Arguments against the Afterlife

MisterEpicurus

I just don't get it. Given the enormity and supposed complex nature of God, why does he care if someone is in heaven or in hell...doesn't it seem so trivial? Isn't the most obvious reason is that it's trivial because immortality was invented by fearful ignorant humans? God must be eternal by definition. So this means before the Universe, God was plotting our creation and questions of suffering just so people can praise him at the end? It just appears on the outset to be extremely inconsequential and insignificant. Does God really care??...implying he has human emotions as well. If so, it seems much more likely that these human emotions were reflected by man to create the God-figure, not the other way around.

As for hell being without God, well, if God is omnipresent, then he must be there, if he's not presently there, then that breaks another definition of God.

Just seems our squabbles are totally unimportant and irrelevant, and I can't be made to believe an ultimate force actually cares who goes to an immortal destination.

Needed to rant!

Mistress 69

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I can't take 'revisionism' seriously, it's simply a bunch of ordinary clergy trying to reinvent the Bible to suit our times. Simply performed to deem it more acceptable in the 21st century. They have no authority to change the meaning described in the Bible and I don't accept the Pope as an infallible leader who has a hotline to God for more polished interpretations.

You don't know any more than I do what god (with a small g) is or wants so I think my view is valid to some degree.

You may have misunderstood me on this one, I am in agreement with you and am not arguing that there is a Heven or Hell, as I dont believe there is. I was only putting up the link in order to point out Vatican revisionism is now taking on the idea of Hell. Sure did they not abolish Limbo... raises interesting questions which they have no hope of providing a rational answer to.

kylith wrote: »

Yet more 'there's no evidence for it, and people are asking too many questions, so we'd better say it's allegorical' waffle. At this rate everything in the bible will be metaphorical soon. "Oh, that Jesus guy? He was a metaphor, dontcaknow."

So, if hell is to be without God then I'm already in hell? I quite like it; the food's alright, and I get a lie in on Sundays.


Hell is man-made then? Are the torturers blessed angels or cowardly, immoral bastards? Considering that quite a few innocent people have wound up there what does that say about God's sorting policy?

I would describe them as the latter, and I think it is more a case of Rummy sorting policy!

antiskeptic

Penn wrote: »

Well, why can't he just do that? He allows sin to continue to exist, watching people being tortured, robbed, killed, raped, abused etc etc... "No more sin for God to have to put up with"? How much more does he need? What kind of sick voyeur is he?

He puts up with sin for a time because permitting our sin (and our good doing) is an integral part of the mechanism which allows us to express our choice w.r.t. whether we want what God stands for or not.

Once everyone has made their choice in that regard, then the mechanism which enables that choice to be made can be dispensed with.

Seems that not even God can give us a choice w.r.t. what he stand for/against without letting us get a taste for what he stands for/against.

Omnipotence has logical limits

Right now, why is he allowing people to sin and thereby ruining their chances and condemning them to Hell forever.

Sin can also drive people to God. People suffer guilt and shame for their sin. People can become trapped and hopeless because of their sin. People can be driven to their knees by their sin.

Why even have Hell at all?

Choice. If people find they don't want what God stands for then God honours them choosing that direction. Hell is an existence without that which God stands for. God is peace - there is no peace in hell. God is love. There is no love in hell. Etc.

Why not make Heaven eternal life without sin, and everyone else is just dead.

Because there is no reason to. A person gets that which they've chosen for. They didn't have to chose that way but they did. Why not give it too them - in full measure (whether that fulness is heaven or hell)

Why CHOOSE to punish people?

Crime attracts punishment. Eternal creatures committing crimes in an eternal realm (time sits in an eternal realm) attract eternal punishment. Note though, that the punishment consists of giving folk what they want - God off the scene.

If he's so loving and forgiving, why not put them out of their misery?

He is loving and forgiving. But he is also wrath against sin. His love would seek to drag you from the jaws of his wrath. But if you won't have it then he won't force it. Love doesn't force.#

And wrath is satisfied in getting hold of the unholy. God is holy - he's not a sugar puff bearded sentimental Santa. Goodness no..

Why inflict a punishment on them? And no, those people do not choose to inflict the punishment on themselves by sinning, God chooses to inflict the punishment on the sinners.

Indeed.

Why didn't he get rid of all sin? With Noah's ark, where everybody in the world apart from Noah and his family died, shouldn't that have wiped out sin?

Noah was a sinner. All men are. Sin transmitted down from his generation onwards.

There is a difference between a man declared righteous by God and a man who is without the ability to sin. Take me for instance. I've been declared righteous in God's sight ..by God. It doesn't mean I don't sin or that I'm incapable of sin. I most certainly am.

If only you knew..

Why would GOD do any of this?

Choice. We live in a beautiful world marred by sin - both without and within. It's a perfect environment for us to decide where our heart lies.

The point isn't that you try to be good - religion tells you that if you are then you'll go to heaven. The point is where you go with your doing bad. Do you loath it? Do you despair of it? Do you struggle and strive to avoid doing bad but do it nonetheless? Do you mourn and cry over it? Do you cry out in agony over it?

Or do you live side by side with it. Not letting it trouble you unduly. "Sure, I do bad things but overall I'm not such a bad chap. No worse than the next guy"

The former are laying their heart on one side. The latter on the other.

And God see's the heart of everyman. And God takes their hearts response to good and evil as a choice that will ultimately determine their eternal destiny.

It's a big deal. It's a humungous deal. It's jaw-droppingly, awesomely significant. And no one can escape choosing.

Phew!

irishh_bob

antiskeptic wrote: »

He puts up with sin for a time because permitting our sin (and our good doing) is an integral part of the mechanism which allows us to express our choice w.r.t. whether we want what God stands for or not.

Once everyone has made their choice in that regard, then the mechanism which enables that choice to be made can be dispensed with.

Seems that not even God can give us a choice w.r.t. what he stand for/against without letting us get a taste for what he stands for/against.

Omnipotence has logical limits





Sin can also drive people to God. People suffer guilt and shame for their sin. People can become trapped and hopeless because of their sin. People can be driven to their knees by their sin.




Choice. If people find they don't want what God stands for then God honours them choosing that direction. Hell is an existence without that which God stands for. God is peace - there is no peace in hell. God is love. There is no love in hell. Etc.




Because there is no reason to. A person gets that which they've chosen for. They didn't have to chose that way but they did. Why not give it too them - in full measure (whether that fulness is heaven or hell)





Crime attracts punishment. Eternal creatures committing crimes in an eternal realm (time sits in an eternal realm) attract eternal punishment. Note though, that the punishment consists of giving folk what they want - God off the scene.




He is loving and forgiving. But he is also wrath against sin. His love would seek to drag you from the jaws of his wrath. But if you won't have it then he won't force it. Love doesn't force.#

And wrath is satisfied in getting hold of the unholy. God is holy - he's not a sugar puff bearded sentimental Santa. Goodness no..




Indeed.



Noah was a sinner. All men are. Sin transmitted down from his generation onwards.

There is a difference between a man declared righteous by God and a man who is without the ability to sin. Take me for instance. I've been declared righteous in God's sight ..by God. It doesn't mean I don't sin or that I'm incapable of sin. I most certainly am.

If only you knew..






Choice. We live in a beautiful world marred by sin - both without and within. It's a perfect environment for us to decide where our heart lies.

The point isn't that you try to be good - religion tells you that if you are then you'll go to heaven. The point is where you go with your doing bad. Do you loath it? Do you despair of it? Do you struggle and strive to avoid doing bad but do it nonetheless? Do you mourn and cry over it? Do you cry out in agony over it?

Or do you live side by side with it. Not letting it trouble you unduly. "Sure, I do bad things but overall I'm not such a bad chap. No worse than the next guy"

The former are laying their heart on one side. The latter on the other.

And God see's the heart of everyman. And God takes their hearts response to good and evil as a choice that will ultimately determine their eternal destiny.

It's a big deal. It's a humungous deal. It's jaw-droppingly, awesomely significant. And no one can escape choosing.

Phew!

its all very well saying we live in a beautifull world marred by sin , 1st of all , not everyone lives a charmed life in a beautifull world and sin is much easier to avoid for some people than others , a teenager growing up in bel air california has much less reason to ( sin ) than some optionless thirteen year old living in war torn DR CONGO where its a choice of picking up a kalashnikov and fighting or seeing your mom or sister get raped by a posse of rebels , that just one example where your simplistic blank canvass - even pitch falls down

The Quadratic Equation

irishh_bob wrote: »

its all very well saying we live in a beautifull world marred by sin , 1st of all , not everyone lives a charmed life in a beautifull world and sin is much easier to avoid for some people than others , a teenager growing up in bel air california has much less reason to ( sin ) than some optionless thirteen year old living in war torn DR CONGO where its a choice of picking up a kalashnikov and fighting or seeing your mom or sister get raped by a posse of rebels , that just one example where your simplistic blank canvass - even pitch falls down

How exactly does somewhere like Bel Air have far fewer temptations than the Congo ?

irishh_bob

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

How exactly does somewhere like Bel Air have far fewer temptations than the Congo ?

temptations = sex to religous people , i thought thier was more to sin than sex

a kid in war torn africa is more likely to commit murder than someone in california

Dades

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

How exactly does somewhere like Bel Air have far fewer temptations than the Congo ?

What comparable temptations do you think a 13 year old Bel Air girl experiences?

aidan24326

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

How exactly does somewhere like Bel Air have far fewer temptations than the Congo ?

You know very well what he meant. The guy in Bel Air who snorts coke, shags hookers and lives an all-round debaucherous lifestyle is doing so only because he wants to, and because he can.

The teenager in the Congo who picks up a gun may well be doing so out of raw survival necessity. The Congolese girl who prostitutes herself is doing so out of necessity also. Survival. All in the happy beautiful world your god created.

irishh_bob

aidan24326 wrote: »

You know very well what he meant. The guy in Bel Air who snorts coke, shags hookers and lives an all-round debaucherous lifestyle is doing so only because he wants to, and because he can.

The teenager in the Congo who picks up a gun may well be doing so out of raw survival necessity. The Congolese girl who prostitutes herself is doing so out of necessity also. Survival. All in the happy beautiful world your god created.

skeptic spoke about a beautifull world ( congo is so wonderfull ) where sin is a choice for all equally , that life is very different for so many people in so many places , torpedos this one eyed view of reality

antiskeptic

irishh_bob wrote: »

its all very well saying we live in a beautifull world marred by sin ,

We all do.

1st of all , not everyone lives a charmed life in a beautifull world

No they don't. But a charmed life doesn't insulate you from sin. Everybody hurts .. sometime. Everybody sins .. all of the time.

and sin is much easier to avoid for some people than others , a teenager growing up in bel air california has much less reason to ( sin ) than some optionless thirteen year old living in war torn DR CONGO where its a choice of picking up a kalashnikov and fighting or seeing your mom or sister get raped by a posse of rebels , that just one example where your simplistic blank canvass - even pitch falls down

The blank canvas is that everyone sins. And the good news the gospel heralds is an antidote to the bad news that: neither the quantity nor the quality of your makes a jot of difference to your eternal destination. Whether you sin 'small' (the Bel Air teen lusting over his classmate) or 'big' (by raping a woman in the Congo), you're sure to end in Hell. Unless you are saved.

What matter now whether you live in Bel Air or the Congo?


Christianity isn't the same as religion. Religion tells you to obey God's law and you'll (might) be okay. Christianity tells you that you can't obey God's law, that you've no chance of being good enough. Unless you avail of the means he provides you with - which has nothing to do with how much you sin or the quality of it - then you will be cast into outer darkness.

It's a broken world and we are the most broken thing in it (only a blind man could fail to notice). If you want out of your own brokeness, if you recognize somewhere within that all is far from well with your soul, if you find yourself mourning over something wrong within that you can't describe precisely .. then you are looking in the right direction for God. Whether you realize you are looking or not.

antiskeptic

irishh_bob wrote: »

skeptic spoke about a beautifull world ( congo is so wonderfull ) where sin is a choice for all equally , that life is very different for so many people in so many places , torpedos this one eyed view of reality

Just to underscore this point. Jesus equated ( the arguably insignificant) lust with the (arguably more significant) adultery. And anger with murder.

The one whose background and circumstances contribute to his raping can be judged less harshly (by a fair, all knowing Judge) than the one whose background and circumstances made committing adultery a high hurdle to have to sin himself over.

How could one assess whether Bel Air or the Congo gives more or less opportunity for sinning in the light of such notions?

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

What matter now whether you live in Bel Air or the Congo?

What matters is that some people choose to act in a manner (what you call "sin") and others stand no chance of survival without resorting to crime simply because of where they happened to be born - a factor completely beyond their control.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a broken world and we are the most broken thing in it (only a blind man could fail to notice).

Who broke it?

And why not fix it instead of subjecting a large proportion of everyone who has ever lived to a life of hardship and poverty, and an even larger portion of it to eternal torment on death (brought about by hardship and poverty)?

How can this not sound like utter nonsense to you?

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

<snip>

He is loving and forgiving. But he is also wrath against sin. His love would seek to drag you from the jaws of his wrath. But if you won't have it then he won't force it. Love doesn't force.

Sorry, but "loving and forgiving" is incompatible with "wrath against sin". I can love and forgive you, or I can be angry and punish you - I cannot do both. According to the bible, Jesus preached that we should forgive our enemies - seems odd that God the father is such a pitiless and cantankerous old git. Especially as Jesus and God are the same guy, apparently...

And wrath is satisfied in getting hold of the unholy. God is holy - he's not a sugar puff bearded sentimental Santa. Goodness no..

You seem to positively relish the idea of God smiting the unholy. Wow.

Noah was a sinner. All men are. Sin transmitted down from his generation onwards.

And who made man again? God, was it? In his own divine image, no less? And he made us all sinners. Lovely.

There is a difference between a man declared righteous by God and a man who is without the ability to sin. Take me for instance. I've been declared righteous in God's sight ..by God. It doesn't mean I don't sin or that I'm incapable of sin. I most certainly am.

I have to admit, that bit left me gob-smacked. So, God, the unforgiving, I-made-you-all-flawed-but-will-punish-you-for-it-anyway tyrant, has made you one of his special friends. Maybe he will let you help him punish the unholy, would you like that?

antiskeptic

swampgas wrote: »

Sorry, but "loving and forgiving" is incompatible with "wrath against sin". I can love and forgive you, or I can be angry and punish you - I cannot do both.

Yes you can - in this way

You can place a substitute in the way of righteous wrath and punish the substitute instead of the one deserving of punishment. Love is what stands in the way of wrath. If love is rejected, if it is refused the opportunity to stand in the way of wrath then wrath will have it's way. One consequence of that is that the image of God in which the person was made is removed. There is nothing loveable about them any more. And so, nothing for love to love about them.

All forgiveness means, ultimately, is that the offended party pays for the offence carried out against him - himself. Instead of the offender having to pay.

Love, wrath, forgiveness. All compatible with each other.

According to the bible, Jesus preached that we should forgive our enemies - seems odd that God the father is such a pitiless and cantankerous old git. Especially as Jesus and God are the same guy, apparently...

The 'you' being addressed here are Christians - not the general populace. It is compatible that a Christian forgive his enemies since he was forgiven whilst he was still and enemy of God. "Do unto others as I've done unto you"

God punishing those who refuse the offer of forgiveness are another category of people.

You seem to positively relish the idea of God smiting the unholy. Wow.

I've no problem with it.

I hold that the image of God in which we are made will be removed from those cast into Hell. There will be nothing attractive left about them (since all that is attractive in people stems from the image of God in which they were made). All that is left will be ugly and distorted and perverted. There wouldn't even be any humanity left in them to feel pity for. They will be vile creatures indeed.

And they did it to themselves.

It's not relishing. It's seeing the sharp and perfectly reasonable facet of holiness at work. It's not cuddly and soft.

And who made man again? God, was it? In his own divine image, no less? And he made us all sinners. Lovely.

Er no. Man made man sinners. But I wouldn't go pointing the finger at Adam. Being a sinner (and being made in the image of God) is a device by which you get to choose for or against God.

It's your choice that's of uppermost import. Not how the mechanism whereby you were enabled to make a choice came about.

I have to admit, that bit left me gob-smacked. So, God, the unforgiving, I-made-you-all-flawed-but-will-punish-you-for-it-anyway tyrant...

..see your error above

..has made you one of his special friends

Indeed. And he'd love for you to be his special friend too.

The question is whether you want that or whether you want to cling to a part-baked caricature that can be licked off any low-grade bible-bashing website you care to mention.

It's a serious question. Not for you to give me an answer to. But for you to give him an answer too.

You will give him an answer. He has made sure of that much at least.

Maybe he will let you help him punish the unholy, would you like that?

Interesting question. If I am as holy as he then, will I too be wrath against sin?

If, as I suspect, God's wrath involves his being absent then I'd have no part to play (other than being absent too). Would I enjoy being absent from unholiness? You betcha! I can barely wait to be free of it in myself so would be even less likely to want to hang around another's.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yes you can - in this way

You can place a substitute in the way of righteous wrath and punish the substitute instead of the one deserving of punishment. Love is what stands in the way of wrath. If love is rejected, if it is refused the opportunity to stand in the way of wrath then wrath will have it's way. One consequence of that is that the image of God in which the person was made is removed. There is nothing loveable about them any more. And so, nothing for love to love about them.

Wut?

So if you love God, he punishes your love instead of punishing you. If you don't love God, he just punishes you.

That's what you've said. It's meaningless. How do you punish love?

Edit: Or you're saying that God punishes his own love as a barrier for you. Waht?

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

What matters is that some people choose to act in a manner (what you call "sin") and others stand no chance of survival without resorting to crime simply because of where they happened to be born - a factor completely beyond their control.

God can take all the surrounding circumstances into account and so get to the root of the issue. Sure, the child soldier gets a taste for rape in a way the Bel Air teen doesn't. But the child soldier has a conscience (however seared) and will be faced with situations where the deciding factor on whether a rape takes place or whether the rape is a vicious one vs.a (relatively) merciful one or whether it's rape/murder or not ... will be determined by conscience

And it is that decision at that time and with that play of conscience that God sees as decision. And if the conscience is further and wilfully seared then God will be there for the next occasion when the further seared conscience is faced with it's next hurdle.

And so on.

Who broke it?

Adam. Adam pressed the "Do not touch" button and God carried out the promised consequences.

And why not fix it

He is going to fix it. The idea that folk go to heaven (some place in the clouds) is erroneous. The bible indicates that the world and everything in it will be restored to the condition God intended for it. I'll have a body that won't die, the lion will lie down with the lamb. There'll be no storms or weeds.

Heaven on earth. So to speak.

instead of subjecting a large proportion of everyone who has ever lived to a life of hardship and poverty,

The current broken humanity occupy a broken earth. This scenario serves as a staging post where you, me ...and everybody else, get to make a decision which establishes our eternal state.

There's no point in fixing it yet if it's mission hasn't been accomplished. Once mission is accomplished, the earth will be wrapped up like a garment. Then there will be Judgement. Then the new earth.

and an even larger portion of it to eternal torment on death (brought about by hardship and poverty)?

As pointed out, God can see the heart in the decision making and knows all the external-to-the-person circumstances that play a part in proceedings and which aren't attributable to the person themselves.

The issue isn't whether you've been given 10 talents or 1 talent. The issue is what you do with the situation you find yourself in.

Bel Air or Congo - it makes no difference. Rich or poor? No difference either. All will be assessed on own merit.

How can this not sound like utter nonsense to you?

Because the efforts to disassemble my position are frequently based on a poor understanding of my position. But you're welcome to attempt to follow the argument down the rabbit hole.

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

Wut?

So if you love God, he punishes your love instead of punishing you. If you don't love God, he just punishes you.

Wut?

If you want what God represents, his love will pull you from the jaws of his wrath. His pulling you from the jaws of his wrath involves him paying the price for your sin himself. His wrath punishes his love.

His love is what is prepared to stand in front of his wrath for you.

That's what you've said. It's meaningless. How do you punish love?

Love is something expressed by a person. Person A can punish a Person B if Person B's love causes them to take the rightful punishment due to you. Person A and B is God.

Edit: Or you're saying that God punishes his own love as a barrier for you. Waht?

God (a personhood with a characteristic called wrath) punishes God ( a personhood with a characteristic called love). God indeed punishes God.

His love shields you from his wrath. That's what.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Adam. Adam pressed the "Do not touch" button and God carried out the promised consequences.

Bloody hell. So everything that's wrong with the world comes down to one guy eating an apple from a tree (left in his garden) he wasn't supposed to.

And to think we condemn certain countries for chopping off the hand of a thief. We should be thankful they don't doom every other human in the history of mankind to play out an eternal charade of pain and promises for just being hungry.

Forgive much, God?

seamus

God punishes himself when he loves you.

So the analogy for us simpletons is that when my child is bad, I punish them. When my child is good, I punish myself.

Basically this viewpoint is asserting that God is incapable of anything but wrath. Therefore in order to save you from his wrath, he directs it at himself. He seems to be fundamentally incapable of rewarding good without involving wrath somewhere along the line, yet somehow he made us capable of performing this amazing feat of containing our wrath?

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Bloody hell. So everything that's wrong with the world comes down to one guy eating an apple from a tree (left in his garden) he wasn't supposed to.

With not a little help from his offspring. But in terms of setting the ball rolling.

And what transpired is a mechanism whereby every person gets to choose what their own position will be w.r.t. God.

And to think we condemn certain countries for chopping off the hand of a thief.

Countries don't chop off hands, people do. Or should I say sinners do. Sinners chopping the hands off sinners. Whatever will they think of next!

We should be thankful they don't doom every other human in the history of mankind to play out an eternal charade of pain and promises for just being hungry.

Forgive much, God?

?

Adam had plenty of food. Hunger had nothing to do with it. Aren't you comparing apples and apricots?

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

God punishes himself when he loves you.

God punishes himself when his love is able to stand between you and his wrath. If his love is prevented from doing that then you get it in the neck

So the analogy for us simpletons is that when my child is bad, I punish them. When my child is good, I punish myself.

I don't recall mentioning good or bad in order that it make a cameo appearance in your paraphrasing.

Basically this viewpoint is asserting that God is incapable of anything but wrath.

Eh.. what do you call the motivation for his doing this..

Therefore in order to save you from his wrath, he directs it at himself.

-

He seems to be fundamentally incapable of rewarding good without involving wrath somewhere along the line,

If you've chosen to do good then you'll have done less bad. And will, presumably, have less furious wrath to face in the case you reject his solution to your sin.

Your sin Seamus. It needs dealing with.

yet somehow he made us capable of performing this amazing feat of containing our wrath?

Your wrath? Wrath against what?

coffee_cake

Dades wrote: »

Bloody hell. So everything that's wrong with the world comes down to one guy eating an apple from a tree (left in his garden) he wasn't supposed to.

The guy who god created, put a tree in front of him, and knew what he'd do in advance, don't forget.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

And what transpired is a mechanism whereby every person gets to choose what their own position will be w.r.t. God.

Except the people who've been raised to believe in different gods, or indeed have never even heard of your god having been raised in, for example, the Amazon basin.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Countries don't chop off hands, people do. Or should I say sinners do. Sinners chopping the hands off sinners. Whatever will they think of next!

Adam had plenty of food. Hunger had nothing to do with it. Aren't you comparing apples and apricots?

Methinks the content of my post and the gravity of what God has done to every man, woman and child who has ever lived on foot of what one man did has passed you by.

Are you being flippant because you cannot see how badly this purported scenario reflects on your God or out of some defensive mechanism?

antiskeptic

aidan24326 wrote: »

Mind cannot exist outside of time.

Source?

It is fundamental to how we think and how we perceive and remember things.

In this context it is. Who says a mind can't be laid onto another context?

Shorn of my memory and all normal thought processes in what meaningful way could I survive my death? I couldn't. Consciousness is temporal. Without time you have no conscious mind to do or think anything at all, and without a mind there is no me, no 'I' in any meaningful sense.

I'm not suggesting I can appreciate a timeless realm. But I think you're flawed in supposing that just because this is your experience, your experience cannot be any different.

You're speaking about something you can't possibly know.

It's interesting that this airy fairy new definition of hell has appeared ie 'without god', because you and every other christian knows that the bible has much more to say on the matter than that. A random example:

The bible has much to say on lots of matters. And it does so in metaphor aplenty. There is no issue with viewing hell in the way I view it.

Note: that the bible uses the imagery of the worst possible existence we can imagine or attempt to describe doesn't mean it won't actually be worse than actual burning in flames.

I'm not trying to seek refuge in Hell language being metaphorical. Hell will be unimaginably horrendous.

It seems to me the church are downright embarassed at the concept of hell as depicted in the bible (who wouldn't be?) and are now trying to fluffy it up in more tasteful language.

Thus not. Hell worse that eternal flames? I think so.

If you don't find the concept of eternal suffering immoral then I'd worry about you. You would have to completely lack empathy for other people.

Let's suppose that people are made in the image and likeness of God. And lets suppose that that image is removed from them before they are cast into outer darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. You didn't seem to take that into your forecast when poo-pooing the notion of "without God"

They won't be people anymore - will they. They'll be creatures of some sort. And creatures who only have the hallmarks of sin in themselves (where sin is every kind of uglieness you can imagine)

The kindness they were once capable of they won't be there any longer (for that is a part of the image of God in which they were made - which has been removed by God's absence from them). So to the ability to relate, to love, to enjoy, to laugh, to create, to...

They will be vile creatures. Not something which would cause empathy to arise in anyone. Not even you - if you could see them now.

It's a mistake to think of yourself as some independent-of-God entity who can forever stick his fingers up at God. You are dependent on God to maintain what you experience as your very personhood.

That's in effect what you're implying with that post, that you don't care if vast numbers of people are consigned to an eternity of misery so long as it keeps your (obviously psycopathic) god happy? Staggering.

And if they're not people any longer? But vile creatures?

Sarky

If one replaces "sinners" with "black people", then antiskeptic begins to sound like Uncle Ruckus. Try it, it's uncanny.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Except the people who've been raised to believe in different gods, or indeed have never even heard of your god having been raised in, for example, the Amazon basin.

It doesn't matter. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: there is no need to have heard of Christ, the bible, God of the bible .. in order to avail of God's way of salvation.

If you insist so then move along to those Christians who hold as you do. Your objecting up the wrong tree here.

Methinks the content of my post and the gravity of what God has done to every man, woman and child who has ever lived on foot of what one man did has passed you by.

Methinks that the focus on the broken eggs side of things pays no attention to the gravity of the omelette being made.

You should also remember that suffering is relative. Relative to the holiness of God. The scale of the Fall only indicates the height fallen from. Which gives some inkling into the height of God - since that's out of whose bosom man fell.

It also gives some inkling into the promise of a restored humanity. And make one wonder why folk wouldn't be flocking to get on board. An inkling into the scale of sin too - I suppose.

Are you being flippant because you cannot see how badly this purported scenario reflects on your God or out of some defensive mechanism?

Your scenario involved sinners doing unto sinners. It's a hopeless analogy to attempt to apply to God. You seem to be supposing all chopping off of hands (im)morally equal?

Which would be faulty thinking.

antiskeptic

bluewolf wrote: »

The guy who god created, put a tree in front of him, and knew what he'd do in advance don't forget

But in knowing in advance, didn't in anyway affect or influence the freewilled choice of the guy who God created - you've forgotten.

Indeed, Dades and Seamus who thanked you have surely heard this a few times before - just as you have. It's a hollow thing when an objection invokes a well-hackneyed strawman.

coffee_cake

antiskeptic wrote: »

But in knowing in advance, didn't in anyway affect or influence the freewilled choice of the guy who God created - you've forgotten.

If it were just a question of knowing in advance, I'd agree.
Except that your god supposedly set the initial conditions with the aforeknowledge, and made them to happen exactly as they did.

Penn

So this all started because the snake (which God created) tempted Eve (who God created) into taking an apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (which God created) which Adam (who God created) ate.

God's not very good at this.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

It doesn't matter. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: there is no need to have heard of Christ, the bible, God of the bible .. in order to avail of God's way of salvation.

If you insist so then move along to those Christians who hold as you do. Your objecting up the wrong tree here.

So atheists and agnostics can go to heaven?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Methinks that the focus on the broken eggs side of things pays no attention to the gravity of the omelette being made.

You should also remember that suffering is relative. Relative to the holiness of God. The scale of the Fall only indicates the height fallen from. Which gives some inkling into the height of God - since that's out of whose bosom man fell.

It also gives some inkling into the promise of a restored humanity. And make one wonder why folk wouldn't be flocking to get on board. An inkling into the scale of sin too - I suppose.

You see this is just theology-talk. Sin, the Fall, holiness, bosoms... Your notion that suffering is relative is cold comfort to those who live in the then-and-now, and not in some mythical covenant that makes them mere pawns in an age old game.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your scenario involved sinners doing unto sinners. It's a hopeless analogy to attempt to apply to God. You seem to be supposing all chopping off of hands (im)morally equal?

I'm supposing that we frown on the chopping off of hands for stealing, and yet you try to justify the turning of our world from a paradise to a dangerous and chaotic place where the only justice is flawed human justice because a man took an apple.

Simple question: do you not think God overacted somewhat? If even one child had to die in the dirt through malnutrition would this not be unfair for what someone supposedly did in the Garden of Eden? Never mind all the children that have died in the dirt since they walked out of the garden...