What is the purpose behind an eternal hell?

[bhsmte]

I have already addressed this.

How did you address it, I may have missed it.

Can one who murders people, get into heaven, if they find Jesus and honestly repent?

 

[Davian]

Heaven is a difficult concept to grasp...and I have sincere doubts that anyone who fully believes it exists could reasonably explain it.

So consider for a moment a version of christianity that only includes the possibility of heaven and no hell. That's not a very convincing narrative. Believers understand that they're being rewarded with their belief...but what that reward entails is a fuzzy nebulous concept.

Hell on the other hand isn't vague or nebulous at all. Everyone understands pain...therefore torture isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Eternal torture is a relatable concept.

That, IMO, is why there exists a biblical hell. If there were only heaven...it's certainly not an enticing enough concept to keep the sheep on their path.

Indeed. Add in indoctrination from a young age, relgious-based school curriculums, peer pressure and tribalism, and in more recent times, keep a hand in politics and judicial systems. The sheep need to be tended to, and kept in line.

 

[Davian]

I have already addressed this.

With fewer words you could just have said yes or no.

 

[aiki]

Classic burden-shifting, and off-topic to this thread. Let's keep the discussion to your theology, in the absence of your ability to demonstrate that gods exist.

I haven't shifted the burden of proof; I have shifted the location of where evidence and arguments for God's existence may be discovered. I'm not interested in repeating here what can be found on websites dedicated specifically to laying out those arguments and evidence.

Again with the burden-shifting. If your particular "God" could actually be measured, in some objective manner, it would be all in the news, and we would not be having this conversation.

Again, not shifting the burden of proof. But I am insisting you demonstrate that what arguments and evidences have been advanced don't objectively succeed. If you can't do this, then your complaints about the theistic worldview being "not compelling" are trivial.

Oh, and by the way, empirical measurement is not the only means or form of knowledge.

The KCA is built on speculation and presupposition, and does not directly point to a 'god', and certainly not a personal/biblical-type 'god'.

No, the KCA is built on deductive reasoning that is well-supported by science. The argument establishes a First Cause of the universe that is very much like the God revealed in the Bible: timeless, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful, and personal. The argument, though, does not prove the God of the Bible, only that a God-like Cause of the universe is a reasonable and rational belief to hold.

Then this is not justice as the word is commonly used. In a court of law, would you expect to be held accountable for things beyond your control? For things that others have done?

This isn't the situation I've described, however. God chose to do for us what we could not do for ourselves: atone for our sin. He was not forced to do so. He would have been completely within His rights to let us pay for our sins ourselves.

Been there; more presuppositional than philosophical.

If that's what you think, then you haven't been there at all! Dr. Craig carefully avoids presuppositional apologetics as he believes it succumbs to begging the question. Dr. Craig works from what is termed "natural theology" in making his case for the Christian worldview.

Define "supernatural" in a manner that might differentiate it from "imaginary".

Rather deflecting my point here.

Is this that same "moral" law giver that lets serial killers and rapists go to heaven yet burns others for reasons beyond their control?

No. As C.S. Lewis observed, "The door to Hell is locked from the inside."

Does this 'moral' law giver idea provide any explanatory power greater than opinion?

Any explanatory power in regard to what?

I can only speak for me. I do not find it compelling.

Well, this is quite irrelevant to whether or not the arguments and evidences for God succeed.

But if they do accept it, then all of that raping and killing is dismissed.

Not dismissed. Not at all. Every sin is paid for by Christ. He bore the punishment for all our sin on the cross. Not one's sin gets swept under the rug.

I think gods are fictional.

Stating the obvious here, don't you think?

I am only objecting to the equivocations. I understand that your theology, while claiming to be 'just', is morally bankrupt.

So far, you haven't shown that to be the case. And I have yet to equivocate.

Try it yourself. Choose to believe that gods are only characters in books, right now.

Let me know when you have done so.

Asked and answered.

Selah.

 

[Davian]

I haven't shifted the burden of proof;

Not successfully, no.

I have shifted the location of where evidence and arguments for God's existence may be discovered. I'm not interested in repeating here what can be found on websites dedicated specifically to laying out those arguments and evidence.

I am not interested in your vague handwaving towards evidence and arguments. As I said earlier, I will grant you the hypothetical existence of your god for the purposes of discussing your theology.

Again, not shifting the burden of proof. But I am insisting you demonstrate that what arguments and evidences have been advanced don't objectively succeed.

This is exactly an attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you have objective evidence for the existence of your particular god, bring it on already, or stay on topic.

If you can't do this, then your complaints about the theistic worldview being "not compelling" are trivial.

Do not misrepresent what I am saying. I am not complaining, I am only stating my position.

Oh, and by the way, empirical measurement is not the only means or form of knowledge.

What other methodologies would you suggest that we use to determine if we should have religion, and which religion that should be? Debates? Popular vote? Warfare?

No, the KCA is built on deductive reasoning that is well-supported by science.

Or, it is built on scientific speculation. We cannot observe what happened prior to the big bang, if that even makes sense. And again, you are going off-topic. But, since we are here...

The argument establishes

...presupposes...

a First Cause of the universe that is very much like the God revealed in the Bible: timeless, spaceless,

The same properties of the non-existent.

immaterial,

What is it made of?

incredibly powerful,

Why need it be powerful? The universe is observed to have a net energy level of zero.

and personal.

Why personal?

The argument, though, does not prove the God of the Bible,

Until the "god" of the bible is defined in a testable, falsifiable manner, it does nothing scientific for your "god".

only that a God-like Cause of the universe is a reasonable and rational belief to hold.

Explain how, while addressing all of my comments above.

This isn't the situation I've described, however. God chose to do for us what we could not do for ourselves: atone for our sin. He was not forced to do so. He would have been completely within His rights to let us pay for our sins ourselves.

Then you are conceding that this is not justice as the word is commonly used, and you are equivocating.

If that's what you think, then you haven't been there at all! Dr. Craig carefully avoids presuppositional apologetics

I can see that you haven't been there.

When I was last there I got this cool picture of him in a hat.

Kalamity Craig

• Davian
• Feb 1, 2016
• wlc

as he believes it succumbs to begging the question.

Which all of his argument appear to do.

Dr. Craig works from what is termed "natural theology" in making his case for the Christian worldview.

I know; he also accepts modern cosmology, no global flood, no literal Adam and Eve, etc.; do you agree with him on those subjects?

Rather deflecting my point here.

Not at all. In the context you are using it, it seems to mean "imaginary". If you like, define "supernatural" in a manner that might differentiate it from "imaginary".

No.

Are you now changing positions? Are serial killers and rapists now precluded from entering heaven? Are disbelievers forgiven as belief is beyond their control?

As C.S. Lewis observed, "The door to Hell is locked from the inside."

Explain.

Any explanatory power in regard to what?

The existence of morals.

Well, this is quite irrelevant to whether or not the arguments and evidences for God succeed.

Not at all. I don't care if the arguments succeed with other people. They may be gullible, or indoctrinated young, or have other reasons to believe. That they don't succeed with me is the only measure that really counts to me.

Not dismissed. Not at all. Every sin is paid for by Christ. He bore the punishment for all our sin on the cross. Not one's sin gets swept under the rug.

Where do they go then, if they don't preclude one from entering heaven? They count, or they don't.

Stating the obvious here, don't you think?

I was just clarifying what I think, rather than allowing you to tell me what I think.

So far, you haven't shown that to be the case.

Already done, with the example of the serial killers and rapists that can go to heaven yet others for reasons beyond their control. And, you conceded my point with the courtroom example, that yours is not "justice" as the term is commonly used. By that measure, it is morally bankrupt.

And I have yet to equivocate.

You do that each time you claim that your theology is about "justice".

Asked and answered.

More equivocation. I said, choose to believe that gods are only characters in books, right now.

Either you are an atheist, or you are conceding that your beliefs are not under your conscious control. Which is it?

 

[aiki]

I am not interested in your vague handwaving towards evidence and arguments. As I said earlier, I will grant you the hypothetical existence of your god for the purposes of discussing your theology.

My God is not hypothetical, which is what the various websites online filled with evidence and argument for Him establish. Here are a few I think are excellent:

www.reasonablefaith.org
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=access+research+network
www.reasons.org
www.str.org

This is exactly an attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you have objective evidence for the existence of your particular god, bring it on already, or stay on topic.

See websites above for objective evidence.

Do not misrepresent what I am saying. I am not complaining, I am only stating my position.

Whether you are merely stating your position or complaining about the Christian worldview, saying you find the Christian worldview not "compelling" remains trivial.

What other methodologies would you suggest that we use to determine if we should have religion, and which religion that should be? Debates? Popular vote? Warfare?

A discussion of religion, at least as far as I'm concerned, must inevitably and fundamentally be a discussion about the existence, nature and will of God. I think the current exchange of ideas, experiences, arguments and evidences for and against God that is going on in the public square is exactly the means we ought to use to establish the truth of things. And it is not only the empirical method and measurement that reveals what is true, but also the rules of logic and principles of reason that underpin science and philosophy, historical fact, personal testimony, and intuition.

Or, it is built on scientific speculation. We cannot observe what happened prior to the big bang, if that even makes sense. And again, you are going off-topic. But, since we are here...

The Big Bang Theory and the fact of a finite beginning to the universe is uncontroversial among the majority of scientists (secular or otherwise). And the deductive reasoning upon which the KCL argument relies is iron-clad. The KCL is far from speculative.

And I agree: we have gone off-topic.

The same properties of the non-existent.

Numbers and sets of numbers are timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Are they, therefore, non-existent? Love, integrity, bravery, contentment - these are all real things but cannot be weighed, or boiled in a test tube, or x-rayed.

Why need it be powerful? The universe is observed to have a net energy level of zero.

This net energy idea is a neat rhetorical trick but is essentially equivalent to saying that if one takes a trip from Winnipeg to Toronto and then follows the exact route back to Winnipeg, one has not gone anywhere. Clearly, that is not the case.

Then you are conceding that this is not justice as the word is commonly used, and you are equivocating.

Not equivocating; clarifying, defining and explaining. Just punishment was meted out upon all our sin. Divine mercy is only available to us because this is so.

Which all of his argument appear to do.

I guess you think we're all just going to take your word for it that they do? Not hardly!

Not at all. In the context you are using it, it seems to mean "imaginary". If you like, define "supernatural" in a manner that might differentiate it from "imaginary".

My point was in regards to the necessary and vast differences between creation and Creator. You appear to be deflecting this point by redirecting to a semantical question.

As has been pointed out above, not all that is real is necessarily accessible to empirical measurement or quantification. When I use the term "supernatural" I mean that which is above, or outside of, the boundaries of the material universe and thus not constrained by them. God is the prime example. He is supernatural but clearly defined and plainly evident in His Creation (unlike fairies, Santa Claus, or the FSM).

"As C.S. Lewis observed, "The door to Hell is locked from the inside."

Explain.

If a door is locked from the inside, who has locked it? Whoever is inside. Lewis was pointing out that people choose eternal separation from God (Hell) by living in rebellion to Him. They want autonomy from God in their temporal existence so God gives them the same autonomy in their eternal existence.

The existence of morals.

I think in regards to morality, a Moral Law Giver explains far better why we have the innate moral sense that we do than anything a naturalistic/evolutionary theory can conjure up. Dr. Craig has talked extensively about this matter. You can read or listen to his arguments on this head on his website.

Not at all. I don't care if the arguments succeed with other people. They may be gullible, or indoctrinated young, or have other reasons to believe. That they don't succeed with me is the only measure that really counts to me.

But, you see, the Christian doesn't have to meet your personal criteria for belief in order to have a legitimate or valid system of belief. Atheists like to make such a standard the standard for Christians and if the Christian is foolish or ignorant enough to oblige, then the atheist always has this as an ace-in-the-hole if they find the Christian's arguments overwhelming their own. Whatever the Christian might argue, the atheist simply responds, "Well, I'm not convinced." It's a clever maneuver but quite illegitimate. The standard for truth isn't what convinces you but what accords with reality and with what satisfies objective rules of logic and principles of reason and evidence.

Where do they go then, if they don't preclude one from entering heaven? They count, or they don't.

What do you mean, "Where do they go?" Where does a criminal's evil deeds go when he is punished for them in prison? This question doesn't make any sense to me.

And, you conceded my point with the courtroom example, that yours is not "justice" as the term is commonly used. By that measure, it is morally bankrupt.

No, I haven't. You've made a number of assertions but with really no justification for why they ought to hold as valid and/or as refuting my own. It appears you think your views are self-evident, but they aren't.

You do that each time you claim that your theology is about "justice".

I disagree. And you haven't demonstrated any equivocation on my part, you've merely asserted it.

More equivocation. I said, choose to believe that gods are only characters in books, right now.

Either you are an atheist, or you are conceding that your beliefs are not under your conscious control. Which is it?

You're assuming that when you write "gods in books" that I think exactly as you do about what you mean. But "gods" in my mind are mythological figures like Zeus, or Mithra, or Odin, or Poseidon. I don't and have never believed in such gods. As you say, they are just "characters in books." I believe this because there is a total lack of any evidence for any such gods. The One and Only True God, Jehovah, however, stands in sharp contrast to these fictional "gods" in this regard. His divine fingerprints are all over the universe He has made and He has even gone so far as to enter the stream of human history in the Person of Christ to redeem us from our sin.

In a way, you are correct that people can't just believe in God at the drop of a hat. The Bible makes this quite clear.

John 6:44
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him...

Believing in the God revealed in Scripture isn't just an academic exercise; it isn't just conceding a set of propositions. The God we find in the Bible is real, personal and active. And He must move to bring us into relationship with Himself if we are ever to truly know Him. He does this, though, first by presenting us with the truth about Himself. And then, typically, He causes us to need Him. You've been exposed to the truth about Him. What remains is to be taken by Him to a place of need. I suspect until that happens and you see just how futile and impotent your present beliefs are, you will never agree to relinquish them.

I'm a soft libertarian in regards to human free agency. Our past choices establish us in the course of our current and future choices. We make genuinely free choices at various points about what we will believe and how we will live, but as we do, over time we become set in a particular line of thinking and behaving. As that happens, it becomes increasingly difficult to break free of that line. So there was, I believe, a time when you made a truly free choice about God, though now you are thoroughly bound by the consequent choices that have flowed out of that first free choice. You are, therefore, both responsible for the choice about God that you've made and unable now on your own to make any other choice. If God does not intervene to redeem you, not just from your sin, but from your choice of beliefs, you are lost. Does God act unfairly, then, in His judgment of us? I don't think so. As I said, you have at some point made a conscious, free choice to reject Him, though now (apart from His divine intervention) you cannot. And it is for that choice God is within His rights to hold you entirely responsible.

Selah.

 

[Davian]

My God is not hypothetical,

For the purposes of this forum, it is, and I will grant you that hypothetical for the purposes of discussing your theology.

which is what the various websites online filled with evidence and argument for Him establish. Here are a few I think are excellent:

www.reasonablefaith.org
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=access+research+network
www.reasons.org
www.str.org



See websites above for objective evidence.



Whether you are merely stating your position or complaining about the Christian worldview, saying you find the Christian worldview not "compelling" remains trivial.



A discussion of religion, at least as far as I'm concerned, must inevitably and fundamentally be a discussion about the existence, nature and will of God. I think the current exchange of ideas, experiences, arguments and evidences for and against God that is going on in the public square is exactly the means we ought to use to establish the truth of things. And it is not only the empirical method and measurement that reveals what is true, but also the rules of logic and principles of reason that underpin science and philosophy, historical fact, personal testimony, and intuition.

The Big Bang Theory and the fact of a finite beginning to the universe is uncontroversial among the majority of scientists (secular or otherwise). And the deductive reasoning upon which the KCL argument relies is iron-clad. The KCL is far from speculative.

And I agree: we have gone off-topic.



Numbers and sets of numbers are timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Are they, therefore, non-existent? Love, integrity, bravery, contentment - these are all real things but cannot be weighed, or boiled in a test tube, or x-rayed.



This net energy idea is a neat rhetorical trick but is essentially equivalent to saying that if one takes a trip from Winnipeg to Toronto and then follows the exact route back to Winnipeg, one has not gone anywhere. Clearly, that is not the case.

I see no need to yet again address your straw-man version of inflation theory.

And, if you really feel that you have discovered objective evidence for your particular "God", start a separate thread on that topic.

Not equivocating; clarifying, defining and explaining. Just punishment was meted out upon all our sin. Divine mercy is only available to us because this is so.

You already conceded that this is not justice as the word is commonly used (being held accountable for ones actions, not others, or for things beyond ones control), so you are equivocating. You say "justice" when you mean "mercy".

I guess you think we're all just going to take your word for it that they do? Not hardly!

You can bring that up in your new thread.

My point was in regards to the necessary and vast differences between creation and Creator. You appear to be deflecting this point by redirecting to a semantical question.

As has been pointed out above, not all that is real is necessarily accessible to empirical measurement or quantification. When I use the term "supernatural" I mean that which is above, or outside of, the boundaries of the material universe and thus not constrained by them. God is the prime example. He is supernatural but clearly defined and plainly evident in His Creation (unlike fairies, Santa Claus, or the FSM).

And people of other religions, or of no religion, plainly disagree. You are left with your opinion. Again, take it your new thread.

"As C.S. Lewis observed, "The door to Hell is locked from the inside."

Explain.

If a door is locked from the inside, who has locked it? Whoever is inside. Lewis was pointing out that people choose eternal separation from God (Hell) by living in rebellion to Him. They want autonomy from God in their temporal existence so God gives them the same autonomy in their eternal existence.

Why would I rebel against a theology that boils down to 'anything goes, as long as you believe? I am simply not convinced that it comports with reality.

I think in regards to morality, a Moral Law Giver explains far better why we have the innate moral sense that we do than anything a naturalistic/evolutionary theory can conjure up. Dr. Craig has talked extensively about this matter. You can read or listen to his arguments on this head on his website.

Yet you offer nothing here. Add that to your new thread.

But, you see, the Christian doesn't have to meet your personal criteria for belief in order to have a legitimate or valid system of belief.

I don't know what you mean by a "legitimate or valid system of belief". You are free to have whatever beliefs you want. It only becomes an issue for me when these untestable, unfalsifiable, and unevidenced beliefs are promoted as fact in our government and educational systems, and by people that have access to my children.

Atheists like to make such a standard the standard for Christians and if the Christian is foolish or ignorant enough to oblige, then the atheist always has this as an ace-in-the-hole if they find the Christian's arguments overwhelming their own. Whatever the Christian might argue, the atheist simply responds, "Well, I'm not convinced." It's a clever maneuver but quite illegitimate.

Not at all. It is simply a statement of one's position. It does not claim that you are wrong.

The standard for truth isn't what convinces you but what accords with reality and with what satisfies objective rules of logic and principles of reason and evidence.

And if your religion met those standards, it would no longer be classed as a religion.

What do you mean, "Where do they go?" Where does a criminal's evil deeds go when he is punished for them in prison? This question doesn't make any sense to me.

The question was figurative. You are saying that the crimes of the serial killers and rapist do not get swept under the rug, but then fail to explain otherwise. As you are presenting your theology in this thread, it does not seem to matter if I told a lie to my coworker, or slaughtered everyone in the building. I can get to Heaven regardless.

No, I haven't. You've made a number of assertions but with really no justification for why they ought to hold as valid and/or as refuting my own. It appears you think your views are self-evident, but they aren't.

I disagree. And you haven't demonstrated any equivocation on my part, you've merely asserted it.

Back to the courtroom example; do you think it just that society hold you responsible for the actions of others? or for things beyond your control?

You're assuming that when you write "gods in books" that I think exactly as you do about what you mean. But "gods" in my mind are mythological figures like Zeus, or Mithra, or Odin, or Poseidon.

How is yours different?

I don't and have never believed in such gods. As you say, they are just "characters in books." I believe this because there is a total lack of any evidence for any such gods.

In the context of evidence presented in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, that would also apply to yours.

The One and Only True God, Jehovah, however, stands in sharp contrast to these fictional "gods" in this regard. His divine fingerprints are all over the universe He has made and He has even gone so far as to enter the stream of human history in the Person of Christ to redeem us from our sin.

Yet only those that already believe see these alleged 'fingerprints".

Be sure to bring this "evidence" into your new thread.

In a way, you are correct that people can't just believe in God at the drop of a hat. The Bible makes this quite clear.

Then you concede that belief is not a conscious decision.

John 6:44
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him...

Believing in the God revealed in Scripture isn't just an academic exercise; it isn't just conceding a set of propositions. The God we find in the Bible is real, personal and active.

But otherwise undetectable.

And He must move to bring us into relationship with Himself if we are ever to truly know Him. He does this, though, first by presenting us with the truth about Himself. And then, typically, He causes us to need Him.

I have never felt any such need.

You've been exposed to the truth about Him.

What truth? Recall the house-on-fire analogy brought up earlier. Wake me when you have a demonstrably legitimate warning.

Where have I been presented with the "truth" that virtually all of mainstream science is wrong, in order to accommodate these religious beliefs?

What remains is to be taken by Him to a place of need. I suspect until that happens and you see just how futile and impotent your present beliefs are, you will never agree to relinquish them.

But you are unable to demonstrate just how "futile and impotent" my present beliefs are? What are they, by the way?

I'm a soft libertarian in regards to human free agency. Our past choices establish us in the course of our current and future choices. We make genuinely free choices at various points about what we will believe and how we will live, but as we do, over time we become set in a particular line of thinking and behaving. As that happens, it becomes increasingly difficult to break free of that line. So there was, I believe, a time when you made a truly free choice about God,

Now you contradict yourself. Is this because you need to have belief as a conscious choice so as to have your theology appear as "just", and not morally bankrupt, even after giving a pass to the rapists and serial killers?

though now you are thoroughly bound by the consequent choices that have flowed out of that first free choice. You are, therefore, both responsible for the choice about God that you've made and unable now on your own to make any other choice.

If you say so. It is not a choice that I can consciously make, as you concede you cannot either.

If God does not intervene to redeem you, not just from your sin, but from your choice of beliefs, you are lost.

Now you have beliefs being affected by external forces, yet I am still to be held accountable for them. Do you put the goalposts down at some point?

Does God act unfairly, then, in His judgment of us? I don't think so.

Do you hold others responsible for things beyond their control? For the actions of others? Or do you give a pass only to your god on this matter?

As I said, you have at some point made a conscious, free choice to reject Him,

Another Unsuccessful Test

• Davian
• Feb 27, 2016

though now (apart from His divine intervention) you cannot. And it is for that choice God is within His rights to hold you entirely responsible.

Yet if I had only slaughtered everyone in the neighbourhood, I could get a pass, and be on my way to heaven.

To be clear, your theology has the purpose of "Hell" as being there as a deterrent for those that think it fictional, yet are unable to consciously choose to believe it to be real. Is this accurate?

Selah.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My God is not hypothetical, which is what the various websites online filled with evidence and argument for Him establish. Here are a few I think are excellent:

www.reasonablefaith.org
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=access+research+network
www.reasons.org
www.str.org

You are aware that this site is replete with references to apologetics websites? It's a discussion forum, not a book club.

 

[aiki]

You already conceded that this is not justice as the word is commonly used (being held accountable for ones actions, not others, or for things beyond ones control), so you are equivocating. You say "justice" when you mean "mercy".

Actually, I didn't concede what you say here that I did. What I recall writing is that your problem, I suspect, is really with Gods mercy rather than His justice. This is not an equivocation.

God's holy justice demands sin be punished by the shedding of blood and by death. No sin escapes this punishment. It must all be paid for this way. And, through Christ, all sin has been paid for this way. God's justice, then, is served, not circumvented or diminished.

The situation between God and man in regard to justice does not parallel human courts precisely. Scripture reveals that God is the Final and Supreme Judge. When we answer for our sin, it is not just to a set of moral laws, but to the One who is the Source of those laws; our sin is fundamentally against Him. In a human court, however, the judge is not the source of the laws they enforce and the crimes of the prosecuted are not against the judge enforcing the law. God, though, is both Judge and the ultimate "victim" of our sin. As such, He has the unique right either to proceed with prosecution or forego it. He is a just God, however, and cannot let our sin slide; He can't just sweep it under the rug; His holy justice demands retribution. But God is also merciful and loving. He would rescue us from the penalty of our sin for which we could never fully atone. So, He made a way for both His justice and His mercy to be satisfied. He came down from the Throne of Judgment and paid the penalty of our sin Himself, which is His prerogative both as the Source of the law we have broken and the "victim" of it. This is certainly a different justice from our own, but it is by no means a lesser justice!

As I explained in my last post, God does not punish those who could not help but be as they are. Every person at some point chooses the things they believe and the corresponding behaviour they enact. Our choice of beliefs may condemn us, but it is also our behaviour that is under God's judgment. It is our violation of the innate moral sense He has given to us, which the Bible describes as the "law of God written on our hearts," for which we also incur the wrath of God. It is our sinful conduct as much as our God-defiant beliefs that place us under divine judgment.

And people of other religions, or of no religion, plainly disagree. You are left with your opinion. Again, take it your new thread.

And how, exactly, does the existence of disagreement render my Christian worldview a mere "opinion"?

Why would I rebel against a theology that boils down to 'anything goes, as long as you believe? I am simply not convinced that it comports with reality.

Strawman. The Christian worldview does not hold an "anything goes" moral perspective. Anyone reading the Bible will encounter many, many injunctions to right behaviour that are clearly and exhaustively described.

I don't know what you mean by a "legitimate or valid system of belief". You are free to have whatever beliefs you want. It only becomes an issue for me when these untestable, unfalsifiable, and unevidenced beliefs are promoted as fact in our government and educational systems, and by people that have access to my children.

More Strawman stuff. Honestly, you sound rather like a Richard Carrier fan. Anyway, as many Christian apologists have repeatedly pointed out, Christianity is quite falsifiable and there is plenty of evidence for Christian theism.

And if your religion met those standards, it would no longer be classed as a religion.

My understanding of what the term "religion" means differs from your own in this respect. I think the Christian worldview meets those standards very well even though it is a religion.

As you are presenting your theology in this thread, it does not seem to matter if I told a lie to my coworker, or slaughtered everyone in the building. I can get to Heaven regardless.

If you sincerely confess and repent of your sin and submit your life to God's authority and control and accept for yourself the atonement for your sin God provides through Christ, yes, you can enter God's kingdom even if you've done very evil things. Those evil things were placed upon Christ who bore and atoned for them in your stead. As I already explained, God looks on the heart. He sees what is really there, not just what a person may say. He knows if a person's heart is truly broken, repentant and converted. And His judgment is made accordingly. Does this mean your sin doesn't matter? I don't see how this follows from what I've explained. Inasmuch as your sin necessitated the divine redemptive work of the cross, your sin matters enormously!

In the context of evidence presented in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, that would also apply to yours.

Well, clearly, I disagree.

Yet only those that already believe see these alleged 'fingerprints".

Actually, you have that a bit backward. For many, it is the divine "fingerprints" that bring them to belief.

I have never felt any such need.

Obviously.

What truth? Recall the house-on-fire analogy brought up earlier. Wake me when you have a demonstrably legitimate warning.

You have had all the warning from me you're ever going to get. Hear it or don't. I cannot make you heed the warning. That's entirely God's job.

Where have I been presented with the "truth" that virtually all of mainstream science is wrong, in order to accommodate these religious beliefs?

It isn't that theism declares all mainstream science is wrong. It is that the interpretations of science that non-theistic scientists give in accord with their naturalistic philosophical presuppositions are wrong. A theistic worldview is not in opposition to science - as many of the greatest (and theistic) scientists of human history demonstrate - but simply interprets the data of science in accord with a different set of beginning presuppositions.

But you are unable to demonstrate just how "futile and impotent" my present beliefs are?

That is something God must do. Your intellectual objections are, if the Bible is true, just a smoke-screen for a rebellious, sinful heart. I cannot argue you out of such a condition. Changing your heart requires divine power.

Now you contradict yourself. Is this because you need to have belief as a conscious choice so as to have your theology appear as "just", and not morally bankrupt, even after giving a pass to the rapists and serial killers?

Explain this contradiction that you claim is in my comments. What I have described of my soft-libertarian view is plainly evident in human behaviour. It is not a convenient, ad hoc maneuver to establish human responsibility for beliefs and behaviour, but the readily apparent character of human thinking and being. And that's in large part why I believe it. It accords very well with reality.

Do you hold others responsible for things beyond their control? For the actions of others? Or do you give a pass only to your god on this matter?

Do I hold an illicit drug user responsible for his drug addiction? Of course. He may no longer have the ability to freely set aside his drugs, but he nonetheless at one point made a free and conscious choice to use them. Consequently, he is responsible for his addiction. This is true concerning God holding us responsible for our sin, too.

Yet if I had only slaughtered everyone in the neighbourhood, I could get a pass, and be on my way to heaven.

Strawman. Getting a "pass" to heaven is not contingent upon slaughtering everyone in your neighborhood.

To be clear, your theology has the purpose of "Hell" as being there as a deterrent for those that think it fictional, yet are unable to consciously choose to believe it to be real. Is this accurate?

Nope. Hell is the just punishment of God upon those who have freely chosen to sin and live separately from Him. See above.

Selah.

 

[Davian]

Actually, I didn't concede what you say here that I did. What I recall writing is that your problem, I suspect, is really with Gods mercy rather than His justice. This is not an equivocation.

It is, each time you claim your theology is about 'justice', when what you mean is 'mercy'.

God's holy justice demands sin be punished by the shedding of blood and by death. No sin escapes this punishment. It must all be paid for this way. And, through Christ, all sin has been paid for this way. God's justice, then, is served, not circumvented or diminished.

What then is the punishment for being a serial killer, that the non-serial killer will not receive?

The situation between God and man in regard to justice does not parallel human courts precisely.

lol.

Indeed, at least in my country, where you are typically not held responsible for things beyond your control, or the actions of others. "Precisely" is not the word that comes to mind.

Scripture reveals that God is the Final and Supreme Judge. When we answer for our sin, it is not just to a set of moral laws, but to the One who is the Source of those laws; our sin is fundamentally against Him. In a human court, however, the judge is not the source of the laws they enforce

Where do you think those laws come from?

and the crimes of the prosecuted

[pedant]
...accused...
[/pedant]

are not against the judge enforcing the law.

Indeed. For a judge to preside over a case that involved their own interests would be considered unethical.

That would make your theology unethical.

God, though, is both Judge and the ultimate "victim" of our sin.

Other than your inability to produce the victim, how much does this allegedly all-powerful deity suffer from me not being convinced of its existence? Just how petty is this thing?

As such, He has the unique right either to proceed with prosecution or forego it. He is a just God,

There is your use of the word "just" again. In the common vernacular I do not see this word used to represent unethically holding people accountable for things beyond their control, and for the actions of others.

however, and cannot let our sin slide; He can't just sweep it under the rug; His holy justice demands retribution. But God is also merciful and loving.

I do wonder what you means by those words, in the context of a theology where "merciful and loving" involves burning the majority of those who ever lived for reasons beyond their control.

He would rescue us from the penalty of our sin for which we could never fully atone. So, He made a way for both His justice and His mercy to be satisfied. He came down from the Throne of Judgment and paid the penalty of our sin Himself,

God sacrifices Himself to Himself to change a rule He made Himself, in order to convince Himself to forgive a small portion of humanity for the crimes of two people who some Christians don't even believe existed as real people.

which is His prerogative both as the Source of the law we have broken and the "victim" of it. This is certainly a different justice from our own, but it is by no means a lesser justice!

Again you concede that you are using the word "justice" outside of the common vernacular. This is a form of equivocation.

As I explained in my last post, God does not punish those who could not help but be as they are. Every person at some point chooses the things they believe and the corresponding behaviour they enact. Our choice of beliefs may condemn us, but it is also our behaviour that is under God's judgment. It is our violation of the innate moral sense He has given to us, which the Bible describes as the "law of God written on our hearts," for which we also incur the wrath of God.

Perhaps it should have been written on our brains. Or, some gold plates, for posterity.

It is our sinful conduct as much as our God-defiant beliefs that place us under divine judgment.

I am not defiant. I am simply not convinced.

And how, exactly, does the existence of disagreement render my Christian worldview a mere "opinion"?

That your god is only "plainly evident" to those that believe it to be "plainly evident" renders your view to mere opinion.

Strawman. The Christian worldview does not hold an "anything goes" moral perspective. Anyone reading the Bible will encounter many, many injunctions to right behaviour that are clearly and exhaustively described.

Alright then: name me one action that might preclude me from entering heaven.

More Strawman stuff. Honestly, you sound rather like a Richard Carrier fan. Anyway, as many Christian apologists have repeatedly pointed out, Christianity is quite falsifiable and there is plenty of evidence for Christian theism.

I am sure you believe that. Have you opened that new thread yet?

My understanding of what the term "religion" means differs from your own in this respect. I think the Christian worldview meets those standards very well even though it is a religion.

That's nice that you believe that.

If you sincerely confess and repent of your sin and submit your life to God's authority and control and accept for yourself the atonement for your sin God provides through Christ, yes, you can enter God's kingdom even if you've done very evil things. Those evil things were placed upon Christ who bore and atoned for them in your stead. As I already explained, God looks on the heart. He sees what is really there, not just what a person may say. He knows if a person's heart is truly broken, repentant and converted. And His judgment is made accordingly. Does this mean your sin doesn't matter? I don't see how this follows from what I've explained. Inasmuch as your sin necessitated the divine redemptive work of the cross, your sin matters enormously!

How does it matter? You still go to heaven.

Well, clearly, I disagree.

Those that live in glass houses, and all that.

Actually, you have that a bit backward. For many, it is the divine "fingerprints" that bring them to belief.

And how did you gain access to the inner workings of the brains of these individuals you speak of? Did you use that mind-reading apparatus again?

Obviously.

You have had all the warning from me you're ever going to get. Hear it or don't.

Tell me, how do you react to threats that you do not perceive as legitimate?

I cannot make you heed the warning. That's entirely God's job.

God seems curiously absence from this exchange, and the world in general.

It isn't that theism

Don't conflate your particular theology with theism in general. There are many religions that do not require virtually all of mainstream scientific knowledge to be tossed out in order to accommodate them.

declares all mainstream science is wrong. It is that the interpretations of science that non-theistic scientists give in accord with their naturalistic philosophical presuppositions are wrong. A theistic worldview is not in opposition to science - as many of the greatest (and theistic) scientists of human history demonstrate - but simply interprets the data of science in accord with a different set of beginning presuppositions.

Perhaps you can detail how the scientific world has it all wrong in that thread you are going to start.

That is something God must do. Your intellectual objections are, if the Bible is true, just a smoke-screen for a rebellious,

Why would I rebel against a theology that I perceive as anything goes, as long as you believe?

sinful

The only 'sin' of note being disbelief. Everything else you can get a pass for. Why do you not simply say "disbelieving" instead?

heart.

You could try appealing to my brain.

I cannot argue you out of such a condition.

Not with the arguments you have put forth to date, no.

Changing your heart requires divine power.

Then why would I be held accountable for what I believe, if you concede that it is not under my control?

Explain this contradiction that you claim is in my comments. What I have described of my soft-libertarian view is plainly evident in human behaviour. It is not a convenient, ad hoc maneuver to establish human responsibility for beliefs and behaviour, but the readily apparent character of human thinking and being. And that's in large part why I believe it. It accords very well with reality.

Accords with reality? You yourself concede that you cannot consciously change your beliefs. And, that would be consistent with cognitive science, and the modern philosophy of mind.

"The unsettling point about modern philosophy of mind and the cognitive neuroscience of will, already apparent even at this early stage, is that a final theory may contradict the way we have been subjectively experiencing ourselves for millennia. There will likely be a conflict between the scientific view of the acting self and the phenomenal narrative, the subjective story our brains tell us about what happens when we decide to act. (p. 127)

From a scientific, third-person perspective, our inner experience of strong autonomy may look increasingly like what it has been all along: an appearance only. (p. 129)"

From http://www.beinghuman.org/metzinger

Do I hold an illicit drug user responsible for his drug addiction? Of course. He may no longer have the ability to freely set aside his drugs, but he nonetheless at one point made a free and conscious choice to use them. Consequently, he is responsible for his addiction. This is true concerning God holding us responsible for our sin, too.

I note that you did not address what I asked.

Strawman. Getting a "pass" to heaven is not contingent upon slaughtering everyone in your neighborhood.

Go straw-man yourself. That is not what I said.

Nope. Hell is the just

But not "just" as the word is commonly used.

punishment

And by this, you mean "vengeance", correct, as it won't act as a deterrent, and is not intended to correct a behaviour?

of God upon those who have freely chosen to sin and live separately from Him. See above.

That is not me, as I cannot freely choose my beliefs. And since the serial killers, rapists, and the like will be going to heaven, who does that leave?

Selah.

 

[Hawkins]

How did you address it, I may have missed it.

Can one who murders people, get into heaven, if they find Jesus and honestly repent?

You can view this as matter of statistics, say, the chances for a murderer truly choose to repent is less than 0.001 percent. So in the end, the chances for a murder to truly repent is narrow. Under most circumstance, you won't murder in the first place if you truly choose to repent after that.

Moreover, it is fallacious to say that "because religions can behave this way such that none of them can be true". This is so because logically all kinds of generalization are not without exceptions. So even under the circumstance that a generalization is true, there can still be exceptions.

On the other hand, both Moses and David are suspected of murdering. So sometimes I think that the last resort for God to save someone (including Paul) is to assign him the job of a prophet. They could the rare murderers who will repent.

 

[bhsmte]

You can view this as matter of statistics, say, the chances for a murderer truly choose to repent is less than 0.001 percent. So in the end, the chances for a murder to truly repent is narrow. Under most circumstance, you won't murder in the first place if you truly choose to repent after that.

Moreover, it is fallacious to say that "because religions can behave this way such that none of them can be true". This is so because logically all kinds of generalization are not without exceptions. So even under the circumstance that a generalization is true, there can still be exceptions.

On the other hand, both Moses and David are suspected of murdering. So sometimes I think that the last resort for God to save someone (including Paul) is to assign him the job of a prophet. They could the rare murderers who will repent.

Didnt answer my question.

 

[Hawkins]

Didnt answer my question.

Which question?

Your this question is well answered.

"Can one who murders people, get into heaven, if they find Jesus and honestly repent?"

 

[aiki]

It is, each time you claim your theology is about 'justice', when what you mean is 'mercy'.

But I haven't done this. I have now several times clearly distinguished God's justice from His mercy. As I said a few posts back, however, your problem seems to be that you resent God's mercy more than that you have issue with His justice.

What then is the punishment for being a serial killer, that the non-serial killer will not receive?

As I pointed out many posts before, the punishment for sin of any sort and degree is the same: eternal punishment in Hell. All our sin is deserving of such a punishment because it all contravenes the character and command of the infinite and perfect God.

Indeed. For a judge to preside over a case that involved their own interests would be considered unethical.

That would make your theology unethical.

Oh? How so? Is a human judge equal to God?

Other than your inability to produce the victim, how much does this allegedly all-powerful deity suffer from me not being convinced of its existence? Just how petty is this thing?

Not petty. Just. And why, exactly, should you be able to do just as you like with impunity in the universe God has made and sustains moment-by-moment?

In the common vernacular I do not see this word used to represent unethically holding people accountable for things beyond their control, and for the actions of others.

I've already responded to this criticism. See my earlier posts.

I do wonder what you means by those words, in the context of a theology where "merciful and loving" involves burning the majority of those who ever lived for reasons beyond their control.

As I've already explained, God does not do this. This is your Strawman representation of what God does in judging human wickedness.

God sacrifices Himself to Himself to change a rule He made Himself, in order to convince Himself to forgive a small portion of humanity for the crimes of two people who some Christians don't even believe existed as real people.

Strawman. God does not sacrifice Himself to Himself. Christ's sacrifice was not to God but for sin. And Christ did not "change a rule" he died in strict conformity to divine law. His sacrifice was not an effort to convince God, either, but, rather, to satisfy the demands of divine justice. Christ also did not die for a small portion of humanity or only for the sins of Adam and Eve, but for all the sins of all mankind. It's...interesting to watch you object to a religion you clearly don't understand.

Again you concede that you are using the word "justice" outside of the common vernacular. This is a form of equivocation.

I've explained what I mean by God's justice and have not conflated it with any other term. Where's the equivocation? It seems you hope by the mere repetition of the charge of equivocation that it will somehow become true.

That your god is only "plainly evident" to those that believe it to be "plainly evident" renders your view to mere opinion.

A person's willingness or unwillingness to accept the arguments and evidence for God does not diminish or strengthen the nature and force of the arguments and evidence. The arguments and evidence are what they are quite independently of my, or anyone else's, belief (or lack thereof) in them. They exist objectively and successfully as arguments and evidence and so are no more opinion because someone rejects them than the arguments and evidence that convict a criminal are just opinion because the convicted criminal's mother refuses to be convinced of her child's crime by them.

Alright then: name me one action that might preclude me from entering heaven.

Read the Ten Commandments. Breaking any one of them is sufficient to keep you out of God's kingdom.

And how did you gain access to the inner workings of the brains of these individuals you speak of? Did you use that mind-reading apparatus again?

I listened to their own testimony.

Why would I rebel against a theology that I perceive as anything goes, as long as you believe?

Why, indeed?

The only 'sin' of note being disbelief. Everything else you can get a pass for. Why do you not simply say "disbelieving" instead?

Your thinking here is like refusing to believe a lethal poison will kill you, drinking some, and then protesting when it starts to have its lethal effect. What you have chosen to believe (or, rather, not believe) about the poison is irrelevant to whether or not you ought to survive drinking it. If you drink lethal poison, it will kill you. And no rational person is going to sympathize with a "I just couldn't believe it would kill me" rationale for drinking it. Likewise, refusing to believe God exists and will judge you doesn't protect you from the consequences of your "inability" to believe in God, anymore than your inability to believe the poison will kill you will protect you from its lethal consequences should you drink it. And just as it is silly to argue that it is unfair, given your disbelief in the lethal power of the poison, that the poison should kill you when you drink it, it is equally silly to argue that it is unfair, given your disbelief in God, that He should suspend His judgment of your sinful life.

So, why does God forgive every sin but disbelief? Well, because forgiveness of all sins can only be obtained through belief. Imagine a group of cancer patients who are all going to die of their cancers being told there is a new cancer cure-all that has been developed. If they take the cure-all, they'll all live no matter how advanced and awful their cancer is. Now imagine some of them saying, "It's too good to be true! I just can't believe after all this time a cure is actually available. I'm just too skeptical to accept that this cure-all is real. I simply won't take it." Is it reasonable for these patients to expect that they ought to be healed of their cancer, as those who take the cure-all are, even if they don't believe in the cure-all and refuse to take it? Of course not! But this is the very sort of unreasonable expectation you have of God.

Jesus taught a parable in which a group of laborers were engaged in the early morning by an employer to work for a day for a certain sum. At mid-day other people showed up looking for work. The employer arranged to pay them the same amount for working the whole afternoon as he was paying the laborers who had begun in the morning. Finally, in the mid-afternoon, more people arrived looking for work. They were hired to work until the evening for the same amount as all the other laborers. At the end of the day when the wages were being doled out, those who started work earliest in the day protested the amount those who'd started later received. They had worked longer, so why should these latecomers be given the same as they were given? The employer responds by asking them why they were objecting to his generosity to the other laborers. The employer had not reneged on his agreement with the earliest workers. He had paid them exactly what they had agreed to work for. If he chose to be generous and give the same to those who had worked less, what was that to them? Why would they try to make his generosity an evil thing?

You seem to have the same issue as the early workers in the parable. You object to the merciful generosity of God toward those who seem, in your estimation, to be less worthy of it. But as far as God is concerned, no one deserves His mercy, grace and forgiveness. If God gave us what we all deserve, we would all be going straight to Hell! When we look at others and think, "They shouldn't be forgiven," we have forgotten that we don't deserve to be forgiven, either.

That is not me, as I cannot freely choose my beliefs.

I don't believe that. See my last post where I explain soft libertarianism.

Selah.

 

[Davian]

But I haven't done this. I have now several times clearly distinguished God's justice from His mercy. As I said a few posts back, however, your problem seems to be that you resent God's mercy more than that you have issue with His justice.

Again, I take no issue with your hypothetical god letting rapists and serial killers off the hook for whatever reasons. If you are happy with that, fine. I only take issue with the promoting of such a theology as "just" in the common use of the word. I find that to be intellectually dishonest.

As I pointed out many posts before, the punishment for sin of any sort and degree is the same: eternal punishment in Hell. All our sin is deserving of such a punishment because it all contravenes the character and command of the infinite and perfect God.

So my admiration of the neighbour's rather attractive wife is just as bad as slaughtering thousands of innocent children. I get this. Your theology requires everyone to be guilty of something, even if it comes out sounding utterly ridiculous.

Oh? How so? Is a human judge equal to God?

A judge is a position, not a person. It is unethical for a judge to preside over a decision regarding their own interests. Was it unethical for a king to preside over a decision regarding his own interests? Yes, and look how popular that method of government is now.

This makes your theology unethical. Own it.

Not petty. Just.

I am never sure what you mean by this word. In the context you use it, it may mean unethical and morally bankrupt.

And why, exactly, should you be able to do just as you like with impunity in the universe God has made and sustains moment-by-moment?

"...to do just as you like" implies that I can consciously choose what I believe. I cannot. I do not - cannot - choose to believe what I would like to believe.

I've already responded to this criticism. See my earlier posts.

Where?

As I've already explained, God does not do this. This is your Strawman representation of what God does in judging human wickedness.

In what way was what I said inaccurate?

Strawman. God does not sacrifice Himself to Himself. Christ's sacrifice was not to God but for sin. And Christ did not "change a rule" he died in strict conformity to divine law. His sacrifice was not an effort to convince God, either, but, rather, to satisfy the demands of divine justice. Christ also did not die for a small portion of humanity or only for the sins of Adam and Eve, but for all the sins of all mankind. It's...interesting to watch you object to a religion you clearly don't understand.

The strawman card can't be used in the case of religions, as they are all subject to interpretation, and you have no objective measurement on which to base the strawman claim, unless I was claiming it to be your interpretation, which I am not. I use a different interpretation than you, that I got from other Christians.

I've explained what I mean by God's justice and have not conflated it with any other term. Where's the equivocation? It seems you hope by the mere repetition of the charge of equivocation that it will somehow become true.

It is not your conflating of the term with another, but your redefining of the word to suit the purposes of your theology.

A person's willingness or unwillingness to accept the arguments and evidence for God does not diminish or strengthen the nature and force of the arguments and evidence.

This statement is built on the [false] premise that ones beliefs are subject to ones will.

The arguments and evidence are what they are quite independently of my, or anyone else's, belief (or lack thereof) in them. They exist objectively

Be careful not to equivocate. That the argument exists does not make it objective, that is, independently testable by some objective measure.

and successfully

...or unsuccessfully...

as arguments and evidence and so are no more opinion because someone rejects them than the arguments and evidence that convict a criminal are just opinion because the convicted criminal's mother refuses to be convinced of her child's crime by them.

As they are not objective, they are subjective; they are opinion.

On that subject, how is that new thread of yours coming along? Have you posted it yet?

Read the Ten Commandments. Breaking any one of them is sufficient to keep you out of God's kingdom.

Yet serial killers can still get in. So much for your list.

I listened to their own testimony.

I asked, how did you gain access to the inner workings (subconscious) of the brains of these individuals you speak of? You won't get that by talking to them.

Why, indeed?

Because I am not rebelling, I am simply not convinced. You are misrepresenting my position.

Your thinking here is like refusing to believe a lethal poison will kill you, drinking some, and then protesting when it starts to have its lethal effect. What you have chosen to believe (or, rather, not believe) about the poison is irrelevant to whether or not you ought to survive drinking it. If you drink lethal poison, it will kill you. And no rational person is going to sympathize with a "I just couldn't believe it would kill me" rationale for drinking it. Likewise, refusing to believe God exists and will judge you doesn't protect you from the consequences of your "inability" to believe in God, anymore than your inability to believe the poison will kill you will protect you from its lethal consequences should you drink it. And just as it is silly to argue that it is unfair, given your disbelief in the lethal power of the poison, that the poison should kill you when you drink it, it is equally silly to argue that it is unfair, given your disbelief in God, that He should suspend His judgment of your sinful life.

I don't see the analogy here. With lethal poison, we can analyze it to see its constituent components, to see why it has such properties; we can test it in lab animals, and objectively and independently observe its effect.

How does that compare your "God", where nothing like that can be done?

So, why does God forgive every sin but disbelief? Well, because forgiveness of all sins can only be obtained through belief.

Yet disbelief is not a conscious act. It is not something I want to do, or try to do.

Imagine a group of cancer patients who are all going to die of their cancers being told there is a new cancer cure-all that has been developed. If they take the cure-all, they'll all live no matter how advanced and awful their cancer is. Now imagine some of them saying, "It's too good to be true! I just can't believe after all this time a cure is actually available. I'm just too skeptical to accept that this cure-all is real. I simply won't take it." Is it reasonable for these patients to expect that they ought to be healed of their cancer, as those who take the cure-all are, even if they don't believe in the cure-all and refuse to take it? Of course not! But this is the very sort of unreasonable expectation you have of God.

I don't see the analogy here. With cancer cures, we can analyze them to see their constituent components, to see why they have such properties; we can test them in lab animals, and objectively and independently observe their effects. We can do trials on groups of cancer patients, using control groups, and that information can be used by doctors advising patients of their options.

How does that compare your "God", where nothing like that can be done?

Jesus taught a parable in which a group of laborers were engaged in the early morning by an employer to work for a day for a certain sum. At mid-day other people showed up looking for work. The employer arranged to pay them the same amount for working the whole afternoon as he was paying the laborers who had begun in the morning. Finally, in the mid-afternoon, more people arrived looking for work. They were hired to work until the evening for the same amount as all the other laborers. At the end of the day when the wages were being doled out, those who started work earliest in the day protested the amount those who'd started later received. They had worked longer, so why should these latecomers be given the same as they were given? The employer responds by asking them why they were objecting to his generosity to the other laborers. The employer had not reneged on his agreement with the earliest workers. He had paid them exactly what they had agreed to work for. If he chose to be generous and give the same to those who had worked less, what was that to them? Why would they try to make his generosity an evil thing?

You seem to have the same issue as the early workers in the parable. You object to the merciful generosity of God toward those who seem, in your estimation, to be less worthy of it. But as far as God is concerned, no one deserves His mercy, grace and forgiveness. If God gave us what we all deserve, we would all be going straight to Hell! When we look at others and think, "They shouldn't be forgiven," we have forgotten that we don't deserve to be forgiven, either.

No, that is not my issue at all. I do not have a problem with your theology being unethical and morally bankrupt, and unfair. I only take issue with it being promoted as being otherwise.

I don't believe that. See my last post where I explain soft libertarianism.

See your own post where you conceded that you cannot freely choose your beliefs.

"In a way, you are correct that people can't just believe in God at the drop of a hat. The Bible makes this quite clear."

And, that would be consistent with cognitive science, and the modern philosophy of mind. (see my post #150)

And, hypothetically, if your God exists...

"If God does not intervene to redeem you, not just from your sin, but from your choice of beliefs, you are lost."

"Changing your heart requires divine power."

That makes the "Hell" of your theology to be the unethical, morally bankrupt vengeance wrought by your God upon those who did not freely choose to sin or live separately from Him.

So what is the purpose of that? To make the believers feel good about themselves?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If I steal a candy bar from the local convenience store and I get caught, what is the consequence? Thirty years in jail? No. In reflection of the relative triviality of the theft, very little will happen. I may be required to pay for the bar, or return it if possible, and I may be banned from the store or even reported to the police. But I won't see any jail time or endure anything more than some momentary embarrassment and some harsh words from the store owner. If I murder somebody, however, the consequences are far, far more grave. Why? Because the act of murder is a much more serious and terrible crime. Now, if the punishment for a crime is intended to reflect the seriousness, the heinousness, of it, what are we to understand of God's view of our sin when He punishes it with eternal, conscious torment? Clearly, our sin is much greater in its wickedness, in the depth and scope of its evilness, than we think it is. It is so bad, in fact, that it deserves the eternal punishment of Hell.

We are steeped in sin. We live and breathe it. It's all around us and we practice it in one form or another every day. Much of our sin we persist in because it is gratifying in some way and we have come to love it. Our perspective on our sin, then, is very skewed. We cannot see it clearly for the terrible, wicked thing God says it is. Instead, we think God is over-reacting to our sin. We downplay, we diminish, our own wickedness - especially when so much of it we find gratifying - and think either God is cruel and unfair in punishing us so harshly for our sin and/or that there is really no hell to worry about. Both ideas, though, are exactly what one would expect sin-steeped creatures to think.

So, why does our sin deserve the eternal torment of Hell? Well, first and most obviously, because it is a contravention of the will and command of the God of the Universe. Unfortunately, we humans have the habit of understanding everything from our own frame of reference and/or making everything in our image. Disney is a good example of what I mean. Mice, ducks, dogs, fish, toasters, ships, planes, cars - you name it, they are all made to be like us. A broom, or candlestick, or lobster has all the wit and sensitivity, and hopes and dreams that you and I do. And we conform our Creator to ourselves in much the same way. We bring Him down to our level; we make Him small enough that we can feel comfortable with Him; we shrink Him down into a neat little human-sized box and then proclaim, "God would never do that!"

But God is not like us. He made and sustains, moment-by-moment, the mind-boggling expanse of the universe and all that is within it. Pondering this takes us quickly beyond the capacities of our very limited comprehension. How can one visualize a star into which several million of our own sun could fit? And how do we conceptualize the fact that trillions upon trillions of galaxies containing such massive planetary bodies exist in the observable universe? How much more impossible, then, to try to comprehend the One who made and sustains it all? But it is this God to whom we must answer when we contravene His will and commands. And it His terrible, and awesome, and incomprehensible authority and power over the universe that, in part, makes the rebellion of our sin against Him so worthy of the eternal punishment He renders upon it.

"God is light," the Bible says, "and in Him is no darkness at all." (1Jn 1:5) We can say the words but what it means to be totally and absolutely without sin is beyond any of us. We get some sense, though, a small window in on what it means to be so holy, by seeing how absolutely and deeply God hates sin. And hate it He does! Our sin isn't just "naughty" or "unfortunate" or "mischievous," it is an abomination to God, a wicked thing with which He can have nothing to do and which He rejects utterly. And so God separates the unrepentant wicked from Himself forever as His perfectly holy character demands.

Perhaps the most significant reason why Hell is an appropriate punishment for our sin is given by the writer of Hebrews:

Hebrews 10:28-31
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people."
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Our sin is a deep and awful offense to God because it spurns His undeserved grace and tramples underfoot the incredible sacrifice of Christ on the cross for our sins. Every wicked thing we do cost Jesus. "He was wounded for our iniquities" the prophet Isaiah wrote. Every sin we commit is a sin for which the innocent, sinless Christ suffered the terrible wounds of Golgotha and shed his precious blood. Those who want Hell to disappear are the same people who preach "grace that is greater than all our sin" but neglect to dwell on the horrendous price of our forgiveness. As the writer of the passage above explains, however, much of the great evil of our sin is in how it disdains and insults the great love and mercy shown us by God in the work of Christ at Calvary.

As I consider these things, I am not left wondering why the eternal torment of Hell is a just response of a holy God. It is only when I have diminished - however unconsciously - God, my sin, and the enormity of the sacrifice of Jesus on my behalf that Hell starts to seem unreasonable.

Selah.

I am almost without words. Almost. It is so amazing to see this post and know that you too are faced with the complete awe of God. You exquisitely and most eloquently brought a small glimpse of the Massiveness of God. When one even has a minute knowledge of God the full expression of His Being is recognized as futile and yet HE reaches out to us to help us understand. His grandeur and His love for us are epic. Great post.

 

[Davian]

...
His grandeur and His love for us are epic.

And [hypothetically] the majority of those that ever lived will burn for reasons beyond their control. This is a use of the word "love" that I am unfamiliar with.

Great post.

Not really.

 

[aiki]

I am almost without words. Almost. It is so amazing to see this post and know that you too are faced with the complete awe of God. You exquisitely and most eloquently brought a small glimpse of the Massiveness of God. When one even has a minute knowledge of God the full expression of His Being is recognized as futile and yet HE reaches out to us to help us understand. His grandeur and His love for us are epic. Great post.

Thanks! I had quite forgotten about this thread. Glad it was edifying to you.

Selah.

 

[SkyWriting]

Before I begin, I understand there are different views on hell, but I only wish to discuss one....eternal conscious torment. Personally, I have started to break away from this view, but if there is any truth to it I want to discuss it. That said, for those of you who hold to this view, what purpose do you see in the design of such a place? Throughout scripture, for the most part, I can see that God has a method and reason to his laws and punishments. With that in mind, what purpose does burning someone alive in unquenchable fire for all eternity accomplish? Why did God choose fire for the punishment? Why is it forever instead of a finite amount of time? Please be respectful and on point regarding this topic.

Time is reserved for the physical, material world.

What would be real hell for you?
A. Your arm in a furnace.
B. Running over your child with your motorcycle on the way to meet a mistress.

If this were one incident, which would have more impact?
What the hell am I talking about? Pun intended

What is hell more likely to be, an external torture
or
an internal torment that never ends while you can still think.

If you read the story of Lazerous and the Rich Man, #2 will fit better.
The unquenchable torment is how you have lived your life in sin. It's like a fire.

 

[Davian]

Time is reserved for the physical, material world.

What would be real hell for you?

Unlimited minutes on my cell phone, but I still use them up answering calls from telemarketers.