For The Sake Of Argument

[4588686]

Satisfaction for wrongs done

 

Unnecessary 

[mortify]

Unnecessary 

 

It's not merely legalistic, there is a restoration in the process that gives back what was taken.

[4588686]

It's not merely legalistic, there is a restoration in the process that gives back what was taken.

 

What?

[Tally Marx]

Lets start with the premise that God is indeed infinitely above our ways and understanding, as we usually say when we come up against something we don't understand — "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" (Romans 11:33)

 

I have been troubled by the idea that we are said to have free will to choose either heaven or hell, yet we could never fully understand what either choice would entail because we cannot fathom God completely.

 

For example — if you locked child in a room with his favorite food. For the sake of argument, let us say the child is old enough to understand behavioral choices and consequence, and you tell the child that if he doesn't eat the food for the time he stays in the room, he will be rewarded with a large meal with all his favorite foods.  On the flip side, if he does eat it, he will be sent away to die of starvation.

 

If you leave the child in the room long enough, he will eventually eat the food out of hunger. Why? Because the child cannot possibly understand what it means to actually die of starvation. He knows of hunger pangs and has the drive to satisfy it, but cannot be expected to fathom starvation.

 

Would you still send the child to die of starvation knowing that he couldn't possibly make a completely informed decision?

 

I feel like it's the same idea with hell. I know the analogy isn't perfect, but hang with me.  We cannot possibly know truly what eternal damnation means. Yes, it's separation for God. But because we also don't fully fathom what eternal paradise is like, we can't make a completely informed decision.  Would an all-loving God send someone to hell who has "chosen" that path even though that person could never fully comprehend that choice?

 

We do not need to comprehend all the intricacies of something, or have personal experience of it, to make an informed decision.

You cannot possibly know what it is like to have lung cancer.  Yet you know that cigarettes can cause lung cancer.  If you were to smoke one, would you not consider yourself as having been well informed?  Do you have to personally get in a car accident to understand the risk you are taking when you drive?  We make "informed decisions" all the time based on a feeble knowledge of a much greater, more impacting possibility.

 

We can also have a good idea of what something is about by experiencing it on a smaller level.  Every human being has, in a way, experienced hell.  We all, at some point, go through the Dark Night of the Senses.  We feel that loneliness that comes with not being in communion with God.  We feel the emptiness, the desperation, the knowledge that there is something more.  We know that hell is complete separation from God.  So, if we are told that hell is this feeling x1000, don't we have some idea of what hell is?

If you took a hungry twelve year old and told them, "Starvation is like being a million times hungrier than you are now.  It is literally being so hungry you die."  They would have some idea of what it is like to starve, even if it is only there as "something way worse than what I have now".  They still have some understanding.

 

Feeble examples perhaps, but I hope I still get my point across.

 

Also, if we knew--absolutely knew, 100% understood every detail--what hell is and what it is like, would we have free will?  Would we make a real decision?  I don't think so.  We instictively--not volutarily--move toward self preservation.  Do we really decide to flinch away from a hot pot, a flying hammer, or a close, honking car?  Not really. 

If you hold a child, tressed, above a pot of oil, and he can feel the heat licking his toes, and has just seen all his friends die this way...if you told him, "Now, say you love me, or you die, too!"...would he really love you even if he said so?  That is not free will.

If we knew what hell was, it would be impossible to go there.  It would be impossible for us to say "no" to God.  And if it is impossible to say no, do we have free will?  What does our yes mean if we cannot say no?

 

I've always thought of it this way:

We know enough to make an informed decision, but not enough to make a forced one.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Apotheoun]

According to the Church Fathers faith is a form of knowledge (or better "experience") that transcends intellectual comprehension, and that is why St. Gregory of Nyssa said that one must "unknow" (i.e., intellectually) God in order to really "know" (i.e., experience) Him (see St. Gregory's Commentaries on the Canticle of Canticles).

[4588686]

Also, if we knew--absolutely knew, 100% understood every detail--what hell is and what it is like, would we have free will?  Would we make a real decision?  I don't think so.  We instictively--not volutarily--move toward self preservation.  Do we really decide to flinch away from a hot pot, a flying hammer, or a close, honking car?  Not really. 

If you hold a child, tressed, above a pot of oil, and he can feel the heat licking his toes, and has just seen all his friends die this way...if you told him, "Now, say you love me, or you die, too!"...would he really love you even if he said so?  That is not free will.

 

 

 

If we knew what hell was, it would be impossible to go there.  It would be impossible for us to say "no" to God.  And if it is impossible to say no, do we have free will?  What does our yes mean if we cannot say no?

 

I've always thought of it this way:

We know enough to make an informed decision, but not enough to make a forced one.

 

This makes no sense.  Nobody would chooce to do 'x' does not meant that anyone is unfree to choose 'x.' 

[4588686]

If nobody would ever choose option 'x' with full knowledge then that just goes against you.  'Nobody would ever choose option 'x' if they fully understood what 'x' entailed.  So to make the choice free we'll give them an imperfect understanding of 'x'"  That doesn't make them more free.  It just makes eternal punishment for choosing 'x' all the more aweful. 

[Tally Marx]

This makes no sense. Nobody would chooce to do 'x' does not meant that anyone is unfree to choose 'x.'

I made the assertion that an involuntary, instinctual act of self preservation born of fear forces one into a decision; therefore, it was not a decision freely made. Do you consider such decisions to be freely made? I consider them to be coerced.

I admit that the last part of my post (the part you quoted) would sound odd...if one had not read the first part of my post as well.

[4588686]

I made the assertion that an involuntary, instinctual act of self preservation born of fear forces one into a decision; therefore, it was not a decision freely made. Do you consider such decisions to be freely made? I consider them to be coerced.

I admit that the last part of my post (the part you quoted) would sound odd...if one had not read the first part of my post as well.

 

 

Sure.  There is a coercive element.  Which is why the idea of heaven and hell are so bad.  But what makes them coercive isn't perfect knowledge but how aweful the consequences of choosing wrongly actually are.  Your argument really leads to the fact that choosing to be holy isn't a really free choice because hell exists and we know about it. 

[Tally Marx]

Sure. There is a coercive element. Which is why the idea of heaven and hell are so bad. But what makes them coercive isn't perfect knowledge but how aweful the consequences of choosing wrongly actually are. Your argument really leads to the fact that choosing to be holy isn't a really free choice because hell exists and we know about it.

Yet "choosing heaven" means to choose to Love God. And Love excludes such selfish reasoning; it is a free gift of self. Choosing heaven by definition is making a free choice. If it were not free, you wouldn't make it to heaven.
So hell can't scare you into heaven. It cannot force you to be holy.

One reason I find the question of the original post--and a full knowledge of hell--somewhat superfluous. Asking if getting frightened into heaven (or not getting frightened) undermines free will, is odd, because it is impossible to get frightened into heaven. The focus is all wrong. If anything, it should be, "How can we be expected to Love God if we cannot fully know Him?" Edited January 2, 2013 by Tally Marx

[Jacen Marx]

Ok so it is not like God created Heaven and Hell with the idea of saving some and damning others. They exist because they are the only two possibilities. Full communion with God (Heaven) or absence of God (Hell). What else is there? There are two choices we can make. We either choose to love God and desire to be with Him or we decide that we will not love Him and choose to be apart from him.

You see God created us out of love. He fully planned for everyone to be with Him in Heaven. However He does not force us to love Him. He gave us free will to choose to love Him because if it was forced upon us it would not be love to begin with. Love is, after all, a complete and total gift of self to another person. This is something that can not be forced upon someone. Something similar may be forced upon someone but it can never be a complete and total gift unless it is done willingly.

When ever one sins we show God a failing in our love for Him. It shows that we do not truly love Him for we have not given ourselves entirely to Him. However God understands that we are just created beings. He understands that we are not perfect as He is. Therefore He forgives the failings in our love and allows us to enter Heaven with an imperfect love for Him.

So God has given us free will. He has given us the choice to love Him or not (he could have just made us mindless robots who worship Him, but he made us beings with free will). If we choose to reject God by our actions He will not force Himself upon us. Because we have told Him (regardless of what we might say) with our actions that we do not wish to be with Him, he will not force us to do so. He will separate Himself from us because He does not force us into anything. So by our own actions we have decided that we do not wish to be with God. We have separated ourselves from him and sent ourselves into eternal suffering (absence of God).

However He is always willing to take us back into Himself with confession. He will take us back into His love even though we betrayed Him. This is because he is very merciful. He allows us to be forgiven no matter how often we sin.

But it does not end there. We must show God that we truly love him by trying to change our life. We cannot just treat confession as a get out of jail free card. It forgives us and brings us back into communion with God, but if we do not continue to show God that we love Him, it does us no good. We are back to square one of eternal separation of God.

And all of this hinges on one thing. It hinges on the fact that God loves us. He loves so much that He has given us free will. And he respects the free will that he has given us. He will not force Heaven on us nor will he force Hell on us. It is all chosen by our actions which show whether or not we truly love God. It is up to us to decide whether or not we will go to Heaven. All we must do is love God. However this is a difficult thing to do because of our fallen nature. So it is something that we must work at. It takes time but eventually we can resist temptations to sin and show God that we do truly love Him.

[jmjtina]

+JMJ

 

you know by your own logic, we can't choose heaven either.

 

By saying "No" you are rejecting God. Hell is a rejection of God, by free will. People who choose Hell, don't want Heaven. People are damned by their own free will, not by lack of knowledge. 

 

You miss the entire point of free will. It's love. Sin hurts our beloved. Hell is ultimately a rejection of the the love God has for us. For those who do not believe, through no fault of their own, I believe in a merciful God. But in my personal experience, the ones who do not know God are freely embracing God. Those who know God are rejecting Him and denying His existence. 

 

+Pax