- there is an automatic connection- and all are believers on a certain level, whether or not they'd want to adhere to a label. And so I might be so presumptious to say that in this case, its not a matter of nature vs. nurture because going back far enough the nurture ends up in nature.

So I guess what I am saying, is that- isn't the conscience sort of the same as the voice of God within?

??

Carrie

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 7/24/2002 9:24 PM (GMT -6)

You are very perceptive, Carrie - and I fully agree with you that conscience IS written in our hearts and that the Bible DOES confirm that God is the author. That was why I added a little sentence:

"How this is viewed by God is another question."

I do believe that God does call on some people, but that does not remove the responsibility of others to seek for themselves. I was trying to be a little delicate on behalf of (current) non-believers, who at this point in time have not found God.

I do believe that most people in the world have sufficient evidence of God before their very eyes and within their hearts that leaves them with no excuse before God for not searching.

This also leads us to those that I described as " have genuinely not felt any response to their efforts and cannot allow themselves to believe in God without "evidence"."

This reaction is understandable, but still does not provide an excuse before God. The very nature of faith is to believe in spite of lack of any "evidence". We should not be looking for answers to prayers, or warm feelings inside, or words in our ears before deciding God is real. We either choose to believe or not believe - it is as simple as that. It should not be a question of first weighing the evidence for and against and then deciding ourselves. I guess for those without such evidence this is what is meant by taking the great leap of faith?

But I think this is a slightly different issue to the question of choosing between heaven and hell. Your point, Carrie, comes even earlier and higher in the process. Do we choose to believe or not. Then we can ask, if one believes why do some still choose the route to "hell" (whatever one believes that to be).

Thank you, Carrie, you have further opened my eyes to what faith is about

Markus

Edited by - markus on 07/25/2002 02:28:10 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/4/2002 3:31 PM (GMT -6)

As has been noted, the choice we are confronted with is faith or non-faith, a God-centered life or a self-centered life. The consequences of this choice is life or death. But if a person chooses non-faith, self-centered living, they clearly don't believe they are choosing hell and eternal death.

So I think its not only "fair," its the only way things could be if the goal is love.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Jayme
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 3

Posted 8/25/2002 11:54 AM (GMT -6)

I'll try to respond with more questions than answers.

How do you 'act' atheistic? Do we not all have a system of beliefs and philosophies by which we live by?

How has sin affected your world view?

What is 'hell'?

What does it mean to have 'salvation' and why would I want to spend an eternity with my creator anyway?

For myself I know that on one level I view God as the cosmic 'killjoy'. In submitting my life, fate, destiny to him I lose my freedom. But what is freedom anyway? I've often exerted my so called freedom from God in willfull sinning...because it felt soooo good to do what i wanted and to enjoy pleasures otherwise forbidden. But through those experiences, whether i like it or not... my sin has lead only to death on both the spiritual and physical levels. I feel less free after I sin; i'm less confident, I'm ashamed, I can't run as fast because i smoked...all sin has led to consequences of death in relationship and personal freedom. To know God intimately is to know life and life in abundance. I have often thought otherwise, and now believe very vividly that I've been deceived and led down the primrose path by Satan himself. It's the classic story of original sin all over again.

Hell to me is the result of separation from God. Without relationship to him our exercised personal freedom leads only to destructon of the self. Why this is? I don't know. It is true, however, in my personal experience...and so whether it's 'fair' or not does not matter.

So whether hell exists as an physical ontological reality or not (As a pit of fire) doesn't matter. If I reject God, I reject life, and life, even on earth, is a hellish emptiness, without meaning, joy, or even true happiness or pleasure. It isn't hard to see the rampant emptiness, sadness, lonliness on the faces of people anywhere in the world. Our attempts to cover this fact arn't even very deceiving.

Finally, I would like to say that we are fools if we don't recognize the existance of a cosmic conspiracy by which an enemey seeks destroy everything that is good, pure, and holy in our created universe.

-j

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/26/2002 8:07 PM (GMT -6)

Jayme

Hell to me is the result of separation from God. Without relationship to him our exercised personal freedom leads only to destructon of the self. Why this is? I don't know. It is true, however, in my personal experience...and so whether it's 'fair' or not does not matter.

Iconoclast

Nice post Jayme. I really liked this part. Have you ever read "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis? He really develops this thought in an interesting and powerful way.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 08/27/2002 01:08:27 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 9/1/2002 5:57 PM (GMT -6)

Couldn't agree with you more Jayme. To rebel against God is to rebel against all that is good, beautiful, meaningful, and true. It is to rebel against LIFE. The age old deception is that we gain our life by loosing God. the truth is that we gain our life by loosing our life in God.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

barneebus
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 14

Posted 9/2/2002 11:49 AM (GMT -6)

Ortho,

I don't believe the choice is principally between heaven and hell. In my viewpoint, God offered a second chance to a world that rejected Him, by providing Christ as Savior.

Therefore, the choice is not between heaven and hell. The choice is between Christ or continuing to follow the pied piper of disobedience; namely, the devil. Remember that hell was created not for man but for the devil and his angels. So when we choose Christ, the result is that we follow Him to heaven. But if we continue to choose the devil, we will follow him to hell.

-Bar

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:23 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual