The Problem of Hell v.2

[MrMoe]

He doesn't have to send anyone there

How did you figure this out?

for some reason in the mind of an atheist God must be either all loving or all vengeful. he cannot be both. love is only one aspect of God. he is also perfect and just. A perfect being must punish evil and corruption and since we are all evil and corrupt we deserve punishment. if he didn't do this he would not be just or perfect. but since he's just a nice guy he send his son to bear our sins so we could still have a relationship with him. but like everything else he gave us the free will to make the choice to accept or reject this free gift.
I read a letter from an atheist in a letters to the editor column once. the atheist was criticizing the christian god for giving us free will, saying it would have been better not to have given us free will, that way we wouldn't be able to sin.
atheists always think they know better than God

why is hell so terrible? the bible teaches that ever good thing comes from God. so when you are in hell God removes his presence from you and every good thing that he provided goes with him.
god is love so there is no love in hell.
Love casts out fear so nothing but fear in hell
peace comes from God so no peace in hell. no peace = no rest. etc.
It is not a deliberate act of torture as Skavau suggests

"He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Matt. 5:45
there's none of that in hell.

 

[Gadarene]

How did you figure this out?

for some reason in the mind of an atheist God must be either all loving or all vengeful. he cannot be both. love is only one aspect of God. he is also perfect and just. A perfect being must punish evil and corruption and since we are all evil and corrupt we deserve punishment. if he didn't do this he would not be just or perfect. but since he's just a nice guy he send his son to bear our sins so we could still have a relationship with him. but like everything else he gave us the free will to make the choice to accept or reject this free gift.

Except there is no justice in substitutionary atonement. The ones who commit the evil are not punished if they are forgiven.

I read a letter from an atheist in a letters to the editor column once. the atheist was criticizing the christian god for giving us free will, saying it would have been better not to have given us free will, that way we wouldn't be able to sin.

Well, surely God would have known in advance whether we'd have preferred to freely forgo it if it meant we wouldn't lose the chance of salvation?

atheists always think they know better than God

No, let's be clear - we think we know better than his fanclub, as they're the only ones actually doing the talking. And frankly, that's often not a difficult task.

why is hell so terrible? the bible teaches that ever good thing comes from God. so when you are in hell God removes his presence from you and every good thing that he provided goes with him.
god is love so there is no love in hell.
Love casts out fear so nothing but fear in hell
peace comes from God so no peace in hell. no peace = no rest. etc.
It is not a deliberate act of torture as Skavau suggests

We still blame people for harm done by neglect. Again, let's not lower our standards.

 

[madaz]

yes allah means god in arabic but they are two different gods.

Two different gods?

Is this a general worldwide consensus or just a christian belief?

 

[Skavau]

Yes and the more you say it doesn't make it any more valid. It is not somewhat irrelevant it is relevant because defining words is important. That you still persist that is irrelevant is nothing but a joke to your own position.

It is irrelevant to the point of my argument which is not how people receive pain in hell but that it happens at all.

God created Hell originally for Satan and the other fallen angels. It was not even intended for man until Adam and Eve originally sinned and brought about the possibility of spiritual death.

So why is it moral for us to be held accountable for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we be effected by their actions?

I don't really see how you're making the connection that there is little concern for Hell being that God provided an opportunity to avoid it, and we can definitely confirm that God is not in favor of Hell as He wishes no soul goes there.

God provided Adam & Eve an opportunity to avoid it? Well, kind of. Given that the moment he made them he always knew what they would do and how they would act.

Wow, look at this. You just destroyed your own argument in one sentence. You merely assumed that I thought believing in Christ was sufficient enough for Heaven. I believe in faith and works, since it is through faith that we are able to produce the works. Let's see how this false assumption will play out for the rest of your reply.

What assumption? You quoted me pointing out that you might also believing in works as well. You have indicated that you do, which implies to me that merely being a Christian (to God) is not enough to receive heaven which puts the possible number of people in hell at an even higher number.

Um, I kind of figured that was your intention, which is why I said that is an invalid solution as the doctrine is unsound.

That it is 'unsound' scripturally is irrelevant. God can make it so.

If you're interested in the vision of Hell yet want to disregard what the Bible says, then you're not really interested in anything at all but to argue back and forth nonsensically and redundantly.

I am interested in you morally justifying your beliefs and not how accurate they are as pertains to Christianity.

People's view of Hell comes from the Bible. I'm not saying I have a different view of Hell than other Christians, I said you seem to have conceptions of Hell, which the emphasis of symbolism of fire and brimstone is most relevant.

No, I argue in reaction to how other Christians view it. The thread asks those who believe in an eternal hell to justify it. That's the only common denominator between the Christians responding on here.

What was it worth? Only to perhaps make yourself out to be 'more' moral than I, which is indeed wanting to be some type of moral authority. Just admit your arrogance.

I don't think it arrogant to consider myself more moral than someone in favour of punishing people for what they think.

I am not sure if in Islam that worshiping a false god deserves of Hell. If the same would apply in Islam as it does in Christianity, I suppose so.

How masochistic of you. (In Islam, it does - though some Muslims will argue for exceptions for Jews and Christians.)

Why would you accept that for yourself if so? If Islam is true then you have been guilty of nothing more than worshiping a different concept of God.

Do you really not notice the absurdity in your argument here about indefinite existence? If indefinite means it will not end, then it cannot cease to exist. If it cannot cease to exist, then it cannot be removed. It is really that clear. On this point you're being a little dishonest with yourself.

Something not ceasing to exist or not ending by itself does not make it incapable of being removed by another who can.

Even if? How about it is true. Something that cannot go out of existence cannot go out of existence. I mentioned earlier that Hell was originally created for Satan and the other fallen angels, not necessarily man since man was not created at that point.

You did. Doesn't change anything at all.

It is not physical pain. Logically it cannot be. And again, it would not be any more moral to end one's existence simply because of mental anguish.

It would if their existence would never ever move beyond mental anguish and would last forever. It would if the person suffering mental anguish wanted to die.

You say you would not do that now, but you don't really know if you would or not at that point. This is not something you impose on yourself but something that arises naturally from realizing the mistake of neglecting God.

Yes I would. I'd be severely [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed, but not at missing out at God but at the evil of God.

I think your playing with words here. What I am saying by the judge is not responsible for the inmates being in jail, is that the judge cannot be held morally accountable for why the inmate is in jail. The only one who can be held responsible is the inmate himself. It matters not who set the system up as the system is there for a good reason.

Untrue. Some systems are unjust. The civil law of Saudi Arabia is unjust and to a certain degree every civil law in every nation has its bad points.

Similarly, with God's system of punishment....

The judge can be if he set up everything and imprisons him for a victimless crime.

If we want to say the judge is responsible for establishing the law and the system then so be it, but that would only mean it is worth thanks and praise since we need such laws and systems to operate civilly and functionally.

Yes. Some of the laws.

Legislation in certain nations against homosexuality, fornication, apostasy, free speech, religious beliefs etc is immoral. They are victimless crimes. Similarly... (I think you know where I am going with this).

The example you give is a bit extreme, as God does not punish homosexual acts themselves but all sexually immoral acts, which would not preclude heterosexual acts.

I know.

That he includes homosexual acts as immoral is an example of God establishing a victimless crime and penalising people for loving another a certain way.

This is an instance in which your false assumption of there solely being faith or no faith is enough to warrant Heaven or Hell. Of course we don't send people to jail for victimless crimes of what they think. Nor does God, since there is faith plus works. If one has no faith they cannot produce the righteous works that would bear Heaven.

You already told me earlier that atheists are basically sentenced to hell for unbelief. That it is a prerequisite for entering heaven (to have faith) does not make it any less of a crime against conscience to sentence atheists to hell for it.

I'll explain how this is not totalitarianism which only shows your misapplication of the word or at worst your complete misapprehension of it. Totalitarianism includes that government rules all aspect of civilian life. This is not the same with God as He wants us to make our own decisions, but is there to help along the way. That is the opposite of said political view.

But, will, in the end rule on everything we have done and send us to a supernatural realm where we will be rewarded or punished based on that. I do not want part of it. I do not want heaven nor hell. I was never consulted on this system, never asked if I put myself under its governance. It is at its core tyrannical and oppressive.

As far as the Hitchen's video is concerned, I am not going to watch it. I never took a liking to posters who post videos thinking it proves some valid point. While it may, what is the issue with you paraphrasing or telling me in your own words? Is that too difficult or too much to ask?

It was completely relevant to my point. The text above did somewhat paraphrase it. It would take a lot of typing to say it. I put it there so you could watch it if you wanted to.

I said that one sin is unbelief. It's not only unbelief because one acts on unbelief. I approve of no such thing.

Okay, so an atheist who lived a good life and helped other people throughout his life (I assure you, such atheists do exist) would not be held accountable for his non-belief?

It makes a difference to your claims of "torture" since that is indeed something pertaining to what you have claimed. The end result is not the same. A crime has end results of jail. A sin has end results of Hell.

I also used the word torment, by the way. It varies semantically I've found depending on each Christian I converse with.

I think your definition of MA is too simplistic. We don't hold a judge accountable for an inmates being in jail just because he established the sentence. No, we hold the inmate accountable for committing the crime, which makes the fact that he is in jail his own fault.

This is true to an extent. But if some tucked away legislation against a certain action is so unknown, so unavailable that people keep committing it in ignorance then the judge ought to consider publicising the law so that more people can avoid committing it.

Similarly with God, his laws are so unknown and/or so scrutinized by so many that people keep committing it and keep committing it in ignorance and without any reason to believe that they are wrong at all. This kind of system is completely inept and in human terms would need reform or publicity.

Moral responsibility is the contention to mentally grasp our actions and that they have certain effects. It is to understand why we act and to generally understand what ‘acting’ a certain way will mean in the long run, given that we desire to act that way. Given this definition of moral accountability, which seems valid enough, God is not responsible for any soul that enters Hell as He has no desire for them to be there.

Why would an atheist who rejects the existence of heaven and hell have any reason to consider those realms as a long-term effects of his or her actions?

Why would a Muslim think that what they are doing is at all wrong and against God when to them all indicates otherwise?

I don’t think you display an adequate form of morals in the first place being how judgmental you are.

Nothing wrong with being judgmental.

LOL! Based in reality? What aspects of reality leads you to believe in such a specific number? What your calculations based upon according to reality? I'm sorry that is just hilarious to me. Also, I never claimed that all people who enter Hell consciously choose it, but choose to do the things that would put them in Hell.

What, so you think that a significant minority or majority of people choose hell do you? Can you even name anyone other than some puerile Satanist (that says it mostly for shock value) that actually wants to go to hell?

You recognize sin and divine law, you just reject it. There is a difference.

I don't recognise it either. They are fantasy according to me.

As far as the drug dealer knowing what is against the law doesn't matter. The point is such a person would not believe in such a law, and if he did, he would follow.

Uh, nonsense. People break laws they believe to be unjustifiable all the time. Otherwise you would never have prisoners of conscience in places like China, Iran, etc. You wouldn't have had the Arab Spring at all.

A drug dealer breaking the law is doing so for reasons of self-interest or conscience. He recognises that there is a law against it but chooses to deal anyway. An atheist however does not even believe a law against what they're doing or what they are exists. Big difference.

But the relevant point is that the drug dealer does not believe in the law and thus rejects it. You don’t know for sure whether the divine law exists or not, but you know that if it does you can be punished for it.

Your point would only be relevant if I actually did accept the divine law's existence. That I don't puts me in a different situation than the drug dealer.

If God created the soul immortal, then what the soul will experience after death is everlasting.

You answered a claim with a claim.

In any case if God did create our soul immortal then he should have not done so knowing the pain he has caused to billions.

 

[Skavau]

It would only be special pleading if the reason give for an exception is not relevant or does not fit the meaning of "exception."

You've given no reason why I should consider God an exception here.

The relevant exception is that God is Creator of all, and Sovereign of all. See, God is affected by sin, just not the same way humans would be, yet affected nonetheless.

So what if God is the "creator of all, and sovereign of all." I don't put myself under his governance. It is literally impossible anyway for me to actually commit a crime against God. I can commit crime against other humans and he can disapprove but it is not a crime against him, but them.

That would be true only if God intended man to go to Hell as a result of knowing and creating Hell. God does not intend for man to go to Hell.

He knew when he made hell that he'd be sentencing people there for eternity and would sentence them in their billions.

Again, knowledge of an action and engaging in that action does not necessarily imply being guilty or responsible. What must be shown also is the intention of acting.

Are you absurd??? So does that mean that if I didn't mean to violate health and safety regulation and didn't mean to cause serious injury to someone else I get away with it and can't be held slightly accountable?

With acting comes the understanding that acting in a certain way will have certain effects. We can say that God foreknew He was going to create Hell and humans would end up going there, however, that isn't God's intention in creating Hell. God's orignal intention, as I have said, was for Satan and the fallen angels.

So why did he not adjust what he did based on the information he had (or rather the knowledge he had that humans would enter hell in their billions)?

Even given the truth of foreknowledge and God's creative act it is not enough to make Him responsible for those who go to Hell. There is no 'premeditation' indicating God wants and created souls to go to Hell. That is what you're missing here.

It is hard to tell. He made hell despite knowing all the harm it would cause to billions. Did so anyway.

Wat

Just in this post and in the other one when I mentioned sin has everlasting effects.

Yeah, that's just a claim. No reason to believe it is true.

Because God is the Creator. No one asked for this Sovereignty but there it is.

So ultimately, you do believe in divine tyranny. I am under God's governance because God created everything and that is that. I have no right to leave, no right to question or press for reform or anything.

Without it we wouldn't even be questioning why. It would only be tyranny if you were forced to accept that the sacrifice was true.

I daresay it would be tyranny if I was held accountable for not accepting that sacrifice is true.

Existence is noting to be consented to anyway, so to think it would be is a little silly.

I don't ask for consent to exist. I ask for consent in putting myself under the government of this God.

So, then, if your rejection of sin does not necessarily mean sin is non - existent, then sin could very well exist despite your constant rejection of it. That, among anything else specifically here, is my point.

Yet in this sin include a plethora of victimless crimes that I have no reason to think of as immoral. Why would God expect me to?

I didn't say there was for you, maybe there isn't. I have a reason, and so do other people.

So you admit that for me at least there is no reason to accept any of the claims you are making. Do you think God sees that the same way?

You don't need evidence to moderate your behavior. That is not how this relation with God is suppose to work. It is meant to be a faith based relationship, and if we have tangible evidence for everything, there is no point to the relationship.

I consider faith a vice, not a virtue. It tells people it is noble to believe in things based on no evidence and often in spite of it. That God would make that a de facto requirement for heaven as well necessarily condemns people who use the skepticism and intelligence he bestowed upon them to reject his existence. His entire solution for entering heaven and avoiding hell is to ask people to completely reject their faculties and instead just believe in him for no reason at all.

Free will suggests moral accountability of our actions, including sins, that we commit, so that one is punished is only just.

Yes, though I won't be punished for my actions in my state at death. I'll be dismissed immediately due to my lack of faith.

Also, certain sins are unjustifiable. Homosexual intercourse harms no-one. Fornication in and of itself effects no-one. Not worshiping God harms no-one. Not observing certain days harms no-one. Victimless sins.

Again though, I did not claim these were the only two reasons why one would go to Hell. I merely offered these as two reasons. In order for there to be the false dilemma, I would have had to claimed that those are the only two options while completely disregarding another possible option. I made no such claim, nor have ignored any other possibility.

So you believe it entirely appropriate for people to go to hell for believing in no or different God(s)?

Why?

 

[Skavau]

for some reason in the mind of an atheist God must be either all loving or all vengeful. he cannot be both.

You set out God to be all-vengeful, not the atheist.

love is only one aspect of God. he is also perfect and just. A perfect being must punish evil and corruption and since we are all evil and corrupt we deserve punishment.

No. Sorry.

How self-hating of you. Why are we all evil and why do we all deserve punishment?

if he didn't do this he would not be just or perfect. but since he's just a nice guy he send his son to bear our sins so we could still have a relationship with him. but like everything else he gave us the free will to make the choice to accept or reject this free gift.

I don't accept this sacrifice ever took place. I don't accept my salvation bound up in it. Why do you think it moral to annul one's own personal responsibility onto a blood sacrifice?

why is hell so terrible? the bible teaches that ever good thing comes from God. so when you are in hell God removes his presence from you and every good thing that he provided goes with him.
god is love so there is no love in hell.
Love casts out fear so nothing but fear in hell
peace comes from God so no peace in hell. no peace = no rest. etc.
It is not a deliberate act of torture as Skavau suggests

So how does God come to the conclusion that not believing in him means that you wish to be absent of love?

 

[sandwiches]

How did you figure this out?

Because it is within his power to decide where people go when they die or to do away with hell altogether.

 

[Going Merry]

The lord doesn't will anyone to perish.
But unless one repents of their evil life and believe in the Lord they perish.

Sin always has the result of the lake of fire
That is why Jesus came, to take away sin, therefore one is justified by faith in Him

See hell is easy to understand

 

[sandwiches]

The lord doesn't will anyone to perish.
But unless one repents of their evil life and believe in the Lord they perish.

Sin always has the result of the lake of fire
That is why Jesus came, to take away sin, therefore one is justified by faith in Him

See hell is easy to understand

It is very easy. God created arbitrary rules, created a punishment for not following them, and then created beings capable of not following said rules.

Easy peasy.

 

[Going Merry]

It is very easy. God created arbitrary rules, created a punishment for not following them, and then created beings capable of not following said rules.

Easy peasy.

i think it is quite reasonable

 

[sandwiches]

i think it is quite reasonable

Imagine this:
I make up a game where if you don't follow the rules, you end up in a torture chamber. Now, the things is you don't know the rules for sure. You have millions of people telling you how to play the game differently and they all claim to know the true rules to the game. AND to top it all off, you don't have a choice on whether you play the game.

Is that "quite reasonable" as well?

 

[Skavau]

The lord doesn't will anyone to perish.
But unless one repents of their evil life and believe in the Lord they perish.

Why are our lives (all of them) so evil, so damning that they command eternal torment?

Why is the solution for redemption vested in believing a certain way?

Sin always has the result of the lake of fire
That is why Jesus came, to take away sin, therefore one is justified by faith in Him

See hell is easy to understand

I think I answered all of this on vicarious redemption. Not as straightforward as you think.

 

[Going Merry]

Why are our lives (all of them) so evil, so damning that they command eternal torment?

Why is the solution for redemption vested in believing a certain way?

I think I answered all of this on vicarious redemption. Not as straightforward as you think.

Because the one giving the solution for redemption thinks it is good in that way.

If people hear let them hear, and if they refuse let them refuse. People are rebellious.

 

[Skavau]

Because the one giving the solution for redemption thinks it is good in that way.

That doesn't tell me why it is a good method of attaining heaven, that only tells me why you think it is good.

If people hear let them hear, and if they refuse let them refuse. People are rebellious.

I am not rebellious against God. I just do not believe in God.

 

[Gadarene]

If people hear let them hear, and if they refuse let them refuse. People are rebellious.

No, people are disinclined to disbelieve if they don't have a good reason to believe, and many do not.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, people are disinclined to disbelieve if they don't have a good reason to believe, and many do not.

What do you think becomes of people like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Mengele a.k.a. the angel of death, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mussolini, the suicide 9/11 bombers, the Norwegian gent who killed 77 people and said he would do it all again if given the chance, and the numerous other rapists, slaughterers and murderers of men women and children?

 

[Gadarene]

What do you think becomes of people like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Mengele a.k.a. the angel of death, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mussolini, the suicide 9/11 bombers, the Norwegian gent who killed 77 people and said he would do it all again if given the chance, and the numerous other rapists, slaughterers and murderers of men women and children?

They either get caught or don't, and probably commit more crimes if they aren't stopped.

Then they die. That's it as far as we know.

 

[Elioenai26]

They either get caught or don't, and probably commit more crimes if they aren't stopped.

Then they die. That's it as far as we know.

That's it as far as we know? I believe you are expressing the opinion of a very small minority.

 

[Going Merry]

That doesn't tell me why it is a good method of attaining heaven, that only tells me why you think it is good.


I am not rebellious against God. I just do not believe in God.

I have been speaking scripturally
And using scripture is the same as using solid proof for my faith.

Scripture says the Spirit is a promise to those who believe....
and you only get the Spirit through faith in God...
but you also have to believe in the truth...
therefore its hard as heck even for most believers to be saved

 

[Gadarene]

That's it as far as we know? I believe you are expressing the opinion of a very small minority.

Quite possibly. So? What matters are facts, not opinions.

If you have factual information about a next life instead of idle speculation, then cite it.

Furthermore, what is the relevance of this line of questioning with respect to my original quote?