Is the Christian world view really one of hope?

[TruthSeeker1]

Christians on this site and elsewhere continually preach the idea that the Christian religion is one of hope. Many go so far as to say that those who are not Christian have no hope, only with the Christian viewpoint can one have a hopeful life.

The Christian has to accept that while he may be "saved", many others including non-believing family members and friends are destined for an eternity of torment. Does it really bring more "hope" for Christians to know that a few will enjoy eternal bliss while billions of others including most of the world's impoverished will be eternally tortured?

The question for debate: Is it really honest to call the Christian belief system one of hope?

[Greatest I Am]

TMMaria

Are you familiar with never never land or are you in it?

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

Are you familiar with never never land or are you in it?

GIA, you should try to make your point less sarcastically.

[Fallibleone]

As I have previously said, it is like saying 'I hope I win the lottery, but I do not believe that I will', or 'I hope with all my heart to see world peace in my lifetime, but I do not believe that it will happen'.

I have started a thread on whether one can hope without belief. I say one can.

Let's look at the definition of hope:

Hope, in its widest acceptation, is described as the desire of something together with the expectation of obtaining it. The Scholastics say that it is a movement of the appetite towards a future good, which though hard to attain is possible of attainment.

Although there is certainly evidence in the above definition, and in other definitions which I have found, that hope can be an expectation of a thing which is believed to be attainable, does it necessarily follow that one can only hope if the object of hope is attainable? What about my example that I hope for world peace but I do not believe it is attainable? I would argue that world peace is unattainable, and yet people still hope for it. Re: the above definition, it is a definition, not necessarily the definition. Where does it come from?

Here's an excerpt from St. Augustine on faith, hope, love:

The Distinction Between Faith and Hope, and the Mutual Dependence of Faith, Hope, and Love.


Again, can anything be hoped for which is not an object of faith? It is true that a thing which is not an object of hope may be believed. What true Christian, for example, does not believe in the punishment of the wicked? And yet such an one does not hope for it. And the man who believes that punishment to be hanging over himself, and who shrinks in horror from the prospect, is more properly said to fear than to hope.

Of course, you can also fear things which will never happen. For example, the thought of aggressive extraterrestrials invading induces fear in me.

And these two states of mind the poet carefully distinguishes, when he says: "Permit the fearful to have hope." Another poet, who is usually much superior to this one, makes a wrong use of the word, when he says: "If I have been able to hope for so great a grief as this." And some grammarians take this case as an example of impropriety of speech, saying, "He said sperare [to hope] instead of timere [to fear]." Accordingly, faith may have for its object evil as well as good; for both good and evil are believed, and the faith that believes them is not evil, but good. Faith, moreover, is concerned with the past, the present, and the future, all three. We believe, for example, that Christ died,an event in the past; we believe that He is sitting at the right hand of God,a state of things which is present; we believe that He will come to judge the quick and the dead,an event of the future. Again, faith applies both to one's own circumstances and those of others. Every one, for example, believes that his own existence had a beginning, and was not eternal, and he believes the same both of other men and other things. Many of our beliefs in regard to religious matters, again, have reference not merely to other men, but to angels also. But hope has for its object only what is good, only what is future, and only what affects the man who entertains the hope. For these reasons, then, faith must be distinguished from hope, not merely as a matter of verbal propriety, but because they are essentially different. The fact that we do not see either what we believe or what we hope for, is all that is common to faith and hope. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, faith is defined (and eminent defenders of the catholic faith have used the definition as a standard) "the evidence of things not seen." Although, should any one say that he believes, that is, has grounded his faith, not on words, nor on witnesses, nor on any reasoning whatever, but on the direct evidence of his own senses, he would not be guilty of such an impropriety of speech as to be justly liable to the criticism, "You saw, therefore you did not believe." And hence it does not follow that an object of faith is not an object of sight. But it is better that we should use the word "faith" as the Scriptures have taught us, applying it to those things which are not seen. Concerning hope, again, the apostle says: "Hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." When, then, we believe that good is about to come, this is nothing else but to hope for it. Now what shall I say of love? Without it, faith profits nothing; and in its absence, hope cannot exist. The Apostle James says: "The devils also believe, and tremble."that is, they, having neither hope nor love, but believing that what we love and hope for is about to come, are in terror. And so the Apostle Paul approves and commends the "faith that works by love;" and this certainly cannot exist without hope. Wherefore there is no love without hope, no hope without love, and neither love nor hope without faith.

Notice, you state there is hope without belief...rather, it's the other way around...the devils believe but have no hope.

I'm afraid that in my version of reality there are no 'devils', and therefore their experience means nothing. But anyway, see above - I think that it is quite possible to fear something that you do not believe will happen.

The Christian Hope is in the revelation of Jesus Christ. For sure we experience Hope imperfectly....but there's Hope. There can be no hope and love without faith.

I operate outside of Christianity. For me, it is perfectly possible to have hope and love without belief/faith.

"How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?" Look at another excerpt by St. Augustine:


The Creed and the Lord's Prayer Demand the Exercise of Faith, Hope, and Love.

For you have the Creed and the Lord's Prayer. What can be briefer to hear or to read? What easier to commit to memory? When, as the result of sin, the human race was groaning under a heavy load of misery, and was in urgent need of the divine compassion, one of the prophets, anticipating the time of God's grace, declared: "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered." Hence the Lord's Prayer. But the apostle, when, for the purpose of commending this very grace, he had quoted this prophetic testimony, immediately added: "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?" Hence the Creed. In these two you have those three graces exemplified: faith believes, hope and love pray. But without faith the two last cannot exist, and therefore we may say that faith also prays. Whence it is written: "How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?"

All this first supposes the belief in God. If I refute this first claim, how can I then go on to accept others made? Hope and love pray? What does that mean? Does it mean hope and love ask? Is Augustine speaking specifically about faith in God, or faith in general? Whichever it is, I disagree with him. I experience both hope and love without faith. Love cannot exist without faith? Faith in what? Please forgive me if I am clumsily missing the point. As you can see by my name, I am all too aware of my failings. I may be better able to understand you if you were to use your own words to explain, rather than someone else's.

Interesting, someone asked: can't an atheist not believe but hope in eternal life? No...if you hope in eternal life, you already have belief in the good to come....you are no longer an atheist. If you're on and off, than it's more that your hope is imperfect....and not steadfast.

This is all great stuff for the Christians among us. However, I was speaking from a non-Christian perspective. What St Augustine says on the matter I read and think about, but I do not accept as fact. Unfortunately, your final comment that 'if you hope in eternal life, you already have belief in the good to come...you are no longer an atheist' is slightly twisting things. You use the term 'hope in', whereas I would say 'hope for'. This may seem like an overly pedantic distinction, but I believe it is a valid one. To me, it implicitly suggests a belief in the thing for which you are hoping, which yes, is your main point as far as I understand it. You could easily substitute the 'hope' in 'hope in' for 'believe'. So I think that you are subtly altering the wording to bring the concept more in line with your own views. Personally speaking, I think that 'hope for' is different. It does not imply a belief in that for which you hope. Speaking for myself, which is the thing which I can do with the most certainty, I think that I can hope for things which I do not believe will ever happen. I can also fear things which I do not believe will ever happen.

My opinion on the OP is that yes, the Christian world view is one of hope. Hope for the individual mainly, but, I suppose, hope that others will cotton on and be 'saved'. The fact that this is the case does not mean that other world views, including atheism, are therefore without hope.

[Greatest I Am]

Are you familiar with never never land or are you in it?

GIA, you should try to make your point less sarcastically.

You are right.

I have been shorter on patience lately and have been considering ending my participation here.

I find that with the repetitive nature of posting that I suffer fools less and less over time.

I may have to look for a better way.

Regards
DL

[Zzyzx]

.

I have been shorter on patience lately and have been considering ending my participation here.

I find that with the repetitive nature of posting that I suffer fools less and less over time.

I may have to look for a better way.

GIA,

I have been thinking along the same lines lately. It is not only the repetition that tests my patience, but the naivet of "arguments" presented to "explain" or "justify" fundamentalist or literalist theology.

It seems as though there is an inverse relationship between quality of argument and degree of fundamentalism -- and a direct relationship between intolerance, elitism and delusions of superiority with degree of fundamentalism. Of course, rigid thinking is the mainstay of fundamentalism, so that is to be expected.

I am also disturbed by the imbalance between strong arguments presented by non-religionist members and the "never-never land" arguments presented by many religionist members. It seems as though the few strong Christian debaters tend to be rather liberal and are attacked from both sides (which might explain why some post very infrequently).

If you leave one of the few rational voices for Christianity will be silenced. Whereas, if I leave it will have little effect because there are many capable non-theist members.

I am embarrassed and saddened by the "arguments" put forth in the name of Christianity (and would be much more so if I was a Christian). Those arguments may work when preaching to the choir, but they are ineffective when offered as "proof" in debates with opponents who do not accept dogma or scripture. Likewise, arguing that "you are going to hell" is ludicrous as a threat to those who reject supernaturalism and afterlife.

For me there is no reward in debating weak opponents who present nave arguments.

Id hate to open these threads knowing that GIA isnt there. Shall we stick around a little longer and "pray" for improvement? Could we do something in Head to Head that would be interesting and challenging for both of us?

ZZ

[Greatest I Am]

.

I have been shorter on patience lately and have been considering ending my participation here.

I find that with the repetitive nature of posting that I suffer fools less and less over time.

I may have to look for a better way.

GIA,

I have been thinking along the same lines lately. It is not only the repetition that tests my patience, but the naivet of "arguments" presented to "explain" or "justify" fundamentalist or literalist theology.

It seems as though there is an inverse relationship between quality of argument and degree of fundamentalism -- and a direct relationship between intolerance, elitism and delusions of superiority with degree of fundamentalism. Of course, rigid thinking is the mainstay of fundamentalism, so that is to be expected.

I am also disturbed by the imbalance between strong arguments presented by non-religionist members and the "never-never land" arguments presented by many religionist members. It seems as though the few strong Christian debaters tend to be rather liberal and are attacked from both sides (which might explain why some post very infrequently).

If you leave one of the few rational voices for Christianity will be silenced. Whereas, if I leave it will have little effect because there are many capable non-theist members.

I am embarrassed and saddened by the "arguments" put forth in the name of Christianity (and would be much more so if I was a Christian). Those arguments may work when preaching to the choir, but they are ineffective when offered as "proof" in debates with opponents who do not accept dogma or scripture. Likewise, arguing that "you are going to hell" is ludicrous as a threat to those who reject supernaturalism and afterlife.

For me there is no reward in debating weak opponents who present nave arguments.

Id hate to open these threads knowing that GIA isnt there. Shall we stick around a little longer and "pray" for improvement? Could we do something in Head to Head that would be interesting and challenging for both of us?

ZZ

Not for the moment but thank you for the invite and words.

It may be just a phase because I am recovering from a back operation that added a 16 in scare and fused 7 discs.

Being almost pain drug free may not have helped my natural ( ever so patient)condition either.
I will remember the rain-check if I fell the need. Thanks again.

Regards
DL

[Cathar1950]

.

I have been shorter on patience lately and have been considering ending my participation here.

I find that with the repetitive nature of posting that I suffer fools less and less over time.

I may have to look for a better way.

GIA,

I have been thinking along the same lines lately. It is not only the repetition that tests my patience, but the naivet of "arguments" presented to "explain" or "justify" fundamentalist or literalist theology.

It seems as though there is an inverse relationship between quality of argument and degree of fundamentalism -- and a direct relationship between intolerance, elitism and delusions of superiority with degree of fundamentalism. Of course, rigid thinking is the mainstay of fundamentalism, so that is to be expected.

I am also disturbed by the imbalance between strong arguments presented by non-religionist members and the "never-never land" arguments presented by many religionist members. It seems as though the few strong Christian debaters tend to be rather liberal and are attacked from both sides (which might explain why some post very infrequently).

If you leave one of the few rational voices for Christianity will be silenced. Whereas, if I leave it will have little effect because there are many capable non-theist members.

I am embarrassed and saddened by the "arguments" put forth in the name of Christianity (and would be much more so if I was a Christian). Those arguments may work when preaching to the choir, but they are ineffective when offered as "proof" in debates with opponents who do not accept dogma or scripture. Likewise, arguing that "you are going to hell" is ludicrous as a threat to those who reject supernaturalism and afterlife.

For me there is no reward in debating weak opponents who present nave arguments.

Id hate to open these threads knowing that GIA isnt there. Shall we stick around a little longer and "pray" for improvement? Could we do something in Head to Head that would be interesting and challenging for both of us?

ZZ

I agree with ZZ here except I don't think you are one of the "rational" voices here but you are an alternative way of looking at things and can and are an important consideration as dreams and vision and personal experience is an often overlook phenomena not limited to the religious or "spiritual". Beside you have a good attitude and I like you sense of the goodness of God that questions the pet views many hold about God or gods even against what the "clear" words in the bible seem to say.
On the other hand there is the self-assured bible-believer that seems to have such little faith in anything that they constantly claim facts where there are none.
Then there are the indoctrinated and that can come in many varieties.
To me Hope is something everyone should enjoy.

[Easyrider]

On the other hand there is the self-assured bible-believer that seems to have such little faith in anything that they constantly claim facts where there are none.

I don't know, Cathar. You're the one who comes up with all the off-the-wall theories, presented as fact. I think you take first prize on that.

[Cathar1950]

On the other hand there is the self-assured bible-believer that seems to have such little faith in anything that they constantly claim facts where there are none.

I don't know, Cathar. You're the one who comes up with all the off-the-wall theories, presented as fact. I think you take first prize on that.

Usually we frown on one liners and even your two sentences didn't make the one line quality. Do you mind listing "all" of these supposed "off-the-wall" theories?
Show me where I claim they are "fact" which is something you know you practice.
Guessing from what you wrote you have nothing useful to say why don't you go make a list of incidents where I presented "off-the-wall theories as fact" or even claimed they were fact. You seem to be accusing me of what you do on a daily bases, over and over from thread to thread leaving unanswered questions as you start a new topic with you same unsupportable claims.
I don't find your comments an attack on me. I find them to be nonsense and contrived at best.
Mostly it is BS. I would report it if I thought it meant anything or had any relevancy.