Pros and Cons of Proving God Exists?

[SlowwHand]

Because God gave mankind the unique ability to reason above all other species, and we've failed utterly since the beginning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then why did Jesus add to them? Murder violates a commandment, but Jesus said if you hate you've already sinned. Adultery violates another, but Jesus said if you even lust you've sinned. The 10 Commandments deal mostly with actions whereas Jesus identified the thoughts that sometimes precede the actions. Besides, Jesus ripped apart the divorce laws under Moses so he wasn't worried about changing laws from God.

This is a wise answer. I fear that Kid will not be able to see it.

God wants people to be obedient because they LOVE Him not because they just want to follow rules. He cares about the heart, not slavish devotion. That's what Jesus's ministry was all about!

[Kidlicious]

Then why did Jesus add to them? Murder violates a commandment, but Jesus said if you hate you've already sinned. Adultery violates another, but Jesus said if you even lust you've sinned. The 10 Commandments deal mostly with actions whereas Jesus identified the thoughts that sometimes precede the actions. Besides, Jesus ripped apart the divorce laws under Moses so he wasn't worried about changing laws from God.

God never allowed men to divorce the wife of their youth and remarry a fresh hottie. The Isrealites didn't understand the Law because they didn't want to. We have the same kind of thing going on today.

Jesus didn't add to the Law. He told us and showed us how to follow it.

Imran isn't being fair to me. I don't "slavishly" follow the law I just try to do so. Idk what he's really trying to say but it sounds like he's saying you don't have to follow the Law which is wrong we do, and it's always been so.

edit: Actually I agree with Imran's last post but didn't read it first.

[Kidlicious]

Because obedience was a secondary priority to freedom.

That's too simple. We are free to serve the Lord. Freedom besides that ends in death, and so is no freedom at all. That's why the Bible says, "you were once a slave to the flesh."

[loinburger]

edit: Actually I agree with Imran's last post but didn't read it first.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran isn't being fair to me. I don't "slavishly" follow the law I just try to do so. Idk what he's really trying to say but it sounds like he's saying you don't have to follow the Law which is wrong we do, and it's always been so.

edit: Actually I agree with Imran's last post but didn't read it first.

They are kind of diametrically opposed. One is trying to follow "the law" and one is being guided by the Spirit in doing what is right.

You try to follow the law? Does this mean you don't eat pork or shellfish? Or do you listen to Jesus who reversed those laws when he said that that which comes out of a man, rather than goes into a man, makes him unclean?

[Elok]

That's too simple. We are free to serve the Lord. Freedom besides that ends in death, and so is no freedom at all. That's why the Bible says, "you were once a slave to the flesh."

Even the freedom to choose to die remains freedom.

[kentonio]

Because obedience was a secondary priority to freedom.

How does freedom fit with heaven and hell?

[Imran Siddiqui]

He's Orthodox. They don't believe in Hell.

[Elok]

He's Orthodox. They don't believe in Hell.

? Yes, we do. There's disagreement over the nature, duration and escapability of Hell, but not its existence AFAIK. Where did you read that?

Ken, have you ever read "The Great Divorce?" That's our general take on it. The doors of Hell are locked from the inside.

EDIT: In retrospect, this post might be misleading. I don't mean the picture Lewis draws specifically of the relationship/relative natures of Heaven and Hell. More the general attitude that we go to Hell because it's where we have freely chosen to go.

[kentonio]

Nope, I'll try and find it.

[Elok]

It's C.S. Lewis, it should be pretty easy to find. The fundamental conflict between freedom and happiness (in that real freedom necessarily entails the freedom to choose to be unhappy) is interesting to think about. I'm guessing you have read Brave New World at some point--it's on high school reading lists all over the U.S.

[Imran Siddiqui]

? Yes, we do. There's disagreement over the nature, duration and escapability of Hell, but not its existence AFAIK. Where did you read that?

It was my assumption that Hell, as in the you will burn for all eternity type of place which atheists usually mean when they describe Hell, is not a part of Orthodox thought.

[Elok]

It was my assumption that Hell, as in the you will burn for all eternity type of place which atheists usually mean when they describe Hell, is not a part of Orthodox thought.

No, it exists, though it's really not mentioned much; in sermons and songs "Hell" tends to be used as a synonym or alternative translation for "Hades," the state of sleeping death conquered by Christ's resurrection. That gets a lot of mention, while Hell as you mention it does not--we tend to emphasize the carrot a lot more than the stick. It's easy to think that this is because we're ashamed of Hell somehow, but really I think it's just that Hellfire and Damnation are of little interest to us. The chief focus of our theology is theosis, reunion with God and participation in His divine energies (man taking on the divine nature and becoming Godlike, as in...2 Peter? I don't recall, too lazy to look it up as usual). Either you achieve it or you fail. Failure to achieve it is bad enough for us, I think.

However, Hell does exist in our thought. Some Fathers speculate that it's not necessarily permanent and there is a hope of universal reconciliation. Some think that Hell is simply Heaven as experienced by unrepentant sinners (God's love is painful), while others say just the opposite (the denial of God's love is painful). In any case, we don't say anything for certain, in keeping with our general policy of "only say for sure what you know for sure."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, when someone such as gribbler states "where does freedom fit with heaven and hell", I think the assumption is that Hell is the eternal damnation, torture, etc., etc. in that context.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my reply, but I wasn't sure how interested he'd be in the nitty gritty of the discussion that Western fire and brimstone Hell isn't necessarily universal.