The Problem of Hell

[roflcopter101]

If humans were able to go to hell, would animals be able to as well?

 

[JonF]

imho not animals other than humans

 

[Nathan45]

So who you commit the transgression against, is a factor in the magnitude of the transgession?

Then why is that a transgression against an infinite loving, righteous, good, being would be finite in magnituted?

the reason taking a starving person's last 10 dollars is a worse crime than taking a rich person's 10 dollars is because the starving person might starve as a result of this theft and the rich person will be annoyed at most.

God could not possibly be injured by anything you did. He is the rich person in this scenario, not the starving widow.



As for "Loving", I do not think that word means what you think it means.

If you think tossing souls into a fiery pit to be tortured for eternity makes one "loving", then i don't want to have anything to do with your christian "Love". That is all.

 

[JGL53]

imho not animals other than humans

So, my dog is better off, existentially and ontologically speaking , than I am? I might suffer eternal pain, under god's plan of predestination, but my dog is free and clear, no matter what?

IOW, under the Christian fundamentalist world view, it is actually better to have been born a dog than a human being?



This is EXACTLY why it is futile to debate you on the subject of hell.

You just don't get it.

Apparently you will NEVER get it.

That is sad.

Have a nice day.

 

[JGL53]

...If you think tossing souls into a fiery pit to be tortured for eternity makes one "loving"...

He does.

...then i don't want to have anything to do with your christian "Love"...

Obviously. What person who understands the meaning of the word "love" would?

 

[tcampen]

Non repented sin against against an immaculate God is a monstrous crime whose punishment is eternal because the injury is eternal.

What's so hard to understand about that?

I guess because just the opposite makes infinitely more sense.

Do I have the ability to forgive a transgression against me, even one where forgiveness is not sought nor asked for, just because I am not immaculate? That makes no sense. Being immaculate is irrelevent to the issue of forgiveness. A finite transgression against an infinite being should be barely noticeable, and easily forgiven.

When one person commits a wrong against another, and is not sorry about it, we consider the person wronged a better person if she nevertheless forgives and moves on. Yet for god, this virtue is flipped on its head, making holding an eternal grudge somehow virtuous.

A finite transgression against an infinite being should be barely noticeable, and easily forgiven. Anything less could never be considered all loving, even by the most twisted of thinking.

 

[JonF]

So, my dog is better off, existentially and ontologically speaking , than I am? I might suffer eternal pain, under god's plan of predestination, but my dog is free and clear, no matter what?

IOW, under the Christian fundamentalist world view, it is actually better to have been born a dog than a human being?

This argument only makes sense if there is no chance of a person getting something infinitely good. Not to mention this whole argument is a combination of an equivocation fallacy and a category error. Better is a comparative term, you are comparing the "well being" of two objects, one of which is assumed to not exist.

I mean really, you believe this disproves hell? or God?

If i gave you a car, does the chance that you may wreck it and die in a horrible flaming crash make it a bad gift?

This is EXACTLY why it is futile to debate you on the subject of hell.

You just don't get it.

Apparently you will NEVER get it.

That is sad.

Have a nice day.

Still trying argue using rhetoric i see.

 

[tcampen]

This argument only makes sense if there is no chance of a person getting something infinitely good.

I don't see how such a "chance" does anything to render the whole concept of hell (in a conservative, evangelical christian sense). The manner in which the system works is still in conflict with the stated nature of god.

 

[JonF]

I don't see how such a "chance" does anything to render the whole concept of hell (in a conservative, evangelical christian sense). The manner in which the system works is still in conflict with the stated nature of god.

Please say why it stands in conflict with the nature of God? That quote was in response to a specific absurd argument JGL gave.

 

[Nathan45]

If i gave you a car, does the chance that you may wreck it and die in a horrible flaming crash make it a bad gift?

it's not a gift at all, it's a command. I don't have a choice to ride or to not ride, it's not my car and i'm not the driver. And considering that i was born into a family of atheists and jews, the odds of me crashing are probably 90% from the get-go.

Also, you're a calvinist, so what are you even talking about chance? God will crash my car if he wants too, he's God and i'm presumably not "elect".

It's not a gift at all, i'm not even driving the car yet i'm predestined to burn in a "horrible flaming crash" as you call it. So, again, how is your God loving or just?

 

[JonF]

it's not a gift at all, it's a command. I don't have a choice to ride or to not ride, it's not my car and i'm not the driver. And considering that i was born into a family of atheists and jews, the odds of me crashing are probably 90% from the get-go.

Also, you're a calvinist, so what are you even talking about chance? God will crash my car if he wants too, he's God and i'm presumably not "elect".

It's not a gift at all, i'm not even driving the car yet i'm predestined to burn in a "horrible flaming crash" as you call it. So, again, how is your God loving or just?

It was the principle of the counter-argument that was meant to be applied. Not the analogy. The principle he is reasoning by in general isn't always true, and he isn't justifying it is in this case.

The fact that something has possible extreme negative consequence, doesn't automatically make it "bad" (comparatively or not). There are plenty of things with possible extreme negative consequences. If you think choice hinders the counter example (where as i think it's irrelevant), there are plenty of things that can harm you but their use necessitates risk yet are in general considered good: seat belts, medication, even water. You may be tempted to argue they do more harm than good aggregately. But i will claim so does God and life.

 

[Nathan45]

It was the principle of the counter-argument that was meant to be applied. Not the analogy. The principle he is reasoning by in general isn't always true, and he isn't justifying it is in this case.

The fact that something has possible extreme negative consequence, doesn't automatically make it "bad" (comparatively or not). There are plenty of things with possible extreme negative consequences. If you think choice hinders the counter example (where as i think it's irrelevant), there are plenty of things that can harm you but their use necessitates risk yet are in general considered good: seat belts, medication, even water. You may be tempted to argue they do more harm than good aggregately. But i will claim so does God and life.

could you simply admit that you believe that non-christians will be treated worse than dogs in the afterlife by your God?

It's not debatable that a non-christian like JGL is worse off than a dog under your theology because a non-christian goes to hell and a dog doesn't. The fact that the elect go to heaven doesn't change the fact that the un-elect don't, and they're worse off than dogs. His point is completely valid, there is no fallacy, and all of this nonsense from you about equivocation fallacies or principles of counterargument is simply a flurry of words.

 

[JonF]

could you simply admit that you believe that non-christians will be treated worse than dogs in the afterlife by your God?

It's not debatable that a non-christian like JGL is worse off than a dog under your theology because a non-christian goes to hell and a dog doesn't. The fact that the elect go to heaven doesn't change the fact that the un-elect don't, and they're worse off than dogs. His point is completely valid, there is no fallacy, and all of this nonsense from you about equivocation fallacies or principles of counterargument is simply a flurry of words.

If he isn't using himself as an indertiminate, i completly agree that he's better off ceasing to exist.

 

[Nathan45]

If he isn't using himself as an indertiminate, i completly agree that he's better off ceasing to exist.

Good. That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[Nathan45]

If he isn't using himself as an indertiminate, i completly agree that he's better off ceasing to exist.

Next question, if he's better off ceasing to exist, why did God create him just so that he could be tortured for eternity? Since, according to your theology, God knew before he was even created that he would be sent to hell.

 

[JonF]

Next question, if he's better off ceasing to exist, why did God create him just so that he could be tortured for eternity? Since, according to your theology, God knew before he was even created that he would be sent to hell.

God created us all for His glory. In this case he is Glorified by appealing to his attributes of righteousness and justice.

 

[JonF]

Good. That wasn't so hard, was it?

...

If he isn't using himself as an indertiminate, i completly agree that he's better off ceasing to exist.

 

[PoetaeRomanae]

imho not animals other than humans

Then wouldn't it be better for every human being to be turned into a non-human animal?

I mean, of course there would be no-one enjoying an eternal bliss of heaven in this scenario, but in my opinion that would still be a reasonable price to pay to prevent an immense multitude of living creatures from ending up in a state of "endless torture and horror".

Of course, this all gets a lot weirder when you think about the fact that God is supposed to have known from the beginning how things would turn out...

 

[lisah]

Yeah, It's a belief trumps behavior religion. It ain't whatcha do, it's what whatcha think.

It certainly could not have been intended to become that. Christianity has to dance around this one an awful lot.

 

[JGL53]

I think the "problem" concerning Hell that Christians who "believe" in such can never get around is that if there is a Hell then god is a morally insane monster, infinitely more cruel and hateful than Adoph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and all of history's serial killers combined.

I think the allegation of Hell is an insult to any god who may exist (i.e., a god as a person who is the creator of all).

If you are not going to believe in a just and loving god, then it would be a million times better to be an atheist.