What is the purpose behind an eternal hell?

[Oncedeceived]

In my assessment, there is no reason to believe that anyone has interacted with a god or gods.

How do you assess that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It most definatly IS irrational. Because your a priori beliefs can be wrong.
And if you are going to exclude anything by default just because it contradicts your a priori beliefs, then you are being irrational (and dogmatic).

Is it not your a priori belief that nothing can be known to be true unless it can be demonstrated to be true?

Such as?

Your a priori beliefs include that nothing that can not be demonstrated as true is true. You agree that somethings might be true but that you can't know. That however, shows that you have an a priori belief that the universe is orderly and comprehensible. That we can depend on it to be in the same way today and tomorrow. You a priori believe that there is true and false and that we can know it. I could go on.

Nope. Quite the opposite. In science, claims fall or stand on their own merrit. In science, we acknowledge that our previous models can be wrong.
So we don't just reject claims by default, just because it happens to contradict previous models.

We reject other religions not by default but because they contradict what we have confirmed as true in our beliefs.

No, you don't. Which is why religions need "faith" to be believed.

That is simply false. Christianity is a religion based on reason. Faith is very misunderstood by unbelievers.

No. I dissmiss religions because not a single one can be shown to be correct.

But all truth can not be shown or demonstrated as you have admitted.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm sorry... but.... what?
Care to rephrase this, because I can't make any sense of it.



So... you don't know those things which can't be demonstrated?
How is that any different from what I said?



Ow dear....

Do you know what the word "KNOW" means?
How can you KNOW that these things are, in fact, true, if you can't demonstrate them to be true? If you can't differentiate them from what is false?



For crying out loud.......
I'm asking about how you can KNOW about it, if it can't be shown to be the case - even if it IS the case. How can you KNOW to be the case, if it can't be shown as such?




I'm asking about how you can KNOW about it. How many times must it be repeated????

I am not claiming that demonstrating truth is not the best way we KNOW truth to be truth but the statement that bsmte made: Truth, can be demonstrated is invalid. There is truth that can not be demonstrated and in fact his statement can not be demonstrated as truth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How do you assess that?

By examining the claims of those who say that such interaction has taken place and considering whether they are able to support their claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By examining the claims of those who say that such interaction has taken place and considering whether they are able to support their claims.

You can't really access their experiences and we do understand that not all truth can be demonstrated so while not accessible what leads you to believe their claims are false?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You can't really access their experiences and we do understand that not all truth can be demonstrated so while not accessible what leads you to believe their claims are false?

But I can access their claims and I can evaluate how they justify those claims.

 

[Davian]

Are you capable of giving straightforward answers???

I am.

 

[Davian]

We reject Islam because we know that God has revealed Himself in these last days, in His Son Jesus.

So you believe.

We reject Islam for the same reason you reject Flat-Earthism. You don't reject Flat-Earthism because you know everything there is to know about Flat-Earthism or because you are an expert on it. You reject it because you know the earth is round. Simple.

It feels flat to me, but it has been demonstrated to me to be spherical.

If Jesus was who the Bible claims He is, then every other worldview that contradicts Christianity in this, is wrong in the same way any other answer besides "4" is wrong for the equation 2+2=

Okay.

But we have addressed all of this already in these threads.

You have yet to demonstrate that Jesus was who the Bible claims He is. From what I gather, he may not have existed at all.

 

[Davian]

How do you assess that?

I give the claimant time and space to present their claim in a testable, falsifiable manner, and then watch as they invoke special pleading, evasion, and obfuscation.

 

[anonymous person]

So, you evaluate things based on a priori beliefs.

I speak for myself and let me be clear. I evaluate claims made about Christ chiefly by looking to see whether or not the claim coheres with my properly basic belief that The Holy Spirit who bears witness to Jesus Christ, indwells me.

Secondly, you seem to have something against a priori beliefs, something I did not even appeal to.

Thirdly, there are a whole bunch of a priori beliefs you seem to have forgotten you have: all bachelors are unmarried; cubes have six sides; if today is Tuesday then today is not Thursday; red is a color; seven plus five equals twelve. You have good reasons for thinking each of these claims is true, but the reasons do not appear to derive from experience. Rather, you seem able to see or apprehend the truth of these claims just by reflecting on their content.

Thus they are known a priori.

"We can thus refine the characterization of a priori justification as follows: one is a priori justified in believing a given proposition if, on the basis of pure thought or reason, one has a reason to think that the proposition is true." http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/

Do you consider that rational?

Since my evaluation is made according to what I hold to be properly basic, then yes, I am eminently rational in my evaluation of Islam.

Wrong.
I reject a flat earth because the evidence doesn't support the claims it makes.

You've made a distinction where there is no difference.

If you know what something is, then you also know what it is not. This is fundamental logic.

Having said that, "round earth" isn't just some other a priori "belief" that I have.
It's what the evidence actually supports.

And I have evidence that supports my claims.

Which is completely different from saying "I can't believe X, because I already dogmatically believe Y and it's mutually exclusive"

Easy to make strawmen and attack them.

The hard pill to swallow for you is the logic pill. The fundamental laws of logic prohibit Islam and Christianity from both being true. If Jesus is God then Islam is wrong, plain and simple.

If...

indeed.

Indeed.

And if the universe was created 5 seconds ago, then every other worldview that contradicts that, is wrong.

I can agree with that.

So, to conclude......
If this is the case, then yes, you don't reject islam like I reject it.
I actually reject it based on reason (a lack of evidence), not just because I already happen to believe something else.......

I reject it based on reason too. I am just able to do it quicker and easier than you.

 

[Davian]

I speak for myself and let me be clear. I evaluate claims made about Christ chiefly by looking to see whether or not the claim coheres with my properly basic belief that The Holy Spirit who bears witness to Jesus Christ, indwells me.

Circular Reasoning Works Because Circular Reasoning Works

• Davian
• Jun 25, 2015

 

[Oncedeceived]

But I can access their claims and I can evaluate how they justify those claims.

How do you access their claims?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How do you access their claims?

By listening to them as they present their claims?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I speak for myself and let me be clear. I evaluate claims made about Christ chiefly by looking to see whether or not the claim coheres with my properly basic belief that The Holy Spirit who bears witness to Jesus Christ, indwells me.

In other words, you judge the merit of claims according to whether they are compatible with your theology.

Since my evaluation is made according to what I hold to be properly basic, then yes, I am eminently rational in my evaluation of Islam.

So is the Islamic apologist who plays the same trick on you.

And I have evidence that supports my claims.

Arguments that are ultimately immaterial to whether you believe those claims or not.

Easy to make strawmen and attack them.

The hard pill to swallow for you is the logic pill. The fundamental laws of logic prohibit Islam and Christianity from both being true. If Jesus is God then Islam is wrong, plain and simple.

You argue for Christianity by appealing to your personal religious experience. The Islamic apologist does the same. How are we to distinguish which of your claims has merit? Presumably you'll say something like, "By examining the evidence." But what difference would that make to your beliefs given that both of you will simply invoke your religious experience as the overriding factor regardless of the outcome of our inquiry?

 

[Oncedeceived]

By listening to them as they present their claims?

No, that is not accessing their claims, that is listening to their claims. You are physically unable to access someone's claims on personal experiences.

 

[anonymous person]

In other words, you judge the merit of claims according to whether they are compatible with your theology.

No.

So is the Islamic apologist who plays the same trick on you.

Arguments that are ultimately immaterial to whether you believe those claims or not.

You argue for Christianity by appealing to your personal religious experience. The Islamic apologist does the same. How are we to distinguish which of your claims has merit? Presumably you'll say something like, "By examining the evidence." But what difference would that make to your beliefs given that both of you will simply invoke your religious experience as the overriding factor regardless of the outcome of our inquiry?

I'm not arguing for Christianity. I am stating very plainly that I am perfectly rational when I use certain properly basic beliefs to evaluate certain claims.

 

[food4thought]

How does one rebel against something they do not believe exists? Is unbelief the one unforgivable sin? Wouldn't a benevolent God who takes interest in their creation use their omniscience to satisfy someone who doesn't believe? At the very least show a compassion and understanding towards this person who was unconvinced?

You have a conscience that He placed in you. Yes, unbelief is the only sin that will not be forgiven at this present time. He has given us the universe to demonstrate His existence and the Bible to explain why things are the way they are. His compassion and understanding is what keeps Him from putting an end to it all, because there are still people out there who will be saved.

I have empathy and the ability to understand how my actions effect other people. I can live a positive life, treat others with kindness, compassion and love without having to believe in a God. In a hypothetical scenario, God has been disproven beyond all reasonable doubt. Do you all of a sudden feel like it's okay to harm other people? Are you incapable of understanding what is good and what is bad without a deity telling you? This is an honest question.

I have a conscience as well, so yes I am capable of determining right from wrong for the most part. The problem is that we do not always live up to our conscience, our consiences are in many ways corrupted by our environment and own sinful desires, and these selfish desires lead us to do things contrary to what is loving. Think of it this way: if there is no God, then all we have is something that has obviously failed to restrain mankind. If there is no God, then those who have the power to enforce their will upon the rest of us will continue to do so, and ultimately they will determine right from wrong according to what serves their purposes (as they already do in many countries). I would rather have a good, all knowing, all powerful God determining right and wrong... the bottom line is that God is trustworthy to act according to His own good character and nature, while mankind has demonstrated all through history that we are not trustworthy to have power.

Would a loving God allow evil and injustice to even exist? At this very moment, some where in this world, a child is being abused. Is God willing but unable to stop this? Then he is not omnipotent. Is God able but unwilling to stop this? Then he is not benevolent. Why call him God?

We must choose love, or else it would not be love. Think about the implications of this... why does God not reveal Himself openly yet? Because then those who have not already chosen to love Him would be then forced to either obey Him (always act in others best interest) or be condemned. Love must be freely chosen, and because of that many people will choose freely to go the opposite direction, and that is their right, but there is no place in heaven for selfishness and greed. That is why the world is the way it is... God has given us a choice, and it must not- NO, cannot be coerced.

Impossible to forgive unless there is a brutal human sacrifice? Isn't he God? He can do whatever he likes right? Why choose a blood sacrifice? Surely there is a more humane way of going about this. This sounds entirely man made.

God cannot act in a way contrary to His character and nature. He is love, but He is also just and holy and righteous and pure and infinitely good. The wages of sin is physical and eventually spiritual death (separation from God) because sin often lead to little deaths... the death of trust (lies), the death of love (abuse), etc. Both kinds of death is required for such evil, but if we pay our own penalty, we would be forever lost to the God who loves us. God, by choosing to create beings with the capacity to love, has put Himself in a dilemma. His love, mercy, and compassion for man is balanced against His righteous, perfectly good, holy, and just character that requires our condemnation. So out of His great love for us He devised the substitutionary attonement of an innocent sacrifice on our behalf. It is the only way that God could satisfy His justice without condemning all of mankind.

Think of it this way... God created beings with the capacity to love freely, but we took that freedom and went our own wicked way down through the centuries, resulting in countless horrors (great and small) that demand justice against every single soul that has ever lived. He did this because He wanted beings capable of real relationship. The price for this was paid by Himself through the offering of His One and Only Son in our place. He basically punished Himself for creating us in order that we might live eternally with Him in love relationship. That is how much God loves us.

Is Jesus and God not the same person? Do you not subscribe to the Trinity? Anyway, first, you're describing what is supposed to be an all loving God but now you are describing irrational wrath. This begins to make less and less sense the more you describe it. So he is going to have someone brutally tortured and killed to save people from their sins that he is ultimately responsible for? If we go with the Trinity, then it would be him coming down to earth as himself, to sacrifice himself to himself to save you from himself. Please explain how this makes any moral or logical sense.

God is three persons in One Being... not the same person. That is what the trinity is, a mystery to us. Anyways, God's wrath is only irrational in your mind. Look at the horrors we have been speaking of... really let yourself think about it! All of this stems from selfish rebellion against the loving will of an entirely perfectly good God. His wrath is GOOD... if we were good, we would have anger against our own petty selfishness just as we do against others (perhaps worse) selfishness.

Yep, you're describing a human being. Who can feel both love and anger. You're trying to describe an all loving God but you just can't help yourself, you have to throw wrath into the mix as well. It should be painfully obvious to you that these are human emotions and not the behavior of an all living deity.

I never stated that loving was God's only attribute. I will say that love is the greatest of all possible relationships. God created us (in a limited way) in His image (Genesis 1), so even though that image is marred by our sin, we should not be surprised to find similar (but not the same) characteristics being used to describe God. There is also some anthropomorphism involved because God cannot be fully described by human language. But His love is real, and so is His wrath. Both are true and right considering the reality of what humanity could be, yet is.

And the question of the day is: Do you think this is moral. Please do not try to avoid the question with "it is irrelevant what I think" It is very much relevant what you think. Is my unbelief just as bad as a serial killer who spends their life raping and killing? Does that serial killer deserve an eternal paradise and I deserve separation for the petty crime of being unconvinced of a God's existence?

Yes, it is moral. No, your unbelief is not as bad to me as a serial killer. But your unbelief is enough to separate you from God if you reject His cure for your soul. None of us who are saved get what we deserve. We get mercy (not getting the condemnation we deserve) and grace (being forgiven, getting eternal life, etc.). Your choice... get what you deserve or get mercy and grace.

For 2000 years people were certain that return would be in their lifetime. Ask people today and I am willing to be the majority think it will happen in their lifetime too. Do you think it will be in your lifetime? If yes, what makes you so sure?

I am not sure. He could return tonight for His people, or it could be centuries yet. No man knows the day or hour.

It's getting late. I'll try to get to the rest soon. Sorry it took me so long to reply.

 

[Hoghead1]

You have a conscience that He placed in you. Yes, unbelief is the only sin that will not be forgiven at this present time. He has given us the universe to demonstrate His existence and the Bible to explain why things are the way they are. His compassion and understanding is what keeps Him from putting an end to it all, because there are still people out there who will be saved.



I have a conscience as well, so yes I am capable of determining right from wrong for the most part. The problem is that we do not always live up to our conscience, our consiences are in many ways corrupted by our environment and own sinful desires, and these selfish desires lead us to do things contrary to what is loving. Think of it this way: if there is no God, then all we have is something that has obviously failed to restrain mankind. If there is no God, then those who have the power to enforce their will upon the rest of us will continue to do so, and ultimately they will determine right from wrong according to what serves their purposes (as they already do in many countries). I would rather have a good, all knowing, all powerful God determining right and wrong... the bottom line is that God is trustworthy to act according to His own good character and nature, while mankind has demonstrated all through history that we are not trustworthy to have power.



We must choose love, or else it would not be love. Think about the implications of this... why does God not reveal Himself openly yet? Because then those who have not already chosen to love Him would be then forced to either obey Him (always act in others best interest) or be condemned. Love must be freely chosen, and because of that many people will choose freely to go the opposite direction, and that is their right, but there is no place in heaven for selfishness and greed. That is why the world is the way it is... God has given us a choice, and it must not- NO, cannot be coerced.



God cannot act in a way contrary to His character and nature. He is love, but He is also just and holy and righteous and pure and infinitely good. The wages of sin is physical and eventually spiritual death (separation from God) because sin often lead to little deaths... the death of trust (lies), the death of love (abuse), etc. Both kinds of death is required for such evil, but if we pay our own penalty, we would be forever lost to the God who loves us. God, by choosing to create beings with the capacity to love, has put Himself in a dilemma. His love, mercy, and compassion for man is balanced against His righteous, perfectly good, holy, and just character that requires our condemnation. So out of His great love for us He devised the substitutionary attonement of an innocent sacrifice on our behalf. It is the only way that God could satisfy His justice without condemning all of mankind.

Think of it this way... God created beings with the capacity to love freely, but we took that freedom and went our own wicked way down through the centuries, resulting in countless horrors (great and small) that demand justice against every single soul that has ever lived. He did this because He wanted beings capable of real relationship. The price for this was paid by Himself through the offering of His One and Only Son in our place. He basically punished Himself for creating us in order that we might live eternally with Him in love relationship. That is how much God loves us.



God is three persons in One Being... not the same person. That is what the trinity is, a mystery to us. Anyways, God's wrath is only irrational in your mind. Look at the horrors we have been speaking of... really let yourself think about it! All of this stems from selfish rebellion against the loving will of an entirely perfectly good God. His wrath is GOOD... if we were good, we would have anger against our own petty selfishness just as we do against others (perhaps worse) selfishness.



I never stated that loving was God's only attribute. I will say that love is the greatest of all possible relationships. God created us (in a limited way) in His image (Genesis 1), so even though that image is marred by our sin, we should not be surprised to find similar (but not the same) characteristics being used to describe God. There is also some anthropomorphism involved because God cannot be fully described by human language. But His love is real, and so is His wrath. Both are true and right considering the reality of what humanity could be, yet is.



No. But your unbelief is enough to separate you from God if you reject His cure for your soul. None of us who are saved get what we deserve. We get mercy (not getting the condemnation we deserve) and grace (being forgiven, getting eternal life, etc.). Your choice... get what you deserve or get mercy and grace.



I am not sure. He could return tonight for His people, or it could be centuries yet. No man knows the day or hour.

It's getting late. I'll try to get to the rest soon. Sorry it took me so long to reply.

Can't say as I agree. I find the penal-substitutionary theory to be unjust and contradictory. If God truly wants to forgive us, then that means he wants at least the remission of all punishment. Unless view God as somehow conflicted inside, then your concept that he has to fulfill his need for vengeance is contradictory. Also, the notion of taking it out an innocent person is definitely not justice. The penal-substitutionary theory came into vogue during teh Medieval period, where they used whipping boys. If the prince does something wrong, spare him the punishment and take it out on someone else. That is definitely not justice. There are other theories of teh atonement, such as the classical, the perfect-pattern man, etc.
I view God as loving; and when you love others, and therefore took it out on Christ, to be contradictory and false.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No.

Yes. We all know your MO. You won't allow yourself to honestly reconsider your theological commitments.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, that is not accessing their claims, that is listening to their claims. You are physically unable to access someone's claims on personal experiences.

Yes, I am able to access their claims by listening to them present their claims. How else would you have me access them?