henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl jam Henning) (06/11/91)
Kathleen P. Kowalski writes: >In response to your question about why God didn't create us without the >ability to sin, it is my own opinion that he chose not to do that >because he wanted us to have a choice. He didn't want us to love him >because there was no other choice, but because we wanted to. I >personally don't think that love that is forced is worth much. >Kay Love cannot be forced (by the lovee). When I love someone, and that person does not return my love, I have to accept that situation. It is not necessary for me to respond vindictively to the person who (for whatever reason) cannot, or chooses not to, reciprocate my affection. Is god prepared to be that selfless and big-hearted? kph -- "The study of crime begins with the knowledge of oneself. All that you despise, all that you loathe, all that you reject, all that you condemn and seek to convert by punishment springs from you." -- Henry Miller
MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (06/14/91)
God is not vindictive to those who choose not to love Him. He does not send them to Hell. They send themselves to Hell. St. Augustinee wrote, "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you. Those who choose to reject God and His love are incapable of living in Heaven. Their self-imposed separation from God is Hell. This basic point is illustrated very well by someone who did not believe in God or Hell, Jean Paul Sartre in his play NO EXIT. Sartre is wrong about some of the details. For example, the famous closing line, "Hell is other people" is the opposite of the truth. Hell is oneself, without any love for anyone else. See also THE GREAT DIVORCE by C. S. Lewis. Marty Helgesen
hassell@news.colorado.edu (Christopher Hassell) (06/14/91)
henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl jam Henning) writes: [] Kathleen P. Kowalski writes: [] >In response to your question about why God didn't create us without the [] >ability to sin, it is my own opinion that he chose not to do that [] >because he wanted us to have a choice. He didn't want us to love him [] >because there was no other choice, but because we wanted to. I [] >personally don't think that love that is forced is worth much. [] >Kay [] Love cannot be forced (by the lovee). True by definition. [] When I love someone, and that person does not return my love, [] I have to accept that situation. It is not necessary for me [] to respond vindictively to the person who (for whatever [] reason) cannot, or chooses not to, reciprocate my affection. [] Is god prepared to be that selfless and big-hearted? EEEEEEEEH. Bingo.. found again making God out to be just another Joe bothering us poor harassed humans with his "Undying Love". Sheesh.. this sounds too much like a bad Love Connection. Okay ... okay... cool off I suppose. My point is that the Love Xians speak of.. is not just wow-happy-gee-neat love. It is Love from the most Holy/Pure/Perfect/WISE/ Knowledgeable/Pre-Eminant/ Generally-Cool and even Humble being in the Created Universe itself. It is a love which looks quite DOWN at His children whom he loves. He is very much happy with us as our created design... but not at our own lives and our own sorrows and our own failures and ... need I go on? There is FAR too much "coolness" in the ethos of today. Everyone is basically told and helped to be 1) Apathetic or "mellow" 2) Quite the Downplayer or Naysayer of all that isn't obvious 3) Quite the badgerer to anyone who does not believe the Obvious (specifically whatever Obvious things are adequately accepted) 4) Incredibly Self-Reliant and Detached from Need or Vulnerability It is the fourth ethic which is dripping all over in the earlier passage. The idea that we don't need NUTHIN.. and that we are perfectly happy and fine and cool and you can just go now and leave us alone because we are good and high-spirited.... and fine.... (um.. just as soon as the Utopian Bus comes along). AGAIN!... so much independance.. so much rejection ... so much lifeless arrogance in the face of our own irritatingly embarrassing needs! The Love He offers us is not a Get-Cool-And-Indpendant "energy" ... it is a mushy gross and nice disgusting yet utterly freedom-endowing love. Better than any parent you may have known or feared. So... can we Cut the Love Connection binge? The idea that God just wants to be our date for a while is repulsively dumb philosophically (though no one is suggesting that anywhere). -- If you are getting mail from me, my apologies for confusiong you ############## ### C>H> ### boulder.colorado.edu!tramp!hassell #### "Nietzche is dead." - God
daveh@sequent.com (06/14/91)
In article <Jun.10.23.31.20.1991.1189@athos.rutgers.edu> henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl jam Henning) writes: > >Love cannot be forced (by the lovee). > >When I love someone, and that person does not return my love, >I have to accept that situation. It is not necessary for me >to respond vindictively to the person who (for whatever >reason) cannot, or chooses not to, reciprocate my affection. > >Is god prepared to be that selfless and big-hearted? > >kph You are forgeting other aspects of God's nature: Holy and Just. The "vindictively" you mention is not vindictive it is His dealing justly with the offense (sins) commited by the guilty. It would be against God's nature to ignore sin. If one trusts in Christ then God accepts Christ's punishment (the cross) in place of punishing the guilty - substitutionary atonement. For those that don't trust in Christ, their on their own. Would our Justice system be just if after sentencing, the guilty was just set free? Is this true love? Love for what/whom? -- Dave Hall daveh@sequent.com
allenroy@cs.pdx.edu (callen roy) (06/15/91)
henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl jam Henning) writes: >Love cannot be forced (by the lovee). >When I love someone, and that person does not return my love, >I have to accept that situation. It is not necessary for me >to respond vindictively to the person who (for whatever >reason) cannot, or chooses not to, reciprocate my affection. >Is god prepared to be that selfless and big-hearted? One of the biggest falicies that is rampant in the Christian community is the idea that God will punish forever, those who were silly enough to not choose to 'love' Him. God is more selfless and big-hearted than any of us. God allow us to choose to love Him or choose to reject Him. The problem with rejecting Him is that He is the source of life. No one can exist without a connection to the source. If we, like a Deep Sea diver, were to cut our 'umbelical cord' to the surface, we would die. By choosing to reject the Love and Life of God we cease to exist. Death, not eternally life (in 'Hell'), is the reward--result--of sin. God want's us to love and trust Him. That takes time to do, so we are still alive, though doomed to death, for our chance to make up our minds--eternal life in love with God, or complete non-existance without end. Allen Roy God loves you. All He wants is for you to love Him back.
harling@pictel.uucp (Dan Harling) (06/23/91)
In article <Jun.10.23.31.20.1991.1189@athos.rutgers.edu> henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl jam Henning) writes: >Kathleen P. Kowalski writes: > >>In response to your question about why God didn't create us without the >>ability to sin, it is my own opinion that he chose not to do that >>because he wanted us to have a choice. He didn't want us to love him >>because there was no other choice, but because we wanted to. I >>personally don't think that love that is forced is worth much. > >>Kay > >Love cannot be forced (by the lovee). > >When I love someone, and that person does not return my love, >I have to accept that situation. It is not necessary for me >to respond vindictively to the person who (for whatever >reason) cannot, or chooses not to, reciprocate my affection. > >Is god prepared to be that selfless and big-hearted? He most certainly is. Although it seems to be an overused reference in this newsgroup, _The Great Divorce_ by C. S. Lewis helped me to understand that, since Hell is the utter alienation of God, those who walk away from God do so because they would *rather* live in Hell. It is a misconception that everybody would prefer Heaven to Hell, as Lewis illustrates in the book above. >kph _The Great Divorce_ should be part of a recommended-reading list for this newsgroup; it seems everyone keeps referring to it. Is anyone interested in discussing the book? ______________________________________________________________________ Daniel A. Harling PictureTel, Inc. Rockport, MA Peabody, MA Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of PictureTel, Inc.; they are MINE, ALL MINE! (So there.) ---- === ====
carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (06/27/91)
In article <Jun.22.21.01.04.1991.17997@athos.rutgers.edu> harling@pictel.uucp (Dan Harling) writes: >_The Great Divorce_ should be part of a recommended-reading list for >this newsgroup; it seems everyone keeps referring to it. Is anyone >interested in discussing the book? Not the book *per se*. It's a nice story, but Lewis explicitly tells the reader not to take it too seriously. I'm more interested in the fundamental issue the book seems to raise - the idea that a Jonathan Edwards type of God is not required in Christian theology. It seems that maybe better than 50% of the traffic in this newsgroup is generated by people sending the unorthodox and the doubting to Hell In A Handbasket. I've floated the issue before, and it's sunk of its own weight, but I'll try again. Is the concept of Hell required by orthodox (as opposed to Orthodox) Christian theology? -- Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com [My impression is that most people who participate here would like nothing more than to be able to assure people that there is no hell. The basic problem is that Jesus is not shy about talking about reward and punishment in the hereafter. Among the more explicit is Luke 13:23, where someone asks whether many will be saved and he says many will try to enter and not be able. Or the business about sheep and goats, or ... This makes it very hard for most Christians to avoid some concept like hell. I may say something more in a posting under my own name when I have time. But this seemed like an obvious enough answer that I don't really want 200 identical responses quoting the zillions of passages that talk about judgement. --clh]