Thread: Hell Rational?

Originally Posted by caelum

Okay, this doesn't address what my question was getting at, which was: why doesn't God make other lights if he can do anything? Other options equal to his? Anything other than hell as it is typically defined. You're leaning towards him not being able to, which means God is not omnipotent. Frankly that may not be a big deal; is an omnipotent God the only kind of God that can exist? I don't necessarily think so, in which case him not being able to do certain things isn't a big deal. But the question that has to be addressed is: how can a good God make souls knowing some of them will be going to Hell?

Most of the arguments so far against hell in this thread have been philosophical—how could a good God let Hell exist—but I think believing in Hell is also irrational on grounds of no material evidence or science supporting it. I'm curious if there are any pro-Hell arguments along those lines, other than spurious witness accounts.

@Nicky. That's an utter cop out. God is beyond words so don't even try debating him? I disagree, and think there's nothing we can't have a fair go at debating.

@Capulet. I addressed free will in my one post.

The fact that God doesn't choose to do things the way you think He should doesn't raise any question of His omnipotence. The only question it raises concerns your willingness to understand. The idea of God that you want to present is more like the Wizard of Oz, hiding behind his screen providing whatever keeps people happy.

Caelum, by asking that God create other 'lights' you are ignoring what he is. Let's see if this can be put another way.

God IS light...the nature of it. There is no such thing as light apart from him because of what he is and what light is.

So you're asking that people reject him in favor of something that is, essentially, him.

If I ask you if you'd like a drink of water and you say, "No thanks, I can't stand water but I'll be very upset if you don't give me a clear liquid of pure H2O." that wouldn't make a ton of sense.

I think you might be stuck in an idea of God that he's an old guy with a beard and a petulant disposition who really wants to just make the afterlife difficult. If you can expand your view a bit to consider a loving God who is pure power and righteousness and exists in all dimensions and all times you're hitting closer to what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Baron

The fact that God doesn't choose to do things the way you think He should doesn't raise any question of His omnipotence. The only question it raises concerns your willingness to understand. The idea of God that you want to present is more like the Wizard of Oz, hiding behind his screen providing whatever keeps people happy.

No amount of willingness can make me understand something that isn't understandable, that does not make sense and does not correspond to reality. I have presented arguments against Hell; I would appreciate them addressed with counterarguments rather than things degrading into personal quips. It is so hard to find a genuine debate these days.

Saying God's ways are beyond questioning, which is kind of the vibe I get from this, is a similar cop out to Nicky's.

Originally Posted by Foxee

So you're asking that people reject him in favor of something that is, essentially, him.

Still doesn't address what I was asking. I'm saying that yes, if God is omnipotent, he should be able to offer alternative H2Os. That is exactly what I mean. If nothing is impossible, it should be possible for Hitler to find his own particular heaven. Although I hope he gets a little bit of something on the way, maybe a century or two in the Lake of Fire.

Caelum, I totally answered that, you have simply ignored or not accepted what I have said.

Look at the substance of what we're talking about instead of only the shape of it.

Okay, to put this into words to the next level, what I mean by alternative H20s is something like this. The only kind of happy afterlife is in the presence of God, you say? So God makes a kind of twin. A dummy god that accepts the presence of a certain kind of sinner. The dummy God's sole job is to facilitate afterlives for that kind of sinner. Then God recreates dummy Gods for every kind of lost soul imaginable. It should be possible if God is omnipotent.

So the gist of my argument is clear, God should be able to make alternatives to Hell or he is not Omnipotent. If he can but he won't, then that goes back to my arguments against him being a loving, benevolent God.

Which completely ignores what God is once again.

The sinner, by definition does not want what God is, dummy or otherwise. They are rejecting God and all that he is, Godlike attributes. So to make a 'dummy God' wouldn't satisfy the sinner, Caelum. They've already turned down what God IS so to make more of what God IS will still result in more rejection.

I know you've got this pet theory but no matter how hard you pound on it, it still doesn't really make sense. I've repeated myself enough for today, you're going to have to take it or leave it.

I'll leave it. I don't feel my points were anywhere close to countered, or even addressed, but we can agree to disagree. And I wish I could claim the honour of God's being either not omnipotent or not benevolent my theory, but some quick googling will show it's quite popular. I kindof put my own spin on it here though, and don't remember how the original went anyway, so this is mostly me.

Anyone have scientific arguments in favour of hell?

Originally Posted by Tiamat10

As far as I'm concerned hell is a controlling device, used to make people bow to a specific god for fear of eternal damnation. I've talked to a lot of alleged Christians who told me that had trouble believing the things Christianity claims, but that they couldn't renounce their beliefs for fear of burning in hell.

That's pretty much it, as shown by what Foxee wrote.

Originally Posted by Foxee

So, then, about hell.

People can decide whether they want to be 'with God' or 'not with God'. 'Not with God' is separation from God...and all Godly characteristics. So hell would be where people turn away from God, much like walking from the lighted side of a sphere to an unlit side. Without God there would be no Peace, freedom, love, fairness, restoration, creativity, light, health, etc. Instead it might be reasonably assumed to be a place where you would not want to be, a stifling lack of all that is good. If you want God to just leave you alone, that's exactly what hell is.

So the only virtue is that you submissively worship. It doesn't matter how decent you are, you're an abomination if you don't worship. I get images of despot good-for-nothing dictators every time I read or listen to this type of stuff. Stalin, Mao, Pot, Hitler, Mugabe etc & etc.

I spit at anything who tries telling me that submissive worship is the value between good or evil. There's no function in decent society that works well with such a despot-like environment. Telling me that submissive worship is valued & being decent isn't, is a sign of something evil. A despot dictator isn't worthy of worship. Despot rulers threaten death against any who don't worship them, the three religions do the same. The three main religions showcase their despot nature in their 'hell' imagery.

Finally, no truly omnipotent being would have submissive worship as the defining value between good & evil; only weak despots who fear their subjects demand it. You look at every despot dictator on earth, and you see this for yourself. The three faiths promote despotic worship out of their need to control the population into submission.
If there was a omnipotent God, he/she/it wouldn't need to fear, and wouldn't need despotism. The need for despotism is evidence that the three faiths aren't from something omnipotent.

Originally Posted by caelum

Okay, to put this into words to the next level, what I mean by alternative H20s is something like this. The only kind of happy afterlife is in the presence of God, you say? So God makes a kind of twin. A dummy god that accepts the presence of a certain kind of sinner. The dummy God's sole job is to facilitate afterlives for that kind of sinner. Then God recreates dummy Gods for every kind of lost soul imaginable. It should be possible if God is omnipotent.

God is omnipotent (by definition), so this is possible. This doesn't need to be argued.

Originally Posted by caelum

So the gist of my argument is clear, God should be able to make alternatives to Hell or he is not Omnipotent. If he can but he won't, then that goes back to my arguments against him being a loving, benevolent God.

So if you were a crack addict, would I be loving and benevolent if I fed your addiction? If you were a rapist, would I be loving and benevolent if I brought you fresh victims?

It's not God's job to cater to the whim of every sinner, or to provide them their own private version of paradise based on whatever sins bring them selfish, amoral joy. He gives you options: seek eternal salvation through accepting Him, or turn away from Him and face eternal damnation.

God is not a puppet to dance for your amusement, or to play a "if you're omnipotent, prove it" game with you. He's made his choices, now you must make yours.

Originally Posted by Foxee

There seems to be a generally accepted view of hell as a place where a God who doesn't like people much just can't wait to toss them. I would take issue with that.

No, hell is a place where God sends people who do not accept him, and that's the generally accepted view. But its nice that Christians can alter their beliefs however they see fit and still be right. Free will I suppose. It's also nice to know that for all the discussion about sin, it's really not that important. The nicest most giving people in the world can still go to hell, or live it.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

...submissively worship...submissive worship...submissive worship...submissive worship...submission...

Call me crazy here but you seem to have a problem with the concept of submitting to a higher power than yourself. I could be totally misreading this, of course.

It doesn't matter how decent you are,

Nope, it doesn't. It only matters if you've accepted the reconciliation offered to you. You can't worship your way into heaven just the same as you can't do good works to get there. Being decent is a good thing but it won't buy your way into heaven, either.

Submission to God happens because you accept that he's the leader and you're not.
Worship happens because you're joyful about God, his leadership, and the free gift of reconciliation to himself.

I've no idea how you got what you wrote above out of what I previously wrote. It really doesn't seem to me to follow at all.

Originally Posted by caelum

So the gist of my argument is clear, God should be able to make alternatives to Hell or he is not Omnipotent. If he can but he won't, then that goes back to my arguments against him being a loving, benevolent God.

For Catholics the Church is in purgatory and heaven too. Purgatory leads to heaven.

There was something I read once, a story about some guy that molested his daughter for years and rejected and mocked God. According to the storyline had he asked forgiveness from God moments before his death he would have been spared hell. That does not mean he would have went to heaven he could have gone to purgatory but purgatory always leads to and ends in heaven.

Praying for the dead is as instinctual and normal for Catholics - or those Catholic reared - as seasoning one's food. I'm not a practicing Catholic but never is it on my mind that the dead only end up in either hell or heaven. Actually, I just prayed for the former Olympian skier that committed suicide in Utah before logging on to this site. Days before that I believe I did so for Amy Winehouse too. It's usually just a short prayer I offer, usually less than a minute.

Those in purgatory pray for us as well - same for those in heaven. Apparently some Jews pray for the dead too.

Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins.

Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. Not only can we show it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified.

Purgatory

As Foxee said, the torment of Hell is the eternity of separation from God.

After a lifetime of chances, a person chooses not to have a relationship with God, You don't go to Heaven to be with him. Simple as that.

And, as Baron mentioned, this whole 'fire and brimstone' view of hell was concocted by Medieval theologians. If that's how you want to see Hell, that's your call.

I see it this way: Remember your first crush? Remember the longing in your heart, the pain when you were apart? Then, one day, they move away. You never told them that you loved them. You will never see your love again.
Multiply that by a few trillion times, that's Hell.

Originally Posted by Foxee

Which completely ignores what God is once again.

The sinner, by definition does not want what God is, dummy or otherwise. They are rejecting God and all that he is, Godlike attributes. So to make a 'dummy God' wouldn't satisfy the sinner, Caelum. They've already turned down what God IS so to make more of what God IS will still result in more rejection.

I know you've got this pet theory but no matter how hard you pound on it, it still doesn't really make sense.

I don't know, I think Caelum is on to something here. Let's try your explanation. The sinner, by [your] definition, rejects all that God is. We are all sinners. At no time in life will any of us ever have the opportunity to not be a sinner [even though Christ died for our sins]. So all of us people are sinners all the time, which means that all of us are rejecting all that God is all the time. And therefore everyone must go to hell - a place where God does not exist. We have no other choice. Did I get that right? To be omnipresent, by definition, wouldn't God have to exist everywhere, even in hell?

This would make better sense if we'd just change our belief to 'once you accept God into your heart, you're no longer a sinner'.

Originally Posted by Winston

I see it this way: Remember your first crush? Remember the longing in your heart, the pain when you were apart? Then, one day, they move away. You never told them that you loved them. You will never see your love again.

...and then you get over it, move on and meet some one else. You forgot that part.