The Problem of Hell v.2

[madaz]

Do you have empirical evidence to affirm that God does not exist?

Do you have empirical evidence to affirm that kangaroos do not exist naturally in America?

 

[Elioenai26]

Do you have empirical evidence to affirm that kangaroos do not exist naturally in America?

Im not concerned about kangaroos honestly.

 

[madaz]

Im not concerned about kangaroos honestly.

If you are concerned about god then why are you Atheist toward Mithra?

 

[citizenthom]

You are actually as it stands in favour of having pain inficted upon me for eternity for what I think.

Then why is one of the central commands of our religion to try to save you from it?

You confound the difference between knowing something is true and being happy about it.

 

[Skavau]

Then why is one of the central commands of our religion to try to save you from it?

Ah, you miss the point.

Indeed, you are commanded to try and save me from it. However the fact still remains that if I died now or died later with my non-conviction in God you would be in favour of the fate you believe would be bestowed upon me.

That is my point. You believe torture for thought-crime as morally justified.

You confound the difference between knowing something is true and being happy about it.

Ah, but you endorse it when it does happen. For example, Sharia Law has legislation in place that executes apostates of Islam. The state and those in favour of the punishment do not actually want people to apostate so they can execute them but they are in favour of the punishment for those who do.

You are them, but are so regarding hell.

 

[sandwiches]

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

Nope.

 

[MrMoe]

Skavau I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. I'm just curious and wanted to know.

1. what is your definition of moral and immoral? what do you define as moral and immoral. and do you think these views are universally held (or should be held) by everyone?

2. if you made up your mind that sending people to hell for not believing in Jesus was immoral then the next day God revealed himself to you, your entire family and friends and told you that he was real and that he does send people to hell for not accepting Jesus sacrifice. would you accept?

 

[madaz]

Im not concerned about kangaroos honestly.

Your missing the point.

 

[Skavau]

Skavau I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. I'm just curious and wanted to know.

1. what is your definition of moral and immoral? what do you define as moral and immoral. and do you think these views are universally held (or should be held) by everyone?

Morality is about what we ought and ought not do in consideration with the rights of others. Something is morally wrong if it inflicts upon and harms others indirectly or directly. Something is morally right if it helps and aids others.

That's my broad and very basic understanding of it anyway. A moral system that has no regard for other people and includes only some linear principles based on nothing but themselves or declares things as crimes that harm no-one is a moral system that is at best meaningless and at worse, depraved.

2. if you made up your mind that sending people to hell for not believing in Jesus was immoral then the next day God revealed himself to you, your entire family and friends and told you that he was real and that he does send people to hell for not accepting Jesus sacrifice. would you accept?

No. I'd consider him evil.

 

[MrMoe]

No. I'd consider him evil.

I think that says it all. so your atheism is ideological not evidence based? Your motto is revealing. "A man chooses, a slave obeys" you have to obey the laws of the land. That makes you a slave like me.


God is loving but he is also just, meaning he must reward good and punish evil. It is what is due. I'm sorry you don't like the way God does things. I still have a struggle with this question myself. but if this is the reality there is really nothing much we can do about it. God allows me to live on this earth, breath his air. it is not my right to be here, it is a privilege. so I have no right to live as I please and not consider what he wants from me

the question you should be asking is, is hell real and how can I avoid going there.

 

[sandwiches]

But if this is the reality there is really nothing much we can do about it.

I highlighted the most important word in that sentence.

 

[sandwiches]

He won't. So we say it "can not" to be destroyed.
In this view, it is very easy to see.

So, it's God who CHOOSES not to annihilate and instead opts for eternal punishment but you "say" he can't so it won't seem as bad. Got it.

 

[Gadarene]

I think that says it all. so your atheism is ideological not evidence based?

Why? Just because he appeared in person and claimed that people were going to be sent to hell does not mean he is necessarily worthy of punishment.

Your motto is revealing. "A man chooses, a slave obeys" you have to obey the laws of the land. That makes you a slave like me.

It's a line from a videogame.

God is loving but he is also just, meaning he must reward good and punish evil. It is what is due.

Which is of course untrue. He rewards whoever gives him fealty with eternal life regardless of whatever level of evil they have committed beforehand as long as they sincerely repent, and punishes those who find his dilemma hard to swallow no matter how good they might be.

I'm sorry you don't like the way God does things. I still have a struggle with this question myself.

Keep struggling. It's the way out for you.

but if this is the reality there is really nothing much we can do about it. God allows me to live on this earth, breath his air. it is not my right to be here, it is a privilege. so I have no right to live as I please and not consider what he wants from me

You may have given up. Others may prefer to stand up to such a being as long as they can.

the question you should be asking is, is hell real and how can I avoid going there.

It's interesting how your question is phrased in terms of self-preservation rather than morality.

The two, of course, are not the same thing.

 

[BobRyan]

This sub-forum had a time ago a very long thread regarding the utility and morality of hell and rather than resurrecting that thread again I think it'd be more prudent to start this one.

The Problem of Hell

Many Christians and Muslims endorse the idea that all unsaved, or all non-believers will at death be tormented for eternity for their sin or for their non-decision in accepting the sacrifice of Jesus or Allah as God and Mohammed as his messenger respectively.

These same Christians and Muslims often claim at the same time that God is all-merciful and all-powerful.

My primary contention is that these claims are in obvious contradiction

That is a "given".

By contrast - it is also observed that the Bible does not teach the man-made doctrine of "immortal soul" and in fact Christ said in Matt 10:28 that God is the one -- in fact the only one - able to "destroy BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell".

And in Ezek 18:4 we are told that the "soul that sins it shall die".

According to the Bible God is not going to prop-up sinners for all of eternity so they can suffer without end.

In Jude 7 God tells us that Sodom and Gomorrah are given as examples in real life of "undergoing the punishment of eternal fire".

What is more - is that is going to place Christ, the Angels and possible all the saints listed in Revelation 14 on the very brink of hell and make them watch the whole thing until it is over - short as it is.

No fair running off and having a party while your friends and loved ones writhe in torment and agony.

That is an idea that comes out of the dark ages - but it is not in the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[madaz]

I think that says it all. so your atheism is ideological not evidence based?

His consideration that your deity is evil is not an Atheist ideology, that consideration is based on the "evidence" as depicted in your holy book.

Your motto is revealing. "A man chooses, a slave obeys" you have to obey the laws of the land. That makes you a slave like me.

In a democracy the laws of the land are decided by the people, slaves do not get to choose their own laws.

God is loving but he is also just, meaning he must reward good and punish evil. It is what is due. I'm sorry you don't like the way God does things. I still have a struggle with this question myself. but if this is the reality there is really nothing much we can do about it. God allows me to live on this earth, breath his air. it is not my right to be here, it is a privilege. so I have no right to live as I please and not consider what he wants from me.

This is only your own opinion.

the question you should be asking is, is hell real and how can I avoid going there.

I have no reason to believe in such ideas. If indeed hell is real then I personally would also consider your deity evil and not worthy of worship.

 

[elopez]

Okay. This is somewhat irrelevant. If you contend that those in hell do in fact experience pain and do so on a permanent level then you are in fact proposing a state where a certain class of people are "receiving pain" permanently.

I don't believe this is an issue of irrelevancy at all. I am claiming there is not "torment" in Hell as one would usually think. You are saying there is torment in Hell. I am clarifying what that actually means, so it's really not irrelevant at all. I never said that souls do not experience 'pain', just not in a physical sense nor it is inflicted from God.

So according to you, do all non-Christians reside in hell?

I don't really know, as only God would know such a thing as the residents of Hell. I believe those who die with mortal sin are going to experience Hell.

Is the requirement to avoid hell to repent of your sin through Jesus Christ and become saved?

It's not that easy. Repentance is key to salvation but through Christ is this only possible.

Okay. Not entirely relevant as it my point of raising the characteristics of omnipotence and omniscience was to refer to the fact that God could if he willed end the existence of hell and end the suffering of those in it.

Not entirely relevant? I think your idea of "relevance" is obscured. Definitions of certain words are of the most relevance in a discussion, especially words such as these theological axioms.

People appear to have a confirmation bias regarding this. In what other walks of life do you see people openly condoning thought-crime and torture? Almost none in the secular liberal west but yet when people come to defend hell they are all too keen to churn out the most absurd of pseudo-justifications for it.

This is why agreeing what "torture" means is relevant here. What kind of torture are you talking about? Like handcuffing someone and beating them senseless? If so, it is incomparable to Hell, as again there is none to inflict such pain or harm on the souls in Hell.

I was explaining my contention. I await any willing believer in the hellfire doctrine to provide a good argument for why eternal torment or "receiving pain" for all non-Christians is justified. I am yet untroubled by anything anyone has ever said in defense of it.

Your contention is not supported regardless of what you're waiting for.

This is just semantics. That I describe it as torture is completely irrelevent. Those who accept the hellfire doctrine necessarily believe that God allows through inaction or direct intervention the permanent suffering of billions of people for eternity. Anyone who tries to justify this as moral has serious moral problems.

Again, this issue of irrelevancy is simply delusional. If you mention a concept in a discussion, then that concept should be able to be defined and explained. Why you see that is irrelevant is a little confusing being that is only essential to rational discourse.

It is not direct intervention in any respect. And it's not like you are the moral authority to judge what is and isn't moral, so that appeal doesn't really work.

You play around with definitions to make them pointless. If I walk across a busy road do I choose indirectly to get hit over? What does choice even mean in that context? The only choice I made there was to cross the road. It might have been a poor choice based on the state of the road but I did not choose to get hit over by a car.

I don't think that is the same situation as the result of getting hit by a car is not a necessary component of walking across the street, whereas committing a crime is necessary in order to go to jail. If one commits a crime, they are choosing to do that crime, and it is that crime that sends one to jail.

Why do any sins we commit command eternal punishment, precisely? We live a finite life, not an infinite life. That is infinitely disproportionate by definition.

The duration of the sin is what can be said is irrelevant. For example, it could take under two minutes to rob someone in an alley, or two hours to pull a huge robbery of a house say. It is not the duration of the sin that matters but the severity of the sin. Any sin against an eternal God warrants eternal punishment. Moreover, since the soul is immortal, only an everlasting judgement could follow. In that sense, our over all experience of 'life' is infinite, since we survive after biological death. So, by definition, it's not really disproportionate at all.

Right, but he did not choose to go to jail did he?

He did not choose to go to jail and this is something I already said. He choose to do the things that will make him go to jail.

False dichtonomy. I do not want to "sin." I am an atheist. I reject the concept of sin. It does not enter my accepted vocabulary. Sin is a religious concept which I have no reason to accept. God bought me into a system, against my consent which I have no reason to even believe exists.

I didn't say you want to sin, nor did I say you somehow inadvertently believe in sin, so no, this is not a false dichotomy. That is what I think. You are asking me to explain what I think, as in giving such a justification, remember?

So you agree, the claim that hell is a choice is nonsense.

Yes. But if one is sentenced to Hell, it is because of their sins that they wanted to engage in.

 

[Skavau]

I think that says it all. so your atheism is ideological not evidence based?

No. My anti-theism is a consequence of my idealism and not my atheism. I don't believe in God due to a lack of evidence, but I do not like the God you propose because of moral reasons.

Big difference.

Your motto is revealing. "A man chooses, a slave obeys" you have to obey the laws of the land. That makes you a slave like me.

That quotation has nothing to do with that. There's also nothing incorrect with acknowledging justified legislation and there is nothing wrong also with adhering to legislation that you can attempt to change through if you disagree with by democratic will.

That quote comes from Andrew Ryan in Bioshock. He uses it in a slightly different way I am using it. A 'man' chooses his way in life as he sees fit and a 'slave' serves a master without question or contemplation.

God is loving but he is also just, meaning he must reward good and punish evil. It is what is due. I'm sorry you don't like the way God does things.

From what you have said, God does not punish evil but tortures people for eternity for not accepting Jesus' sacrifice. That is not punishing evil but torturing people for thought-crime.

I still have a struggle with this question myself. but if this is the reality there is really nothing much we can do about it.

That's up to you, of course. If I ever believed it reality I'd hope I would have the moral courage to stand up to it.

I don't like dictators. I don't like despots. I don't like tyrants. I don't like fascists. Why is the God you propose any different to what we see in the world in certain countries today?

God allows me to live on this earth, breath his air. it is not my right to be here, it is a privilege. so I have no right to live as I please and not consider what he wants from me

How masochistic of you. God created us, without asking us and gave most of us no information nor evidence of his existence. That he decided to create agents of free-will does not give him ownership rights over us nor the right to just treat us as he likes.

That you imply he does suggests to me that your morality is driven by obeying God and not love, compassion or thought for other human beings which is in fact, frightening.

the question you should be asking is, is hell real and how can I avoid going there.

No. I don't believe in hell anyway, but if I did I would not be asking that. I'd be making my opinions known how immoral the supreme dictator is.

 

[Skavau]

I don't believe this is an issue of irrelevancy at all. I am claiming there is not "torment" in Hell as one would usually think. You are saying there is torment in Hell. I am clarifying what that actually means, so it's really not irrelevant at all. I never said that souls do not experience 'pain', just not in a physical sense nor it is inflicted from God.

You are claiming there is torment in hell, just not as "one would really think".

I am claiming there is torment in hell.

How is this not a frivolous correction by you? Whether or not the souls in hell experience non-physical pain from sources other than God is irrelevant. God is still aware of them experiencing this pain and as an omniscient omnipotent and benevolent superpower has it easily within his grasp to end it by means of annihilation or redemption.

I don't really know, as only God would know such a thing as the residents of Hell. I believe those who die with mortal sin are going to experience Hell.

How do you morally justify the permanent "not as you would really think" non-physical torment of all those afflicted with "mortal sin"?

It's not that easy. Repentance is key to salvation but through Christ is this only possible.

So the answer is yes. Being saved according to you is the only way to avoid hell.

What about Muslims? Does God have no recognition of their conviction?

Not entirely relevant? I think your idea of "relevance" is obscured. Definitions of certain words are of the most relevance in a discussion, especially words such as these theological axioms.

Do you think God has it within his power to just remove hell from existence?

This is why agreeing what "torture" means is relevant here. What kind of torture are you talking about? Like handcuffing someone and beating them senseless? If so, it is incomparable to Hell, as again there is none to inflict such pain or harm on the souls in Hell.

Torture is the gratuitous infliction of pain done entirely for that reason. Sometimes torture is used as a means to get information, but in hell that doesn't appear to be relevant so it would be inflicting a massive amount (infinitely in hell) of pain for the sake of it. That's beyond contemptible. In the context of hell being permanent and the pain being beyond comprehension according to some I can think of nothing more evil either actual or hypothetical through human history.

Whether or not it is actually some non-physical 'torment' detached from God does not make any of it better either. Pain is pain. It hurts and if someone is receiving it in the knowledge of an apathetic overseer that could prevent it the overseer is acting immorally.

Your contention is not supported regardless of what you're waiting for.

It was an assertion stating my convictions or my contention. I intend to support it in my counter-arguments (as I have done). If you are going to refuse to defend the question put to proponents of eternal hell in the OP, why are you here?

Again, this issue of irrelevancy is simply delusional. If you mention a concept in a discussion, then that concept should be able to be defined and explained. Why you see that is irrelevant is a little confusing being that is only essential to rational discourse.

Sorry, it is semantics. Whether hell is physical torture or non-physical torment or some kind of avant-garde infliction of pain makes no difference to any of it. God knows it happens and according to you does not try to stop it to those it happens to. This indicates apathy or approval.

It is not direct intervention in any respect. And it's not like you are the moral authority to judge what is and isn't moral, so that appeal doesn't really work.

Whether God inflicts pain through direct intervention in hell or whether he just sets up the conditions to allow it to run itself is completely irrelevant: He set it up and allows it.

I'm not the moral authority? Okay. Not that I thought I had to or it to be astoundingly hard to argue against people being tortured or tormented for thought-crime. I thought taking up that kind of conviction was quite mainstream.

Stunningly, I'm wrong.

I don't think that is the same situation as the result of getting hit by a car is not a necessary component of walking across the street, whereas committing a crime is necessary in order to go to jail. If one commits a crime, they are choosing to do that crime, and it is that crime that sends one to jail.

They do not choose to go to jail (well, unless they did it specifically to go to jail). Other people choose to send them there. But they do not choose to go to jail.

Similarly, we do not choose to go to hell.

The duration of the sin is what can be said is irrelevant. For example, it could take under two minutes to rob someone in an alley, or two hours to pull a huge robbery of a house say. It is not the duration of the sin that matters but the severity of the sin.

Right.

So what is it we do in life that commands permanent "non-physical torment"?

Any sin against an eternal God warrants eternal punishment.

This is an unjustified assertion. That God is eternal does not mean any infraction against him should last eternally. That is like saying if you murdered a government minister you should get an extortionate sentence compared to if you murdered a working-class mother.

An unjustified classist view of justice.

Moreover, since the soul is immortal, only an everlasting judgement could follow.

Why can't God just declare the souls non-immortal? Why even necessary for an everlasting punishment? What even is its purpose? Punishment in civil society is done for several reasons. To protect the party from the criminal in question and to attempt to reform the criminal. There is no talk of torment or permanent limbo. Any justice system that offers that tends to be along the line of North Korea or Saudi Arabia or some other such place you really wouldn't want to be accused of anything in.

In that sense, our over all experience of 'life' is infinite, since we survive after biological death. So, by definition, it's not really disproportionate at all.

Only if you accept the bogus claim that somehow sinning against an eternal God warrants eternal punishment by the fact he lives forever.

Is God not aware that most people who 'sin' against him do so on the basis of ignorance? They do not believe he exists, do not accept the legitimacy and existence of vicarious redemption and act presuming humanism and the value of human growth. Why would he expect people to follow rules that hey have no reason to believe in? What is worse he created humanity knowing that billions of people would be born ignorant of his existence and would die ignorant of his existence. He knew that and knew what would befall them.

That a few words that could describe a decision less incompetent, but they'd be verging on the malicious.

He did not choose to go to jail and this is something I already said. He choose to do the things that will make him go to jail.

So my first counter-argument is correct then. No-one chooses to go to hell as some here naively assert.

I didn't say you want to sin, nor did I say you somehow inadvertently believe in sin, so no, this is not a false dichotomy. That is what I think. You are asking me to explain what I think, as in giving such a justification, remember?

Correct. I was just informing you of the reality of the situation and replying to your claim that one is only in hell because of wanting to sin or wanting to disregard the divine law.

That is a false dichtonomy.

Yes. But if one is sentenced to Hell, it is because of their sins that they wanted to engage in.

I don't want to engage in any sins. I don't even accept the notion of 'sin'. What would I be sentenced to hell for?

 

[griggs1947]

Madaz, lo, those who practice a loving morality but insist that in Hell we infides will suffer beyond belief, reflect credulity without using that love. Love hates Hell for anyone at any level of suffering!
Hell comes from the imaginations of miserable, misogynistic misanthropes, not divine telepathy!
Allah and Yahweh, being clairvoyants, would know beforehand how people would act so that they would need no soul-making through free will.
Rational and - loving beings hate the notion of Hell!
That telepathy and clairvoyance reflect the fact that the supernatural has links with the paranormal, its twin superstition that Mr. Humanist, Paul Kurtz calls ' The Transcendental Temptation."

 

[griggs1947]

Skavu, yes to rationality!
What puerile blasphemy of reason and - humanity to claim that love and Hell go together! That reflects Orwellian war is peace!That is Hell!