NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, it's another religion thread. I don't recall ever creating one and everyone needs to do one once, if only to remember why once is enough, right?

So, anyway, this is something that has been bothering me for some time. Why, exactly, are Christians or members of any other religion who say those who don't believe will go to hell are tolerated? I'm talking about the literal fire-and-brimstone hell, or at least a hell of eternal pain, not, say, the absence of God. For example, if someone said "all non-Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. will be shot/gassed/tortured/etc." they would be shunned, and rightly so. However, when "all non-Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. will go to hell." (i.e. will be tortured for all eternity) is said, it is mostly accepted by society as a 'mainstream', shall we say, belief. Why is this the case?

Adding to this is that hell is supposed to be, you know, worse than death. Also, it's for eternity, and I'm not sure those who advocate a literal hell grasp the concept of eternity. It's a pretty damn long time, you know. If we assume that suffering with regards to a particular punishment is proportional to both time and the degree of punishment doled out, then it follows that eternity of any punishment causes more suffering than any finite time of any punishment. Thus, in the end, having a brick dropped on your foot for eternity would be a worse punishment than being crucified. Infinitely worse, for that matter. (This would also imply that people who deserved to be punished are not deserving of hell; I'm not sure I'd give Hitler (unoriginal example, I know), eternal punishment. A trillion years? Maybe. Eternity? Just a bit over the top)

In closing, I don't see why advocating infinite punishment for members of a particular belief system could ever be construed as moral. Saying 'I'm tolerant of all religions or lack thereof' does no good when you add 'but they'll be tortured for all eternity anyway.' Saying that 'they have a choice not to go to hell' also does no good; conversion by the sword is not particularly moral either. Am I missing something here?

With regards to the poll, a 'literal hell' is something designed to cause eternal physical pain and possibly other forms, whilst 'other forms' are, say, the absence of God, which I've heard some say they believe in.

Okay, done, please don't kill me.

Well, since there is no hell, I figure they can say whatever they want about me. If they said that I would go to HOBOKEN, I might worry.

But they can play with any kind of fairytale kingdom and dragons caves after death that they like, as far as I am concerned. I really only debate the whole "you are condemned you sinner!" thing as an intellectual exercise.

It is what they believe, not necessarily what they want.
If one believes in the Bible, God, and that non-believers go to Hell for eternal punishment...well, that is the belief. The individual may or may not personally think that it is just and right punishment, but since it is one of the religions doctrines, they follow the assumption.

Also, as they have no control over it, it is hardly a bad thing. If someone went around saying everyone who wears socks above the ankle should be shot, it could cause problems. If someone says that everyone who doesn't wear socks over their shoes will go to Hel, it is hardly an issue since as far as I know, humans have no control over 'Hel'.

It is what they believe, not necessarily what they want.
If one believes in the Bible, God, and that non-believers go to Hell for eternal punishment...well, that is the belief. The individual may or may not personally think that it is just and right punishment, but since it is one of the religions doctrines, they follow the assumption.

Also, as they have no control over it, it is hardly a bad thing. If someone went around saying everyone who wears socks above the ankle should be shot, it could cause problems. If someone says that everyone who doesn't wear socks over their shoes will go to Hel, it is hardly an issue since as far as I know, humans have no control over 'Hel'.

I thought someone might say that. One of the doctrines, though, is that God or Deity X is all good, right and just, which is probably a lot more accepted than the existence of hell. It follows that if God is all good, right and just, the existence of hell and sending people to hell is right and just, or he wouldn't do it. God is ultimately who decides who goes to hell and who doesn't, after all.

Just because it doesn't cause problems doesn't mean it's not bad, surely. I mean, if someone went around saying 'I support genocide in Darfur', they have very little control over that unless they decide to go to Darfur and start killing people. Assuming that they don't, it's still wrong, no?

I thought someone might say that. One of the doctrines, though, is that God or Deity X is all good, right and just, which is probably a lot more accepted than the existence of hell. It follows that if God is all good, right and just, the existence of hell and sending people to hell is right and just, or he wouldn't do it. God is ultimately who decides who goes to hell and who doesn't, after all.

Just because it doesn't cause problems doesn't mean it's not bad, surely. I mean, if someone went around saying 'I support genocide in Darfur', they have very little control over that unless they decide to go to Darfur and start killing people. Assuming that they don't, it's still wrong, no?

Well, the people who believe that God is good, right, and just, probably either don't believe he will send all non-believers to Hell over such a small grievance, or believe that it is right, just, and good to do so. The real-estate in Heaven is getting pricey, so I hear.

If someone supports genocide, they probably aren't a very nice individual, so I guess it could be bad. Same as if they 'support' burning infidels in Hel.
However, no one on this Earth(as far as I know) has any say, or any influence whatsoever, on whether people go to this so-called Hell or not. If I walked up to you and said "You are going to Hell"...well, its an empty threat. If I walked up to you and said "I am going to kill your family"...not so harmless.

"Advocate"... I don't advocate hell in fact I wish it did not exist and that non believers would just blip into nothingness. But unfortunately there is hell and it is not a place you want to be.

"Advocate"... I don't advocate hell in fact I wish it did not exist and that non believers would just blip into nothingness. But unfortunately there is hell and it is not a place you want to be.

When you grow up, you find out that Santa Claus won't REALLY put coal in your stocking.

When you grow up, you find out that Santa Claus won't REALLY put coal in your stocking.

That's just because he's gone green.
Or gone back to green rather..
At any rate he now drops photovoltaic cell samples.

Why is this the case?

Because religious views get special protection so as to avoid offending people.

I think that's crap. People who say that "unbelievers" are going to burn for eternity ought to be labeled the disgusting bigots they are.

Many years ago, I came across a quotation I really liked. I'm afraid I can't remember who said it, or cite it perfectly, but here's a decent approximation:

"I believe in the Bible, so I am sure that Hell exists. I believe in God's mercy, so I am sure that it is empty."

Back when I considered myself a Christian, that pretty well matched my beliefs. At this point, I'd simply change the first sentence to, "There may be a Hell, but..."

Many years ago, I came across a quotation I really liked. I'm afraid I can't remember who said it, or cite it perfectly, but here's a decent approximation:

"I believe in the Bible, so I am sure that Hell exists. I believe in God's mercy, so I am sure that it is empty."

Back when I considered myself a Christian, that pretty well matched my beliefs. At this point, I'd simply change the first sentence to, "There may be a Hell, but..."

So....your an athiest? Or one of those "don't care just living my life" people?

Well, the people who believe that God is good, right, and just, probably either don't believe he will send all non-believers to Hell over such a small grievance, or believe that it is right, just, and good to do so. The real-estate in Heaven is getting pricey, so I hear.


I was under the impression that the rightness of God was as much a part of Christianity, at least, as the fact that Jesus rose from the dead...

If someone supports genocide, they probably aren't a very nice individual, so I guess it could be bad. Same as if they 'support' burning infidels in Hel.
However, no one on this Earth(as far as I know) has any say, or any influence whatsoever, on whether people go to this so-called Hell or not. If I walked up to you and said "You are going to Hell"...well, its an empty threat. If I walked up to you and said "I am going to kill your family"...not so harmless.

True. But that still doesn't make the views expressed any less unpleasant.

I was under the impression that the rightness of God was as much a part of Christianity, at least, as the fact that Jesus rose from the dead...

Rightness. I guess Christians believe God is 'right'. It doesn't mean all Christians believe he is 'good'.

True. But that still doesn't make the views expressed any less unpleasant.
Well, we can't have political correctness get in the way of unpleasantness, now can we? :p

People can condemn me all they want, for any reason, so long as they never do something about whatever it is they feel I am doing wrong. Everyone has a right to their opinion and who am I to decide whose opinion is right?

Assuming hell is real there are a few problems:

The first being the idea that I will take being tortured for all eternity lying down. I mean come on I have all eternity to try to escape, or at the very least improve hell. Add some air conditioners, TVs, Computers. You know stuff to entertain.

Now I'm sure someone is going to come along and say you won't remember who you are etc, etc. And there is only one problem with this, If I don't know who I am then how can I be tortured?

Also if not believing is justification for going to hell. Then the bible is clearly wrong being it would mean God is spiteful and therefore could not be loving and merciful.

I could also mention that numerous religions claim not believing sends you to hell and sense these religions have very different beliefs, I must leave the question "what makes you so sure yours happens to be right?"

On the bright side if I'm in hell at least I will be in good company.

So....your an athiest? Or one of those "don't care just living my life" people?

Nope, neither of those. I believe in God. I don't believe in any one organized religion.

Assuming hell is real there are a few problems:

The first being the idea that I will take being tortured for all eternity lying down. I mean come on I have all eternity to try to escape, or at the very least improve hell. Add some air conditioners, TVs, Computers. You know stuff to entertain.

Now I'm sure someone is going to come along and say you won't remember who you are etc, etc. And there is only one problem with this, If I don't know who I am then how can I be tortured?

Also if not believing is justification for going to hell. Then the bible is clearly wrong being it would mean God is spiteful and therefore could not be loving and merciful.

I could also mention that numerous religions claim not believing sends you to hell and sense these religions have very different beliefs, I must leave the question "what makes you so sure yours happens to be right?"

On the bright side if I'm in hell at least I will be in good company.

How sad.

Not really ... he seems to have a rather positive attitude about the whole thing

One man's heaven is another man's hell, and vice versa.

How sad.

Not really ... he seems to have a rather positive attitude about the whole thing

There are times when I not only believe in Hell, but I believe we are in it! Who needs demons with pitchforks when we have greedy executives and stupid people.

I'm going to fucking bop the first person who uses Sartre's "Hell is other people" out of context!

But its out-of-context meaning is right enough. How ironic that it's totally contrary and yet so like Emmanuel Levinas' Other. But I'm high so I don't know if any of this makes sense anyway.

How So?

I won't take eternal torture lying down. What is truly sad is that someone would take such torture lying down. And the only way I would ever be sedated is if my soul or being or essence was destroyed. At which point I would see to be me and torture would be pointless.

And if non belief is enough to purchase a ticket to hell then I am in good company. Considering I know plenty of atheist who are good people that willingly help others purely because they want to, rather than out of some arcane fear.

What if you're a masochist?

How sad.

How So?

I won't take eternal torture lying down. What is truly sad is that someone would take such torture lying down. And the only way I would ever be sedated is if my soul or being or essence was destroyed. At which point I would see to be me and torture would be pointless.

And if non belief is enough to purchase a ticket to hell then I am in good company. Considering I know plenty of atheist who are good people that willingly help others purely because they want to, rather than out of some arcane fear.

I personally feel that the vast majority of people will be reborn. If you pick a hundred NSGers at random, it's safe to assume that 95 (and probably 98 or 99) will be reborn. As for the rest, most will go to heaven and a few (osama, hitler, etc.) go to hell.

No, I'm not about to name names on who's going where. I dobutn anyone I've talked to here will be going to hell, although several people won't be going to heaven either (and will therefore be reborn after death). If I die, I'll most likely be reborn as well -- I do good deeds (so my next life will probably be as pleasant as my current one), but I'm no Gandhi.

What if you're a masochist?

Well I suppose in that case the worst possible torture would be not being tortured, so you would have to go to heaven to serve out your eternal damnation.

I'm going to fucking bop the first person who uses Sartre's "Hell is other people" out of context!

But its out-of-context meaning is right enough. How ironic that it's totally contrary and yet so like Emmanuel Levinas' Other. But I'm high so I don't know if any of this makes sense anyway.

Damn I was about to use it...:D

Anyway...this whole thing is usually unimportant in the christian church. I, as a christian, have been always taught that most of the christian dogmas have been passed as metaphors by the apostles, teaching the followers how to live their lives. Such is the case as with Hell. To live in hell is (supposedly) to live in sin, as the christian guilt itself would bring hell upon the believer, or maybe some sins can end up making the sinner or his loved ones suffer. Medieval church is to blame, I think, for the making some aspects of christianism really literal. Some people nowadays believe and don't understand why they still believe, making their faith blind. Even weirder is the amount of atheists/agnostics/dontcarers discussing christian issues all the time. I've never been lectured for non-believing, but I don't know about you guys, so..

hell in fact I wish it did not exist and that non believers would just blip into nothingness.Well, done, and quite possibly done as well! Thanx!
But unfortunately there is hell and it is not a place you want to be.How the "hell" would you know about either anyway? Perhaps your hell is someone else's "heaven". SO long as it's in your imagination, it's real enough. Quit trying to draw other people into your sick delusion.
Unless, of course, you know they'd be happy there, that way you can truly show your compassion.

I'm going to fucking bop the first person who uses Sartre's "Hell is other people" out of context!

Hell Is Other Robots!
*Futurama episode*

People who say that "unbelievers" are going to burn for eternity ought to be labeled the disgusting bigots they are.
:fluffle:
Amen to that. *bows*

Before talking about Hell, I would like to ask, who wants to end up in heaven anyway? Being in heaven sound like being stuck in Sunday church for eternally. Sounds like eternal torture to me either way.

Remember, Satan is the root for lust and temptation, while God is the root of order and nothingness. Going to heaven means you are free from any form of fun/pleasure you every experience on earth. All you become is some floating soul that does absolutely nothing everyday because you already serve your purpose here on earth. No wonder why Satan and a bunch of other other angels decided to rebel against God.

No wonder why Satan and a bunch of other other angels decided to rebel against God.

That's probably just that passive-agressive nature thing working itself out again with God.
It makes God feel humiliated to see humans act in a way that so closely resembles a situation he refuses to fix on his own part, and worse if we start growing up and eschew the emotional infancy he keeps wanting to impart upon everyone else as an acceptable norm or "justice".

In my discussions, most of the atheists I have meet and talked to usually aren't offended by the prospect of hell. They aren't offended because they don't believe it exists. If I didn't believe in hell and was an atheist I would personally laugh it off if Christians told me I would.

Most Christian group don't focus on Hell anyway, they focus on the love of God/Jesus blah blah. This has led to some of the more liberal groups of Christians to believe that nobody would go to hell. There is some scripture to support that, but that's a pretty "radical" belief.

Just my 2 cents.

In response to the above poster, actually Heaven gives you a state of pleasure and bless so you no longer need "earthly" things. I think Lucifer rebelled because he wanted power or something of the sort.

Hmm. I'm catholic and I don't believe in hell at all. I'm not too sure why.. Probably cause I've always pictured God as being pretty big on forgiveness and all that.. There shouldn't need to be a 'hell'.

Even if I had faith I doubt it would include hell.

It's concievable that those who reach heaven would have somone who they deeply cared about who got cast down. Who the hel could enjoy paradise knowing there loved ones are suffering eternally?

Who the hel could enjoy paradise knowing there loved ones are suffering eternally?

Supposedly God erases all sorrow and pain. Its like a perfect state of bliss.

Supposedly God erases all sorrow and pain. Its like a perfect state of bliss.

It's probably just me but I consider stealing my emotions to be theft. I mean, I wouldn't be me anymore. More importantly, I wouldn't be free to feel they way I want to feel.

We have a couple of these fire-and-bromstone types hanging around the trainstation every day. For some reason i look like someone who needs saving, so i get aproached by them at least 2-3 times a week. Usually i just ignore them, but sometimes i like to chastize them for not properly worshipping Zeus, and then expressing my sorrow for them because they will be stuck on the wrong side of the river styx for all eternity, seeing as how they won't be able to pay Charon his ritual 2 coins. The looks this rant gives me make wasting my time on them totally worthwhile. :D

In response to the above poster, actually Heaven gives you a state of pleasure and bless so you no longer need "earthly" things. I think Lucifer rebelled because he wanted power or something of the sort.

But consider that Lucifer is the most perfect being God ever created, if what God consider to be eternal pleasure and bliss isn't enough to make him stay, it seems far fetch to expect human beings to be able to tolerate it.

It becomes more difficult to argue that Lucifer is an unique case when so many other angels decided to join him in his course. Clearly this means that Heaven isn't for everyone.

Assuming the biblical God is true, if you die and see God, and he judge that you are not suitable for heaven, just believe him. He's probably right. If your soul is wicked like that of Lucifer or his followers heaven might very well be eternal suffer for you rather than eternal bliss. Consider God is all that is good and holy this is the only way I can make sense of why God will send anyone to hell.

In my discussions, most of the atheists I have meet and talked to usually aren't offended by the prospect of hell. They aren't offended because they don't believe it exists. If I didn't believe in hell and was an atheist I would personally laugh it off if Christians told me I would.

Most Christian group don't focus on Hell anyway, they focus on the love of God/Jesus blah blah. This has led to some of the more liberal groups of Christians to believe that nobody would go to hell. There is some scripture to support that, but that's a pretty "radical" belief.

Just my 2 cents.

In response to the above poster, actually Heaven gives you a state of pleasure and bless so you no longer need "earthly" things. I think Lucifer rebelled because he wanted power or something of the sort.

Have you read Paradise Lost by Milton?

Oh, there's a Hell. There's also a Heck. It's not as severe as Hell.

Heck is filled with insurance salesmen, Jehovah's Witnesses, Telemarketers and Mormons and they all have quotas to meet. :eek:

Hell, as a place of fire, punishment and eternal, is a doctrine and as such not in the bible. Heaven as a place where all the 'good' people go is also a figment of our imagination. No where in the bible are there descriptions of these places. Jesus mentions 'hades' a few times but the Greek hades was vastly different from what the medieval times thought of as heaven and hell. If christians still believe in these medieval and catholic concepts, then they are following christianity blindly and not applying rationale or logic. It made sense in times when the population was controlled by religion to have these concepts at the forefront of religion, also at a time where justice was not given to your ordinary citizen, at least they would have justice in the afterlife. Now that we are controlled differently and we are secular, it's just leftover from another era.

The church is man-made as is the bible, though of course there may have been divine inspiration. In so many ways, living in these science and facts worship times, faith has come to be defined as the ability to believe literally in the bible and doctrines such as the holy trinity, the second coming, heaven and hell, none of them really found in the bible but originated by the Thomas of Aquinas, St Augstine, etc. therefore church-made. Before the Enlightenment and the advance of reason and science, when the majority of people believed in god anyway, faith wasn't about what you believed, it was about your relationship to god. This is where I like to focus my christianity on, my relationship to god. I do agree that is any religious person is saying, today, that non-believers are going to hell, they should be taken to an anger-management class as clearly they are transferring their own anger onto someone else and in a passive-aggressive way.

Plus this whole idea that somehow people sin because we are fallen is so outdated. People commit atrocious acts, such as your example of Hitler, because they are incomplete or have been damaged, not because they are fallen and need god. What child comes into this world to kill, harm, do wrong? But those who have been damaged seem to cause damage. I don't see that as a god problem, I see that as horrific parenting.

Hell is 24 hours of watching The Partridge Family, while listening to The Spice Girls, and drinking warm non-alchoholic beer.

Hell is 24 hours of watching The Partridge Family, while listening to The Spice Girls, and drinking warm non-alchoholic beer.

ANd you can't look away because there will be a test later and for each wrong answer, you lose a testicle. :eek:

Jeez, I wonder if Hell needs any torture designers. :p

Heaven gives you a state of pleasure and bless so you no longer need "earthly" things.

So.. opium?

Now we know why heaven is always shown as clouds.

kharma, as the nalanuthu see it, is not punishment as such, but simply how reality works. it is indipendent of the need for dieties, which we also believe may very well exist, should they choose to do so.

it does not wait for any particular life, of interval between lives, but can and does, come arround at any time in any life.

we do not see what comes after this one as any more eternal then what came before. nor do we see even dieties imune to the consiquences of their actions.

again it is not a matter of judgement in the sense of anyone needing to be judged, but simply how things work.

nor is it some sort of seperate assigned place, but rather affects how any place an awairness might happen to be, is percieved by that awairness.

it is also perhapse a short hand way of saying: we all individually have to live, in whatever kind of a world, we all togather create, be it this life, or some other.

=^^=
.../\...

"Heaven is where the Police are British, the Chefs are French, the Mechanics are German, the Lovers Italian and it's all organised by the Swiss.
Hell is where the Chefs are British, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, the Police are German and it's all organised by the Italians."

My idea of hell is being surrounded by evangelical christians.

My idea of hell is being surrounded by evangelical christians.

LOL I actually laughed when I read this! Very witty :D

Despite the fact that, as a theory, its probably not too sensible and very contradictory...:)

This could very easily turn into another one of those debates:

"If God is so good, why is he going to allow people to suffer for eternity?"


We can get there when we get there, I suppose. Anyway, I'll say briefly (because I've got to head off soon) - that I speak for alot of 'Christians' when I say that I don't believe hell is necessarily a place of physical pain. I haven't come across a Bible verse yet that suggests this.

What it does suggest is:

Hell is a place:

Without God.
Without a savior.
Without hope of any kind.
Without love of any kind.
Without peace of any kind.
Is where Satan also exists.
Is where the full extent of Satan's abilities are not limited.

Given what God has to say about it...I don't imagine it as a red, fiery place where little red devils run around with whips...I personally think of it as a place perhaps featuring things alot like where we live now...but is also a place where you continually feel abandoned, lost, suicidal, depressed, without hope of any kind or form, and driven to the point of madness...without being able to kill oneself.

Basically, since the Bible's interpretation of Hell suggests that those who are there aren't in physical bodies...then, naturally, there cannot be physical pain as such.

Hell is not something that is easy to accept - but I personally believe that it is reality - and in consequence, I truly feel for those who decided to live without God...

Now, if you'd like another theological discussion involving why God is justified in allowing the existence of Hell...I can write about that tomorrow when there's more thats keeping me awake than a very strong cup of coffee. :D

Supposedly God erases all sorrow and pain. Its like a perfect state of bliss.

Pleasure, suffering, either way eternal life would eventually get boring so it won't really matter anymore.

So, anyway, this is something that has been bothering me for some time. Why, exactly, are Christians or members of any other religion who say those who don't believe will go to hell are tolerated? I'm talking about the literal fire-and-brimstone hell, or at least a hell of eternal pain, not, say, the absence of God. For example, if someone said "all non-Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. will be shot/gassed/tortured/etc." they would be shunned, and rightly so. However, when "all non-Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. will go to hell." (i.e. will be tortured for all eternity) is said, it is mostly accepted by society as a 'mainstream', shall we say, belief. Why is this the case?
Because my society is borked.

Personally, though, I don't tolerate it. If somebody tells me that they choose to worship a deity that will torture me for all eternity, then I consider that no different than if they supported a political party that advocated torturing me for all eternity. They are advocates of torture, pure and simple, but they also are advocates of ETERNAL torture. Eternal. Forever and ever. That's a fucking long time.

To me, this puts them on a moral footing well below that of serial killers. Perhaps on roughly the same level as a dictator who commited genocide. I treat them accordingly.

Because my society is borked.

Personally, though, I don't tolerate it. If somebody tells me that they choose to worship a deity that will torture me for all eternity, then I consider that no different than if they supported a political party that advocated torturing me for all eternity. They are advocates of torture, pure and simple, but they also are advocates of ETERNAL torture. Eternal. Forever and ever. That's a fucking long time.

To me, this puts them on a moral footing well below that of serial killers. Perhaps on roughly the same level as a dictator who commited genocide. I treat them accordingly.

To be fair most of them aren't advocating it, it's just what they think will happen. It could be worse, they could be going out and doing it themselves.
http://www.sg-soc.com/Images/Ori_flame_skull.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7808835362501086663&q=south+park+hell&total=352&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

:)

To be fair most of them aren't advocating it, it's just what they think will happen. It could be worse, they could be going out and doing it themselves.
http://www.sg-soc.com/Images/Ori_flame_skull.jpg

As I said, they are choosing to worship the being that will cause it to happen. How would you react to a person who knowingly voted for a leader who would torture everybody who didn't belong to a particular faith?

And I never said it couldn't be worse. I simply said that I deal with torture advocates accordingly.

As I said, they are choosing to worship the being that will cause it to happen.

Threat of torture since childhood'll do that.

Threat of torture since childhood'll do that.
And a huge percentage of child molesters were, themselves, molested. Doesn't make their behavior okay.

Frankly, the concept of "Hell" was my big stumbling block faith-wise. God is all-loving and omnipotent, but he casts people into eternal torment for the "crime" of non-belief? Even the most barbaric mortal dictators aren't that bad!

I am not a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim or much of anything. If there is a Hell, I believe we're already there.

Yes, it's another religion thread. I don't recall ever creating one and everyone needs to do one once, if only to remember why once is enough, right?

So, anyway, this is something that has been bothering me for some time. Why, exactly, are Christians or members of any other religion who say those who don't believe will go to hell are tolerated? I'm talking about the literal fire-and-brimstone hell, or at least a hell of eternal pain, not, say, the absence of God. For example, if someone said "all non-Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. will be shot/gassed/tortured/etc." they would be shunned, and rightly so. However, when "all non-Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. will go to hell." (i.e. will be tortured for all eternity) is said, it is mostly accepted by society as a 'mainstream', shall we say, belief. Why is this the case?

Adding to this is that hell is supposed to be, you know, worse than death. Also, it's for eternity, and I'm not sure those who advocate a literal hell grasp the concept of eternity. It's a pretty damn long time, you know. If we assume that suffering with regards to a particular punishment is proportional to both time and the degree of punishment doled out, then it follows that eternity of any punishment causes more suffering than any finite time of any punishment. Thus, in the end, having a brick dropped on your foot for eternity would be a worse punishment than being crucified. Infinitely worse, for that matter. (This would also imply that people who deserved to be punished are not deserving of hell; I'm not sure I'd give Hitler (unoriginal example, I know), eternal punishment. A trillion years? Maybe. Eternity? Just a bit over the top)

In closing, I don't see why advocating infinite punishment for members of a particular belief system could ever be construed as moral. Saying 'I'm tolerant of all religions or lack thereof' does no good when you add 'but they'll be tortured for all eternity anyway.' Saying that 'they have a choice not to go to hell' also does no good; conversion by the sword is not particularly moral either. Am I missing something here?

With regards to the poll, a 'literal hell' is something designed to cause eternal physical pain and possibly other forms, whilst 'other forms' are, say, the absence of God, which I've heard some say they believe in.

Okay, done, please don't kill me.

its tolerated because the belief makes no difference to the real world. so what if some asshole believes that all jews go to hell? his belief doesnt make them go to hell. if the slim chance of the existence of the christian god turns out to be true, only god sends people to hell. his opinion is the only one that matters.

proposing a yucky afterlife hurts only those who believe in it. no one else is affected.

Oh, there's a Hell. There's also a Heck. It's not as severe as Hell.

Heck is filled with insurance salesmen, Jehovah's Witnesses, Telemarketers and Mormons and they all have quotas to meet. :eek:

http://support.kdupg.edu.my/others/it%20humor/DILBERT/phil.gif

?

its tolerated because the belief makes no difference to the real world. so what if some asshole believes that all jews go to hell? his belief doesnt make them go to hell. if the slim chance of the existence of the christian god turns out to be true, only god sends people to hell. his opinion is the only one that matters.

proposing a yucky afterlife hurts only those who believe in it. no one else is affected.
I strongly disagree. It absolutely does impact me if there are people who support the torture of people who do not share their religious beliefs. Just like it impacts me if there are people who support the torture of individuals of a different race, or individuals of a different sex, or individuals of a different gender.

Think of it this way: racism impacts me, even if nobody physically tries to lynch me. If another human being feels that I deserve to be lynched because of my ethnicity, then that can impact me in any number of ways even if they never carry through with the lynching. Similarly, if an individual believes that I deserve to be burned alive for being a non-believer, I can be impacted by this even if I am never actually burned alive.

I strongly disagree. It absolutely does impact me if there are people who support the torture of people who do not share their religious beliefs. Just like it impacts me if there are people who support the torture of individuals of a different race, or individuals of a different sex, or individuals of a different gender.

Think of it this way: racism impacts me, even if nobody physically tries to lynch me. If another human being feels that I deserve to be lynched because of my ethnicity, then that can impact me in any number of ways even if they never carry through with the lynching. Similarly, if an individual believes that I deserve to be burned alive for being a non-believer, I can be impacted by this even if I am never actually burned alive.

Yeah, this.

...the only ISP in Heck is AOL... @_@

http://support.kdupg.edu.my/others/it%20humor/DILBERT/phil.gif

?

Phil! :)

Hell is like being stuck in the nosebleed region of a really sweet concert. You're there, you just can't see or hear anything, although you can smell stuff coming from the lawn, and you know that what you smell ain't legal in any country besides Somalia.

Furthermore, you know it's you're fault that you're stuck out in the shit seats because you waited so late to buy the tickets, and you paid so very little.

No good god that exists would send disbelievers to Hell. God is not a psychopath as some people believe, or, worse, WISH. I reject.

I refuse to go anywhere I don't want to, any sort of "hell" included, and that includes my soul, my very self, which belongs to me, and to nobody else. I reject.

I do not live in a world in which a God sends disbelievers to hell while at the same time being praised as merciful by his fan club. God is either good or he sends disbelievers to Hell, not both things at once. I reject.

I will not accept an existence in which good people like Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson and others are sent to Hell for not saying the right name. I reject.

I will not tolerate a god that does such things while being "good", and the reason I don't have to, the reason even I, having no power, am more powerful than this "god", is the fact that it's a logical impossibility, ergo it does not exist. I reject.

I will not accept the notion of a GOOD, OMNIPOTENT being that's evil or weak enough to allow people to go to Hell. I reject.

I hereby reject you, fundies, and all your perverse joke of a belief system. Reality does not work this way, nor is it supposed to.

I REJECT!

I thought someone might say that. One of the doctrines, though, is that God or Deity X is all good, right and just, which is probably a lot more accepted than the existence of hell. It follows that if God is all good, right and just, the existence of hell and sending people to hell is right and just, or he wouldn't do it. God is ultimately who decides who goes to hell and who doesn't, after all.

Just because it doesn't cause problems doesn't mean it's not bad, surely. I mean, if someone went around saying 'I support genocide in Darfur', they have very little control over that unless they decide to go to Darfur and start killing people. Assuming that they don't, it's still wrong, no?


basically: the belief i've grown up with is as folllows. God sent his son Christ to die for our sins because he loved us so much. i know that seems really suicidal because why do we need dying for? well, God created man perfect, but from the first people, we have sinned and broken God's covenant. God being a perfect and holy god, cannot be in the presence of sin. so he sent his son to take the place of our deaths if we chose to accept it. so if you believe that Christ died and ROSE again to heaven (that's the important part) then you can ask God for forgivness for you sins. if you have done this and believed this then MY BELIEFS say you are going to heaven. but if you have not done this...well MY BELIEFS say you are going to hell when you die. but it's never to late to believe in God. you could be on your death bed and pray to him, and you would go to heaven just like anybody else.

the part about God being just and all is about him not forcing you to believe in him. he wants a real deep relationship with you and he wants you to love him just like his unconditional love for you.
even if you dont' believe in him, he still loves you. his heart continuously breaks for the people that don't know him. haven't heard of him, or plain out reject him.
he wants us all in heaven, but he just doesn't want a people of robots.

write me a telegram please if you're replying specifically to mine, because i probably won't check back here too often.
oh and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT FIGHT ABOUT THIS. everybody has their own opinion and a right to it. all these religion topics end up with YOU'RE WRONG. NO YOU'RE WRONG. YOUR GOD SUCKS. and i would hope you guys can be above that. nobody has to defend anything

I strongly disagree. It absolutely does impact me if there are people who support the torture of people who do not share their religious beliefs. Just like it impacts me if there are people who support the torture of individuals of a different race, or individuals of a different sex, or individuals of a different gender.

Think of it this way: racism impacts me, even if nobody physically tries to lynch me. If another human being feels that I deserve to be lynched because of my ethnicity, then that can impact me in any number of ways even if they never carry through with the lynching. Similarly, if an individual believes that I deserve to be burned alive for being a non-believer, I can be impacted by this even if I am never actually burned alive.

just who is being tortured because of the belief that they are going to hell?

just who is being tortured because of the belief that they are going to hell?
Um. Read my post again, please.

Um. Read my post again, please.

then i dont understand your post.

you reference the support of torture. are you saying that supporting the idea of the torture of hell in an imaginary afterlife is a huge problem for you?

then i dont understand your post.

you reference the support of torture. are you saying that supporting the idea of the torture of hell in an imaginary afterlife is a huge problem for you?
It is a problem for me if my fellow humans advocate torturing me, or torturing other humans. This is true regardless of whether or not the torture threats end up being carried out.

Another comparison example: my high school used to get bomb threats from time to time. The bomb threats directly impacted me, even though (to my knowledge) there was never actually a bomb in the school while I was there.

Hell is like being stuck in the nosebleed region of a really sweet concert. You're there, you just can't see or hear anything, although you can smell stuff coming from the lawn, and you know that what you smell ain't legal in any country besides Somalia.

Furthermore, you know it's you're fault that you're stuck out in the shit seats because you waited so late to buy the tickets, and you paid so very little.
Analogy Writer version 1.2? :D

It is a problem for me if my fellow humans advocate torturing me, or torturing other humans. This is true regardless of whether or not the torture threats end up being carried out.

Another comparison example: my high school used to get bomb threats from time to time. The bomb threats directly impacted me, even though (to my knowledge) there was never actually a bomb in the school while I was there.

those are bad comparisons because those things can actually happen.

there is no hell so i dont care who anyone thinks might go there. it is completely irrelevant.

even if there were a hell, anyone's advocacy of who they would like to go there is also irrelevant since they would have no say in the matter.

the only people they actually hurt is themselves with their ugly beliefs that stunt their lives.

i have better things to worry about than the stupid things that people wish would happen to other people that cant ever happen.

So, anyway, this is something that has been bothering me for some time. Why, exactly, are Christians or members of any other religion who say those who don't believe will go to hell are tolerated? I'm talking about the literal fire-and-brimstone hell, or at least a hell of eternal pain, not, say, the absence of God. For example, if someone said "all non-Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. will be shot/gassed/tortured/etc." they would be shunned, and rightly so. However, when "all non-Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. will go to hell." (i.e. will be tortured for all eternity) is said, it is mostly accepted by society as a 'mainstream', shall we say, belief. Why is this the case?

Socially, it's tolerated because that belief has been a common one and we're generally used to it.

Personally, I tolerate it because generally, cracking down on it does no good. They just get into persecution complex mode.

In closing, I don't see why advocating infinite punishment for members of a particular belief system could ever be construed as moral. Saying 'I'm tolerant of all religions or lack thereof' does no good when you add 'but they'll be tortured for all eternity anyway.' Saying that 'they have a choice not to go to hell' also does no good; conversion by the sword is not particularly moral either. Am I missing something here?

A lot of Christians think I'm going to a literal hell. They're actually a minority among Christians, but a vocal one.

Some of them would prefer that I did not go to hell, and will make efforts to help me not go there, because they don't think I should have to.

These people are equivalent to people warning me that I'm going to get shipped off to the concentration camp if I don't step to the beat of the dictator like they're doing. They don't like concentration camps, and they don't have any hope of not going to one themselves unless they collaborate with the dictator.

Others think that I should have to, mostly because it helps them feel validated in their own beliefs if they think the people who believe wrongly are going to get punished heavily for it.

These people are equivalent to people telling me self-righteously that I'm going to get shipped off to the concentration camp because I don't worship the dictator like I'm supposed to because he's so powerful and manly and strong RAWR! They like the idea of concentration camps for others, and like being assured of getting into an exclusive club where they get all the good stuff they like.

I have a lot more sympathy for the former group than the latter group, and I'm much more inclined to discuss things intelligently with them.

I personally don't believe in hell. I'm not Christian either, but I would be what you could call "spiritual", meaning that I believe in something, although honestly, I'm not sure what that is yet.

I am a person who likes proof. There is not much proof out there that a hell exists. The bible is not proof, and I won't take the word out of a book that was written a very long time ago, by people who kept passing stories down, probably forgetting somethings, adding in new stuff, all to make everything seem much more severe and exciting then anything actually is. Furthurmore, the whole "commit sins and go to hell" seems more like a scare tactic to me.

While there is not nessesarily proof for any kind of afterlife, I still would like to believe there is one. For this, I can only take the personel accounts of people who were clinically dead for a few minutes, or even those who may or may not have seen a ghost or spirit. However, I cannot beleive that there really is a place that will cause all who do not follow that religion go to hell. We all also have to realise that there are many religions out there, and saying that yours is the right one is someone pigheaded and ignorant.

Overall, it's things like the concept of hell that have steered me far away from religion. I am spiritual, and I hold my own views from what I have seen in my life. While all religions offer up something that we can all live by, everyone needs to....well, chill out. :cool:

Sorry for the short essay there

those are bad comparisons because those things can actually happen.

I don't think that has anything to do with the point I'm making. The threat of harm impacts me, even if the physical harm never ends up happening.


there is no hell so i dont care who anyone thinks might go there. it is completely irrelevant.

You're certainly welcome to feel that way. My personal experience has shown me that people who believe in a literal Hell tend to be impacted by that belief, and in turn will impact those around them.


even if there were a hell, anyone's advocacy of who they would like to go there is also irrelevant since they would have no say in the matter.

My entire point is that the actual existence of Hell isn't required for the threat to have significance. You appear to be missing that point.


the only people they actually hurt is themselves with their ugly beliefs that stunt their lives.

Which, in turn, impacts me. People who are hurt, who hold ugly beliefs, or who live stunted lives tend to be more of a problem for me than people who are healthy, happy, and hold kindly beliefs. Their actions are influenced by their beliefs, and their actions all too often will directly impact my life.


i have better things to worry about than the stupid things that people wish would happen to other people that cant ever happen.
Again, you seem to think that my concern regards the literal existence of Hell. It does not.

My concern is exclusively about the BEHAVIOR of the people who believe in the literal torture dimension into which all non-believers will be sent.

I don't think that has anything to do with the point I'm making. The threat of harm impacts me, even if the physical harm never ends up happening.


You're certainly welcome to feel that way. My personal experience has shown me that people who believe in a literal Hell tend to be impacted by that belief, and in turn will impact those around them.


My entire point is that the actual existence of Hell isn't required for the threat to have significance. You appear to be missing that point.


Which, in turn, impacts me. People who are hurt, who hold ugly beliefs, or who live stunted lives tend to be more of a problem for me than people who are healthy, happy, and hold kindly beliefs. Their actions are influenced by their beliefs, and their actions all too often will directly impact my life.


Again, you seem to think that my concern regards the literal existence of Hell. It does not.

My concern is exclusively about the BEHAVIOR of the people who believe in the literal torture dimension into which all non-believers will be sent.

then maybe you should show some behavior that the belief in hell generates.

i dont think that i could predict a belief system based on someone's behavior or treatment of others. or predict behavior or how someone will treat others based on their belief in a torturous hell.

not that there arent people (westboro baptist church) whose beliefs arent so completely ugly that it cant help but spill over into their behavior. but extremists are extremists.

There are christians that believe all nonchristians go to hell.
There are muslims who believe that all nonmuslims go to hell.
There are people in both groups that multireligious people go to hell.

Thus, for every NSGer, there are people who think you go to hell.

then maybe you should show some behavior that the belief in hell generates.

?!? Why would I want to show such behavior? I think it's rotten!


i dont think that i could predict a belief system based on someone's behavior or treatment of others.

Oh gimme a break. Yeah, it sure is impossible to predict whether or not somebody is racist based on how they behave...


or predict behavior or how someone will treat others based on their belief in a torturous hell.

Again, gimme a break. If somebody is racist, and openly identifies as such, are you really going to have a hard time coming up with some predictions about their behavior? Sure, you won't be right 100% of the time, but you can certainly generate a few educated guesses.

If a person openly states that they choose to worship a leader who will torture me for all eternity, that gives me useful information about that person's values. They are somebody who supports the torture of other human beings. That's a good thing to know about somebody before you, say, allow them to babysit your kids.


not that there arent people (westboro baptist church) whose beliefs arent so completely ugly that it cant help but spill over into their behavior. but extremists are extremists.
To me, supporting torture is pretty extreme. To me, choosing to follow a leader who you believe will burn human beings alive for all eternity is pretty extreme.

And, frankly, it doesn't become LESS extreme if it turns out that the leader is actually a figment of your imagination. That doesn't make you LESS crazy or LESS potentially dangerous to me. :)

?!? Why would I want to show such behavior? I think it's rotten!


Oh gimme a break. Yeah, it sure is impossible to predict whether or not somebody is racist based on how they behave...


Again, gimme a break. If somebody is racist, and openly identifies as such, are you really going to have a hard time coming up with some predictions about their behavior? Sure, you won't be right 100% of the time, but you can certainly generate a few educated guesses.

If a person openly states that they choose to worship a leader who will torture me for all eternity, that gives me useful information about that person's values. They are somebody who supports the torture of other human beings. That's a good thing to know about somebody before you, say, allow them to babysit your kids.


To me, supporting torture is pretty extreme. To me, choosing to follow a leader who you believe will burn human beings alive for all eternity is pretty extreme.

And, frankly, it doesn't become LESS extreme if it turns out that the leader is actually a figment of your imagination. That doesn't make you LESS crazy or LESS potentially dangerous to me. :)

when i wrote "show" i didnt mean YOU. i meant tell me what exact behavior you are talking about.

what does RACIST have to do with the belief in a torturous hell?

just what behavior would you expect from a person who believes in hell? ive known many such people and cant think of a way they are different from those who dont believe (except for the belief part)

a person's religious belief is the last thing i would worry about when choosing a babysitter.

when i wrote "show" i didnt mean YOU. i meant tell me what exact behavior you are talking about.

what does RACIST have to do with the belief in a torturous hell?

just what behavior would you expect from a person who believes in hell? ive known many such people and cant think of a way they are different from those who dont believe (except for the belief part)

a person's religious belief is the last thing i would worry about when choosing a babysitter.

Actually, I would suspect that folks who are afraid they're going to go to hell for hurting a child might be pretty careful when babysitting.

Im looking at this thread and I see a lot of people think Atheists dont care what goes on, and that we just live our lives regardless of consiqences.
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
I find that to be one large piece of propoganda by religious leaders against Atheists, becouse we do care what happens. Many think we cant be trusted, becouse we "just dont care", but we do care becouse we belive in the sence of morality and fairness to everyone, and that this is our only life so we need to make it last and make posotive impacts on other's lives, so our legacy will be remembered:p

I remember one person said to me: "So since your atheist, and you dont belive in divine punishment, you will rob a store or kill a lot of people since you wont go to hell?" :headbang:Well I do belive in punishment. I know that if you rob a store or kill a lot of people, "god" doesnt do anything to your life, the people who do the capital punishments and "dont drop the soap" guys in jail give you a fine punishment.

So being but into jail or having my life end is the last thing on my mind, I may be atheist but im no anti-religous man. Atheism believes that we should work on people skills, unity, and everyone getting fairness. We dont want to convert everyone to atheists, like propoganda says:headbang:, unlike other religions I know.....

Anywho I voted that I am not religious and I do not belive in any form of hell, and that this thread is stupid :) lol.

Actually, I would suspect that folks who are afraid they're going to go to hell for hurting a child might be pretty careful when babysitting.

yeah. a person who believes in burning in hell for eternity wants to avoid that fate for himself no matter how he relates to those who he considers currently on the road to damnation.

different people see things in different ways but jesus did tell us to treat "the least of our brothers" as if they were jesus himself. so assholish behavior toward anyone that you might consider damned (like, perhaps, non-christians) is a very bad idea.

yeah. a person who believes in burning in hell for eternity wants to avoid that fate for himself no matter how he relates to those who he considers currently on the road to damnation.

different people see things in different ways but jesus did tell us to treat "the least of our brothers" as if they were jesus himself. so assholish behavior toward anyone that you might consider damned (like, perhaps, non-christians) is a very bad idea.

So basically, the bad behavior on the part of Christians isn't tied to their belief in hell. In fact, it would seem to be in spite of their belief in hell in many cases.

Of course, this is not to suggest that being afraid of burning in Hell is a good motivation for not hurting people. There are certainly better ones.

Because religious views get special protection so as to avoid offending people.

I think that's crap. People who say that "unbelievers" are going to burn for eternity ought to be labeled the disgusting bigots they are.
true
hmm heres a question i'd like answered, I am a former christian and while i believe in god i do not adhere to any one single abrahmic faith mostly i just take from here and there what make sense and i read all the holy texts and and i'd like your view on this for all the people who believe in GOD:
if you are a good person in your life and you help people and all that, but you dont believe in GOD do you go to hell? answer back please

Ok I chose I'm a Christian and I believe in some other form yadda yadda.

As a Mormon I have learned that there's no Hell in the "traditional" sense, in that you'll find no burning caverns of molten rock and demons mercilessly lashing sinful dead people on a rock with cool choir music in the background and Al Pacino standing on an overlooking cliff with a hot babe with batwings and a tail on each arm laughing his butt off.

The afterlife in Mormon theology is kinda complex and since this thread isn't about the afterlife in general but Hell in particular, I'll focus on that part.

Keep in mind this is my own understanding which may or may not be completely accurate. But hey, I'm always learning new stuff.

What most people think of as Hell is referred to in LDS as Outer Darkness. It's not hot there, not full of demons, whips, or women with batwings. Frankly I can only describe it as a place with absolutely no presence of God whatsoever. Beyond that I don't know what it would be like there. What makes it suck is that we, as children of God, would be completely cut off from Him there, and would have to spend eternity having to live with the knowledge of what we COULD have had, but chose to disregard.

Who goes there? Well I can tell you that nobody goes there against their will. I know that sounds paradoxical but bear with me a moment.

Each person, at some point either in this life or the next, gets a chance to accept the Gospel and Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Some will do that in this life and find their way into some incarnation of Heaven or another. Some people will not have the opportunity until the next life/afterlife in which case they, too will go to a better place. (This is not necessarily related to your religion or lack therof in this world.)

(Yes, that does imply that chronologically, there are two stages to the afterlife.)

But some, for whatever reason, will not. Either in this life or the next they just won't. They choose to be outside of God's light and so they exile themselves to Outer Darkness.

I've massively oversimplified this, and by doing so maybe introduced an error or two, but that's the gist of it as I understand it.

true
hmm heres a question i'd like answered, I am a former christian and while i believe in god i do not adhere to any one single abrahmic faith mostly i just take from here and there what make sense and i read all the holy texts and and i'd like your view on this for all the people who believe in GOD:
if you are a good person in your life and you help people and all that, but you dont believe in GOD do you go to hell? answer back please

If you haven't already, take a look at my post just prior to this one. From that you'll see that the short answer to your question is: Not necessarily.

Remember that Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one cometh unto the Father but by me." So the onus is upon us individually whether we will accept that or not.

The reason I don't agree with the "I'm a good person so I should go to Heaven without worrying about these procedural details" mentality is that deciding yourself that you're a good person is a little like grading your own exam papers in school. If you're wrong, how would you know? You have to trust in an authority higher than your own who will guide you and help you to overcome errors. You'd be pretty pissed if you paid a bunch of money to take a class only to find out that there was no teacher, that you had to educate yourself. How would you be able to evaluate your own learning?

So like I said in the other post: You won't be in Outer Darkness unless you choose it, but be careful when making decisions about your eternal soul because you could be making that choice right now and not realize it. Never assume there will be a "next opportunity."

So basically, the bad behavior on the part of Christians isn't tied to their belief in hell. In fact, it would seem to be in spite of their belief in hell in many cases.

Of course, this is not to suggest that being afraid of burning in Hell is a good motivation for not hurting people. There are certainly better ones.

thats what i think. outside of the truly ulgy people like fred phelps who does get condemned by other christians, i dont think that much bad behavior stems from the belief in hell.

its a sad focus for a christian to have but it dont see how it necessarily leads to real life problems for others.

It is what they believe, not necessarily what they want.
If one believes in the Bible, God, and that non-believers go to Hell for eternal punishment...well, that is the belief. The individual may or may not personally think that it is just and right punishment, but since it is one of the religions doctrines, they follow the assumption.

Also, as they have no control over it, it is hardly a bad thing. If someone went around saying everyone who wears socks above the ankle should be shot, it could cause problems. If someone says that everyone who doesn't wear socks over their shoes will go to Hel, it is hardly an issue since as far as I know, humans have no control over 'Hel'.

However. I tend to take it as an insult whenever somebody condemns me to hell unless i change my ways. I live a normal life and i want to make life better for others, however, the absence of god means i must suffer?

Ok I chose I'm a Christian and I believe in some other form yadda yadda.

As a Mormon I have learned that there's no Hell in the "traditional" sense, in that you'll find no burning caverns of molten rock and demons mercilessly lashing sinful dead people on a rock with cool choir music in the background and Al Pacino standing on an overlooking cliff with a hot babe with batwings and a tail on each arm laughing his butt off.

The afterlife in Mormon theology is kinda complex and since this thread isn't about the afterlife in general but Hell in particular, I'll focus on that part.

Keep in mind this is my own understanding which may or may not be completely accurate. But hey, I'm always learning new stuff.

What most people think of as Hell is referred to in LDS as Outer Darkness. It's not hot there, not full of demons, whips, or women with batwings. Frankly I can only describe it as a place with absolutely no presence of God whatsoever. Beyond that I don't know what it would be like there. What makes it suck is that we, as children of God, would be completely cut off from Him there, and would have to spend eternity having to live with the knowledge of what we COULD have had, but chose to disregard.

Who goes there? Well I can tell you that nobody goes there against their will. I know that sounds paradoxical but bear with me a moment.

Each person, at some point either in this life or the next, gets a chance to accept the Gospel and Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Some will do that in this life and find their way into some incarnation of Heaven or another. Some people will not have the opportunity until the next life/afterlife in which case they, too will go to a better place. (This is not necessarily related to your religion or lack therof in this world.)

(Yes, that does imply that chronologically, there are two stages to the afterlife.)

But some, for whatever reason, will not. Either in this life or the next they just won't. They choose to be outside of God's light and so they exile themselves to Outer Darkness.

I've massively oversimplified this, and by doing so maybe introduced an error or two, but that's the gist of it as I understand it.

For the followers of the biblical God to claim that there could be a place with absolutely no presence of God whatsoever is blasphemy.

So basically, the bad behavior on the part of Christians isn't tied to their belief in hell. In fact, it would seem to be in spite of their belief in hell in many cases.

Of course, this is not to suggest that being afraid of burning in Hell is a good motivation for not hurting people. There are certainly better ones.

I know this is going to sound like I'm taking a swipe at Evangelical Christianity, but that's not my intention so those of you who might feel attacked by this, just know that I don't mean it that way.

I had a brother-in-law once who was a lay minister in a little church group a few years ago. He preached each week and had a disturbingly "holier than thou" attitude. He tried to convert me out of LDS (unsuccessfully).

Well one day it came out that all this time he was having an affair behind my sister's back. Now you would think that someone who believed in the Hell fire and brimstone idea would be very worried about his eternal soul, right?

Nope. He, like most who share his religious perspective, believed that once a person became "saved" by accepting Jesus Christ, that he was ALWAYS saved no matter what... and that any sin he committed was already paid for by the sacrifice on the cross. So from his point of view, my sister was OBLIGATED to forgive him and by not being able to do so, was committing a sin herself. (utter BS)

Not much of an incentive to be good, is it?

For the followers of the biblical God to claim that there could be a place with absolutely no presence of God whatsoever is blasphemy.

Unless God witholds His presence from such a place deliberately ;)

Unless God witholds His presence from such a place deliberately ;)God's power is limited then? More blasphemy!

God's power is limited then? More blasphemy!

What did I say that implied a limit when I said He might withold His presence 'deliberately?'

true
hmm heres a question i'd like answered, I am a former christian and while i believe in god i do not adhere to any one single abrahmic faith mostly i just take from here and there what make sense and i read all the holy texts and and i'd like your view on this for all the people who believe in GOD:
if you are a good person in your life and you help people and all that, but you dont believe in GOD do you go to hell? answer back please

that varies from denomination to denomination. if you dont want to rely on one authority (like, say, the roman catholic church) you may as well read the bible yourself and make your own judgement.

as an atheist, i say that this world is still in the process of creation and that when it is done, even the grass will be saved.

true
hmm heres a question i'd like answered, I am a former christian and while i believe in god i do not adhere to any one single abrahmic faith mostly i just take from here and there what make sense and i read all the holy texts and and i'd like your view on this for all the people who believe in GOD:
if you are a good person in your life and you help people and all that, but you dont believe in GOD do you go to hell? answer back please

I'm going to propose that the answer to that question depends a lot on what a particular believer thinks the nature of God is.

For argument's sake, let's assume that there is a literal hell, that God exists, and that lack of belief in said God will earn you a trip to hell.

If a person thinks that the nature of God is Love, or Truth, or Justice, or some other higher quality, then perhaps people who believe strongly in Love, Truth, and Justice would simply be believing in God without labeling it as such, and so would have just as much chance of going to heaven as any person who explicitly conceives of themselves as a theist.

If a person thinks that the nature of God is purely an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being that created us and decides whether or not we go to hell based on whether or not we hold an explicit belief in that characterization of him, then everyone else is pretty screwed.

as an atheist, i say that this world is still in the process of creation and that when it is done, even the grass will be saved....and it shall rise ten feet high on lawnmowing day! :D

I know this is going to sound like I'm taking a swipe at Evangelical Christianity, but that's not my intention so those of you who might feel attacked by this, just know that I don't mean it that way.

I had a brother-in-law once who was a lay minister in a little church group a few years ago. He preached each week and had a disturbingly "holier than thou" attitude. He tried to convert me out of LDS (unsuccessfully).

Well one day it came out that all this time he was having an affair behind my sister's back. Now you would think that someone who believed in the Hell fire and brimstone idea would be very worried about his eternal soul, right?

Nope. He, like most who share his religious perspective, believed that once a person became "saved" by accepting Jesus Christ, that he was ALWAYS saved no matter what... and that any sin he committed was already paid for by the sacrifice on the cross. So from his point of view, my sister was OBLIGATED to forgive him and by not being able to do so, was committing a sin herself. (utter BS)

Not much of an incentive to be good, is it?

yeah im not fond of that school of christianity.

if belief in jesus is all it takes, why would he have told those that he healed "go and sin no more"?

...and it shall rise ten feet high on lawnmowing day! :D

AMEN, brother!

I know this is going to sound like I'm taking a swipe at Evangelical Christianity, but that's not my intention so those of you who might feel attacked by this, just know that I don't mean it that way.

I had a brother-in-law once who was a lay minister in a little church group a few years ago. He preached each week and had a disturbingly "holier than thou" attitude. He tried to convert me out of LDS (unsuccessfully).

Well one day it came out that all this time he was having an affair behind my sister's back. Now you would think that someone who believed in the Hell fire and brimstone idea would be very worried about his eternal soul, right?

Nope. He, like most who share his religious perspective, believed that once a person became "saved" by accepting Jesus Christ, that he was ALWAYS saved no matter what... and that any sin he committed was already paid for by the sacrifice on the cross. So from his point of view, my sister was OBLIGATED to forgive him and by not being able to do so, was committing a sin herself. (utter BS)

Not much of an incentive to be good, is it?

Some of those sects have a concept called "backsliding" to address that issue. Others present the argument that if you do things like that, you obviously weren't saved in the first place. So I'm not sure it would be accurate to suggest that those types have little incentive to be good.

yeah im not fond of that school of christianity.

if belief in jesus is all it takes, why would he have told those that he healed "go and sin no more"?

That's a pretty good point.

I think a lot of that confusion stems from a line in one of Paul's letters in which he says that one who was saved, then fell, was never truly saved to begin with. I think he should have worded that better because when taken literally it is circular logic. I think what we was trying to get at was the sincerity of those who became Christians was in question for some at the time. Now people use that as the ticket to do whatever they want, figuring that they know they're saved, and once saved always saved, so that can be used to justify virtually anything.

Nope. He, like most who share his religious perspective, believed that once a person became "saved" by accepting Jesus Christ, that he was ALWAYS saved no matter what... and that any sin he committed was already paid for by the sacrifice on the cross. So from his point of view, my sister was OBLIGATED to forgive him and by not being able to do so, was committing a sin herself. (utter BS)


how did your sister react to this theory?

Some of those sects have a concept called "backsliding" to address that issue. Others present the argument that if you do things like that, you obviously weren't saved in the first place. So I'm not sure it would be accurate to suggest that those types have little incentive to be good.

Like you said, some sects do but not all.

I once debated someone who believed that if you fell ill here in life that it was usually some kind of punishment for wrongdoing, which struck me as exactly the opposite... as if the sacrifice on the cross was meaningless. If Jesus paid for your sin, then why would you need to suffer any illness as a punishment? Especially if you've repented?

how did your sister react to this theory?

She divorced his ass.

Edit: I think that if he had been truly sincere in apologizing and made a real commitment to make things right, she'd have stayed with him... But his attitude was obviously not concilliatory and that's fertile soil for a repeat incident.

She divorced his ass.

im glad to hear that.

while we are commanded to forgive, that doesnt mean we are commanded to keep the cheater around. thats a small flaw in his reasoning.

jesus spoke against divorce but he did give a specific exemption for adultery.

im glad to hear that.

while we are commanded to forgive, that doesnt mean we are commanded to keep the cheater around. thats a small flaw in his reasoning.

jesus spoke against divorce but he did give a specific exemption for adultery.

Definitely. In LDS it's basically emphasized that if the marriage can possibly be saved it should be, but adultery is one of those things you sometimes just can't work out, and so divorce is not frowned upon in such a case. The same goes for spousal abuse. Forgiveness yes, but some things you just can't fix.

Like you said, some sects do but not all.

I once debated someone who believed that if you fell ill here in life that it was usually some kind of punishment for wrongdoing, which struck me as exactly the opposite... as if the sacrifice on the cross was meaningless. If Jesus paid for your sin, then why would you need to suffer any illness as a punishment? Especially if you've repented?

Just because I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate, I'll propose a reason.

Let's say that you have a child, and your child destroyed a neighbor's mailbox with a cherry bomb. You've already paid for the damages to your neighbor, and it was no problem because you can easily afford to pay up.

Would you still punish your child for the wrongdoing? Many parents would, I suspect.

And since many Christians see God as a father-figure, is it such a stretch that He would punish them for their actions that have already been paid for just as their parents would?

Just because I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate, I'll propose a reason.

Let's say that you have a child, and your child destroyed a neighbor's mailbox with a cherry bomb. You've already paid for the damages to your neighbor, and it was no problem because you can easily afford to pay up.

Would you still punish your child for the wrongdoing? Many parents would, I suspect.

And since many Christians see God as a father-figure, is it such a stretch that He would punish them for their actions that have already been paid for just as their parents would?

Okay. Then to the counterpoint: Would a normal father punish them by grounding them or by injecting them with HIV?

Just because I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate, I'll propose a reason.

Let's say that you have a child, and your child destroyed a neighbor's mailbox with a cherry bomb. You've already paid for the damages to your neighbor, and it was no problem because you can easily afford to pay up.

Would you still punish your child for the wrongdoing? Many parents would, I suspect.

And since many Christians see God as a father-figure, is it such a stretch that He would punish them for their actions that have already been paid for just as their parents would?

I see your point, but the concept of Grace is what makes the difference. When we've sinned, we incur a spiritual debt. Some people call it karma. Now as human beings, we're imperfect and there's no way we can be perfect and we can't repay our spiritual debt because it leaves our spirit unclean. Accepting Jesus Christ means essentially that you enter into an agreement with Him: He will pay the price for your sin, and in exchange you follow Him. This enables you to go to Heaven, cleansed, without having to pay any penalty for those sins.

To tweak your analogy, it would be like your kid cherry bombs the mailbox. He's going to have to pay for it out of his allowance but his allowance can't possibly cover the damage. Instead, he comes to you and truly and sincerely is sorry and wants to change his ways, so you agree to pay the cost of the mailbox for him, and in return he commits to obeying you as his parent faithfully from then on.

Now it's true that the crucifixion took place 2,000 years ago, but in matters of spirituality and God who is not bound by time, time has little meaning.

Okay. Then to the counterpoint: Would a normal father punish them by grounding them or by injecting them with HIV?

Indeed. The issue of justice is what makes the view that God punishes people with disease a highly problematic one.

I see your point, but the concept of Grace is what makes the difference. When we've sinned, we incur a spiritual debt. Some people call it karma. Now as human beings, we're imperfect and there's no way we can be perfect and we can't repay our spiritual debt because it leaves our spirit unclean. Accepting Jesus Christ means essentially that you enter into an agreement with Him: He will pay the price for your sin, and in exchange you follow Him. This enables you to go to Heaven, cleansed, without having to pay any penalty for those sins.

Without have to pay any penalty?

To tweak your analogy, it would be like your kid cherry bombs the mailbox. He's going to have to pay for it out of his allowance but his allowance can't possibly cover the damage. Instead, he comes to you and truly and sincerely is sorry and wants to change his ways, so you agree to pay the cost of the mailbox for him, and in return he commits to obeying you as his parent faithfully from then on.

It sounds as if there is a penalty here. And the penalty is submitting your will to another.

Without have to pay any penalty?

It sounds as if there is a penalty here. And the penalty is submitting your will to another.

I don't see that as being a penality. Using our analogy, is it really a penalty for your kid to submit to your authority? Of course it isn't, because your authority exists for his own benefit anyway. You'll guide him and instruct him and give him rules to follow all for his own good, that he will grow up confident, strong and good.

It's exactly the same way with Jesus Christ. We don't worship and follow him for HIS benefit. He doesn't need us. We're the ones who gain by it.

That's why love is such a big part of it.

Indeed. The issue of justice is what makes the view that God punishes people with disease a highly problematic one.

No, no, I was actually asking. I mean, I'm babysitting this neighbor's kid, and their parents told me to do what they'd do. He just blew up my neighbor's plant down the hall, so I wanna know what should I do, ground him or injecting him with HIV.

I don't see that as being a penality. Using our analogy, is it really a penalty for your kid to submit to your authority? Of course it isn't, because your authority exists for his own benefit anyway. You'll guide him and instruct him and give him rules to follow all for his own good, that he will grow up confident, strong and good.

It's exactly the same way with Jesus Christ. We don't worship and follow him for HIS benefit. He doesn't need us. We're the ones who gain by it.

That's why love is such a big part of it.

But what if someone else also wishes the kid well and the kid decides THEIR orders are better or more adequate, especially when the kid has no idea who his father is? Should they be punished?

when i wrote "show" i didnt mean YOU. i meant tell me what exact behavior you are talking about.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.


what does RACIST have to do with the belief in a torturous hell?

You said you couldn't predict somebody's actions based on their stated beliefs. I pointed out that you can, and probably do, precisely that.


just what behavior would you expect from a person who believes in hell? ive known many such people and cant think of a way they are different from those who dont believe (except for the belief part)

If a person seriously believes in a literal Hell, in which people like me will be burned alive for all eternity (or something along those lines), and they choose to worship the God who created Hell and who will send people like me to Hell, then I react toward them the same way I would react toward a person who states their support for lighting other people on fire if they fail to embrace the proper religion.

Personally, I think my behavior toward them is far more respectful than yours. I take them at their word, and react to them accordingly.


a person's religious belief is the last thing i would worry about when choosing a babysitter.
It shouldn't be.

No, no, I was actually asking. I mean, I'm babysitting this neighbor's kid, and their parents told me to do what they'd do. He just blew up my neighbor's plant down the hall, so I wanna know what should I do, ground him or injecting him with HIV.

Call the parents and ask what they would do.

Call the parents and ask what they would do.

Thanks for the advice. They said cholera, though, and I'm all out. Think they'd mind if I just infected him with tuberculosis instead?

Thanks for the advice. They said cholera, though, and I'm all out. Think they'd mind if I just infected him with tuberculosis instead?

Given their support for the cholera option, probably not.

Given their support for the cholera option, probably not.

Meh. You know what, I'll just give him a cold and be done with it. The parents were busy creating this new planet, so they're out for the week anyways.

As I said, they are choosing to worship the being that will cause it to happen. How would you react to a person who knowingly voted for a leader who would torture everybody who didn't belong to a particular faith?


The major distinction is that whether or not that being exists has nothing to do with them.
Whereas voting for a leader that would torture people is something they can have control over.

And I never said it couldn't be worse. I simply said that I deal with torture advocates accordingly.
Believing =/= advocating

I believe that people lie all the time. I hardly advocate it.

I don't see that as being a penality. Using our analogy, is it really a penalty for your kid to submit to your authority? Of course it isn't, because your authority exists for his own benefit anyway. You'll guide him and instruct him and give him rules to follow all for his own good, that he will grow up confident, strong and good.

It's exactly the same way with Jesus Christ. We don't worship and follow him for HIS benefit. He doesn't need us. We're the ones who gain by it.

That's why love is such a big part of it.

Fair enough.

Since Heikoku already took up the response to that one, I'll just bow out.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.


You said you couldn't predict somebody's actions based on their stated beliefs. I pointed out that you can, and probably do, precisely that.


If a person seriously believes in a literal Hell, in which people like me will be burned alive for all eternity (or something along those lines), and they choose to worship the God who created Hell and who will send people like me to Hell, then I react toward them the same way I would react toward a person who states their support for lighting other people on fire if they fail to embrace the proper religion.

Personally, I think my behavior toward them is far more respectful than yours. I take them at their word, and react to them accordingly.


It shouldn't be.

yeah, im gonna worry that my babysitter is a christian. not.

its more like my telling you that murder gets the death penalty in the united states. that doesnt mean i love the death penalty or that im going to pull the switch on the electric chair. it just a statement of fact.

some believers in a torturous hell are very upset to think that you will suffer for eternity, some gloat that it will be you and not them, but only the nutz think that they have some say in the matter.

its not like they are threatening anyone with torture. taking them at their word doesnt imply any harm to me in this life. their belief is utterly irrelevant. it has no effect on me one way or the other.

some believers in a torturous hell are very upset to think that you will suffer for eternity

And how do these conciliate these views with the view of a fair, just and GOOD God?

And how do these conciliate these views with the view of a fair, just and GOOD God?

i believe its the part where all you have to do to avoid a torturous hell is to believe in jesus christ as your personal lord and savior.

this is what leads some people to be obnoxious evangelists. they really dont want you to end up burning in hell forever and they feel a bit desperate about their chances of bringing you to the one true faith.

"Advocate"... I don't advocate hell in fact I wish it did not exist and that non believers would just blip into nothingness. But unfortunately there is hell and it is not a place you want to be.

When you get to heaven, please drop that in God's suggestion box for all us non-believers.

Many thanks! ^.~

When you get to heaven, please drop that in God's suggestion box for all us non-believers.

Many thanks! ^.~

lol

there are denominations that believe that hell is the place where satan lives and people dont go there. "the wages of sin are death" not eternal life of torment.

First off, on the issue of "how can God be justified to..."

As C.S. Lewis said:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: Just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Or G.K. Chesterton:

"Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X."

Despite that - assuming that you do have a proper sense of justice (even if you cannot explain where it came from, and why its the 'correct' sense), I'll continue.

The rest of the following is a very good explanation that Dr. Norman Geisler presents in one of his works:

Couldn't God make a world without evil?

It is possible that He could have created a world without evil. Here is the argument:

1. God knows everything
2. So God knew evil would occur when He created the world.
3. God had other nonevil possibilities. God could have:

a. Not created anything
b. Created a world without free creatures.
c. Created free creatures that would not sin.
d. Created free creatures who would sin but would all be saved in the end.

4. Hence, God could have created a world that did not include either evil or hell.

That seems like a pretty strong argument, since God did have all those options. The question is, "Are those options really better than the world we have?" Let's examine them one at a time.

God could have not created anything

This argument wrongly implies that nothing is better than something. It suggests that it would have been better for nothing ever to existed than for some evil to exist. But that overlooks the fact that the things created were good and it was good for them to merely exist. That good could not have been if God had not created. Besides this, the objection really makes no sense. It says, in effect, "It would have been morally better for God to have made a nonmoral world." But what has no morality attached to it cannot be either better or worse. It has no moral status; it doesn't even have any reality status. THis isn't even like comparing apples and oranges because they both exist. Here the comparison is nothing with something.

God could have created a world without free creatures

It is possible that God could have inhabited the earth with all animals or robots who would only do His will. But this option runs into the same problem as the first: it is a nonmoral option. That is, a nonmoral world cannot be a morrally good world. Again, we can't compare what is nongood (i.e., morally neutral) to what is bad. God created us so that he could love us, and we could love him. But creatues without a free will implies slaves. And forced love is rape. God is not a divine rapist. Real love includes a choice, and this is what God wanted.

God could have created free creatures that would not sin

It is logically possible to have free will and not sin. Adam did it before the Fall. Jesus did it throughout his whole life. The Bible says that there will someday be a world in heaven where everyone has free will but there won't be any sin. There is no problem with the idea of such a world, but not everything that is logically possible becomes actually real. It is logically possible tht the United States could have lost the Revolutionary War, but that is not what actually happened.

In the same way, it is conceivable that free creatures would never sin, but getting it to happen is another matter. How could God have guaranteed that they would never sin? One way would be to tamper with their freedom. He could have set up some mechanism so that just when they were about to choose something evil, a distraction would come along to change their decision. Or maybe He could have programmed creatures to only do good things. But are such creatures really free?

It's hard to call a choice free if it was programmed so that there was no alternative. And if our actions are merely diverted from doing evil, aren't there already evil motives in the decision that we were about to make? So to instantly create a world where no one sins may be conceivable, but it is not actually achievable.

God could have created free creatures who would sin, but would all be saved in the end

This option makes the same error as the one before it in assuming that GOd can manipulate human freedom to choose good. Some people say that God will never stop pursuing a person until he makes the right choice. But this view does not take seriously the biblical teaching that hell is real for some. Such a view suggests that God will save individuals no matter what he has to do. But we must remember that he cannot force them to love him. Again, forced love is rape. He will not do anything to coerce their decision. God will not 'save men at any cost'. He respects their freedom and concurs with their choice.

Then why did God choose this world?

Is this the best world God could have made? This may not be the best of all possible worlds, but is the best way to the best world. If God is to both preserve freedom and defeat evil, then this is the best way to do it. Freedom is preserved in that each person makes his own free choice to determine his destiny. Evil is overcome in that, once those who reject God are separated from the others, the decisions of all are made permanent. Those who choose God will be confirmed in it, and sin will cease. Those who reject God are in eternal quarantine and cannot upset the perfect world that has come about. The ultimate goal of a perfect world with free creatures will have been achieved, but the way to get there requires that those who abuse their freedome be cast out, and those that do the right thing with their freedom be ushered into the perfect world.

God has assured us that as many as possible will be saved - all who will believe (John 6:37). As Jesus said when mourning:

"How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." (Matthew 23:37)

As atheist Jean-Paul Sartre noted in his play No Exit:

"The gates of hell are locked from the inside by man's free choice."

If you consider that Hell as a place of torture didnt really begin until the New Testament, and that the religion came direct from the Jewish faith, its not hard to imagine that the very idea was made up as a "hellfire and brimstone" fireball conversion technique.

In other words, it doesnt exist to anyone but the christians.

Please note that NOWHERE in Judaism does it say that you need to be jewish to get into Heaven. In fact there are many of waht we call "righteous gentiles" found currently and in the ancient times (mentioned in the Talmud, etc.) Judaism believes that Jews have a job to do that's different from the rest of the world's, but not any better in any way. (EXample: Is an electrician better than a builder? No, they are BOTH essential to building a house.)

...This argument wrongly implies that nothing is better than something...
Lookee! Google works (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=0RN&q=“This+argument+wrongly+implies+that+nothing+is+better+than+something.”&btnG=Search&meta=)!

Plagiarisms not nice. And cutting & pasting is just lazy.

Ah...plagiarism?

If you consider that Hell as a place of torture didnt really begin until the New Testament, and that the religion came direct from the Jewish faith, its not hard to imagine that the very idea was made up as a "hellfire and brimstone" fireball conversion technique.

In other words, it doesnt exist to anyone but the christians.

Hell as a place of torture is an extremely old idea, and hardly the exclusive province of Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di_Yu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xibalba

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus

Ah...plagiarism?
Passing someone else’s work off as your own

Which, intentionally or no, you’re doing by copying and pasting an article without crediting the author, giving the source, or even acknowledging you’ve not written it yourself.

Bad form, Peter. Bad form.

Passing someone else’s work off as your own

Which, intentionally or no, you’re doing by copying and pasting an article without crediting the author, giving the source, or even acknowledging you’ve not written it yourself.

Bad form, Peter. Bad form.

:rolleyes: I understand the definition of the term. I'm not sure why you're assuming that what I wrote was from another article....??

Btw, would that make you in opposition to what I have presented?

I understand the definition of the term. I’m not sure why you’re assuming that what I wrote was from another article....??
Because I’ve found the article you cut & pasted it from.

I linked to it in my previous post. Here (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=0RN&q=“This+argument+wrongly+implies+that+nothing+is+better+than+something.”&btnG=Search&meta=) it is again.

Btw, would that make you in opposition to what I have presented?
I dispute pretty much all of ‘your’ arguments, their premises and their conclusions.

The idea that ‘freedom’ consists of being subjected to eternal torture if one doesn’t acknowledge through blind faith the existence of an unprovable deity seems especially squiffy.

:rolleyes: I understand the definition of the term. I'm not sure why you're assuming that what I wrote was from another article....??

Btw, would that make you in opposition to what I have presented?

http://www.eastside.com/ministries/pdf/badtogood.pdf
Why would God allow bad things to happen to “good” people?
(Taken from Norman Geisler’s Apologetics Library on CD-ROM, “When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences”, pp. 64-69)

Unless you are Norman Geisler (and you have not shown evidence of this being true...) then what you posted was plagiarism.

Are you Norman Geisler?

And if you are, you might want to pick up a copy of "Creation & the Courts: Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the Courtroom
By: Norman L. Geisler" and bring it back into the creation thread. You might also pick up a copy of "Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking". Also by you.

Because I’ve found the article you cut & pasted it from.

For one thing - this link doesn't bring up any 'article'. Which it shouldn't...because I haven't posted this elsewhere before...

The idea that ‘freedom’ consists of being subjected to eternal torture if one doesn’t acknowledge through blind faith the existence of an unprovable deity seems especially squiffy.

First off...don't consider me as one of those churchy, Bible thumping, praising individual that rants on about how 'we must lift our hearts'....disgusting. I don't even go to church. But I'm smart enough to realise that the biblical God does exist, no matter how much of a stain the church has put on his nature...

Blind faith? So if God came down all of a sudden and showed himself to every inhabitant on earth...would you think that this is slightly encroaching on one's free choice? If he did that - he would be practically saying "well here I am guys! You now don't have a choice because you've seen me with your own two eyes, and you can't deny that I exist! Gotcha!"

Instead, those that struggle through the unbelief to conclude that God must exist will be told afterwards 'Well done, my good and faithful servant.' And will be rewarded.

As for eternal suffering - wherever evil is where God isn't, is hell. That's the definition of hell. Without God. With evil. And this experience you have here on earth is where you choose if you want God or not. Its your choice - and you'll get exactly what you wanted. Don't shift the blame there.

Don't beleive in god/s, don't believe in heaven/hell, don't believe in higher powers of any kind. I wonder if I'll find out whether I'm correct, after I die.

First off, on the issue of "how can God be justified to..."

As C.S. Lewis said:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: Just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Except that Lewis himself was speaking from the pulpit of a universalist perspective, as can be seen in his literary works. There's a fairly well known scene in The Last Battle that deals with it.

Or G.K. Chesterton:

"Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X."

Yes. And "absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans" or, to put it more simply, "if there is no God" then the X in this equation is MY standards. Things are 'wrong' (evil, harmful...) if they do not meet up with what I deem to be good. That is, however, true even for people who DO accept a God, since no two of them ever agree on what those supposed "absolute moral standards" are either.

Despite that - assuming that you do have a proper sense of justice (even if you cannot explain where it came from, and why its the 'correct' sense), I'll continue.
It is often a failing in people who assume that one must have a God that they do not believe anyone who does not cannot be good or just. They believe this even if presented with absolute proof that such people exist, to the point of quite often being insulting to a wide swath of others who do good, behave well, take care of each other, and all without a deity to give credit for their goodness.

Couldn't God make a world without evil?

Yes. If there were a God, she could make a world without evil. Since the concept of God is, until proven otherwise, merely a point of metaphysical debate and the world is neither good nor evil, but rather a big chunk of rock hurtling through space, and inanimate, the question is somewhat nonsensical.

Bad things happen. There are natural disasters of all sorts that cause humans all sorts of grief. They are not evil, they are merely the results of weather patterns and fault lines and underground thermal pressure, diseases that spread, that is to say naturally occurring events with no aims or desires. Evil is intentioned. Earthquakes are not.

There are disasters that are man made. Airplanes and cars crash. Buildings catch fire and burn through faulty wiring. E. coli gets into food supplies. Accidents happen. They are not evil, they are accidents.

There are things that happen that are evil. Murders. Atomic bombs. Invasions of foreign countries. People mistreating other people, or animals, or the world we live in deliberately. These things, which are intentional, ARE evil.

Could we have a world without the bad things? Probably not any time soon. We are not technologically advanced enough to prevent all natural and man made disasters. Would we like such a world? Sure. Do we work towards finding such preventions? Sure, all the time.

Could we have a world without evil? I would love to think we might, some day. It is not terribly likely, but some day the entirety of humanity might decide that it is better to preserve life and treat it well. That would be great. Does it require a god? No. All it requires is ONE of Jesus' suggestions... that being "Love your neighbor as yourself." But we don't even need Jesus' version of that... we could use the Wiccan rede "An' harm it none, do what thou will" which means the same thing. I know there are other versions everywhere...

But back to "Could God create a world with no evil?" Most of the answers in the essay by Norman Geisler were some form of "Yes but here is why she didn't." Which makes the whole essay somewhat useless, since if God didn't, then it is up to us to say "Well, God, you created a world with evil in it and left it to us to deal with. What, exactly, do we need YOU for again?" and to get on with removing as much of the evil as we can manage, which is what we should be doing anyway.

So basically, my feeling about this essay is that it boils down to proving why we do not need God. Thanks Norm!

Yes. And "absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans" or, to put it more simply, "if there is no God" then the X in this equation is MY standards. Things are 'wrong' (evil, harmful...) if they do not meet up with what I deem to be good.

This is, in fact, relativism. Which has a few faults - like the foundation of its very logic. Relativism denies absolute truths. But the theory falls when one asks:

"Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?"

Also, what if I deny relativism? I claim that it is good for me to deny relativism. Are you going to say that must uphold relativism? Well...who says I must? You? Why? Because society will function better if I uphold relativism? Who says that it's good for society should function better in the first place?

Despite that, another hole is motives. What if a boy tried to trip an old lady over (who would have probably broken her hip), but failed? He did not harm someone else, and the lady didn't even notice what he was trying to do. Did he do wrong?

That is, however, true even for people who DO accept a God, since no two of them ever agree on what those supposed "absolute moral standards" are either.

The difference is, people of the theistic religions have moral standards. Whether or not correct - they have the standards, and can be logically, but not necessarily rightfully, justified. Relativism doesn't even get as far as that.

...to the point of quite often being insulting to a wide swath of others who do good, behave well, take care of each other, and all without a deity to give credit for their goodness.

People have the capacity to do good deeds. It is where you claim that your moral law originiated from - that is in question. As I have stated before, relativism is both illogical and irrational. One needs a being outside morality to set the morality itself.

Since the concept of God is, until proven otherwise, merely a point of metaphysical debate and the world is neither good nor evil, but rather a big chunk of rock hurtling through space, and inanimate, the question is somewhat nonsensical...

The world is morally neutral? Tell me - is raping children for fun right, or wrong? Is murder right or wrong? If you answer those questions (even if you say...'wrong for me') - you have denied a nonmoral world.

Evil is intentioned.

There we are again. Can you explain bad intentions/motives for society that are attempted but aren't fulfilled?

There are things that happen that are evil. Murders. Atomic bombs. Invasions of foreign countries. People mistreating other people, or animals, or the world we live in deliberately. These things, which are intentional, ARE evil.

When did man collectively decide what was evil? (i.e. murders, mass destruction etc.) Because the absolute decision to claim relativism as the right way of thought sure contradicts itself...

Could we have a world without evil? I would love to think we might, some day. It is not terribly likely, but some day the entirety of humanity might decide that it is better to preserve life and treat it well. That would be great. Does it require a god? No. All it requires is ONE of Jesus' suggestions... that being "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Not entirely correct. I might kill you claiming, "I am doing this out of love for you." Why? Because that 'love' is not defined. Different people will have different definitions of 'love' -because there is no being outside of morality to set the moral law and define what 'love' is.

Again, I'll state that morals cannot operate without the existence of a higher being to institute them. What makes me think that the biblical God is that higher being? We can get there when you might agree with my first point...

It may not be accurate (who knows) but a certain joke indicates that heaven would be filled with walls so that the variety of religious believers there would not have to see those of other beliefs and be highly offended by the fact that they're not the only ones skipping through bliss.

I imagine that people who don't believe in God don't believe in Hell and aren't threatened by the ignorance of people who feel that faith and hope is something to be shoved down the throats of non-believers. There's a difference between saying that you are going to harm someone personally and saying that an elusive and possibly nonexistent harm will be thrust upon someone in the afterlife.

After all, it's not like a Christian is going to float to heaven in the arms of angels and say, "Oh God, I am not worried about my own slate right now because I know I am ever-so-righteous, but I have to tell you about those people down there who don't believe in you!! I have a list right here of people I know who should be going to Hell... " (I sort of picture the expression on God's face with that and chuckle - "Oi, the headache these people give me!")

Who knows, maybe they would go to heaven with a naughty/nice list and then there's something about judge not lest ye be judged yourself. Ahh... I ramble.

This is, in fact, relativism. Which has a few faults - like the foundation of its very logic. Relativism denies absolute truths. But the theory falls when one asks:

"Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?"


Point at one absolute truth. Then we will know. If you can't, I would say that it is currently true that there are no absolute truths that we know of, which is all, as a relativist, I would ever say anyway. I can't argue that there will NEVER be any, I don't KNOW if there ever will. I don't know if there are any now. I just don't know OF any now.

Also, what if I deny relativism? I claim that it is good for me to deny relativism. Are you going to say that must uphold relativism? Well...who says I must? You? Why? Because society will function better if I uphold relativism? Who says that it's good for society should function better in the first place?

If I were to claim that MY beliefs were the absolute truth (by insisting that you must uphold relativism) then I would not be a relativist, would I? On the other hand, if you read what I actually wrote, you would see that what I was saying is that EVERYONE is a relativist, whether they think so or not. And that also means that everyone holds their own beliefs, not that everyone must hold mine. The proof that everyone is a relativist? Point to an absolute truth. Now point to everyone who claims not to be a relativist who holds that truth exactly the same way. If any two of them disagree, then it is not an absolute truth, is it?

And by this I am, of course, speaking of an absolute moral truth.

Then tell me where you got that truth. Then lets talk to all those people and see if their sources are the same one.

Despite that, another hole is motives. What if a boy tried to trip an old lady over (who would have probably broken her hip), but failed? He did not harm someone else, and the lady didn't even notice what he was trying to do. Did he do wrong?

With no further info, I would say that his attempt was wrong. There may, however, be extenuating circumstances (his hands were full and he was trying to prevent her from stepping into traffic with his leg... she was trying to kick him and he was just trying to block her kick... there are many others). And, as I say later on, evil is in the motives (intentions).

But, that is my opinion. It has nothing to do with what God may or may not think.



The difference is, people of the theistic religions have moral standards. Whether or not correct - they have the standards, and can be logically, but not necessarily rightfully, justified. Relativism doesn't even get as far as that.

So you are saying that I cannot, logically, have moral standards because I don't believe in God? Hm. All right. I will just continue to be a good person because I want to be, not because it is moral. That works for me.


People have the capacity to do good deeds. It is where you claim that your moral law originiated from - that is in question. As I have stated before, relativism is both illogical and irrational. One needs a being outside morality to set the morality itself.

You have stated that. I have disagreed. I suppose what is needed is a definition of what "moral" means to you. Define moral and we can continue from there.

The world is morally neutral? Tell me - is raping children for fun right, or wrong? Is murder right or wrong? If you answer those questions (even if you say...'wrong for me') - you have denied a nonmoral world.


You need to go back and read what I wrote. I said the world is a big chunk of rock. That big rock has no morals. It cannot act, it cannot think... it is a rock.

I said that earthquakes and plane crashes are not evil. They are tragic events that happen, but not evil.

I said that murder IS evil.

To clarify for you, the REASON I said that the rock and the events are not evil is that too many times it is argued that if God allows tragic events (which are then referred to as "evil") how can God be a loving, caring... well, you know the rest of that.

I was explaining what *I* think is evil, and that is "intentional harm". If someone sets out to harm someone else, that is evil.

There we are again. Can you explain bad intentions/motives for society that are attempted but aren't fulfilled?


I think you misunderstood "Evil is intentioned" so allow me to rephrase. I did not mean that "evil is something that someone intends to do but doesn't get to", I meant that "evil is something that is done intentionally, or on purpose." Geological events, accidents, and things that are often pointed to as evil are not, in my book. Evil is that which intentional harms or aims to harm someone or something. As such, it can only be committed by humans (yes, I am taking animal behavior out of the equation... we can argue that point if you like, but it is rather tedious).


When did man collectively decide what was evil? (i.e. murders, mass destruction etc.) Because the absolute decision to claim relativism as the right way of thought sure contradicts itself...


Did you mean to ask "Why did man..."? I ask because if not I need some clarification here... since "Because" is not an answer to "When?"

But if you did mean why, well, I think that enough of us use definitions similar to mine that we can collectively say that causing harm on purpose is a bad thing. As to that being an absolute truth, well, probably not. I mean, define harm in an absolute way.

And this whole "absolute decision to claim relativism" argument is poppycock. I don't demand that you believe relativism is the only way. I do say that you are wrong when you demand absolute truth is, because it is not, for me.


Not entirely correct. I might kill you claiming, "I am doing this out of love for you." Why? Because that 'love' is not defined. Different people will have different definitions of 'love' -because there is no being outside of morality to set the moral law and define what 'love' is.
First of all, this objection you raise is a very large stretch. But...

Fair enough... then, as you say, Jesus was wrong. He should have gone with the Wiccan rede (which I also quoted, and covers this very objection, and you cut when responding...) "An' harm it none, do what thou will." Which means, "live your life as you choose as long as you do not harm anyone." Killing me, even out of love, would be harmful, so don't.

Also, define "love" absolutely, based on your moral code, which comes from an absolute truth.

Again, I'll state that morals cannot operate without the existence of a higher being to institute them. What makes me think that the biblical God is that higher being? We can get there when you might agree with my first point...

For the purposes of this particular discussion, it does not matter in the slightest who you think that higher being is. But whoever it might be, I disagree that morals must be forced on one from the outside. I defy you to show me any two people who have exactly the same moral code. If two such people do not exist, I must assume that either you are incorrect about the existence of an absolute truth, or somehow no one who has ever lived has known that truth. And if no one has ever known it, how true could it actually be? I defy you to lay out any supposed absolute moral code that everyone in the world would agree is moral. If there is an absolute truth, it must, of necessity, be admittedly the truth (that is, once presented with it, all honest people must admit it is true), and have no valid counter argument (which, if true would eliminate the objections of the liars too) . So my challenge to you is to point me toward such an unarguable absolutely true moral code.

For one thing - this link doesn't bring up any 'article'. Which it shouldn't...because I haven't posted this elsewhere before...


You are denying the plagiarism???

Wrong move, both morally and in terms of playing nice around here where plagiarism is against the rules. You did not write that piece, the link DOES go to a place where it is posted and credited to Norman Geisler, a prolific writer of Christian apologetics. So either he is the plagiarist, or you are... and I am not betting on it being him.

So admit that this is plagiarized or lose what little credibility you have left.

I am religious, but not a Christian or a Muslim.

I don't believe in their eternal damnation version of hell.

I believe we all go to the same afterlife.

However, for some people, instead of being an eternal vacation happy fun time, they have a certain amount of debt they must work off in service.

Naturally, I don't think people wind up having to work in "heaven" just because they don't agree with me, I believe that only those whose bad deeds outweigh their good ones have to serve. How long and how hard the service is I believe is probably proportional to how much more negative than positive one's effect on the world was.

That's just what I believe personally, not saying I have any proof or evidence (because then where is faith?) or that I somehow know I'm right, I just believe I am. I do think it's more fair than "You're going to suffer for all eternally because you didn't believe in me when you should have, despite otherwise being an excellent person," though.

For one thing - this link doesn't bring up any 'article'.
Don't know how you missed it; it's the only link on the page I showed you. I didn't ink directly to the article because it's a .pdf, some folks might not want to open it.

Not only are you blatantly plagiarising, you've not got the cojones to admit your in the wrong when at least two posters havepointed out your fault.

Shame.

Blind faith? So if God came down all of a sudden and showed himself to every inhabitant on earth...would you think that this is slightly encroaching on one's free choice? If he did that - he would be practically saying "well here I am guys! You now don't have a choice because you've seen me with your own two eyes, and you can't deny that I exist! Gotcha!"

Instead, those that struggle through the unbelief to conclude that God must exist will be told afterwards 'Well done, my good and faithful servant.' And will be rewarded.
That's not a free choice.

If I show you all the fruits of the world, and say to you that you may freely pick any fruit you like, then after you pick a passion fruit say, "Oh, sorry, you made the wrong choice. As you didn't pick an apple, I'm going to punish you", that's hardly free, is it?

Now, obviously, the above argumet doesn't invalidate the Christian god's possible existence (not much, if anything will; blind faith, you see?). BUt it clearly shows that God, if it exists, doesn't give humans freedom. It gives us a limited choice with the threat of punishment.

As for eternal suffering - wherever evil is where God isn't, is hell. That's the definition of hell. Without God. With evil. And this experience you have here on earth is where you choose if you want God or not. Its your choice - and you'll get exactly what you wanted. Don't shift the blame there.
So, on top of being punished for failing to have faith in one of the myriad amount of deities in the world, with no proof whatsoever, it's my fault?

Jeez. What a horrible, spiteful god.

Thus born the saying "Go to hell"! :)

I said "I am not a Christian and I believe in another form of Hell".

Hell in Hinduism is temporary and there are believed to be 8 Hellish realms where souls who did bad suffer. Afterwards, they are reincarnated and they just continue with their spiritual path.

I like the version of hell portrayed in Niel Gayman's "Sandman" -- it's the place where dead christians take themselves if they believe that they deserve to be punished. They are there of their own free will, whether they know it or not; they can leave whenever they like.

I've no problem with people believing in some sort of hell, providing they don't push that belief on vulnerable others -- say, children.

If I show you all the fruits of the world, and say to you that you may freely pick any fruit you like, then after you pick a passion fruit say, "Oh, sorry, you made the wrong choice. As you didn't pick an apple, I'm going to punish you", that's hardly free, is it?..... But it clearly shows that God, if it exists, doesn't give humans freedom. It gives us a limited choice with the threat of punishment.

Find a Bible and re-read that. Genesis 2:16-17. Knowing that you probably won't do that, I'll quote it here:

Genesis 2:16-17:

And the Lord God commanded man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Not only did God say that, but they understood the warning too:

Genesis 3:2-3:

The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."

If you read on, you find that she then tempted to eat the fruit, which she did (she would have had over a million other trees to pick fruit from - she gave into the temptation of disobeying God so that she might become 'like God') and also gave to her husband. As a result, they deliberately disobeyed God's warning, and were justly punished.

Why did God put that tree there? Because he wanted to give man a choice to walk away from him, if they wanted to. A free choice. Which we did.


Jeez. What a horrible, spiteful God.

Uh…not really. Creation cost him nothing. Our disobedience cost him the excruciating flogging, ripping, bruising, beating and final death upon two bloodstained pieces of wood – so that we didn’t have to suffer the eternal punishment of hell.

I call that a shockingly compassionate and loving God. Shocking. We don’t deserve it.

He’s left it up to us to decide if we actually want to accept what he’s done. When someone sincerely does, that’s when he steps into someone’s life to accept the invitation. Not before.

Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness. ~ Martin Luther

If God would concede me His omnipotence for 24 hours, you would see how many changes I would make in the world. But if He gave me His wisdom too, I would leave things as they are. ~ Monsabre

Free choice.

Point at one absolute truth. Then we will know. If you can't, I would say that it is currently true that there are no absolute truths that we know of, which is all, as a relativist, I would ever say anyway. I can't argue that there will NEVER be any, I don't KNOW if there ever will. I don't know if there are any now. I just don't know OF any now

I don’t think you understood the point I was trying to get across. What’s wrong with this sentence?:

“Its absolutely true that there are no absolute truths.”

You are stating the absolute truth that absolute truths don’t exist. Can you see what’s happening? It contradicts itself. You might as well say ‘There is no such thing as communication’. Well – you’re communicating to me that communication does not exist. See what I mean?

I said that earthquakes and plane crashes are not evil.

An absolute.

Evil is in the motives.

Another absolute.

I said that murder IS evil.

Yet another absolute.

EVERYONE is a relativist, whether they think so or not.

Oops – another absolute truth! Tell me - who said this was absolutely true in the first place?

For myself – I deny relativism, I deny the absolute statement: There are no absolutes. Because it’s not logical. It doesn’t make sense. Its simply not sensible. Its very ridiculous! And I can go on making these absolute statements about truth, because I follow an existing absolute truth to measure your words up with.

You can’t measure my words up with anything, unless you claim that relativism is an absolute truth!

I believe, and know that, the laws that God set down – exist, and are absolute truths. Whether you think so or not. But unlike you, I can tell you which person said that this was absolutely true, and I can tell you that this person has the required authority over you and me to have the credence to make that decision.

Why not Allah…why not Buddha? We can get there when you first see that relativism actually defeats itself. Then I’ll be able to explain what’s wrong with other theistic religions.

So you are saying that I cannot, logically, have moral standards because I don't believe in God?

I know that you have knowledge of right and wrong, whether it be similar or different to the standards I follow. Moral standards means knowledge of right and wrong. Right and wrong = absolutes. Moral standards = absolutes.

However, you can’t claim that your rights and wrongs are absolute (even if its just for you),when in the same breath you claim that there are no absolutes. You’ve just defeated your own moral standards. Relativism doesn’t work. Surely you can see that by now.

Fair enough... then, as you say, Jesus was wrong. He should have gone with the Wiccan rede (which I also quoted, and covers this very objection, and you cut when responding...) "An' harm it none, do what thou will." Which means, "live your life as you choose as long as you do not harm anyone." Killing me, even out of love, would be harmful, so don't.

Also, define "love" absolutely, based on your moral code, which comes from an absolute truth.

Ah…Jesus did say ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’, and yes, the definition of love would be in question, except for the fact that the definition of love is also spelled out in the Bible: I will define love ‘absolutely’, thanks to the fact that God actually gave me a definition:

1 Corinthians 13:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres.”

There are many, many, many verses in the Bible displaying what love is. But this is a good one. I will state that I find it very difficult to uphold these things myself – I’m certainly not perfect, and I do many wrong things all the time. I’m human.

God also spells out the definitions of ‘evil’ and ‘truth’ if you’re really interested.

Don't know how you missed it; it's the only link on the page I showed you. I didn't ink directly to the article because it's a .pdf, some folks might not want to open it.

I'm quite serious that your link didn't work...it'd open up google with a short phrase that I stated inserted in the search box...with 'no search results'....but Botswavia's did.


As for the ‘plagiarism’…I’m actually Ron Brooks…co-author of……ok I can see you’re not taking it. I did use Norman Geisler’s words, and spent like 45 minutes transferring those words from book to word document (hadn’t known it was catalogued on the web - otherwise I may have used that :)) – and I’ve used his handy explanations many times. I will admit that I hadn’t known the seriousness of plagiarism in a non-profitable discussion (I’m no expert debator, I can assure you) – and after discovering that it was in fact not accepted, I am quite sorry that I have done it.

As for the continuation of this discussion, please feel free to reply to my message (for the sake of other readers) – though I may not be able to get back to you for about a week now…I’m leaving for a holiday down south this afternoon (getting back in about 8-9 days), and when I get back there’ll be ALOT to handle at the fairly large region I’m running here at NationStates…so I’ll be quite busy then too.

But I sincerely thank you for a certainly enjoyable discussion! :D And, I definitely will be back to perhaps conduct another verbal joust! :)

I don’t think you understood the point I was trying to get across. What’s wrong with this sentence?:

“Its absolutely true that there are no absolute truths.”

You are stating the absolute truth that absolute truths don’t exist. Can you see what’s happening? It contradicts itself. You might as well say ‘There is no such thing as communication’. Well – you’re communicating to me that communication does not exist. See what I mean?

I'm a relativist. I do not say “Its absolutely true that there are no absolute truths.” What I say is that I have never come across an absolute truth. Ever.

An absolute.

Another absolute.

Yet another absolute.

Oops – another absolute truth! Tell me - who said this was absolutely true in the first place?

For myself – I deny relativism, I deny the absolute statement: There are no absolutes. Because it’s not logical. It doesn’t make sense. Its simply not sensible. Its very ridiculous! And I can go on making these absolute statements about truth, because I follow an existing absolute truth to measure your words up with.

You can’t measure my words up with anything, unless you claim that relativism is an absolute truth!

Again, relativism does not have to be considered an absolute truth. It can be considered a tentative hypothesis, which is how I hold it. What's important is that I have yet to see an absolute.

I am not a Christian and I do not believe in Hell.

This could be replaced with I am not a [INSERT MYTH] and I do not believe in [INSERT PLACE].

I imagine the closest real thing to what the imaginary hell represents, would be perhaps present day North Korea, or East Timor circa 1990.

This nonsensical idea that Narnian Council is wielding, that laws that bind morality have or should have (I haven't understood yet which case is his) divine origin, has by now been thoroughly debunked. It's like a useless skin we've shed from our primal states of development.

Uh…not really. Creation cost him nothing. Our disobedience cost him the excruciating flogging, ripping, bruising, beating and final death upon two bloodstained pieces of wood – so that we didn’t have to suffer the eternal punishment of hell.

I call that a shockingly compassionate and loving God. Shocking. We don’t deserve it.


Shocking, certainly. Especially since I did not ask for, nor would I ever accept, someone else being punished for a crime I committed. That someone wants to make me beholden to a masochist who didn't have enough sense to say "The truth? The truth is that I think I am the son of God," at which Pilate would have laughed and Jesus would have walked, doesn't really work for me. Sorry, I don't accept, I don't want it, and if Jesus had asked me ahead of time what I thought about it, I would have said "listen, fella, here is a nice padded room, you might want to go in for a while and sleep it off!"

I don’t think you understood the point I was trying to get across. What’s wrong with this sentence?:

“Its absolutely true that there are no absolute truths.”

What is wrong is that you are playing at semantics (and doing it with something I never actually said... ) rather than answering my question, which was "Please point to an absolute truth?"

An absolute.

Another absolute.

Yet another absolute.

Oops – another absolute truth! Tell me - who said this was absolutely true in the first place?

All were my opinions. The only person claiming they are absolutes is you. Are you saying that my opinions are all absolutely true? I must be God.

For myself – I deny relativism, I deny the absolute statement: There are no absolutes. Because it’s not logical. It doesn’t make sense. Its simply not sensible. Its very ridiculous! And I can go on making these absolute statements about truth, because I follow an existing absolute truth to measure your words up with.

I am still waiting for you to point to an absolute truth. You continue to claim that I am stating absolute truths, though we both know I am stating my opinions. If you insist my opinions are absolute truths, well, ok... but I am here to warn you that if I am God, things are going to change around here.

I am looking for you to define a truth of your own. One simple statement that is an absolute moral truth. Any one. Give us a place to start.

You can’t measure my words up with anything, unless you claim that relativism is an absolute truth!

I measure them against my opinion. If my opinion is the absolute truth, again, I am God. If my opinion is NOT the absolute truth, then it is relative. But I can measure things against something that is relative. "My nephew is a faster runner than my niece." Comparison of things that change. Why not?

And, in fact, I can measure your words against things that YOU say too. If you contradict yourself, or change your own story, I can compare those things. If you say something that is illogical based on the known facts, I have judged your words based on the truth as I see it. The facts may change, my opinion of your words may change... but I certainly CAN measure your words, and have been doing so at rather great length for several days and in several threads. And it seems that I have not required God to do so. Hm.

So a statement like "You cannot measure my words up against anything..." is both patently false and painfully silly.

I believe, and know that, the laws that God set down – exist, and are absolute truths.Whether you think so or not. But unlike you, I can tell you which person said that this was absolutely true, and I can tell you that this person has the required authority over you and me to have the credence to make that decision.

I know that the laws that God set down are arbitrary and changeable, (and created by man, and specific to a certain point in the tribal development of one group of desert nomads... but that is another debate), and as such are not absolute anything. But please, point to a specific rule that God said that is an absolute truth so we can discuss it.

If the person you are proposing in the second part of this is God, or Jesus, well, no, fictional characters don't get to have authority over me. You are free to make your own choices, of course. If it is someone else, I'd love to hear it.

Why not Allah…why not Buddha? We can get there when you first see that relativism actually defeats itself. Then I’ll be able to explain what’s wrong with other theistic religions.

I am not at all interested in you tearing down other religions based only on yours. Let's stick to you showing me absolute truths that we can discuss. So far, I have yet to see any, but I can wait till you get back.

I know that you have knowledge of right and wrong, whether it be similar or different to the standards I follow. Moral standards means knowledge of right and wrong. Right and wrong = absolutes. Moral standards = absolutes.

However, you can’t claim that your rights and wrongs are absolute (even if its just for you),when in the same breath you claim that there are no absolutes. You’ve just defeated your own moral standards. Relativism doesn’t work. Surely you can see that by now.

Errr... what? I have not claimed that anything is absolute. And, when I reconsider a position I am holding, based on new information that comes in, I do, occasionally, shift my moral outlook. So no, I am not claiming my morals are absolute either. You keep trying to put me in a box that you are building, but the box does not fit.

With an absolute moral code, there is no room for growth. No room for the free will that you love to make discoveries and move on to better choices because of them. Absolutism doesn't work. Surely you can see that by now.

Ah…Jesus did say ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’, and yes, the definition of love would be in question, except for the fact that the definition of love is also spelled out in the Bible: I will define love ‘absolutely’, thanks to the fact that God actually gave me a definition:

1 Corinthians 13:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres.”

OK, so if you are offering this as the definition of love, how does that let you kill me out of love, which was what you proposed earlier? My definition of love is "That condition in which the other person's happiness is intrinsic to your own." My definition would not lead me to kill either, for the most part. But our definitions differ. Is your definition better than mine? You might think so. I might not. Do they both work? For each of us, they do. So? Is either one absolute? Obviously not. If yours were, it would be the standard accepted definition. It would be a lie to think otherwise. You can tear my definition down, if you like, and I could then tear yours down... but that would not make either of them the only truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

Wikipedia has a good article that defines love several different ways. Is wiki wrong in that it does not define love the way you do? No. So if wiki is right, and I am right, and you are right, then an absolute definition has still eluded us.

There are many, many, many verses in the Bible displaying what love is. But this is a good one. I will state that I find it very difficult to uphold these things myself – I’m certainly not perfect, and I do many wrong things all the time. I’m human.

God also spells out the definitions of ‘evil’ and ‘truth’ if you’re really interested.

Of course the bible does define other words. Show me one that has only one absolute definition, please.


I'm quite serious that your link didn't work...it'd open up google with a short phrase that I stated inserted in the search box...with 'no search results'....but Botswavia's did.

As for the ‘plagiarism’…I’m actually Ron Brooks…co-author of……ok I can see you’re not taking it. I did use Norman Geisler’s words, and spent like 45 minutes transferring those words from book to word document (hadn’t known it was catalogued on the web) – and I’ve used his handy explanations many times. I will admit that I hadn’t known the seriousness of plagiarism in a non-profitable discussion (I’m no expert debator, I can assure you) – and after discovering that it was in fact not accepted, I am quite sorry that I have done it.

It was less troublesome that you actually plagiarized Geisler than that, when called on it, (whether you could open the link or not) you flat out lied about it. But I accept your apology, please do not do it again.

Shocking, certainly. Especially since I did not ask for, nor would I ever accept, someone else being punished for a crime I committed. That someone wants to make me beholden to a masochist who didn't have enough sense to say "The truth? The truth is that I think I am the son of God," at which Pilate would have laughed and Jesus would have walked, doesn't really work for me. Sorry, I don't accept, I don't want it, and if Jesus had asked me ahead of time what I thought about it, I would have said "listen, fella, here is a nice padded room, you might want to go in for a while and sleep it off!"

To say nothing of the fact that according to scripture the crime committed that required Jesus' sacrifice was committed by a man that we know in fact never existed. Adam. Certainly something an «all-knowing» God would «know», before allegedly giving up his only son to unspeakable pain and death.

The notion is absurd from front to back and top to bottom.

Find a Bible and re-read that. Genesis 2:16-17. Knowing that you probably won’t do that, I’ll quote it here
As a kid going to Sunday School and a student doing Religious Studies, I’ve read the Bible plenty; both the NIV and the King James.


Genesis 2:16-17:

And the Lord God commanded man, [1] “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; [2] but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
The two statements I’ve highlighted, (1) and (2), directly contradict one another.

How can I be free to eat from any tree in the garden if I am prohibited from eating from one of the trees and will be punished for doing so? The prohibition limits my freedom, and thus I cannot be said to be truly free to eat from any tree in the garden.

Similarly, how can I be said to be free to choose any action in my life if God prohibits certain actions beforehand? I realise that I can choose any option I wish, but our understanding of freedom amounts to more than just the freedom to act, it also encompasses the freedom not to be punished subsequently for actions.

We don’t say that I am totally free to rob a bank; I may have the ability to do so, but that doesn’t leave me free to do it. I will be punished for it.

Why did God put that tree there? Because he wanted to give man a choice to walk away from him, if they wanted to. A free choice. Which we did.
Then why, if it was a free choice, are we being punished for our choice?

Creation cost him nothing. Our disobedience cost him the excruciating...
There you go again.

If our actions have no prohibitions on them, then what are we disobeying by acting?

Free choice.
That’s one funny conception of free choice.

The only way you can go to heaven is to ask forgiveness for your sins. There are things ive done that im perfectly glad i did and would do again and will not ever ask forgivness for. So my new plan is, if im going to Hell, i might as well do it right and try to get into Management.

Erm, why are people discussing the existence, or not, of hell based on the bible? The bible is just a book, a collection of 66 books that give us lots of beautiful stories about how the anciet and classic civilizations organized their society and their beliefs. Great! Luuuvvvlly!

Hell and heaven are dogmas, loosely (if at all) based on the bible, you'd have to use blind faith and a momentary lapse of reason to believe it literally. Faith isn't believing in these stories, it's seeing where they point to. Borg uses a Native American phrase from the story of their creation to describe how to view the bible: "Now I don't know if it happened this way or not but I know this story is true". I just don't see that it's the accuracy of the bible that matters, mostly it's that people felt so inspired by the divine or god or maybe drugs that they wrote stories to make sense of human life.

I find it disturbing that when Christians want to argue about life, sin, death, reward, punishment, they always point to the bible, id est, blind faith and anciet stories, and want to use it in lieu of reason. And what's worse is that often people get sucked in accepting their premise, ie, the bible contains the word of god and therefore is right; they get sucked into it because then they start arguing about why it is not right or should not be believed, etc. Seriously! Direct these people to a good logic book instead or at least get them a copy of Aristotle to see if they see any similarities. As if the human mind could contain god or god's language! Pascal wrote that god created man in his image and man returned the favour...funny, even if it means accepting the premise that the genesis story is correct.

I do remember a short story I read once and have promptly forgotten both the name and the author but it goes like this: the second coming has happened and God has collected all the Christians from earth and they stand just outside the pearly gates, waiting to be let in heaven. They are from different denominations but what they all have in common is that they lived a righteous life: they read the bible, took it seriously and followed it, prayed, went to church, etc. They are all standing there talking about how difficult it was to live a righteous life, how difficult not to steal, embezzle, cheat, have premarital sex, well you get the drift, all the things christians like to abstain from. But they say to each other that though it was difficult, it was worth it because at last, they have arrived in heaven. They see the pearly gates openning and instead of being allowed it, God has let in the cheaters, liars, homosexuals, divorcees, blasphemers, atheists, murderers, prostitutes, people from other religions, etc. They are all going in, all in front of the Christians. At first they are too stuned to say anything but at last they start complainig loudly and getting angry. "What??? Why are those sinners in before us, we have lived clean lives, these people haven't. They shouldn't be allowed in, heaven isn't for them, it's for us and for people like us who have lived a righteous life!!!" And then God appears and tells them that was their final judgement and they have failed. And they can't go into heaven.

I really don't do the story justice and even though the story uses the bible and dogmas, etc I take that to be part of our shared culture as most religions are. At any event I really like this story because it reminds me that if you can't see people as people, and insist on seeing them as sinners, or as Christians like to call it, the 'fallen nature', then you probably wouldn't like God anyway.

Honestly, why do religions allow angry people to flaunt their anger towards others as opposed to sending them off to therapy???

As a kid going to Sunday School and a student doing Religious Studies, I’ve read the Bible plenty; both the NIV and the King James.


The two statements I’ve highlighted, (1) and (2), directly contradict one another.

How can I be free to eat from any tree in the garden if I am prohibited from eating from one of the trees and will be punished for doing so? The prohibition limits my freedom, and thus I cannot be said to be truly free to eat from any tree in the garden.

Similarly, how can I be said to be free to choose any action in my life if God prohibits certain actions beforehand? I realise that I can choose any option I wish, but our understanding of freedom amounts to more than just the freedom to act, it also encompasses the freedom not to be punished subsequently for actions.

We don’t say that I am totally free to rob a bank; I may have the ability to do so, but that doesn’t leave me free to do it. I will be punished for it.


Then why, if it was a free choice, are we being punished for our choice?


There you go again.

If our actions have no prohibitions on them, then what are we disobeying by acting?


That’s one funny conception of free choice.


i think the more interesting problem is that before they ate of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil, adam and eve had no way of knowing that it was WRONG to disobey god.

god punishing them for doing as they pleased is as wrong as me punishing my cat for killing a baby bird. adam and eve had no more understanding of good and bad than my cat does.