yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
As an unbeliever reads, who may hold to many other gods, what is important to unbelievers reading ? Do you think they know the difference between a god, and God ?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As an unbeliever reads, who may hold to many other gods, what is important to unbelievers reading ? Do you think they know the difference between a god, and God ?Note, I tried to be charitable and answer what I think he meant and not nit-pick semantics and try to score some meaningless point.
I didn't think it was comedy either, you called it "jest" though, so I wasn't going to knock you for giving it your best shot. Your sci-fi daydreaming was creative though, is that where you get all these ideas about what I didn't say from?
You didn't explain anything, though. You claimed that promise keeping is just without explanation, then straw manned me like crazy. Now you can't defend your straw men, and you certainly aren't going to acknowledge your mistakes, so you're leaving.
Love that line. "If you're actually interested in learning". Such condescension from someone who never bothered to read what I wrote. Nice touch.
I think most atheists who peruse these forums are educated enough to read my post and understand what I said and give an appropriate response. And if I then need to further clarify what I wrote after their response, then I am fully capable of doing that. It's... you know.. what dialogue looks like.As an unbeliever reads, who may hold to many other gods, what is important to unbelievers reading ? Do you think they know the difference between a god, and God ?
2) What is unjust about eternal conscious torment?
In the first answer, the interpretation of eternal conscious torment implicit in the opening post is rejected. In the second, the entire moral framework assumed by the opening post is rejected.
1) Eternal conscious torment, if it exists, would need to be in some sense the result of the individual's existential state...
...and not intentionally inflicted upon them by God for it to be reconcilable with a good God.
That is what he wanted. See post #18 that he clicked "Agree" to. He framed the question wrong by trying to say, "Gee whiz, if you guys are okay with eternal torture what won't you be okay with?" And so everyone is saying, "This is why I'm okay with eternal torture". Or a few are mentioning annihilationism, which is kind of against the rules to support here. Neither of which answers what he was getting at initially.
I took this line, but I was trying to draw out some syllogisms and reasoning from those who support the OP (example).
My suspicion is that at the bottom of this issue is a kind of anthropomorphism where divine justice is taken to be too similar to human justice. For example:
This is arguably an extended kind of retributive punishment, where an evil act results in suffering. Hellfire is a metaphorical representation of that consequential suffering.
I think we would have to pursue what is meant by "intentionally inflicting," especially when talking about God. We would probably have to say that, at the very least, God is intentionally allowing justice and the spiritual principles he authored to take their course.
As far as the modern mind is concerned, I think @Tinker Grey was en route with his emphasis on rehabilitation.
It seems to me that this is an issue where contemporary ethics contradicts revelation, and neither is intrinsically irrational.
morality being the supreme standard of man, Man can use this ideology to deem anything he wants evil. Hitler used 'morality' to make a segment of his society 'immoral/inhuman monsters.' thus deemed it every german's moral obligation to eradicate the monsters in their soceity.If God can torture people in Hell for eternity, and still be the epitome of goodness and love, what would make this God a moral monster?
i.e. (or also?)I wouldn't put too much weight on the "Agree" rating, since it's often used in a tribalistic fashion. But the literal question has been answered also. There have been two types of answers:
1. Nothing would make God a moral monster, because anything God proclaims is by definition good.
2. There are things that would make God a moral monster, but eternal conscious torment (at least on some interpretations) isn't one of them.
I would go with the second response. I think there are entire branches of theology (Ockham's voluntarism, for example) that start getting dangerously close to "moral monster" territory, so I have no problem answering the initial question, but I still don't think the point of this thread was to invite a conversation about the finer points of the doctrine of divine sovereignty. It's pretty clearly about complaining about hell.
Yeah, it doesn't hurt that the timing of your exit let's you sidestep addressing a series of blunders though.No, I am leaving on a methodological basis, and my explanation was related to that fact. Explaining something to someone who doesn't want to understand is not a fruitful activity, and of late I have not even been trying to explain reality so much as my views on reality. I think you are on the cusp of understanding dialectical science, but I don't see any clear way to aid you. I still see this post as a good attempt. I hope you think about it at some point.
I have a good understanding of punishment from my degree in psychology. I probably don't know that much about retributive justice, that's why I asked what's so good about it. Your sentence looks a bit like you're conflating the two things. That would be a bit like conflating a star with hydrogen. If you aren't conflating them, and you're betting I don't know that much about retributive justice or punishment, what makes you think I don't know that much about punishment? And also, if you aren't conflating them, I'll PM you my PayPal info for you to send me that $100.Perhaps, but I would bet $100 that you have no significant understanding of retributive justice (or punishment).
I asked, repeatedly, so telling me I'm not interested is accusing me of being disingenuous in my inquiry. Just because I figure I'm probably going to be able to explain why it's still bad doesn't mean I'm not interested in understanding what you think either. There's a difference between a desire to understand and a desire to be convinced. And since this is a new thought of mine, it isn't cemented strong enough for me to think I couldn't be convinced it was a bad one, but of course I'm going to challenge the opposition to test it as much as I can.That's what our discussion of justice centers around, and if you are interested in learning about it then you can go read about it. I don't take it that interest in learning is some sort of given. Learning is taxing.
i.e. (or also?)
Even IF God did as the op insinuates or states,
He Is God - There is NO OTHER. He Does As HE PLEASES. (always just and right)
So, if fallen mankind disagrees, so ? Mankind has always with few exceptions disagreed with God. (AND rebelled against Him )
He Is Still God, there is NO OTHER.
He get to do what He wants to DO. He created everything, so everything is HIS to do with as He wants to.
Yeah, I had your responses in mind. I think they're fair questions to ask, since there are tons of assumptions about the nature of justice going on here that are just obviously not being shared by all parties.
I wouldn't consider it retributive so much as simply consequential. If you put your hand on a fire and get burned, the fire isn't intentionally inflicting punishment on you.
It admittedly gets trickier with an underlying theistic ontology.
My frustration with this question is that if one accepts the immortality of the soul and rejects theism, the existential version of eternal hell is practically a given, since the fire you've placed your hand on will continue to burn, since there is no intrinsic purpose either for retribution or for rehabilitation. All you are left at is the consequences of your actions.
Well, I wouldn't specifically say that the conflict here is between modern ethics and revelation.
To a certain extent, it's between revelation and revelation--I've been rereading the Pauline Epistles, and there's definitely an interesting interplay between a focus on divine sovereignty and a desperate universalist hope going on towards the end of Romans.
I think the modern problem is that the emphasis on rehabilitation is so extreme that we can't really have a discussion about the tension between retribution and rehabilitation at all.
I don't actually think the modern stance is entirely rational, though--people can be very arbitrary about when they think retributive justice is and isn't appropriate. They will attack hell, and then turn around and complain that it's not fair that a murderer who converts to Christianity doesn't have to pay for their crimes.
Yeah, it doesn't hurt that the timing of your exit let's you sidestep addressing a series of blunders though.
I have a good understanding of punishment from my degree in psychology. I probably don't know that much about retributive justice, that's why I asked what's so good about it. Your sentence looks a bit like you're conflating the two things. That would be a bit like conflating a star with hydrogen. If you aren't conflating them, and you're betting I don't know that much about retributive justice or punishment, what makes you think I don't know that much about punishment? And also, if you aren't conflating them, I'll PM you my PayPal info for you to send me that $100.
I asked, repeatedly, so telling me I'm not interested is accusing me of being disingenuous in my inquiry. Just because I figure I'm probably going to be able to explain why it's still bad doesn't mean I'm not interested in understanding what you think either. There's a difference between a desire to understand and a desire to be convinced. And since this is a new thought of mine, it isn't cemented strong enough for me to think I couldn't be convinced it was a bad one, but of course I'm going to challenge the opposition to test it as much as I can.
I just thought of something ('as if' from the world's view) (which is prevalent on earth).Yes, this is the first option that I mentioned. Nothing would make God a moral monster, because anything God proclaims is by definition good.
If God can torture people in Hell for eternity, and still be the epitome of goodness and love, what would make this God a moral monster?
zombies? < shrugs >Now the question left is, is it moral to kill a city of zombies in order to save a single human?
The second point is that it's not a torturing in the sense that it's Law which doesn't allow them to be released without a legal justification, which is the crucifixion of Christ. God already made that sacrifice to save the living. Now He said He's not the God of the dead, which means there won't be a way to save the zombies from the hell state they will be in.
zombies? < shrugs >
I don't know that it was necessary in order to save Lot, but perhaps ?
Sodom and Gomorrah would have been spared if only ten righteous had been found...
The wickednesses there greatly VEXED Lot, just as today for the Righteous ones serving God in many places.
Wiping out those cities, and the whole world with the flood saving 8, is part of the Plan...
The part that's possibly not good about all that,That doesn't refute the analogy that the wicked are the zombies. They are the zombies because anything good belongs to God including our conscience. When anything belonging to God has been removed from a human then he's no longer a human at all.
The part that's possibly not good about all that,
is the thinking like the gestapo or the nazis (and surprisingly some churches!)
that those people can be killed and it is not a sin.
This is false. WHOEVER takes a life, their life will be required of them.
The 'zombies' might be brought to repentance (no, not all , not even most - most die in their sin) .. but we don't know which ones may be grafted in or grafted back in , as written, so
always seek the Father , always, about everything, even about who to pray for, and what prayer .....
Feelings are not a standard - feelings are unreliable, unpredictable, and not to be followed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?