The Problem of Hell v.2

[Elioenai26]

The evidence of God's existence has been clearly manifested to all people who have ever walked upon the face of this earth.

God's invisible attributes , namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. They are therefore without excuse.

In other words, you have been given sufficient evidence to know God exists. That is why this is not a matter of evidence, but a matter of will.
Several atheists here have already acknowledged and admitted their disgust for Jesus Christ. They have said that even if He were to reveal Himself personally to them, they would wonder what right He had to tell them how to live their lives. This betrays the state of blindness, and hardness of heart within such a one. You all are no different than those who attributed the miracles of Christ as having being performed by demons. No evidence will satisfy you because you will always have something to say. Usually some smart, sarcastic, remark which only lends to further revealing your stiff necked, prideful arrogance.

I also find it odd that atheists want to come to a Christian Forum and speak about evidence as if you actually think you are going to convert us to your meaningless, hopeless, lifeless, blind worldview that you are not even satisfied with. As if you are going to somehow get us to bow to your requests and commands. The truth of the matter is: Each and every person who has put their trust in Jesus Christ has the witness of God within themselves. I know God is true because He lives in me. I know Jesus Christ died and rose again for my sins because I have been forgiven and I can love people who openly and unapologetically slander the one who died for them. I know my Redeemer lives and I know that I shall one day see Him face to face. I have posted all that I have for your sakes, not for mine. For that which I can know to be true only adds to my faith.

Let each man and woman be convinced in their own heart. I say all of this in love. If you are drowning in the ocean and somone comes to you in a boat and throws you a life jacket, put it on! Why be suspicious about the motives of the one trying to save you? Accept it and be thankful. But alas! I am afraid that many are too blind to see their predicament. I pray that ultimately you may be made to see. For if one is not willing to see the truth, then no one can show it to them.

There are very few people who actually are searching for the truth here. Most just want to argue and berate and ridicule those who they cannot understand. If your atheistic view is so great, then live it and stop trying to get people who are sons and daughters of the most High God to follow you into nothingness. We have all that we could ever desire in our Blessed Lord. We have more than enough when we have Him.

 

[Gadarene]

The evidence of God's existence has been clearly manifested to all people who have ever walked upon the face of this earth.

Funny how many theists say that - some of their god-concepts even contradict.

God's invisible attributes , namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. They are therefore without excuse. In other words, you have been given sufficient evidence to know God exists. That is why this is not a matter of evidence, but a matter of will.

How have they been clearly perceived? How can they be? Enlighten us.

The mere fact we have to ask to deconstruct this jargonistic statement is evidence against its validity.

Several atheists here have already acknowledged and admitted their disgust for Jesus Christ. They have said that even if He were to reveal Himself personally to them, they would wonder what right He had to tell them how to live their lives. This betrays the state of blindness, and hardness of heart within such a one.

It's a concept you may not have thought of - integrity, and not merely kowtowing to authority because someone tells you to. In any other situation this would be widely regarded as a virtue, but in Christian religiosity, it is a vice.

You all are no different than those who attributed the miracles of Christ as having being performed by demons.

Yup, people who reject the existence of God and demons are exactly the same as people who said that an action claimed to be of God was that of demons

No evidence will satisfy you because you will always have something to say. Usually some smart, sarcastic, remark which only lends to further revealing your stiff necked, prideful arrogance.

Dude, just because your apologetics weren't very good doesn't mean there is nothing that will satisfy. All this jaw-jaw is one thing - go and perform a miracle. Like Christ said Christians should be able to. It would be far more convincing than any silly Craigian causal argument.

But you can't, so defining your god into existence is your only trick.

I also find it odd that atheists want to come to a Christian Forum and speak about evidence as if you actually think you are going to convert us to your meaningless, hopeless, lifeless, blind worldview that you are not even satisfied with.

I could say the same thing about Christian apologists.

But of course, Christians do indeed convert to atheism when presented with counterarguments.

I also find it very telling that you talk about our worldview in terms of meaning, hope, life, and sight - but nothing about truth. Very telling indeed.

As if you are going to somehow get us to bow to your requests and commands.

Utter melodramatic paranoia. Again, just because you conceptualise God and morality in a certain way (that of obedience to authority) does not mean that atheists do the same. Again, this says volumes more about you than it does about any atheist here.

The truth of the matter is: Each and every person who has put their trust in Jesus Christ has the witness of God within themselves. I know God is true because He lives in me. I know Jesus Christ died and rose again for my sins because I have been forgiven and I can love people who openly and unapologetically slander the one who died for them. I know my Redeemer lives and I know that I shall one day see Him face to face. I have posted all that I have for your sakes, not for mine.

Good thing too - given all your slandering of atheists and what they believe while whining when they dare fight back, I suspect you've already received your reward in full, as the passage goes.

Let each man and woman be convinced in their own heart. I say all of this in love.

Pull the other one.

I do not consider someone who has stated absolutely uncritically and with no evidence other than their own overrated opinion:

- that atheists have no basis for morals
- that atheists should just eat, drink, be merry and rape
- that atheists want to be god
- that atheists have no interest in truth
- that atheists want other people to bow to them

Among other things(!) to be speaking in love. The only love here is, I suspect, the love of your own preaching.

If you are drowning in the ocean and somone comes to you in a boat and throws you a life jacket, put it on! Why be suspicious about the motives of the one trying to save you? Accept it and be thankful.

If he's working for the chap who threw you all overboard in the first place and still expects you to be grateful for being saved, then there is every reason to be wary.

In addition, the offer is hardly that magnanimous - any inkling of doubt, and they dismiss you and leave you to drown.

But alas! I am afraid that many are too blind to see their predicament. I pray that ultimately you may be made to see. For if one is not willing to see the truth, then no one can show it to them.

I for one do not want your prayers.

There are very few people who actually are searching for the truth here. Most just want to argue and berate and ridicule those who they cannot understand. If your atheistic view is so great, then live it and stop trying to get people who are sons and daughters of the most High God to follow you into nothingness. We have all that we could ever desire in our Blessed Lord. We have more than enough when we have Him.

Yeah, a fair few now-atheists were that overconfident in their Christianity at one point too.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you think God views unbelievers as his enemies exactly? Most people who do not believe in God if not all people who do not believe in God do so based on a perceived lack of evidence and not on any kind of low motive or anti-theist agenda.

Also I must ask you: What of other theists such as Muslims, Sikhs, Baha'i etc? The claim cannot be levelled against them as being enemies. They just believe in a different concept of God and view his attributes differently. Their conviction and adherence in that God is just as strong as yours. What of polytheists also?


Why is it a problem if atheists and other non-Christians encounter non-believers in other spaces?

Even if this can be argued: Why is it acceptable to torment all non-Christians? Why can't they just be well and healthy in another space?


You have not looked very far, obviously.

You do not understand the fundamental attributes to the Christian God. That is why you have these questions.

God is love. Fine. But God also has several other key natures. For example, God is righteous and is holy. You can not just see love, without seeing His other natures.

 

[juvenissun]

And even if there were a valid reason that non-believers couldn't be in Heaven, why Hell and not simple annihilation?

A life can not be destroyed.

It is a great mystery. Just like energy can not be destroyed. God creates angels. They do not, and can not die. (what is death?)

 

[Tinker Grey]

An omnipotent entity can't destroy a life. Yeah, it's a mystery.

 

[Skavau]

The evidence of God's existence has been clearly manifested to all people who have ever walked upon the face of this earth.

I have no doubt you seriously believe this, but this thread is not about this. Please reread the OP.

God's invisible attributes , namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. They are therefore without excuse.

This is about the thread. God's "invisible attributes" have not been perceived by me and that things exist provide to me no indication that they were made. Sorry.

In other words, you have been given sufficient evidence to know God exists. That is why this is not a matter of evidence, but a matter of will.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I have not been given "sufficient evidence" to know that God exists. If I had been, I'd believe in God. It really is that simple, stunningly.

Several atheists here have already acknowledged and admitted their disgust for Jesus Christ. They have said that even if He were to reveal Himself personally to them, they would wonder what right He had to tell them how to live their lives.

I said that, yes. I stand by that.

No-one has any right to demand I live my life a specific way. One of the most precious things to all of us are our rights.

This betrays the state of blindness, and hardness of heart within such a one. You all are no different than those who attributed the miracles of Christ as having being performed by demons.

Considering I am skeptical of people reporting miracles and choose to take them with a grain of salt rather than attribute the supposed events towards demons, I daresay I am quite a bit different.

Anyway, the above is all hyperbole and basically a mandatory checklist that some Christians appear to go through when talking to non-theists. "Hardened of heart", "blindness" etc. They don't really include anything substantive.

No evidence will satisfy you because you will always have something to say. Usually some smart, sarcastic, remark which only lends to further revealing your stiff necked, prideful arrogance.

You misunderstand. I am quite happy to accept Jesus Christ if given compelling evidence and/or reasoned arguments for his divinity. I always have been.

That I can be convinced through debate of Jesus' existence does not mean that I would serve him though. That is a different thing entirely. It is one thing to believe in God and another to serve and adulate him. My anti-theism does not inform or influence my atheism and vice versa.

I also find it odd that atheists want to come to a Christian Forum and speak about evidence as if you actually think you are going to convert us to your meaningless, hopeless, lifeless, blind worldview that you are not even satisfied with.

I never came here with the expectation of conversion. I came here with the expectation of discussion. I can tell you with reasonable understanding that you will get basically nowhere by the way with any atheist by preaching at them. It is boring, repetitive and emotionless screed that most of us view as white noise. You have more chance by insulting us like you're doing now, or providing a concise argument for your points.

By the way, atheism is not a worldview. Looks like you don't update with new information either as you have been told this so often. Why don't you listen?

As if you are going to somehow get us to bow to your requests and commands.

Never suggested such a possibility.

Your worldview does though. Either by force or consent, it in fact demands servitude.

The truth of the matter is: Each and every person who has put their trust in Jesus Christ has the witness of God within themselves.

This is fairly useless if no-one else is able to notice this "witness of God."

I know God is true because He lives in me. I know Jesus Christ died and rose again for my sins because I have been forgiven and I can love people who openly and unapologetically slander the one who died for them.

Does that include before or after you've insulted them and made sweeping generalisations about their life?

Sorry, I can't take seriously any sanctimony and moral self-promotion from a man who advocates the permanent torture of people for not believing in God. Call me judgmental if you will, but it is a deal breaker.

I know my Redeemer lives and I know that I shall one day see Him face to face. I have posted all that I have for your sakes, not for mine. For that which I can know to be true only adds to my faith.

Knowing a proposition as a matter of fact negates the need to inform upon faith. A detail, but it shows you're using terms that simply don't fit or connect together in an attempt to impress.

Let each man and woman be convinced in their own heart. I say all of this in love. If you are drowning in the ocean and somone comes to you in a boat and throws you a life jacket, put it on! Why be suspicious about the motives of the one trying to save you? Accept it and be thankful. But alas! I am afraid that many are too blind to see their predicament. I pray that ultimately you may be made to see. For if one is not willing to see the truth, then no one can show it to them.

This is an awful analogy. If you're arguing that Jesus is the holder of the life jacket you have to add that he in fact is responsible by default of causing you to drown in the first place and also only hands out the lifejacket to those who are convinced that he exists. Anyone who say begs for a different man in a different boat with a lifejacket will find their requests ignored (they did not pray for the actual existent man with a lifejacket) and therefore they will drown.

Oh well, obviously everyone who drowns in that circumstance secretly wanted it... or something. Just finishing your analogy for you.

There are very few people who actually are searching for the truth here. Most just want to argue and berate and ridicule those who they cannot understand.

I have berated no-one. The only person on this thread I've seen berate here is you. Just how many attacks have you made against me now? I've lot count.

If your atheistic view is so great, then live it and stop trying to get people who are sons and daughters of the most High God to follow you into nothingness.

I've not once tried to convert anyone here ever.

I made this thread to seek moral justifications from the eternal torture crowd for why I deserve to be tortured after death for not believing in God.

 

[Skavau]

You do not understand the fundamental attributes to the Christian God. That is why you have these questions.

Perhaps, we shall see.

God is love. Fine. But God also has several other key natures. For example, God is righteous and is holy. You can not just see love, without seeing His other natures.

This is a non-answer. Okay, so you believe God is "righteous" and "holy." Okay. So? How does this justify eternal torment for people who do not believe in God? That is neither righteous nor holy.

 

[citizenthom]

Uh, what are you talking about? I asked you to morally justify why I (or any non-Christian) deserves to be tormented forever after death for not accepting Jesus Christ as their saviour.

Why should God force you into communion with Himself when you have deliberately chosen otherwise? Or even when you don't believe He exists at all?

 

[Going Merry]

Mm I try to see this from Gods perspective concerning the lake of fire, the punishment. God is love. He loves you, he loves me. If I wrong you, he will punish me. If you wrong me, he will punish you. Unfortunately we all wrong each other so much everyone is screwed. He has to punish all of us! If he doesn't punish then he is unjust, then betrays his character of love. If he does punish us, then he is just. However, even though he doesnt have to, he shows his character of love further by giving his own son to be punished in our place. therefore he took up all the worlds sin at his baptism, carried these sins to the cross and was judged paying the penalty of sin once and for all. There is no difference, for all people have sinned and fallen short the glory of God, and everyones sin has been atoned for once and for all through the offering and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. So those who repent (change of heart) and believe that he blotted out all the worlds sin means they have no sin. thus no punishment needing to be given to that individual anymore. Although he blotted out all sin he wants people to live for righteousness. I think it shows his character of love even further by showing he shows no partiality to those who believe in him, if you practice evil, even though you believe and were saved, you will be destroyed also. So it just goes to show you "love" can expand a great more than just kisses and hugs, its repaying what one gives. If you give good, you get good. If you give bad, you get bad.

 

[Skavau]

Why should God force you into communion with Himself when you have deliberately chosen otherwise?

Who says I have chosen otherwise? I don't believe in God but that does not mean I have necessarily chosen to be apart from him. I simply do not believe in God because of the lack of evidence and supporting arguments in favour of his existence. I have no more rejected his company than I have 'rejected' the company of Thor, Zeus and Odin.

At any rate this is somewhat irrelevant. Even if I did not want to be with God and even if I do not believe in God, why does that mean that I should be tormented for eternity?

Or even when you don't believe He exists at all?

Why would me not believing in God mean I ought to be tormented for eternity?

 

[Skavau]

Mm I try to see this from Gods perspective concerning the lake of fire, the punishment.

Okay.

God is love. He loves you, he loves me. If I wrong you, he will punish me. If you wrong me, he will punish you.

Fair enough. Understand all that view this thread that I hold no specific contempt towards the idea of a God punishing people for committing wrong towards other. Those who murder, rape, steal and generally inflict upon the rights of others certainly deserve some kind of punishment.

Unfortunately we all wrong each other so much everyone is screwed. He has to punish all of us! If he doesn't punish then he is unjust, then betrays his character of love.

We are born imperfect. We cannot help that. Why does our potential punishment for our wrongdoings require eternal torment though? How is that proportionate?

Suppose a generally moral and upstanding non-Christian lives 70 years. He does no great ill to anyone and any crimes or injustice he has committed against others has been paid for by the rule of law or by personal choice to compensate those he has wronged.

Why does he deserve eternal torment?

If he does punish us, then he is just.

Very debatable. Especially varies depending on what kind of actions he considers worthy of punishment.

However, even though he doesnt have to, he shows his character of love further by giving his own son to be punished in our place. therefore he took up all the worlds sin at his baptism, carried these sins to the cross and was judged paying the penalty of sin once and for all.

This seems an incompetent solution. I'll bullet point your argument as best I can:

• There exists a problem amongst humanity of sin. This predisposition and propensity towards sin causes every human to some extent to wrong others.
• This predisposition being acted upon means that every single human being is deserving of eternal torment as a means of punishment.
• However, the solution and the way to avoid this fate is to accept a supernatural claim about a historical figure (debatable) and live a life of servitude and adulation towards that figure so that he can carry the weight of your 'sin' and cleanse you of it.

There are several issues here. I'll start on the problem of sin.

1. Born wretched and commanded to be perfect. That we are predisposed due to imperfection to sin is an indication that it is effectively or at least in part not our fault. We were designed or allowed to decay that way. The creator has to take some of the burden for creating a species that he knew would displease him and that he knew would engage in behaviour he would consider sinful.
2. What sin? Most people don't believe that there is any such thing as "sin". I am sure most people accept a level of responsibility to their friends, colleagues, family members and society at large. I am sure that most people also understand their limitations, imperfections and vices and appreciate how they ought to behaviour to others but this does not mean they accept the Biblical definition of 'sin' and thus they have no understanding that any such thing exists much less understand the means to detach themselves from it.

Now the solution otherwise known as vicarious redemption.

1. Supposing that there does exist a major problem of sin that taints us all and informs upon our behaviour - the idea that we should cast off our sins onto a blood sacrifice that took place in our name is the annulment of moral responsibility. That is it is the abandonment of personal responsibility in favour of some kind of 'cleansing' that attributes our sins onto other and considers them paid and dust. This does not actually remove sin but merely scapegoats it onto another. I am not sure at all that the solution is a solution at all but rather a very well veiled act of self-interest.
2. Like the #2 above: What solution? If you don't accept the idea that we are sinners to the point of requiring divine punishment then why would you accept the notion that a solution exists? The idea of being sinful and being saved are both ideas that require one to believe in them before they can take them seriously. This means that God has necessarily condemned billions to hellfire based on ignorance. There exist millions of atheists who do not accept the claims of Christianity and thus ignore it. Why should they be expected to do otherwise if not evidence exists in favour of them?
3. What about Muslims? Muslims believe they have their own salvation through accepting Mohammad as their messenger and Allah as God. Does God have anything to say to them?

The ultimate problem of all of this is that it advances a truth-based solution to a moral dilemma. The solution of sin is supposedly a recognition and an appreciation of a historical sacrifice so that he can take your sins off of you. This appears quite openly bizarre to me. What does your historical beliefs have to do with your moral behaviour?

There is no difference, for all people have sinned and fallen short the glory of God, and everyones sin has been atoned for once and for all through the offering and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.

Well apparently not, according to you. Only those who accept "Lord Jesus."

So those who repent (change of heart) and believe that he blotted out all the worlds sin means they have no sin. thus no punishment needing to be given to that individual anymore.

That does not erase someone's sin, it merely pardons you of it. Not quite the same.

Although he blotted out all sin he wants people to live for righteousness. I think it shows his character of love even further by showing he shows no partiality to those who believe in him, if you practice evil, even though you believe and were saved, you will be destroyed also.

Destroyed or tormented?

So it just goes to show you "love" can expand a great more than just kisses and hugs, its repaying what one gives. If you give good, you get good. If you give bad, you get bad.

But from what you said it isn't about getting as good as you give at all. It does not make any mention of atheists that do good despite their sinful nature. In fact, taking what you said literally it means that all non-Christians regardless of their behaviour towards others are destined for eternal torment.

 

[Going Merry]

You are right; scripturally saying everyone who does not accept the Lord Jesus' and what He has done get destroyed. Muslims, hindus, whatever else are included in that. Despite what you have done in this life, whether good or bad. Because the bad was not erased, you still get punished for those. As far as "eternal" punishment goes I am wondering if eternal is the right word to use for it.. mm in the original language I don't think there was such a word for a endless expanse of time. However Jesus does say "you will be delivered to the torturers" and "till every penny is paid" in other words full punishment will be given. I am not up for much debate but was showing my view of the lake of fire. Personally i believe everyone who dies sleeps till one of the two resurrections.

 

[mmksparbud]

Ok--you said that this is for people who believe in an everlasting burning hell, and I already said, I, for one do not. But you said that you think that God should be able to just destroy sin or tolerate it and that He should not destroy those who reject Him. I don't mean to be rude, but --are you kidding me???!!! Tolerate sin?? For crying outloud, sin is what has caused all the suffering! Why would you expect God to tolerate sin?? Doesn't even make sense. God is love--sin is the opposite of love--to hate, to steal, to commit adultry, envey, covetousness--all are self-centered, and lead to suffering for those who indulge in that behavior and for those that the acts are commited on, and on into the friends and other family members---You want to live in a world that has child molestation, murder, anger and selfishness that leads to people beating up men, women and children?? You want continued war?

God will not have robots, He has given everyone free will. You want someone living in your home who hates you and your friends, who steals from you, totally ignores you unless it's to curse you, who will not only hurt your friends and loved ones, but even kill them?? You want someone living in your home who does nothing to clean the house, to contribute to the welfare of all, who leaves garbage around and expects you to clean up after them--you would tolerate someone in your home like this???? You would tolerate coming home to find this person has raped your daughter, your wife, your son and anybody else they could get ahold of??? How stupid do you think we are??!! Don't tell us that you would open your arms, your home, your wealth to such a creature!! That would be evil, and perpetuating evil.
God wants those who want to live in love for others, who love Him, who want to live in a world that has no sin because they choose that. It's only merciful to end the life of those who want all the evil that sin brings.

 

[Skavau]

You are right; scripturally saying everyone who does not accept the Lord Jesus' and what He has done get destroyed. Muslims, hindus, whatever else are included in that.

I am assuming and hoped that by "destroyed" here - you mean "destroyed". Annihilated.

No torture in hell?

Despite what you have done in this life, whether good or bad. Because the bad was not erased, you still get punished for those.

Why is it moral to have your 'bad' erased by way of recognising a human sacrifice pre-emptively taken on your behalf? How does that resolve behavioural problems?

As far as "eternal" punishment goes I am wondering if eternal is the right word to use for it.. mm in the original language I don't think there was such a word for a endless expanse of time. However Jesus does say "you will be delivered to the torturers" and "till every penny is paid" in other words full punishment will be given.

Why is full punishment equivalent to torture required to be bestowed upon all non-Christians after death? Some people are worse or more sinful to others. The worst some people may do in life is little more than white lies and parking tickets and the worst others will do is murder, rape etc. Why such harsh punishments?

I am not up for much debate but was showing my view of the lake of fire. Personally i believe everyone who dies sleeps till one of the two resurrections.

Okay.

 

[Going Merry]

Well those are all answers in scripture, which would have to be accepted through faith

 

[Skavau]

Ok--you said that this is for people who believe in an everlasting burning hell, and I already said, I, for one do not.

Indeed.

But you said that you think that God should be able to just destroy sin or tolerate it and that He should not destroy those who reject Him. I don't mean to be rude, but --are you kidding me???!!! Tolerate sin?? For crying outloud, sin is what has caused all the suffering!

I said that he could tolerate it. It is certainly an option. An option preferable to the destruction or torture of millions of people. At any rate, I do not see why in principle non-Christians afterlife cannot be viewed the same way as Christians. People should be judged on their merits, on who they were, what they did and how they treated others. How accurate they were to receiving the truth of the matter should not come into it.

Why would you expect God to tolerate sin?? Doesn't even make sense. God is love--sin is the opposite of love--to hate, to steal, to commit adultry, envey, covetousness--all are self-centered, and lead to suffering for those who indulge in that behavior and for those that the acts are commited on, and on into the friends and other family members---You want to live in a world that has child molestation, murder, anger and selfishness that leads to people beating up men, women and children?? You want continued war?

Is there any reason why he could not give those who are slaves to sin a chance to correct their behaviour in the afterlife?

God wants those who want to live in love for others, who love Him, who want to live in a world that has no sin because they choose that. It's only merciful to end the life of those who want all the evil that sin brings.

This is all fine and dandy and I accept most of what you are saying. Those who truly do advance evil and encourage harm towards others are a problem and ought to be dealt with one way or another by either man or deity - but this seems inconsistent with your other beliefs. You said the "only way to be shielded from destruction" would be to accept the sacrifice of Jesus and that coupled with your latest assertion that all those who desire evil should be terminated is troubling. This basically means that all non-Christians are going to be annihilated. Do you seriously think that all non-Christians desire evil?

 

[Skavau]

Well those are all answers in scripture, which would have to be accepted through faith

I disagree.

Even if I accepted Christianity as true, I would not be capable of accepting it as moral. At least if I interpreted it to advance torture or annihilation for non-Christians.

 

[mmksparbud]

Indeed.

I said that he could tolerate it. It is certainly an option. An option preferable to the destruction or torture of millions of people. At any rate, I do not see why in principle non-Christians afterlife cannot be viewed the same way as Christians. People should be judged on their merits, on who they were, what they did and how they treated others. How accurate they were to receiving the truth of the matter should not come into it.

Is there any reason why he could not give those who are slaves to sin a chance to correct their behaviour in the afterlife?

This is all fine and dandy and I accept most of what you are saying. Those who truly do advance evil and encourage harm towards others are a problem and ought to be dealt with one way or another by either man or deity - but this seems inconsistent with your other beliefs. You said the "only way to be shielded from destruction" would be to accept the sacrifice of Jesus and that coupled with your latest assertion that all those who desire evil should be terminated is troubling. This basically means that all non-Christians are going to be annihilated. Do you seriously think that all non-Christians desire evil?

Of course not--and I already said in my other post that God alone can judge the heart, that there will be those in heaven who have never even heard the name of Jesus, but who listened to Him when He spoke to them. God will not destroy unfairly. Jesus Himself will teach those who do not know about Him, because they never heard about Him. As for those that have heard about Jesus and reject Him--that's between God and them. I would be hard pressed to expect a Jew, or anyone else who has been horribly treated by Christians to believe in a loving Jesus. We do not have all the answers, and can not have them because we can not see into anyone's heart, we do not know what they have had to endure in their life--I do know this--I chose to believe that God is just, loving kind, that He takes everything into consideration and that whoever stands before Him will acknowledge that He is just.----That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!

 

[Skavau]

Of course not--and I already said in my other post that God alone can judge the heart, that there will be those in heaven who have never even heard the name of Jesus, but who listened to Him when He spoke to them. God will not destroy unfairly. Jesus Himself will teach those who do not know about Him, because they never heard about Him. As for those that have heard about Jesus and reject Him--that's between God and them. I would be hard pressed to expect a Jew, or anyone else who has been horribly treated by Christians to believe in a loving Jesus. We do not have all the answers, and can not have them because we can not see into anyone's heart, we do not know what they have had to endure in their life--I do know this--I chose to believe that God is just, loving kind, that He takes everything into consideration and that whoever stands before Him will acknowledge that He is just.----That's my story and I'm sticking to it!!

Okay.

Fair enough. I can respect that.

 

[Gadarene]

Ok--you said that this is for people who believe in an everlasting burning hell, and I already said, I, for one do not. But you said that you think that God should be able to just destroy sin or tolerate it and that He should not destroy those who reject Him. I don't mean to be rude, but --are you kidding me???!!! Tolerate sin?? For crying outloud, sin is what has caused all the suffering! Why would you expect God to tolerate sin?? Doesn't even make sense.

Frankly, I don't see how this is any more unreasonable a statement than "you committed a heinous sin, but it's ok, I saw that you spattered some goat blood on an altar, so you're totally forgiven. And in a few thousand years I'm going to snub blood offerings from animal sacrifices anyway, but don't worry, the replacement blood will be my own, from when I will sacrifice one aspect of myself to another aspect of myself in order to save you all from....the aforementioned latter aspect of myself."

There are a few issues in play here - one is whether or not one considers God and sin to be fundamentally irreconcilable - i.e. God cannot simply abide with sin in the same environment. Despite claims/popular conceptions of God's omnipotence, it is simply contradictory to have him and sin in the same place.

The second is what the definition of sin actually is. Is it the disobeying of a divine command, or is it something inherent in the nature of reality, or something else entirely?

I would argue a few things in response to the above two questions.

If God cannot remove himself from sin, but sin is defined according to divine commands issued - why simply not just issue no commands at all? Don't command that the fruit of the tree of knowledge be eaten from; don't make it mandatory to accept a messianic sacrifice in order to be saved. If there are no commands, then no commands can be disobeyed, and no sins can be committed.

If God cannot remove himself from sin, and sin is a consequence of reality etc. then God still has some responsibility in setting the reference by which we are judged and damned because he created the reality we live in.

I also want to point out that while you can assert that God and sin cannot coexist, the stain of sin is, as I summarised earlier, totally nullified by some kind of blood sacrifice. To me this seems so utterly trivial a criterion for provoking forgiveness from God as to be unnecessary altogether. Why must blood be required for forgiveness and this totally resolves the fundamental dilemma of trying to have sin and God coexist, but the idea of simply disregarding the stain of sin without the need for faffing about with dilemmas and blood sacrifices is so unreasonable?

I think to some degree regardless of which god-concept you choose (with the possible exception of one who judges on actions and not necessarily on beliefs) and given how many humans have failed to meet God's requirements for salvation, it was profoundly irresponsible of him to both create humans given his inability to coexist with sin given how prone humans are to it (and he knew this in advance). If divine command is in play, then that simply compounds his irresponsibility. Surely he didn't need to create us, and non-existence is surely preferable to eternal punishment.

God is love--sin is the opposite of love--to hate, to steal, to commit adultry, envey, covetousness--all are self-centered, and lead to suffering for those who indulge in that behavior and for those that the acts are commited on, and on into the friends and other family members---You want to live in a world that has child molestation, murder, anger and selfishness that leads to people beating up men, women and children?? You want continued war?

I don't think that was necessarily the point. The next life could be perfect, but one is simply not judged on the acts of the past life. The idea that God will already forgive gross injustices like genocide if one makes a heartfelt apology is already present and this is accomplished through a simple blood offering. The issue is that this conception of how God behaves is so close to the notion of just letting people off that some will wonder why he simply doesn't just do that.

God will not have robots, He has given everyone free will. You want someone living in your home who hates you and your friends, who steals from you, totally ignores you unless it's to curse you, who will not only hurt your friends and loved ones, but even kill them?? You want someone living in your home who does nothing to clean the house, to contribute to the welfare of all, who leaves garbage around and expects you to clean up after them--you would tolerate someone in your home like this???? You would tolerate coming home to find this person has raped your daughter, your wife, your son and anybody else they could get ahold of??? How stupid do you think we are??!! Don't tell us that you would open your arms, your home, your wealth to such a creature!! That would be evil, and perpetuating evil.
God wants those who want to live in love for others, who love Him, who want to live in a world that has no sin because they choose that. It's only merciful to end the life of those who want all the evil that sin brings.

Except those aren't the options on offer.

The problem is not whether or not we'd want a world full of rapists, it's that under God's standard, a sin as trivial as stealing a pear to feed a starving child carries exactly the same penalty as genocide. It's sin, and sin is sin is sin. Punishment is eternal torment.

Of course, that's not the punishment if you manage to have a sincere conversion later in life, so if the genocidal maniac gets his name in God's book, he will reach eternal bliss and the starving unfortunate who stole merely to survive another day but finds the notion of a loving God hard to credit is punished forever.