Question about Hell from another thread.

[Grumpy Old Man]

As non-believers aren't allowed to post in other threads here, I'm forced to create a new one. Anyway, in this thread Raze says this;

When He took me to hell and showed it to me, this is what He was trying to instill in me. It ... took a while to take hold. (Probably the understatement in my tone there was lost)

Later in the thread someone else says this;

You belittle the cross when you claim that our savior who died there, thus defeating death for everyone will one day torture those whom he died to save. The doctrine of eternal torment stinks and you smear that stink on God's face when you claim that he is a sadistic torturer.

Which of these is true? Either we have a hell, as per Raze's "vision", or Timothew is right in his assertion that God could not be a sadistic torturer.

For that matter, I'm quite curious Raze; why did God show you hell? Have you seen heaven?

 

[ChristianT]

Why does God, being a righteous Judge and all, make Him sadistic? Why are His punishments "evil?" By what standard are we judging God? Where does that standard come from? Are we fit to judge Him?

As per Hell, I believe it's only torment because by definition, it's the absence of God's presence (of course He's omnipresent, but He doesn't associate or show Himself to anyone there). That would mean it's void of love, joy, peace, righteousness, purity, etc. so logically that leaves...

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Why does God, being a righteous Judge and all, make Him sadistic? Why are His punishments "evil?" By what standard are we judging God? Where does that standard come from? Are we fit to judge Him?

This argument is now tedious to me because I've seen it so many times. You're a Christian, ergo you will see God as good and fluffy and lovely, etc. As William Lane Craig believes, anything God does, despite appearing evil to humans, is good simply because God does it. If a man kills another man, it's murder and evil. If God kills a man, it's good. If a man tortures another man, it is sick and inhumane. If God does it (for eternity) it's good. The basic Christian argument is that God is exempt from all morality and because we, despite having knowledge of Good and Evil (because of Adam and Eve's fruit eating contest) are still somehow unfit to judge an action of God and whether it is good or evil. Trying to get a Christian to re-examine the concept of justice in the hands of a disproportionately violent God is futile.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

As per Hell, I believe it's only torment because by definition, it's the absence of God's presence (of course He's omnipresent, but He doesn't associate or show Himself to anyone there). That would mean it's void of love, joy, peace, righteousness, purity, etc. so logically that leaves...

Note the part I emphasised. Hell is just another doctrine that Christians can't on.

 

[Soothfish]

This argument is now tedious to me because I've seen it so many times. You're a Christian, ergo you will see God as good and fluffy and lovely, etc. As William Lane Craig believes, anything God does, despite appearing evil to humans, is good simply because God does it. If a man kills another man, it's murder and evil. If God kills a man, it's good. If a man tortures another man, it is sick and inhumane. If God does it (for eternity) it's good. The basic Christian argument is that God is exempt from all morality and because we, despite having knowledge of Good and Evil (because of Adam and Eve's fruit eating contest) are still somehow unfit to judge an action of God and whether it is good or evil.

and if there are no Gods then any killer is victorious. If a God allows the killer to die and resurrects the victim, then the purer spirit (that of the victim) has been reclaimed. However, if God(s) don't exist, then the murderer dies happy knowing that a purer spirit is dead at his hands and the victim remains dead. Nothing has been reclaimed, only a happy killer. Therefore, the killer is victorious.

Trying to get a Christian to re-examine the concept of justice in the hands of a disproportionately violent God is futile.

Trying to get an atheist to hold an intellectual debate without acting nasty and snobby might be futile.

 

[Soothfish]

Note the part I emphasised. Hell is just another doctrine that Christians can't on.

You are attacking the person and not the idea. That's called "ad hominem".

That may be more evidence that atheism is an untenable position. It must only have hatred to defend itself because you don't seem very comfortable using reason.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

You are attacking the person and not the idea. That's called "ad hominem".

That may be more evidence that atheism is an untenable position. It must only have hatred to defend itself because you don't seem very comfortable using reason.

Attacking him how? I merely said that it was only what he believed. I didn't call him names, or insult his intelligence, or any such thing that could actually be called a real ad hominem.

It must only have hatred to defend itself because you don't seem very comfortable using reason.

This is an ad hominem.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Trying to get an atheist to hold an intellectual debate without acting nasty and snobby might be futile.

The wording of both your posts in this thread inform me that you are a hypocrite. "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

Look, I don't want you in this thread. It was actually addressed to the two people I quoted in the OP. I want to see how they reconcile both their positions (Raze's vision, and the other person's statement that hell is not a literal eternal torment). If you've got nothing interesting to add to this, other than anti-atheist "you're not capable of logic" bull, then please feel free to find another atheist to bully.

 

[Soothfish]

The wording of both your posts in this thread inform me that you are a hypocrite. "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

Look, I don't want you in this thread. It was actually addressed to the two people I quoted in the OP. I want to see how they reconcile both their positions (Raze's vision, and the other person's statement that hell is not a literal eternal torment). If you've got nothing interesting to add to this, other than anti-atheist "you're not capable of logic" bull, then please feel free to find another atheist to bully.

There it goes again. I refuse to partake in anymore of this childish nonsense.

I would like to thank all atheists for proving to me that atheism is false.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

There it goes again. I refuse to partake in anymore of this childish nonsense.

I would like to thank all atheists for proving to me that atheism is false.

OK. Whatever dude. At least I got you out of this thread so I can get some real answers now.

 

[Timothew]

I don't have any special knowledge about this. I didn't die and go to hell only to discover there is no hell.

I'm relying on what the bible itself says, I'm assuming it is true. Perhaps this is a bad assumption. That is another debate.

For me, the question is "Is the doctrine of eternal torture in hell found in the bible, or is there a better doctrine in the bible that explains what happens what happens at death?" You don't have to believe in God or Hell to answer this question. The question is NOT "Does Hell exist?" but "Does the bible teach that people are to be tortured for all eternity?"

I've done a good job in the forum saying that the bible teaches that those who do not have eternal life end up without eternal life. The other side has been ineffective in saying that those who don't receive eternal life will receive eternal life being tortured in hell.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I don't have any special knowledge about this. I didn't die and go to hell only to discover there is no hell.

I'm relying on what the bible itself says, I'm assuming it is true. Perhaps this is a bad assumption. That is another debate.

For me, the question is "Is the doctrine of eternal torture in hell found in the bible, or is there a better doctrine in the bible that explains what happens what happens at death?" You don't have to believe in God or Hell to answer this question. The question is NOT "Does Hell exist?" but "Does the bible teach that people are to be tortured for all eternity?"

I've done a good job in the forum saying that the bible teaches that those who do not have eternal life end up without eternal life. The other side has been ineffective in saying that those who don't receive eternal life will receive eternal life being tortured in hell.

I've read some of your posts before on hell. I'm just wondering how you reconcile what you believe with Raze's vision. He didn't elaborate on it; all he said was that God showed him hell. Do you think he may have been wrong?

 

[Timothew]

I've read some of your posts before on hell. I'm just wondering how you reconcile what you believe with Raze's vision. He didn't elaborate on it; all he said was that God showed him hell. Do you think he may have been wrong?

I really like Raze. I am sceptical about anyone's personal vision of heaven and hell. I don't even believe the kid who went to heaven. Sorry

 

[Timothew]

I should say that I didn't read Burpo's book. Perhaps if I did I would be so convinced I would think the boy has been to heaven and back. But if I can't get the truth out of the Holy Bible, I don't think I will get the truth from a paperback book.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I really like Raze. I am sceptical about anyone's personal vision of heaven and hell. I don't even believe the kid who went to heaven. Sorry

I keep meaning to read this. I'm sceptical of visions too. I believed I had a few when I was a Christian (I was into the whole Charismatic thing; tongues and prophecies, etc) but they didn't make much sense and I felt I was forcing them onto myself in some ways.

I'm sure Raze believes he saw a vision, or maybe he even believes he literally went to hell, but the nature of visions is very precarious and highly subjective. Also, most religions claim visions as part of their spiritual phenomena.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I should say that I didn't read Burpo's book. Perhaps if I did I would be so convinced I would think the boy has been to heaven and back. But if I can't get the truth out of the Holy Bible, I don't think I will get the truth from a paperback book.

I noticed the Amazon blurb for the book says this;

Told by the father, but often in Colton's own words

I think I'll pass. The father could be putting words in the kids mouth.

EDIT: I've been reading some of the Amazon reviews and some people are saying that most of the book is about other stuff; family members, camping trips, restaurant meals, etc. The author seems to spend a lot of time leading up to the vision rather than talking about the vision itself.

 

[ChristianT]

This argument is now tedious to me because I've seen it so many times.

Then shouldn't something be clicking? How do you define "righteous?" or "just?"
Don't you think a judge would need the slightest idea of either or both? Why is God any different? Hell along with death and the devil, will be thrown into the lake of fire (as per what the Bible says), and thus will cease to exist. It has been stated many times before, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a doctrine.

So let's get this straight

righteous = morally good, justifiable
just = based on what is morally right or what is fair.

God is infinitely righteous, and perfectly just. therefore his punishments are just; fair. If you think God is a mushy cosmic Santa or loves us because we deserve it somehow, you've got a twisted (a.k.a. false) view of God. He is benevolent, but He is not only a loving God. He is also perfectly just and must uphold Himself (based on His own will, not by definitions of words or b/c we say so) to that fairness by placing punishments on those who break the law.

Since you want to talk with raze and timothew, I'll leave it at that, wish you good results, and a good day.

Peace.

 

[Timothew]

Then shouldn't something be clicking? How do you define "righteous?" or "just?"
Don't you think a judge would need the slightest idea of either or both? Why is God any different? Hell along with death and the devil, will be thrown into the lake of fire (as per what the Bible says), and thus will cease to exist. It has been stated many times before, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a doctrine.

So let's get this straight

righteous = morally good, justifiable
just = based on what is morally right or what is fair.

God is infinitely righteous, and perfectly just. therefore his punishments are just; fair. If you think God is a mushy cosmic Santa or loves us because we deserve it somehow, you've got a twisted (a.k.a. false) view of God. He is benevolent, but He is not only a loving God. He is also perfectly just and must uphold Himself (based on His own will, not by definitions of words or b/c we say so) to that fairness by placing punishments on those who break the law.

Since you want to talk with raze and timothew, I'll leave it at that, wish you good results, and a good day.

Peace.

So that's the Purple Bear Defense? OK, now I know what to call it.

Torture is unjust by any standard. Except when God tortures, then what is unjust is called just. Because of the Purple Bear.

 

[ChristianT]

So that's the Purple Bear Defense? OK, now I know what to call it.

Torture is unjust by any standard. Except when God tortures, then what is unjust is called just. Because of the Purple Bear.

When does God ever torture anyone? Ever?

 

[ChristianT]

The purple bear was directed at "everyone else says it, so it can't be true."