Assuming God is all-loving, why does Hell exist? Does it make any sense whatsoever that the actions taken within 60 years or so result in a form of punishment for trillions of years (e.g. eternity) from an all-loving deity?

How exactly do you rectify this absurd duality? As it stands, the possibilities are:

1. God is all-loving, and there is no Hell.

2. God is not all-loving, and there is a Hell.

If #1 is true, it does not matter what you do in this life - believe or not believe, murder or not murder, it's all the same in the end. If #2 is true, then why would you want to spend eternity with a hateful, vengeful god that demands worship at the threat of annihilation/torture?

Who said God is all loving? I thought God was just forgiving, but I'm not exactly sure. So render that last statement how you would like.



Either way, I agree with your given paradox. It's more than valid, but what's your point? There's no way to disprove a paradox because a paradox cannot be disproven unless gone against common logic.

3. God is just the supreme father figure used to cope with the fact this existence is meaningless and hope that in the end everyone gets what's coming to them.

4. Hell is a metaphor for losing ones closeness with God.

I do agree with what you said. They can never get past the paradox. You can also use "suffering" or "evil" in place of Hell.

quote:Originally posted by Easterner:

Either way, I agree with your given paradox. It's more than valid, but what's your point? There's no way to disprove a paradox because a paradox cannot be disproven unless gone against common logic.

He was pointing out that, when viewed logically, there are extreme flaws in Christianity.



[This message has been edited by Paradise Lost (edited 08-08-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Red Raven:

Assuming God is all-loving, why does Hell exist? Does it make any sense whatsoever that the actions taken within 60 years or so result in a form of punishment for trillions of years (e.g. eternity) from an all-loving deity?

How exactly do you rectify this absurd duality? As it stands, the possibilities are:

1. God is all-loving, and there is no Hell.

2. God is not all-loving, and there is a Hell.

If #1 is true, it does not matter what you do in this life - believe or not believe, murder or not murder, it's all the same in the end. If #2 is true, then why would you want to spend eternity with a hateful, vengeful god that demands worship at the threat of annihilation/torture?



hell is for the exceptionally evil, and has been twisted around by catholics to fit there needs.

Since when can a loving being not punish those which it loves?

Since he is omnipotent and can choose an infinitely better alternative that does not require pain/suffering/discomfort.

This has been asked and answered before, NC, you know that.

There is no requisite for his to take that path though. His benevolence does not make him incapable of dishing out punishment.

(I'm bored and this seems like it could be fun).

Yes there is: the fact that he is supposedly all-loving.

If there is an act that can cause suffering to man kind and another act that not only does not cause suffering, but is infinitely better, and both actions cost god the same amount of time, the same amount of energy, then if he chooses the one that causes suffering he cannot be considered all-loving. Period.

A father punishing his child is justified in that the result justifies the means. That is, the child learning a lesson justifies the punishment. But if the father has another alternative, one that is better, and one that costs him the same time and energy, and reaps the same results, then he choosing to punish the child loses its justification. It becomes him deliberately choosing punishment for no other reason that his whim. That's not all loving.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-08-2005).]

God also has to respect free will though, which wouldn't be possible according to your post.

If there is a way that God could theoretically respect free will while preventing any and all evil, I'd love to hear(read) it.

For the sake of argument:

Someone (like my father) could debate that point by saying what I've heard at least a dozen times in my childhood prior to receiving a much-needed spanking:

"Kid, this is going to hurt me alot worse than it's going to hurt you."

Edit: adds - "But you deserve it and it's my job to do it."

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 08-08-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

God also has to respect free will though, which wouldn't be possible according to your post.

If there is a way that God could theoretically respect free will while preventing any and all evil, I'd love to hear(read) it.

What do you mean "if there is a way"? He's omnipotent! There must be a way or he isn't omnipotent!

Also, I don't see how what I said removes free will...

EDIT: Keep in mind the "act" I'm talking about is creating hell, as the first post states. But even if it wasn't god must still know of a way; hell not one way, a million ways, an infinite amount of ways! If he does not he is not omnipotent.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-08-2005).]

I was just assuming when you said "alternative", you meant making people not sin.

Could you expand on what you meant by "alternative"?

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

For the sake of argument:

Someone (like my father) could debate that point by saying what I've heard at least a dozen times in my childhood prior to receiving a much-needed spanking:

"Kid, this is going to hurt me alot worse than it's going to hurt you."

Edit: adds - "But you deserve it and it's my job to do it."



This was dealt with above.

The only thing that makes punishment(i.e spanking) acceptable in society is that we justify it based on future results. The ends justify the means. Your dad is justified, and can be viewed as loving for spanking you, since he has no viable alternative to spanking, and spanking will teach you a lesson. This isn't the case with god.

Not only must he have a viable alternative, he must have an infinitely better one, one that takes even less energy and even less time than spanking. So then there is nothing to justify god spanking you in that case, to use you analogy, because he has a better alternative, in every single respect, and he doesn't use it!

His decision to use hell isn't based on the results -- he must have a better alternative since he is omnipotent. His decision to use hell isn't based on the time required -- he must have an alternative that takes less time, since he is omnipotent. His decision to use hell isn't based on the cost of resources/energy -- he must have an alternative that takes less resources/energy.

The decision would be based solely on his whim. An evil whim in this case. He's not all loving.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I was just assuming when you said "alternative", you meant making people not sin.

Could you expand on what you meant by "alternative"?

Not using hell.

But even if it meant "making people not sin" god must know how to do it without limiting free will, hoever illogical it may seem, since if he didn't he wouldn't be omnipotent.

Very good point.

I'm going to think about this a little before I reply(I'm not going to avoid it or anything).

Ok.

I'm guessing that we're taking hell as a place of "fire and brimstone" and "eternal damnation" and all that jazz.

Assuming that hell is a place of punishment, one could come to the conclusion that going to hell is a choice(going back into the realm of free will). One is presumably given the ability to choose on earth. Since hell would be a result(consequence) of our actions(choices) on earth, I think it's evident that going to hell would be a choice.

Maybe the thing that threw me is that we're all assuming that God is playing a direct role in sending a person to hell, which is false because hell would be a choice.

So I guess I should rescind my punishment question.....

Here's a solution: Give humans free-will, and let their punishment be the vengeance of eachother...oh wait, that's how reality works. I forgot we were talking about religion for a moment.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Here's a solution: Give humans free-will, and let their punishment be the vengeance of eachother...oh wait, that's how reality works. I forgot we were talking about religion for a moment.



It won't work. A person with power/authority can suppress millions without suffering consequences.

quote:Originally posted by Red Raven:

Assuming God is all-loving, why does Hell exist? Does it make any sense whatsoever that the actions taken within 60 years or so result in a form of punishment for trillions of years (e.g. eternity) from an all-loving deity?

How exactly do you rectify this absurd duality? As it stands, the possibilities are:

1. God is all-loving, and there is no Hell.

2. God is not all-loving, and there is a Hell.

If #1 is true, it does not matter what you do in this life - believe or not believe, murder or not murder, it's all the same in the end. If #2 is true, then why would you want to spend eternity with a hateful, vengeful god that demands worship at the threat of annihilation/torture?

If #2 is true, there is no god because by definition, god is wholly good.

God is all loving it's just that he can't let psychos like hanible lector run around in paradise. So he has to make a hell to put the people who deserve to get punished.

Summary: God is all loving but can't have psychos in heaven.

quote:Originally posted by midgetbasketball:

God is all loving it's just that he can't let psychos like hanible lector run around in paradise. So he has to make a hell to put the people who deserve to get punished.

Summary: God is all loving but can't have psychos in heaven.

God is omnipotent, so why would he create psycho's in the first place?

And are we talking about hell in the fire and eternal agony definition or as an absence of god? (nice discussion subject: "what do you think hell is?")

EDIT:

Maybe the thing that threw me is that we're all assuming that God is playing a direct role in sending a person to hell, which is false because hell would be a choice.

So I guess I should rescind my punishment question.....[/QUOTE]

But some people don't have a choice, what if you're mentally disabled and accidentally kill a man? Hell would be a harsh punishment. And even if you did commit a sin, is eternal damnation a fair punishment for a mistake?

I don't believe in god, I used the name of god in vain, I have stolen a few things when I was a kid, I don't keep the sabbath holy, I have disrespected my parents on multiple occasions, I wanted my neighbours donkey.

That's 5 commandments I have broken, but anybody would brush it off as small mistakes or even completely normal. Am I going to hell? Does this make god not love me anymore?

[This message has been edited by Fza (edited 08-08-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Fza:

But some people don't have a choice, what if you're mentally disabled and accidentally kill a man? Hell would be a harsh punishment. And even if you did commit a sin, is eternal damnation a fair punishment for a mistake?

I'm pretty sure accidently killing a man is not a sin. Assuming I'm wrong, if that person were to show remorse(which most people would do considering that most people don't like death) and ask for forgiveness(assuming that person would be a christian), then God would forgive.

quote:God is omnipotent, so why would he create psycho's in the first place?

God doesnt "create" psycopaths.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

God doesnt "create" psycopaths.

God "created" everything. And by foresight (omniscience), he is responsible for psychopaths too.

Off topic: One thought to ponder is that before our life on Earth, we can decide to chose a life path.

Wow... I wish I'd have gotten into this one sooner! Okay here we go:

1. Hell as a place is a distortion of the Bible. There is no hell. This has been misrepresented by Catholicism for a long while and was one of the key beliefs spread through the other sects of Christianity.

Hell is not a place, but rather an event, something that will occur and the result of which will be the end of the world. In the Bible it says that on the Day of Judgement, all the dead will rise from their graves, and that the believers will rise up to meet Jesus in the sky.

The unbelievers (everybody left) will be left there and have to face the torment of hell. Hell will be the fire-and-brimstone the Bible speaks of, but will not last indefinitely, everybody will suffer their punishment, then be burnt from existence (hence, the Second Death), as God doesn't want his heavenly realm tainted with unbelief.

2. God gave us free will to believe or not believe as we see fit, however, God does have an ultimate plan, and whether we believe or don't believe has no effect on this plan. Our free will is no doubt due to Satan's rebellion in heaven and God allowing Satan to prove his ideas are better, rather than just "you disagree with me?" *BAM* "You're gone!" That's not love, or forgiveness.

God is going to punish Satan and his demons as he punishes those who don't believe, then wipe them from existence. Nobody but a select few in the Bible are in heaven, (i.e. Enoch, Elijah) and nobody is in hell (see argument above).

What is hell?

quote:Originally posted by Fza:

What is hell?

If hell exists then i guess it would be a feeling of utter terror and confusion, whereas heaven would be a feeling of uuter love and clarity.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If there is an act that can cause suffering to man kind and another act that not only does not cause suffering, but is infinitely better, and both actions cost god the same amount of time, the same amount of energy, then if he chooses the one that causes suffering he cannot be considered all-loving. Period.

Regarding the Christian God, (because that's what I am most familiar with) I could see that being true if love was the ONLY emotion God felt. But that is not true. Why does God loving us require that man not suffer and that God's best alternative must be used on us?

The argument also seems to depend on how you view love. Does love imply always wishing the best for the thing that is loved? Isn't it possible to love something and wish that it suffered at the same time? I know I've felt that way before about people in my life. Perhaps that just makes me a jerk.

quote:1. Hell as a place is a distortion of the Bible. There is no hell. This has been misrepresented by Catholicism for a long while and was one of the key beliefs spread through the other sects of Christianity.

Prove it. Simply stating your opinion means nothing.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Prove it. Simply stating your opinion means nothing.

Nether did what you just said.

So what if I believe in God but choose not to worship him/her/it?

Also if Hell is an event then we would all be dead being completly passive and then suddenly be awoken for Judgement Day?

its like a parent giving timeout to a kid...kind of. only in this case its hell and for eternity.

In my experience, hell is not some fairy tale dungeon where sinners' souls are tortured for all eternity after their life has ended - on the contrary, the only time and place hell exists is, in fact, in this reality, while we're alive and kicking... It is, as already mentioned, a detachment from god's love...

A lot of people are so attached to their egos, they have completely forgotten who they really are and why they are here ... and thus disconnected themselves from god...

In that light, if you want to point fingers and blame someone for the existence of hell, it shouldn't be the god that is everything - it should be the 6 billion little homo sapiens gods running around on this planet...

God gave us this reality so we could experience it in its glory, what we did was up to us. We chose to turn heaven into hell, not god...

But don't fret, a drop of water in the ocean has no way of knowing what wetness is, a drop of ocean in the desert does, and after it experiences wetness, it evaporates and returns home to the ocean...

quote:Originally posted by BooYeah:

Regarding the Christian God, (because that's what I am most familiar with) I could see that being true if love was the ONLY emotion God felt. But that is not true. Why does God loving us require that man not suffer and that God's best alternative must be used on us?

It requires that because he is all powerful and can do every action that would cause us to suffer, without the suffering. He can do an action that is infinitely better, that uses less energy and less time, and that does not cause us to suffer. If he does not choose this action then he is deliberately, out of his own whim, choosing for us to suffer. That is not love, certainly not from an "ALL-loving" god.

quote:

The argument also seems to depend on how you view love. Does love imply always wishing the best for the thing that is loved? Isn't it possible to love something and wish that it suffered at the same time? I know I've felt that way before about people in my life. Perhaps that just makes me a jerk.

It's not possible to be "ALL-loving" and wish for something to suffer, no. You would not be all loving. That's the point.

quote:Originally posted by Velio:

A lot of people are so attached to their egos, they have completely forgotten who they really are and why they are here ... and thus disconnected themselves from god...

So you're saying that detaching yourself from your ego would be beneficial in reconnecting with God, the ultimate Narcissist of all TIME?

No, but really-

Our concept of the ego is distorted. Our egos weave our world views. It is a particular relationship and set of associations among the self and the self's concept of the world around them. If anything, in my opinion, the ego is completely beneficial for believers in god.

The universal human experience of helplessness and dependency during the long years of infancy and childhood, which all humans are born into, inevitably produces a sense of worthlessness and inferiority for which the personal ego demands compensation! The human's most desperate need is to feel good about himself. The more intense the inferiority complex, the more necessary is extreme absolutism. Religious certainty is the most universal and effective means of boosting the individual ego. To know with absolute certainty that an omnipotent, omniscient Supreme Being approves of and takes a personal interest in one's self is the most powerful ego compliment that can be imagined. There can be no other affirmation as pleasing to the ego as that of God.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/

It is interesting to note that Christianity is the only of the prophetic faiths to believe in an eternal Hell. In Judaism, there is no unform belief in the afterlife, though it is generally accepted that we are tutored as to our sins and are gradual forgiven and let into heaven after we are completely pure. Catholics later spun this into purgatory, which was only for those good catholics anyway, turning the meaning of it on its heels. Islam believes the afterlife is terrible: Sinners are placed a ravine that is incredibly narrow while hot fires scorch them. Their wounds heal, but are continually burned. The plus is that eventually, everyone is relieved of this after a certain amount of time (time is used a replacement noun, as time does not exist in the non-4D world; it would realistically be something more akin to spluece) and are let into heaven. Christianity, however, retains the painful hell while not allowing room for forgiveness. The way I see it, why is this life our determination for eternity? What could we possibly do in 80-90 years, if that, that could possibly tear at our souls for an eternity? An ever-loving god would punish his children. That is one of the key components of true love: Layig the smackdown on loved ones fucking shit up. But you don't fuck them up and then go. You stay and help them and make sure they never fuck shit up again.

I was too lazy to read the other posts...Anyway, I do not follow the Church's view on Hell(or a lot of other things). I am more into the original Christianity before it was more about politics and hindu/buddhist ideas. I think when someone is bad they are put in a bad place. I think they are either put into a bad life after being reincarnated or a bad spiritual place until they are then reincarnated to try and fix it.

Doesn't it all depend of your view on hell? I read some stuff about, I belief gnostisism that believed hell was the absence of god, in that case I'm in hell already.

That would make sense if god is all loving. in wich case it's a choice for a person to let god love him (believe in god).

(not sure if the christian sekt was gnostisism).

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It's not possible to be "ALL-loving" and wish for something to suffer, no. You would not be all loving. That's the point.

Hasn't there ever been a time in your life when someone you loved hurt you and, if you had the choice, you would choose for them to suffer? I think I would find it easier to wish suffering on someone I loved who hurt me than if some random person off the street hurt me. Just because I want them to suffer doesn't mean I don't love them. I want them to suffer BECAUSE I love them and they did something to hurt me. That hurt will cut me deeper than any other because of our special relationship.

Sure, that's a selfish attitude and I'm not trying to defend it, or say that anyone deserves eternal punishment because of their actions on Earth. I am not sure enough in my beliefs to say that. I am just trying to say that I think that it is possible to want something you love to suffer.

*official and authentic Jewish views*

Geez. Seems everyone misses the obvious truth:

Hell is not an eternal place of punishment.

Hell is a reprocessing facility for your soul. As you go through life, you're bound to do stupid stuff that hurts your soul (Sins, either against noahide ones (http://www.noahide.org) if you're a non-Jew or the 613 in Torah). In effect, it gets dirty. Thus it needs to be cleaned before it can be reused (or enter the presence of God).

It's by no means a plesant process, but it never takes longer than a year. For the ultimate fuck ups, there's Abaddon, which is where the unrepairable souls (people that did so damn much that they are completely corrupt) are either destroyed, or kept in punishment until hell is destroyed after moshiach comes, depending on your view.

*official and authentic Jewish views*

Why do we discuss G-d as being the Christian one. What about the Hindu's Supreme Being? The Wiccans Mother and Father? The filthy http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Jewish YHVH? the Greek pantheon? etc. Why does a discussion of God always come back to the CHristian version of their God?

Because you all accept that the only God, were he to exist, would be a Christian one. Which would make you all idiots. THank you. Good night.

quote:Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

Why do we discuss G-d as being the Christian one. What about the Hindu's Supreme Being? The Wiccans Mother and Father? The filthy http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Jewish YHVH? the Greek pantheon? etc. Why does a discussion of God always come back to the CHristian version of their God?

Because you all accept that the only God, were he to exist, would be a Christian one. Which would make you all idiots. THank you. Good night.

That's because Christianity is the only religion whose god is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. When talking about those traits, the mind has a tendancy to refer to the same hypothetical being that the traits refer to. Go read a book, dumbass.

Obviously you dont know what hell is. Hell is not eternal suffering it is a place where people or things whose names werent writeen in the book of life (death,lucifer,etc.) are thrown into the second death were they will be thrown out of existence.

quote:Originally posted by BooYeah:

Hasn't there ever been a time in your life when someone you loved hurt you and, if you had the choice, you would choose for them to suffer? I think I would find it easier to wish suffering on someone I loved who hurt me than if some random person off the street hurt me. Just because I want them to suffer doesn't mean I don't love them. I want them to suffer BECAUSE I love them and they did something to hurt me. That hurt will cut me deeper than any other because of our special relationship.

Sure, that's a selfish attitude and I'm not trying to defend it, or say that anyone deserves eternal punishment because of their actions on Earth. I am not sure enough in my beliefs to say that. I am just trying to say that I think that it is possible to want something you love to suffer.



You're just arguing a very different thing. You may love them, overall, but the moment you want them to suffer, you're not being a loving man/woman. That's the point. The god in this case is ALL-loving, or in other words, "omnibenevolent". An omnibenevolent being isn't "good" or "loving" sometimes. He is "good" and "loving" ALL the times. If he wishes for someone to suffer, then he is not "omnibenevolent"/"all-loving".

If God is all loving and also omnipresent (one of his traditional characteristics) his love would have to be present and felt everywhere. sure you could argue "sin" or whatever took that away, but if he was truly present everywhere, all power, all loving, people should be able to feel it everywhere they went. "there's no moutain high enough..." right??

Heaven is a permanent Orgasm

Hell is, You're out of juice

quote:Originally posted by Fanglekai:

If God is all loving and also omnipresent (one of his traditional characteristics) his love would have to be present and felt everywhere. sure you could argue "sin" or whatever took that away, but if he was truly present everywhere, all power, all loving, people should be able to feel it everywhere they went. "there's no moutain high enough..." right??

They would have to accept God and his love though. God doesn't force his love on anyone.

God is an ass.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You're just arguing a very different thing. You may love them, overall, but the moment you want them to suffer, you're not being a loving man/woman. That's the point. The god in this case is ALL-loving, or in other words, "omnibenevolent". An omnibenevolent being isn't "good" or "loving" sometimes. He is "good" and "loving" ALL the times. If he wishes for someone to suffer, then he is not "omnibenevolent"/"all-loving".

See, when I hear God described as all-loving, I never thought of it as omnibenevolent. I thought of it more in that "overall loving" sense, where we can be loved and punished, as I talked about above. I have not come across passages in the Bible that describe God as disposed to doing ONLY good (i.e. "omnibenevolent").

Now, I am not a biblical scholar and I imagine that you can find quotes from the Bible portraying God as omnibenevolent. I also imagine that many of those are a matter of interpretation. From what I've read, if you consider the Bible to be literal truth there should be no way you can consider the Christian God as an omnibenevolent being. It seems like more than a few of God’s dealing with the Israelites in the Old Testament follows this sequence: “I loved you, you rejected me, now I’m angry and I’m going to make you suffer.” Just because God loves us does not mean he expresses that love by being good to us all the time.



On a somewhat related note, if you consider God omnipotent, then why can’t he be omnibenevolent and punishing at the same time? Sure, that sounds illogical to us, but why must God conform to human logic?

quote:God doesn't force his love on anyone.

Yet it forced our creation?

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Yet it forced our creation?

Yeeeeeeeah?

What's your point?

The reason hell exist or atleast people believe it does because if it didnt there would be no need for a God....there has to be a balance b/c what valdity would God have if there wasnt an exact opposite...for example, whats a superhero without a nemisis

quote:Originally posted by AnAsTaSiO:

The reason hell exist or atleast people believe it does because if it didnt there would be no need for a God....there has to be a balance b/c what valdity would God have if there wasnt an exact opposite...for example, whats a superhero without a nemisis

The problem with this argument, and many others like it, is you're assuming that the Judeo-Christian god is the correct one.

It's almost like people completely forget there was gods way before Christianity ever came along.

Viva La Nordic Gods!

Yes I guess your right.

Regardless of that though, religion has always served as a means to control the people. So like I always say...it all comes down to faith

quote:Originally posted by BooYeah:

See, when I hear God described as all-loving, I never thought of it as omnibenevolent. I thought of it more in that "overall loving" sense, where we can be loved and punished, as I talked about above. I have not come across passages in the Bible that describe God as disposed to doing ONLY good (i.e. "omnibenevolent").

"Overall" does not mean "ALL" does it? ALL-loving implies he must love at ALL times, ALL things. If he does not love ALL things at ALL times, then he's not ALL-loving. He's "sometimes-loving".

In anycase, the point is the majority of Christians feel he's "all-loving" in the sence of omnibenevolence.

quote:

Now, I am not a biblical scholar and I imagine that you can find quotes from the Bible portraying God as omnibenevolent. I also imagine that many of those are a matter of interpretation. From what I've read, if you consider the Bible to be literal truth there should be no way you can consider the Christian God as an omnibenevolent being. It seems like more than a few of God’s dealing with the Israelites in the Old Testament follows this sequence: “I loved you, you rejected me, now I’m angry and I’m going to make you suffer.” Just because God loves us does not mean he expresses that love by being good to us all the time.

Tell this to them, not me, since there are many Christians who claim to believe in the literal word of the bible yet believe he is omni-benevolent.



quote:

On a somewhat related note, if you consider God omnipotent, then why can’t he be omnibenevolent and punishing at the same time? Sure, that sounds illogical to us, but why must God conform to human logic?

Technically, he could, but it would be meaningless if we still suffer! If we still suffer then he being omnipotent and omni-benevolent at the same time is irrelevant; it would only be "true" in name only. The fact would still remain that we suffer and we suffer because the Christian god deliberately wants us to suffer.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-12-2005).]

You see the christians have things set up quite conveniently in their little land of make-believe. Apparently god is all-loving and sends nobody to the eternal flame; people send themselves there by rejecting his love. Think of heaven as a building that a big party is going to be held in that you can walk into any time you want and stick around until the festivities start. But there is an automatic locking mechanism on the door to that building that is set for the exact day, time, and moment when you die. If you choose not to enter the building while you can, you're stuck out on the cold rough street and the building isn't opening again.

ya now what, god is a ass but fuck it, eh?



http://www.thebricktestament.com

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

You see the christians have things set up quite conveniently in their little land of make-believe.

Isn't that funny, that human nature wants to blame someone else? But in the case of Christianity, it boils down to blaming self.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Isn't that funny, that human nature wants to blame someone else? But in the case of Christianity, it boils down to blaming self.



Human nature is to blame others? Boy that god of yours messed up!

quote:Assuming that hell is a place of punishment, one could come to the conclusion that going to hell is a choice(going back into the realm of free will). One is presumably given the ability to choose on earth. Since hell would be a result(consequence) of our actions(choices) on earth, I think it's evident that going to hell would be a choice.

Maybe the thing that threw me is that we're all assuming that God is playing a direct role in sending a person to hell, which is false because hell would be a choice.



So witha songle choice we are damned eternally? Everyone here understands that eternity is not a few hundred yyears ,its not even a long time , it is without begginging and without end.

If i steal a loaf of bread .should the authorities then lock me up for the rest of my life? By the very definition of hell that of eternal suffering we can assume it was there in the beggining (of which there was no beggining), and that only one truly eternal being could've created it ,God. So God made hell from the off, it was'nt made when he expelled satan and the outcast angels. God was the sole cause of hell. We also see that god destroys the life we live currently through acts of revenge. The all worhty smiting ,a flood ,a few plagues. God chose to destroy innocent children.

God can NOT be all loving ,for this would assume he was loving through eternity ,it would also assume infinite forgiveness. What did god restrict our forbears from doing? from eatng the fruit from the tree. [At this point can i ask someone to possibly provide me with a link to the passages describing satans fall?] from what i assume is free will. Im going to argue that god restricted us from our free will because he knew it would hurt in the future. But god still allowed adam and eve to share the fruit when he KNEW exactly whatw as going on. then once they attained free will ,and awareness what did god do? he kicked them from Eden.

God is directly responsible for all troubles known to mankind ,of course i dont use this to relieve burden from my own shoulders or anyone else's, but without god allowing us awareness and free will there would be no pain and suffering. If god truly loved us he would never have made us ,he would never have had this hell from the start, he would have never given us free will and the capacity to feel.

maybe his ultimate lovng move was to give us insight and understanding. But we are now and forever sundered from everything ,we can be close ,we can touch but we can never be one with anything again.

Life is a gift ,i accept that ,but it is a bittersweet one ,god may love us ,but he is still an idiot ,or an experimentor .... or a matyr.



I dont even know where im going with this ,other than ,if we have faults they must be shared by god ,he made us in his iimage ,and his likeness ,we are each our own god ,our bodies our individual temples. There is nothing worthy of worship in this world besides our selves ,and to show our compassion we must show love and carng fro each othr.... damn ive ranted for a while now ,sorry for the length....

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Since when can a loving being not punish those which it loves?

Eternal damnation isn't just punishment, its as bad as you can possibly get. You're a smart guy, but you twist yourself some crazy logic sometimes.

quote:Originally posted by great_sage=heaven:

Eternal damnation isn't just punishment, its as bad as you can possibly get. You're a smart guy, but you twist yourself some crazy logic sometimes.

This depends on what sect you want to start talking about. If you want to talk about Catholicism, then the punishment would be just because Catholicism has different levels of sins and different levels of punishment.

Under fundamental christianity, I'd agree that eternal damnation would not be just in the majority of times.

I think you're forgetting the other side of the equation here:

In the Christianity problem there is a Yin(God) and a Yang (Satan), or have you conveniently forgotten that fact? If God made us in his image then we must have free will as well. We had the will to either follow our creator who loves us, or Satan who says he does, but who really only wants us to turn away from God.

Satan knows he's fucked, so why not try and take as many of God's creations with him as possible? Hell is for Satan, and those who follow him (even inadvertedly). The question stemming from Christianity is simply this: Are you going to follow God, or Satan? We're given the choice, and the consequences of that choice and we simply choose to follow God.

quote:Originally posted by fieldy920:

I think you're forgetting the other side of the equation here:

In the Christianity problem there is a Yin(God) and a Yang (Satan), or have you conveniently forgotten that fact? If God made us in his image then we must have free will as well. We had the will to either follow our creator who loves us, or Satan who says he does, but who really only wants us to turn away from God.

Satan knows he's fucked, so why not try and take as many of God's creations with him as possible? Hell is for Satan, and those who follow him (even inadvertedly). The question stemming from Christianity is simply this: Are you going to follow God, or Satan? We're given the choice, and the consequences of that choice and we simply choose to follow God.



By your logic satan must have an equal power to god. You can't have differant sizes to yin and yang. Which would mean that god and satan were both all powerful ... which means that satan has as much to do with creation as god.

By that logic satan is an entirely legitimate Idol to worship. And surely then hel would be a place of rampant sin ... and that would mean that many people who sin (and let us remember that sin is fun) get to enjoy what they like forever.

If there is satan ,and he is gods true opposing force (not created and given the satanic staus by god (which would prove how much god Doesn't love us) but is equal to god in every way) then satan would surely recruit "the dead" and sinners to launch another assault on heaven... and win ,there are far more sinners than there are "faithful".

Accept it ,hell is just like real life only way cooler and no loss of dealers and hookers .... and you can't die... fuck it ,im going to hell ,sounds like some fun shit ..

Looks like christians uncoverted me again.

quote:If God made us in his image then we must have free will as well.

No, God doesn't have freewill.

His choices are limited in two different ways.

1) God is all loving and therefore must choose the path the is infinitly loving. Even though God is omnipotent and therefore could create an infinite number of paths that are all loving it wouldn't change anything because God still can't choose a path that is less than all loving and therefore has limited choices.

2) God is omniscient and therefore knows what it will choose to do before it does it. If it knows what it will choose before it chooses then it can only make that choice or it is not truely omniscient.

If God created us in his image then we don't have freewill.