-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I can't reconcile the ideas of a Loving God and Eternal Hell
- Thread starter Mama Robotnik
- Start date
- Status
Melchiah said:
Choice is choice regardless of the outcome. To say it isn't choice despite the fact you have it is a semantic game. There is no warranty or guarantee in the universe that every choice you do must have a positive or negative upside usually it's a combination of both in varying degrees.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Quite true.santouras said:
the_concierge
Member
phisheep said:
If you had the power to ensure you children could be created and grow up perfectly, with perfect morals, perfect health, perfect everything, how exactly is that 'spoiling' them? Did god create us as imperfect to save us from being spoiled? It doesn't make sense.
That wouldn't be spoiling, that would be impossible unless there is no choice in the matter.the_concierge said:
If they have free will, even God does not have the ability to guarentee that the kids shape the morals which is largely what people in the thread are saying they should be allowed to do. If that were allowed, it still makes you a bad parent.
The best way to raise someone is to tell them the right course, correct them if they're wrong, compliment them when they're right, distance yourself when they rebel against you, & be there for them when they see the error of their ways assuming they haven't died or landed in prison or something.
Eceryone, God included, has the power to do that. The power of mind control may be easy for him to, but it doesn't get to the heart of the matter- people voluntarily worshipping him.
Melchiah
Member
JBaird said:
The thing is, in essence you're forced to choose god, as the other choice results with everlasting torment.
Had Galileo truly the freedom of choice when he was threatened with the inquisition, unless he renounced his theory which placed the sun at the centre of the universe? He chose according to his principles, and didn't succumb to the church, but it would be asinine to claim he had the freedom of choice.
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
Mama Robotnik said:
I'm an agnostic now, but I'll give you the answers I remembered from when I was a card carrying fundamental baptist.
1) Because that same loving God has to be just and punish sin, and that punishment has a real heavy fine (death and separation from God). There's no real benefit to it, he does it because sin is the worst thing people can do. That's why he sent Jesus, to take that punishment for us. So we either except Jesus' sacrifice, or pay the debt on our own.
2) Yes it includes people who've never heard. In Romans 2:11-15 says that sinners have the law of God written in their hearts and their conscience reaffirming what they instinctively know, to the point where they are without excuse essentially and can't claim ignorance. Children up until the age of accountability are exempt because they're not able to determine right from wrong. It's not an act of sadism because there have been a payment already made (Jesus sacrifice) as showed in Isaiah 53:5
3) They don't like it obviously. But the Bible says:
So we know what's going to happen, but again, eternal life is granted through Jesus and they have a choice to make. And as Christians we have a responsibility to warn our loved ones of those wages. I can't remember the exact verse but it says we'll be held accountable for not sharing the gospel and their blood will be on our hands come judgement day.
4) You don't instantly forget until after the Rapture, tribulation, and judgement and sinners are cast into the lake of fire. Then God will wash all tears and sorrow.
It is inferred from Luke 16 though that until that day, we will know where are loved ones are, and but we won't be able to do anything about it.
bdizzle said:
Great explanations.
However, my thought has been that Romans 2:11-15 is helping Christians to see why they need to be good because even sinners know what is good basically. The last sentence basically states that knowledge is needed which is why it's so important for ones to be preached to. In other words, they aren't guilty of Christian disobedience if they don't know Christianity.
Earlier in the chapter 2 I think it mentions that we are not to judge because the judgement belongs to God- meaning we don't know what God's going to do for the truly ignorant although we can deduce what will happen to the willfuly ignorant or flat out reject what they're taught.
It's like when laws are made that coincide with laws in the Bible (Like murder). However, Laws written specifically for a particular group, like circumcision to the Jews, was not required of Gentiles or Christians in general. They could not be judge as sinners based on circumcision (or even dietary laws since the shellfish/pork thing pops up from time to time). It's funny seeing how mean Paul gets trying to get this though Jewish Christians, head throughout his books.
Generally speaking from previous accounts, children suffer the same fate as the parent (not factoring in torment since i don't believe it). So if the parents die, because of their failure the kid dies too (Assuming no one is there to take them under their wing).
bdizzle said:
I'm not sure you ever literally forget, I just think the joys you experience will eventually overcome the grief, hopefully like it does in real life. After all, the thought of never having to die and never seeing the ones you love who chose correctly never dying is a pretty big benefit.
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
JGS said:
the way it was explained was you can't realistically enjoy eternal life and heaven with the knowledge of knowing where your loved ones are, which made sense because no amount of joy can overcome the thought of your mom/dad/wife/etc being tortured for ever and ever......and ever. so after standing before the judgement seat and receiving our rewards for service on earth, their memories will be erased since it would too much to bear.
but like i said, Im agnostic now, so i don't really try to make sense of everything i read and taught myself back in the day. it's just a slippery slope talking about religion to people :lol its serious business!
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
I'm curious how people that believe in hell reconcile the resurrection that is talked about from the old testament all the way through Jesus.
If there really is a immediate destination for people either Heaven or Hell what is the point of the resurrection?
When Lazarus died being a faithful man we can assume based on your ideologys he would be in Heaven. Why would Jesus pull him from Heaven back to live another 20 years as a imperfect person on the earth.
Why wouldn't Lazarus have talked about how splendid Heaven was in his death.
Why would Job want to go to hell until god remembered him? Why would he ever trade sickness and torment on earth for everlasting torment? He talks about hell as a release.
How do you reconcile Jesus saying he was in Hell when he died?
I am done with the topic but you guys arguing these little details need to stop and look at the big picture here.
Hell does not work.
If there really is a immediate destination for people either Heaven or Hell what is the point of the resurrection?
When Lazarus died being a faithful man we can assume based on your ideologys he would be in Heaven. Why would Jesus pull him from Heaven back to live another 20 years as a imperfect person on the earth.
Why wouldn't Lazarus have talked about how splendid Heaven was in his death.
Why would Job want to go to hell until god remembered him? Why would he ever trade sickness and torment on earth for everlasting torment? He talks about hell as a release.
How do you reconcile Jesus saying he was in Hell when he died?
I am done with the topic but you guys arguing these little details need to stop and look at the big picture here.
Hell does not work.
Agreed.BruceLeeRoy said:
The Bible, based on both old and new, discuss three aspects of the resurrection (Maybe more I'm not sure):
1. A resurrection involving heaven
2. A resurrection involving earth
3. a resurrection of judgement
Both of the first two involve eternal life and I'm going to leave alone what all that means.
The 3rd one of judgement may not be literal, but even if it is, the result is still death, not torment.
As mentioned by others Hell, Hades, & Sheol are indeed places dead people (aka corpses) go, they just don't involve an afterlife which is why Jesus was there for 3 days and then resurrected.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
BruceLeeRoy said:
You seem to have your concepts completely screwed up.
Hell as the concept you view it as did not exist the way you think of it like it is showcased in Revelations or fiction.
First and foremost he people of the Hebrew faith were not chiefly concerned with the afterlife until after the destruction of their kingdom. The kingdom was everything to them and after it crumbled they started thinking about their end personally.
Because of poor translators the term Hell pops up in the place of the words they actually meant. These terms were "Sheol" which means The Ground, "Gehenna" which is the Valley of Hinnom a place where trash and dead babies were thrown, Gehinnom which is the same place as "Gehenna", and Hades.
This brings us to the main point of this discussion. Lazarus would not have been in "Hell" but in "Sheol" literally the ground. His body was in the ground dead and he did not have an "afterlife". According to the Bible Jesus was to be the last sacrifice, God's own son, to forgive man of his sins. The belief then would hold that people did not get resurrected and go to heaven until after Jesus sacrificed himself. The whole story of Jesus being resurrected is him personally defeating death himself. Since people being saved by the sacrifice of Jesus and going to heaven was not possible until after he died, Lazarus was reserrected on Earth and wouldn't have any recollection of a "Fire and Brimstone" Hell.
Android18a
Member
RedShift said:
Although he healed when he was here, thats not why he was here. He came to preach, set an example & pay the ransom for people to follow which would, if followed properly, lead to a future in which death and illness would not be an issue.
He was offering eternal life, essentially. There was no need for him to show people how to make penicillin.
If most of the people out there ignored him offering eternal life, how many would have accepted his offer of a mere treatment for colds and headaches?
Dude Abides
Banned
Android18a said:
Probably a lot, since they would see with their own eyes that penicillin wasn't bullshit.
santouras said:
No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
Shanadeus said:
You get on stopping all diseases, harmful oxides, the creation and ethical implications of Cloning, the prevention of each of these technologies from being destroyed or lost (You just died and the data bank your dna was held in for your clone replacement was just bombed), and being able to either stop the sun from blowing up or interplanetary travel outside our solar system and maybe we can start talking.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
"Healthy" is an unqualified term here. Simple medical advancements may be the difference between an easy cure and horrible and debilitating affects for the rest of one's life. Many genetic diseases now are incredibly manageable. It's not just a matter of dying a few years later.JGS said:
What normal person wouldn't want to take medicine that will magically cure? The whole point here isn't whether these actions will result in people being saved. The point is whether god should do something simple that man developed on its own. Again, if man can obviate a measure of evil in the world by reducing the affect of diseases, then why isn't there an obligation of god to help? Why should it be contingent on man to correct these problems? Because god can't be said to be acting in the world at all if his actions are negligable. If god had no interest in curing, then why allow man to develop technology to begin with? The quality and length of my life should not be contingent on something random like the time and place of birth.
And I object to the idea that medicine won't ever cure anybody from death. Death is just the breakdown of cellular machinery. There are plenty of organisms that have lived for thousands of years without dying. "Curing death" won't stop people from dying, obviously, but it could keep cells from breaking down. The entire idea of consciousness is going to change dramatically in the next century or two. I can hardly see how any spiritual concepts will be able to define what is to come.
That's based on a complete misreading of what people are actually saying. People mock religion because they treat it flippantly, not because they petulantly take it seriously. Anyway, that doesn't really answer the point though.
What's so hard about making the argument yourself? BruceLeeRoy makes a good argument here, but there are several points to object to. For instance, in the discussion of Matthew 25:46, kolasin may mean pruning, but the reason it is translated as punishment is because it primarily means punishment or correction (I'm sure that there's a correlation between the two concepts, and it would be more interesting to find out what that correlation is).
It's difficult to dismiss some of the parables just because they might be figurative. There is a difference between being figurative and just making stuff up. Incorporating the idea of punishment in hell into a parable must mean that there is something there. And while Gehenna may have been a firey dump, destruction or death don't have to mean eternal death. Those concepts still make sense with the idea of eternal punishment.
But anyway, the point isn't to argue about what is true. The point is that the entire religion can't even decide on something as basic as the nature of hell, and supposedly godly men have preached something that, if not true, is absolutely reprehensible. That casts aspersions upon the whole religion to me.
Man, god and good and evil. hmm.
Thought experiment:
Person 1 is dying on the operation table.
So if Religion A says that human life is precious and asks that it be saved at all cost.
And Religion B says that No, God intended this to happen, we will die if that is his wish.
And in this universe, Person 1 belongs to Religion B. Dies.
What does this say to you?
Thought experiment:
Person 1 is dying on the operation table.
So if Religion A says that human life is precious and asks that it be saved at all cost.
And Religion B says that No, God intended this to happen, we will die if that is his wish.
And in this universe, Person 1 belongs to Religion B. Dies.
What does this say to you?
Mgoblue201 said:
True
Mgoblue201 said:
The medicine is not the point. How can you force someone to be/get better is the point. There are plenty of people that don't take medicine that would have saved them from all kinds of illnesses. In the US, people are dying early from diabetes, high blood pressure, lung cancer, etc... The whacky thing is they don't even need to take medicine to control these things, just cut down on the excess. However, they do not listen. Mankind causes a good chunk of his own illnesses, yet God is supposed to do something about it when ones are unwilling to help themselves? I don't think so.
So again, in the US at least, it is very difficult for parents to makes their grown kids do things even if there are obvious benefits. The choice lies with the grown kid.
I agree with this in principle. I don't see any reason why people can't live forever. We're looking at two sides of the same coin. I personally think humans were built for longer lives considering how little of our brain is used before it starts deteriorating. However, I don't believe humans have the ability to unlock that potential. We'll both be dead before I'm proven wrong.Mgoblue201 said:
Mgoblue201 said:
This is a "do I say, not as I do" argument & I honestly don't understand the nitpicking on this. I know perfectly well that, no matter how you slice it, the non-religious are being disrespectful of the religious whether some want to compare it to comic book characters or whatever. It's silly to then question why a religious person would poke fun at the [lame] mocking. I keep doing it because it works. You can word it any kind of way you want but that is what it boils down to. If you want me to stop, then stop being flippant about religion and talk seriously about it (Not directed at you personally).
I'm not debating so I don't have to provide proofs.Mgoblue201 said:
However, if you are arguing to believe in Hellfire then maybe a debate can be started. But you are arguing why is an evil act from a benevolent God when I don't believe in eternal torment. It's like I have to prove that point which is odd since we essentially would agree about torment. That is a waste of time. If you are convinced based on reading whatever that eternal torment and God ago together like peas and carrots, then start that debate with someone who cares to explain it. I have to jump through too many hoops for something that has been answered already. But since you brough it up...:lol
It's true that parable in and of themselves are not to be dismissed. After all, there are plenty of them that support true Bible teachings. You may have missed what I said before, but the bottom line is that there is no actual doctrine that supports torture. The teachings have always associated sin with death, fire with destruction, & hell with the common grave. This is not interpretation, it's based on simple language translations that cover a few languages at a time when the Afterlife and eternal torment were taught by some religions. In other words, there owuld have been words for torture and torment if that's what the Scriptures meant.
To clarify, I find a lot of value in parables. There's not a lot of them concerning torment. I can think of two. Jesus parable about Lazarus was a very important one, but it had to do with the torment religious leaders received and the fact that even after his resurrection, they weren't going to listen to Jesus' teachings despite the fact that the lowliest of people had a chance to be in th top position. Context is a great thing and it was clear in the whole chapter Jesus was chastising the religious leaders of the day.
An eternal torment doctrine whould have to have nearly an equal footing as the reward in order for people to grasp that they are going to get a much worse deal than the good are. Yet most are hanging their hat on that parable and on the thought that just because the fire is eternal, somehow that translates to the suffering being eternal which I never understood.
This has been repeatedly stated in the thread by people other than me and it is largely ignored since it can't be used prop up the idea that God is sadistic imo. If you want a hardcore discussion about torment, then you'll have to russle up some Catholics or Evangelicals. I think one of them condemned me to Hell in here a few days ago!:lol
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Most diseases have absolutely nothing to do with excess. Most of them could be cured with simple hygiene which people did not have access to until a century or two ago. Something like type 1 diabetes largely has to do with genetic predisposition. "Curing" genetic diseases won't happen for many decades. These kinds of diseases are not choices. Then, you have to figure that the choices we do make might be influenced by bad science. The anti-fat craze, for instance, might be based on bad science. There was a huge debate for decades about the safety of cigarettes. It's difficult to obviate excess when you don't know what's causing the problem.
And anyway, that's a complete strawman. There is absolutely no evidence that god ever helps anybody who help themselves. We are all subject to the same genetic lottery or the same cellular malfunctions or the same bacterial diseases. There is nothing to correct those imbalances.
You still haven't addressed the fact that many disease affect who we will become or what choices we will make.
Lastly, there are plenty of doctrines that are not clearly expressed in the Bible (it's just not a very well organized book). The idea of the rapture comes from a single verse. The trinity is never clearly expressed, and the only clear evidence for it is a verse that scholars agree was added later. For centuries the humanity of Christ was debated. It's wrong to think that eternal hell wasn't actually ingrained in church teachings though. It's something that goes back to the first century. Justin Martyr said this: "And we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years." Both Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards, I believe, preached eternal hell. So again, there are a lot of misguided people here. It's better to blame the source, which is not clear on this at all, and the fact that there is no god to correct them, if people really claim to be in communication with him.
And to say that the Bible would have said torment if it meant it is exactly what I'm trying to argue: that the word in the context of Matthew 25:46 might very well mean punishment.
And anyway, that's a complete strawman. There is absolutely no evidence that god ever helps anybody who help themselves. We are all subject to the same genetic lottery or the same cellular malfunctions or the same bacterial diseases. There is nothing to correct those imbalances.
You still haven't addressed the fact that many disease affect who we will become or what choices we will make.
Lastly, there are plenty of doctrines that are not clearly expressed in the Bible (it's just not a very well organized book). The idea of the rapture comes from a single verse. The trinity is never clearly expressed, and the only clear evidence for it is a verse that scholars agree was added later. For centuries the humanity of Christ was debated. It's wrong to think that eternal hell wasn't actually ingrained in church teachings though. It's something that goes back to the first century. Justin Martyr said this: "And we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years." Both Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards, I believe, preached eternal hell. So again, there are a lot of misguided people here. It's better to blame the source, which is not clear on this at all, and the fact that there is no god to correct them, if people really claim to be in communication with him.
And to say that the Bible would have said torment if it meant it is exactly what I'm trying to argue: that the word in the context of Matthew 25:46 might very well mean punishment.
- Status