Actually I am debating an Archbishop Vladika Lazar who not only believes evolution is fact but also believes that people are born homosexual. If anyone wants to see the dialog I can post it. I was shocked that a Bishop believes in this nonsense. I told him that it would be impossible for God to create homosexuals only to condemn them in His book, that would make God a liar. And with evolution, I used Fr. Peter's beautiful analogy of creation and also said that if you believe in evolution then you believe death brought man into the world while Orthodox Chrsitianity believes man brought death into the world. When I did some research it turns out that alot of people are critical of him and many believe him to be borderline heretical if not completely heretical. I found this stunning!
First off, one must recognize that in asking the question," How can a loving God send people to hell" one is implicitly invoking a moral law. For the question at its core can really be rephrased as: Isn't it immoral of God to send people to hell? Isn't wrong of God to send people to help if he is an all-loving Being? However, right and wrong are essential to the very nature of God Himself. Thus, if god does not exist then there can be no such thing as a moral law from which to differentiate right and wrong. Yet, If there's moral law then there is no such thing as good. But, if there's not a thing as good and there can not be such thing as evil. Then, what is the point of asking the question? The question presumes that all omnipotent and omniscient god actually exists from which to borrow the ethical principal that holds the question intact. So, without god in the paradigm of the question, the question is no longer a thorny as the questioner has stated it. Furthermore, I believe that theist can take the argument a few steps further. For there is nothing explicitly contradictory about god being all loving and all powerful and certain people going to hell. The argument 's potency then must be based on some underlying hidden assumptions. Well, what are those assumptions one may ask. I believe they are two fold: That firstly, An all powerful and all-loving God exists. That such a God not only prefers the world in which no person is condemned to hell, but that such a God can actualize such a world. The argument would flow as follows:
Premise one: An all powerful and loving God not only prefers, but could and would create a world in which no men are condemned to hell.
Premise two: God is all loving and all powerful.
Premise three: Therefore, we should see a world in which no men are condemned to hell.
Yet, since it is obvious is that such a world is in direct contradiction to the Christian world and life view, the Christian god either does not exist or is not an all powerful or loving God. Now, at first glance the argument may seem soundfully raised. However, at closer look one begins to see the fallaciousness with premise one. Is it necessarily true that God, being all powerful, can actualize a world in which a no person is damned to hell? Well, I believe that the atheist and theist alike can conclude that it's not ungrounded to assume god could actualize such a world. However, is it true that God can actualize a world in which no free agents are damned to hell? Well, not seemingly so. It simply does not follow that God can actualize such a world given the background information of human free will. So long as humans are free to choose between events that enact good and events that enact evil, I do not think one can legitimately state that God can ensure all will men will choose to always do good over evil. At most God would be able to coax or to convince free agents into doing more good over evil. For so long as there are individuals with unrestricted will in the world, God cannot logically make someone freely choose to do something. God simply cannot perform the logically impossible.
While it is possible that God could create a world in which no one disobeys his word and all men ultimately reach salvation, there is no guarantee that in such a world free agents would exist. Such a world would be more akin to a robotic or puppet-like world where all men are so compelled by God so as not to entertain any evil. Men would become like little action figures in a world of reserved space for God to inker and play with. I would hardly think that God would prefer to engage with such a lifeless and relation-less type of scenario.
Now for argument's sake, let us assume that premise one is correct. Let us grant the skeptic that it is logically possible for God to create a world in which all men freely do come into a loving, salvivic relationship with Him. Does it follow necessarily, that God prefers such a world? Well, again I cannot confidently say that in all circumstances God would indeed prefer to create such a world. For suppose such a world could only be created under certain overriding deficiencies. For instance, suppose such a world in which all men freely came to know the salvation of Christ was a world that was sparsely under- populated; a world with only one are two men. Should God therefore choose to actualize such a world in which only one are two come into a loving relationship with Him over a world were multitudes come into a loving relationship with Him? Well, I think not. What would compel God to choose a world where few are saved and none fall away over a world where many are saved and some must fall away? It is logically possible that in creating a world where all men are saved there may be certain overriding deficiencies that would incline God not to prefer such a world. Now unless one id fully aware of all the possbile contingencies of creating any given possible world, one cannot confidently state that God is unjust in creating world A (another possible world) over any given world B (our world).
Now, at this point I believe we can drop the argument and blunder any further headway of the skeptic. Yet, although one may argue that there are no implicit inconsistencies between the statements that God is all loving and some men be condemned to hell, I believe that the Theist can take the argument one step further. I believe that the Theist can allocate a possible statement that shows not merely no inconstancy but a consistent scenario that accounts for both points. I believe such a statement may go as follows: That God, in all his majesty and wisdom has offered a life redeeming hand to all men; either through general or special revelation or both; that those who should freely accept it would be granted eternal sonship with Christ and that those who should freely reject it would be given no eternal sonship with Christ. Furthermore, on the basis of what all men have chosen for themselves they are either self-consigned to a loving relationship with God in Heaven or a self-appointed division from God in the remaining factor of Hell.
In essence, so long as it is logically possible that salvation is offered to all and some freely reject it while others freely accept it, there can be no demand upon God to give an account for his sending people to the place of their choosing. For, in essence God does not send any person to Hell, rather men tend to send themselves. Once more, in so far as men have been given freedom of the will there is no guarantee that God could logically ensure all men would accept His offer of salvation. As C.S. Lewis scripts it acutely; "there are only two kinds of people in this world, those who bend the knee to God and say 'Your will be done' and those who refuse to bend the knee, to which God replies, 'Alright then, your will be done.'" Thus, so long as entrance into heaven's abode or hell's furnace is dependent upon a loving relationship with the son promulgated by free-agents, there is no basis for the claim that God sends people to hell over the claim that men refuse to accept God's hand and ultimately send themselves to hell. Unless the skeptic is able to defend his two implicit premises, there is no logical incompatibility between there be an all loving God and some people rejecting the salvation of Christ, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
[quote author=gmankbadi link=topic=8416.msg107423#msg107423 date=1256861526] First off, one must recognize that in asking the question," How can a loving God send people to hell" one is implicitly invoking a moral law. For the question at its core can really be rephrased as: Isn't it immoral of God to send people to hell? Isn't wrong of God to send people to help if he is an all-loving Being? However, right and wrong are essential to the very nature of God Himself. Thus, if god does not exist then there can be no such thing as a moral law from which to differentiate right and wrong. Yet, If there's moral law then there is no such thing as good. But, if there's not a thing as good and there can not be such thing as evil. Then, what is the point of asking the question? The question presumes that all omnipotent and omniscient god actually exists from which to borrow the ethical principal that holds the question intact..........................................................................................
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8416.msg107395#msg107395 date=1256837431] Ioannes, anyone can become a bishop. It is necessary to check who a bishop is. Which Church he belongs to etc etc.
Father Peter
Fr. Peter, I did do some research on your advide and it turns out he knows one of my friends, The Iconographer Fr. Theodore Jurewicz, who informed me that he was thrown out of the Serbian Orthodox Church for heretical teachings. I informed the OCA of the things he was teaching. Thank you Fr.Peter for the advice, I tend to be naive when it comes to this sort of thing, thank God I can learn from mistakes! The weirder thing, he kept quoting Early Church fathers, I asked for the references and he wouldnt give them to me. So I used my program to search the early church fathers writings, its a great program, and could find nothing that he claimed the church fathers said. What, Fr. Peter, do you think his goal is?
I would have to disagree with those say the world was created in 6 days, it wasnt, neither do i believe the bible teaches this, rather misinterpretation of the bible teaches the 6 day creation. I dont want to get into it cuz its a huge topic, but for example, every day is ended of saying "and the evening and the morning was the -- day"... however, the 7th day, the day that God rests from his creation does not say this, its open.. meaning were still in the seventh day, and God is still resting from his creation... Besides that there it is scientificall proven in several different ways that the earth is billions of years old... The very existance of stars means the universe has been expanding for billions of years, if you support thousands of years, all you get is hydrogen gas. Not only that but distance of the stars from the earth and how long it takes their light to travel, using advanced telescopes we can see stars billions of light-years away, meaning the light from the stars have been travelling for billions of years. There are great debates between old-earth and young earth creationists as im sure youve all heard of... but we know that God cannot lie, and the Bible teaches that "the heavens declare the Glory of God", and that day and night they "pour forth speach and knowledge" which means that Science and God cannot contradict, since God is the creator of science.... why would he decieve us through science?
As for evolution, its not proven, in fact theyve proved that neaderthals arent linked to humans using mitochondrial dna... I think its jsut a matter of time before evolution is refuted.
[quote author=epchois_nai_nan link=topic=8416.msg107140#msg107140 date=1256299231] [quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8416.msg107139#msg107139 date=1256286714] But in the end it doesn't matter to me. I believe that God created this world ex nihilo. And that theological fact is worth more than any scientific exploration of the apparent mechanisms which might or might not have taken place.
Genesis tells us that God created the Heavens and the Earth, and yet we know for a fact that the Earth was not formed supernaturally, but by a purely natural collection of gas and dust by gravity. PPFM
Science is actually admitting that a transcendent being, independent of space time and matter, was the cause of the big bang... In other words, there saying God was responsible for the big bang, they just dont want to call him God.... for years theyve been trying to get around this fact, but the theory of general relativity proves that there was a causal agent independent of space, time, and matter that MUST have brought these things into existance... In fact, general relativity is now ranked as the best proven theory in all of physics..Yes, scientists are finally agreeing that matter, energy, space and time we NOT always around. But ofcourse many scientists dont want to admit that it was the God of the Bible who was responsible for this act.
“And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27)”. Man, as distinct from animals, is made in the image and likeness of God. What distinguishes man from animal must therefore be a part of His reflection of God. Man’s ability to reason, to communicate, and to make moral decisions must be a part of this distinction. Further, man reflects God in the fact that he rules over creation. God is the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. He has delegated a small portion of His authority to man in the rule of creation. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.- Genesis 2:7He was formed from the dust of the ground. While this is a humbling fact, it is also obvious that man’s origin is not from the animal world, nor is man created in the same way as the animals. In part, Adam’s dignity stems from the fact that his life breath is the inspiration of God.
Comments
Father Peter
So, without god in the paradigm of the question, the question is no longer a thorny as the questioner has stated it.
Furthermore, I believe that theist can take the argument a few steps further. For there is nothing explicitly contradictory about god being all loving and all powerful and certain people going to hell. The argument 's potency then must be based on some underlying hidden assumptions. Well, what are those assumptions one may ask. I believe they are two fold:
That firstly, An all powerful and all-loving God exists. That such a God not only prefers the world in which no person is condemned to hell, but that such a God can actualize such a world. The argument would flow as follows:
Premise one: An all powerful and loving God not only prefers, but could and would create a world in which no men are condemned to hell.
Premise two: God is all loving and all powerful.
Premise three: Therefore, we should see a world in which no men are condemned to hell.
Yet, since it is obvious is that such a world is in direct contradiction to the Christian world and life view, the Christian god either does not exist or is not an all powerful or loving God. Now, at first glance the argument may seem soundfully raised. However, at closer look one begins to see the fallaciousness with premise one. Is it necessarily true that God, being all powerful, can actualize a world in which a no person is damned to hell? Well, I believe that the atheist and theist alike can conclude that it's not ungrounded to assume god could actualize such a world. However, is it true that God can actualize a world in which no free agents are damned to hell? Well, not seemingly so. It simply does not follow that God can actualize such a world given the background information of human free will. So long as humans are free to choose between events that enact good and events that enact evil, I do not think one can legitimately state that God can ensure all will men will choose to always do good over evil. At most God would be able to coax or to convince free agents into doing more good over evil. For so long as there are individuals with unrestricted will in the world, God cannot logically make someone freely choose to do something. God simply cannot perform the logically impossible.
While it is possible that God could create a world in which no one disobeys his word and all men ultimately reach salvation, there is no guarantee that in such a world free agents would exist. Such a world would be more akin to a robotic or puppet-like world where all men are so compelled by God so as not to entertain any evil. Men would become like little action figures in a world of reserved space for God to inker and play with. I would hardly think that God would prefer to engage with such a lifeless and relation-less type of scenario.
Now for argument's sake, let us assume that premise one is correct. Let us grant the skeptic that it is logically possible for God to create a world in which all men freely do come into a loving, salvivic relationship with Him. Does it follow necessarily, that God prefers such a world? Well, again I cannot confidently say that in all circumstances God would indeed prefer to create such a world. For suppose such a world could only be created under certain overriding deficiencies. For instance, suppose such a world in which all men freely came to know the salvation of Christ was a world that was sparsely under- populated; a world with only one are two men. Should God therefore choose to actualize such a world in which only one are two come into a loving relationship with Him over a world were multitudes come into a loving relationship with Him? Well, I think not. What would compel God to choose a world where few are saved and none fall away over a world where many are saved and some must fall away? It is logically possible that in creating a world where all men are saved there may be certain overriding deficiencies that would incline God not to prefer such a world. Now unless one id fully aware of all the possbile contingencies of creating any given possible world, one cannot confidently state that God is unjust in creating world A (another possible world) over any given world B (our world).
Now, at this point I believe we can drop the argument and blunder any further headway of the skeptic. Yet, although one may argue that there are no implicit inconsistencies between the statements that God is all loving and some men be condemned to hell, I believe that the Theist can take the argument one step further. I believe that the Theist can allocate a possible statement that shows not merely no inconstancy but a consistent scenario that accounts for both points. I believe such a statement may go as follows: That God, in all his majesty and wisdom has offered a life redeeming hand to all men; either through general or special revelation or both; that those who should freely accept it would be granted eternal sonship with Christ and that those who should freely reject it would be given no eternal sonship with Christ. Furthermore, on the basis of what all men have chosen for themselves they are either self-consigned to a loving relationship with God in Heaven or a self-appointed division from God in the remaining factor of Hell.
In essence, so long as it is logically possible that salvation is offered to all and some freely reject it while others freely accept it, there can be no demand upon God to give an account for his sending people to the place of their choosing. For, in essence God does not send any person to Hell, rather men tend to send themselves. Once more, in so far as men have been given freedom of the will there is no guarantee that God could logically ensure all men would accept His offer of salvation. As C.S. Lewis scripts it acutely; "there are only two kinds of people in this world, those who bend the knee to God and say 'Your will be done' and those who refuse to bend the knee, to which God replies, 'Alright then, your will be done.'" Thus, so long as entrance into heaven's abode or hell's furnace is dependent upon a loving relationship with the son promulgated by free-agents, there is no basis for the claim that God sends people to hell over the claim that men refuse to accept God's hand and ultimately send themselves to hell. Unless the skeptic is able to defend his two implicit premises, there is no logical incompatibility between there be an all loving God and some people rejecting the salvation of Christ, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
First off, one must recognize that in asking the question," How can a loving God send people to hell" one is implicitly invoking a moral law. For the question at its core can really be rephrased as: Isn't it immoral of God to send people to hell? Isn't wrong of God to send people to help if he is an all-loving Being? However, right and wrong are essential to the very nature of God Himself. Thus, if god does not exist then there can be no such thing as a moral law from which to differentiate right and wrong. Yet, If there's moral law then there is no such thing as good. But, if there's not a thing as good and there can not be such thing as evil. Then, what is the point of asking the question? The question presumes that all omnipotent and omniscient god actually exists from which to borrow the ethical principal that holds the question intact..........................................................................................
Socrates in the house! Nice post.
Ioannes, anyone can become a bishop. It is necessary to check who a bishop is. Which Church he belongs to etc etc.
Father Peter
Fr. Peter, I did do some research on your advide and it turns out he knows one of my friends, The Iconographer Fr. Theodore Jurewicz, who informed me that he was thrown out of the Serbian Orthodox Church for heretical teachings. I informed the OCA of the things he was teaching. Thank you Fr.Peter for the advice, I tend to be naive when it comes to this sort of thing, thank God I can learn from mistakes! The weirder thing, he kept quoting Early Church fathers, I asked for the references and he wouldnt give them to me. So I used my program to search the early church fathers writings, its a great program, and could find nothing that he claimed the church fathers said. What, Fr. Peter, do you think his goal is?
As for evolution, its not proven, in fact theyve proved that neaderthals arent linked to humans using mitochondrial dna... I think its jsut a matter of time before evolution is refuted.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8416.msg107139#msg107139 date=1256286714]
But in the end it doesn't matter to me. I believe that God created this world ex nihilo. And that theological fact is worth more than any scientific exploration of the apparent mechanisms which might or might not have taken place.
Genesis tells us that God created the Heavens and the Earth, and yet we know for a fact that the Earth was not formed supernaturally, but by a purely natural collection of gas and dust by gravity. PPFM
Science is actually admitting that a transcendent being, independent of space time and matter, was the cause of the big bang... In other words, there saying God was responsible for the big bang, they just dont want to call him God.... for years theyve been trying to get around this fact, but the theory of general relativity proves that there was a causal agent independent of space, time, and matter that MUST have brought these things into existance... In fact, general relativity is now ranked as the best proven theory in all of physics..Yes, scientists are finally agreeing that matter, energy, space and time we NOT always around. But ofcourse many scientists dont want to admit that it was the God of the Bible who was responsible for this act.