How can people be happy in Heaven, when people are in Hell?

Konvict

I've been thinking that Heaven is the ultimate fulfilment of all of the needs and desires the heart has - ultimate contentment.

But how can one be happy in Heaven if one knows that some of ones friends, family, relatives etc are in Hell?

I assume the answer is you can, because 1. It's Heaven, and 2. God has decided such to be so, therefore it is right and just. But still, surely it would cause suffering to know such a thing?

What are your thoughts?

homer911

Check the recent threads on Hell. I'm sure this question came up recently

daddyorchips

I dont believe in either, but if transpires that im wrong i will be going to hell. I will only find solace in the fact that my daughter and partner will not be joining me,not because i dislike them but because i love them.

hinault

some views which may help to explain.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/704-can-one-be-happy-in-heaven-with-loved-ones-in-hell

http://www.billygraham.org/articlepage.asp?articleid=2025

tommy2bad

daddyorchips wrote: »

I dont believe in either, but if transpires that im wrong i will be going to hell. I will only find solace in the fact that my daughter and partner will not be joining me,not because i dislike them but because i love them.

So you in hell will have some solace while they in heaven will have the torment of thinking of you in hell!
Sounds fair!

tommy2bad

hinault wrote: »

some views which may help to explain.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/704-can-one-be-happy-in-heaven-with-loved-ones-in-hell

http://www.billygraham.org/articlepage.asp?articleid=2025

Well Billy has the grace to admit that we don't know but takes a stab at an answer anyway. Christian Courier on the other hand extorts us to take a plain reading of the bible, then uses the book of revelation to justify it argument. Plain readings and Revelation don't play nice together.

Personally I take the old view that we are all in the same place, for some its heaven and for some its hell. Only when sin is destroyed will we know how it plays out.
A lot of our assumptions about hell are little more than revenge fantasies, I don't see much vengeance in Gods work, He seems to be more about healing than destroying.

hinault

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well Billy has the grace to admit that we don't know but takes a stab at an answer anyway. Christian Courier on the other hand extorts us to take a plain reading of the bible, then uses the book of revelation to justify it argument. Plain readings and Revelation don't play nice together.

Personally I take the old view that we are all in the same place, for some its heaven and for some its hell. Only when sin is destroyed will we know how it plays out.
A lot of our assumptions about hell are little more than revenge fantasies, I don't see much vengeance in Gods work, He seems to be more about healing than destroying.

The question is how can people be happy in heaven knowing that other, perhaps even their loved ones in this life, are going to spend eternity in hell.

Ultimately it is the person who ends up in hell who has placed themselves there.
Every single person created determines their ultimate fate as to whether they end up in heaven or end up in hell.

CS Lewis the great divorce is worth reading.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-great-divorce/

JoeB-

This is a great question for Catholics to try to answer. I've posed it previously, and no-one has provided a reasonable answer. No answers are provided so far either on this thread.


It's clear to me that heaven is a paradox as regards this question. I have family members who will have to endure the eternity of heaven knowing that I'll be in hell.

I've asked how God solves that problem. I don't accept that God can have solutions which are beyond our comprehension.

For example, does God drug people so that they forget their own family members?
Does he alter their memory? If he does these things it's hardly heaven. You can achieve heaven on earth by taking morphine all the time. Is that what real heaven is like?


Perhaps god teaches those people lucky enough to be in heaven that those not in heaven are deserving of their eternal torture in hell. Again, I don't accept that any level of disrespect to God deserves eternal torture as a punishment, and I don't see how he can teach people to believe that without altering their minds. If a persons mind is changed, or if they're permanently drugged, then they're no longer the same person as before.



Where did the evil come from that exists in the devil? It'd be strange to say it was deliberately 'created',.. surely it must have pre-existed creation?

Was God considered good and moral before there was anything to compare him to?
I'd suggest that 'good' is a relative term, .. and God can only be considered good beside the horrendous creations he himself creates.. in order to make himself look good by comparison. So his goodness is a trick,... clearly God is responsible for the evil we endure,.. to say otherwise is semantics. Evil didn't exist until God chose to bring it into creation.. unless of course Christians concede that evil existed in God's person before the devil was created.


I suppose this question is similar to the one as to why God is torturing those he claims to love, and why he's happy about it. It's a bizarre form of love, and one I can happily do without.

daddyorchips

tommy2bad wrote: »

So you in hell will have some solace while they in heaven will have the torment of thinking of you in hell!
Sounds fair!

I never said it was fair, and yes maybe it would torment them but if my understanding of heaven is correct it would be a happy place. I cannot change the fact that god is not apart of my life just so i can get to heaven if it exists. I have never believed in heaven or hell my family does and i respect that.i respect your beliefs so please respect mine

JoeB-

There shouldn't be, and isn't, a requirement on people to respect other people beliefs. Why should they? (Of course the blasphemy laws do tend to muddy those waters but the non-prosecution of Atheist Ireland who have deliberately published 20 blasphemous quotes shows how that law isn't 'real' and it isn't intended that people be prosecuted under it. It's a bizarre law.)


People are free to respect my beliefs if they wish, but they are also free to not respect them. For example, what if I'm a racist or a homophobe?


For my part, I won't afford people any respect for beliefs simply because the person believes them. I don't consider this disrespectful or immoral.

tommy2bad

JoeBallantine wrote: »

There shouldn't be, and isn't, a requirement on people to respect other people beliefs. Why should they? (Of course the blasphemy laws do tend to muddy those waters but the non-prosecution of Atheist Ireland who have deliberately published 20 blasphemous quotes shows how that law isn't 'real' and it isn't intended that people be prosecuted under it. It's a bizarre law.)


People are free to respect my beliefs if they wish, but they are also free to not respect them. For example, what if I'm a racist or a homophobe?


For my part, I won't afford people any respect for beliefs simply because the person believes them. I don't consider this disrespectful or immoral.

Respect people not their beliefs. When did this 'all opinions are valid' and 'you have to respect my beliefs' come from? I don't see any reason to respect someones beliefs or opinions or anything apart from their right to believe what they want and hold any opinion they want. But I don't have to respect their beliefs. Then again maybe that's all daddyorchips was asking!

Canis Lupus

I thought based on lots of old threads that if you get into heaven you're basically 'changed' and as such happy to spend eternity basking in gods jacuzzi of glory or in other words you will no longer give a crap about friends and family.

Geomy

JoeBallantine wrote: »

There shouldn't be, and isn't, a requirement on people to respect other people beliefs. Why should they? (Of course the blasphemy laws do tend to muddy those waters but the non-prosecution of Atheist Ireland who have deliberately published 20 blasphemous quotes shows how that law isn't 'real' and it isn't intended that people be prosecuted under it. It's a bizarre law.)


People are free to respect my beliefs if they wish, but they are also free to not respect them. For example, what if I'm a racist or a homophobe?


For my part, I won't afford people any respect for beliefs simply because the person believes them. I don't consider this disrespectful or immoral.

From reading this post, I get Atheist Ireland s agenda. ..

I'm not a big fan of organized religion , but Atheists Ireland posting blasphemous quotes is a bit Ironic isn't it. .... 

leonil7

there are no more close relations in the after life however we may have been indoctrinated to think it like that. no husbands nor wives (Matt22:25-30), you should expect it to also be true with relatives. 'like angels' as scripture says.

and the memory of having kin in hell would likely be erased from memory. the promise of scripture :

Rev 21:4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

expect relations in earth and how you know it is quite different in eternity. the punch line is "THE OLD ORDER OF THINGS HAS PASSED AWAY".

it would be an eternity of sorrow in heaven otherwise. no more mourning, or crying or pain -> thinking you have people you love down below. No, the old order is passed.

Konvict wrote: »

I've been thinking that Heaven is the ultimate fulfilment of all of the needs and desires the heart has - ultimate contentment.

But how can one be happy in Heaven if one knows that some of ones friends, family, relatives etc are in Hell?

I assume the answer is you can, because 1. It's Heaven, and 2. God has decided such to be so, therefore it is right and just. But still, surely it would cause suffering to know such a thing?

What are your thoughts?

Akrasia

leonil7 wrote: »

there are no more close relations in the after life however we may have been indoctrinated to think it like that. no husbands nor wives (Matt22:25-30), you should expect it to also be true with relatives. 'like angels' as scripture says.

and the memory of having kin in hell would likely be erased from memory. the promise of scripture :

Rev 21:4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

expect relations in earth and how you know it is quite different in eternity. the punch line is "THE OLD ORDER OF THINGS HAS PASSED AWAY".

it would be an eternity of sorrow in heaven otherwise. no more mourning, or crying or pain -> thinking you have people you love down below. No, the old order is passed.

If that's the case than you've just removed the only reason why very many believe in an afterlife at all.

Most people consider that their personality, their memories and their relationships are the most important parts of their essence. If our memories are erased and our personality changed and our relations dissolved, then what is left of ourselves?

How many people believe in God for the comfort that they will one day be re-united with their loved ones in the next life?

The fact that there are so many different interpretations for what 'Heaven' and 'Hell' and 'afterlife' and 'eternal life' etc are supposed to mean is just more evidence that none of it is real.

What exactly is the point of going into an afterlife if the surviving part of yourself is so divorced from your current self that nothing you find important now remains?

You might as well believe in science, where your consciousness is utterly destroyed on death, but the energy and matter is converted into a new form and lives forever.

Ash.J.Williams

hinault wrote: »

The question is how can people be happy in heaven knowing that other, perhaps even their loved ones in this life, are going to spend eternity in hell.

Ultimately it is the person who ends up in hell who has placed themselves there.
Every single person created determines their ultimate fate as to whether they end up in heaven or end up in hell.

CS Lewis the great divorce is worth reading.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-great-divorce/

If they get to heaven they will not be worrying about anyone in hell

leonil7

well anyone can always believe what they like. the fact is no one came back from the dead after spending eternity in heaven and telling us its like this and that.

and that is why in this case I personally would believe what scripture describes it to be, rather than a feel good version.

Rev 21:4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

The old order of things has passed away - in eternity.

And in this case, you will need FAITH to believe that GOD WILL WIPE every tear from our eyes when we reach heavens shores.

GoodBridge

Akrasia wrote: »

If that's the case than you've just removed the only reason why very many believe in an afterlife at all.

People shouldn't believe in the afterlife just because they've found some aspect of it that makes it beneficial to them. Similarly, just because a popular notion or picture of it is found to be false then it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that that idea of it was wrong.

Akrasia wrote: »

Most people consider that their personality, their memories and their relationships are the most important parts of their essence. If our memories are erased and our personality changed and our relations dissolved, then what is left of ourselves?

Our souls. I don't believe all memory and personality is lost when we die but that you experience your life through body and soul and the body leaves a lasting imprint on the soul as well as all the lessons learned through life.

The fact that "most" people believe things to be certain way doesn't necessarily make it so. Popular belief doesn't bring something into existence.

Akrasia wrote: »

How many people believe in God for the comfort that they will one day be re-united with their loved ones in the next life?

My answer here is related to the one to your first question. Sadly, I'd agree with you that many people do solely for the comfort this gives them.

Personally, I don't think you exist in your human form at all but go on to exist as a soul/energy and while the importance of the relationships you have will continue they will take on more perspective and lose their human nature. For example: the child-parent or husband-wife aspects of them would be irrelevant.

When I say take on perspective, I mean that you will not just be in a pool of spirits with the souls of those who've lived around your lifetime but all that have come before and all that will come after, too. The animalistic natures of these relationships that are useful on earth (protective of your children, jealous of your partners attentions, etc) would be gone.

Your soul could take centuries (or forever) to come to terms with the decisions that loved ones on earth have made and why they have ended up in hell and maybe this kind of reconciliation (as well as more introspective ones) are something that you must address in purgatory and if/when you are resolved, enlightened, accepting, free - a state of Nirvana, essentially - do you progress on to heaven.

Akrasia wrote: »

The fact that there are so many different interpretations for what 'Heaven' and 'Hell' and 'afterlife' and 'eternal life' etc are supposed to mean is just more evidence that none of it is real.

The fact that something is argued over has no bearing on whether it's true or not. Most of the greatest scientific discoveries were hotly contested.

Akrasia wrote: »

What exactly is the point of going into an afterlife if the surviving part of yourself is so divorced from your current self that nothing you find important now remains?

See above.

Akrasia wrote: »

You might as well believe in science, where your consciousness is utterly destroyed on death, but the energy and matter is converted into a new form and lives forever.

Strictly speaking, I think science says that consciousness is destroyed when the brain is destroyed but, yeah, science answers what happens to the body but it doesn't address the soul.

antiskeptic

Konvict wrote: »

What are your thoughts?

I think that we are a) made in the image and likeness of God and b) sinners.

It could be thus, that "attractive" aspects of our beings such as kindness,
laughter, generosity, compassion, love, relationship, intimacy .. stem from the former. And "unattractive" aspects of our being such as selfishness, pride, anger, spitefulness, wickedness .. stem from the godly aspects being supressed and distorted.

If (and it appears to me to be) the biblical case is that damnation arises from a rejection of what God is and stands for (the above godly things) then that damnation merely involves God granting a persons hearts desire and removing himself from their scene. Which means, in effect, his removal of the image of God in which they were made.

Which mean the removal of all that is "attractive" about that personhood.

Where that to occur, then all you are left with is a personhood that has no redeeming features of any kind. None. All there would be is what is vile and disgusting about them. Which would appear as vile and as repulsive as can be - given you haven't the normal offsetting of unattractive traits which we thankfully mostly have when also possessing the image of God in us here in this life. You might try to compare with the most vile humans who have ever lived and you would be getting somewhere.

And so, I can't see there being a problem for those in heaven considering those in Hell - even if it concerned their own "mother". The person in Hell isn't their mother anymore since without the redeeming features of the image of God they are a different being altogether. A vile and ugly one.

Those in Hell are their only because of their hearts desire and a will that refused to relinquish that which God attempted to wrest from them - the spiral of death they were embracing in their refusal to acknowledge to themselves just how ugly their sin had made them become. That's what would sit uppermost in the mind of the heaven-bound. Not the fact that the person used to be "mother"

I reckon.

Engine No.9

Anybody watch Supernatural??? I love the way they explore the lore of both heaven and hell and God and the Devil. Granted it is only a TV show, and kinda sci fi, but I know I'm currently reexamining my faith as a result of watching it.

For anybody that's thinking of researching it, its 170+ 1hr episodes so its a bit of an undertaking, but well worth it IMO.

Ken bryan

It is the choices that those people have made freely that has placed them in hell .
As that where they belong .
It not the fault of those in heaven ,
It,s their own

Ken bryan

No one chooses their parents / family . So based on this we are all individuals with unique lives . Thus family is not relevant in next life . It purpose is only relevant to this state of being .Ie mortal . So when we die we join spirits of similar state of purity .

Akrasia

GoodBridge wrote: »

People shouldn't believe in the afterlife just because they've found some aspect of it that makes it beneficial to them. Similarly, just because a popular notion or picture of it is found to be false then it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that that idea of it was wrong.

I completely agree. People should make their decisions based on the evidence and applying logic and reason to best understand that evidence

the existence or non existence of something external to ourselves has nothing to do with whether we believe in it or not.

Our souls. I don't believe all memory and personality is lost when we die but that you experience your life through body and soul and the body leaves a lasting imprint on the soul as well as all the lessons learned through life.

Does your self awareness continue to the next 'life'? Do you still have your own 'identity'. If I consider myself to be a loving compassionate person who is devoted to my family, and I get into heaven but my Son and Daughters chose the wrong path and get sent to hell. I don't see how my identity as a compassionate person could be preserved while I know that my children are being tortured forever.

What are the options for God here? to turn me against my family, to convince me that it is good that they are being tortured?

To erase my memory of my family so I forget about the things that I feel are the most important to me in this world just so I can live in bliss?

To Lie to me and tell me that my family are safe and well so I won't be worried about them anymore?

I don't find any of those options to be rationally consistent with the loving God hypothesis

The fact that "most" people believe things to be certain way doesn't necessarily make it so. Popular belief doesn't bring something into existence.

The reason we are discussing Christian beliefs here instead of Norse beliefs is only because Christianity is the most popular faith at the moment.

Popularity doesn't make it true, you're correct, but can you explain to me what it is in the christian theology that is objectively more plausible than the theology of other less popular faiths?

There is no independent evidence for any of the claims in the bible about the afterlife. The fact that the Christian afterlife allows people the hope that they will be re-united with their loved ones and that their loved ones are waiting for them in the next world is probably one of the main reasons people have remained faithful, and it is also one of the main reasons why it is considered impolite to even raise the question that god might not exist, because to do so, is to crush the hopes that (for example ) a widow will ever get to see her beloved husband ever again.

My answer here is related to the one to your first question. Sadly, I'd agree with you that many people do solely for the comfort this gives them.

I'm not sure why this would make you sad. What is the point of faith? Is it to provide something for the faithful? hope, meaning, motivation to do good or to improve oneself?

Or is the point of Faith that it should provide something to God? Some kind of satisfaction that so many people have faith in 'him'?

I don't understand

Personally, I don't think you exist in your human form at all but go on to exist as a soul/energy and while the importance of the relationships you have will continue they will take on more perspective and lose their human nature. For example: the child-parent or husband-wife aspects of them would be irrelevant.

When I say take on perspective, I mean that you will not just be in a pool of spirits with the souls of those who've lived around your lifetime but all that have come before and all that will come after, too. The animalistic natures of these relationships that are useful on earth (protective of your children, jealous of your partners attentions, etc) would be gone.

Your soul could take centuries (or forever) to come to terms with the decisions that loved ones on earth have made and why they have ended up in hell and maybe this kind of reconciliation (as well as more introspective ones) are something that you must address in purgatory and if/when you are resolved, enlightened, accepting, free - a state of Nirvana, essentially - do you progress on to heaven.

Are you saying that there are two stages in our existence, this one, and then eternity? It seems very lob sided, and very unfair considering some people get far more opportunities in life than others and given the infant mortality rates in many parts of the world, there are a lot of souls who will be dwelling for an eternity on a few short days as a developing foetus and malnourished baby.
And we'll spend eternity trying to figure out what we did right or wrong in this life to merit what happens in the next?

Or are you suggesting that our soul itself goes through many stages and perhaps has been around before and experienced other stages of existence?

But if my soul has been around for hundreds of years or thousands of years and I have no awareness of the previous existences, then it means nothing to me. I don't care about the previous existences of the soul. I might have some kind of passing interest in my heritage the same way some people are interested in geneology, but really, my ancestors are nothing to me but the lineage that resulted in my current existence. When I die, I don't care what happens to my soul if the next version stage of existence will have no awareness of this one. It's not a continuance other than genetics is a continuance.

There is a long steady evolution in our genes where we are on a collective journey, ancient ancestors and future descendants all linked together as one line with separate but connected experiences, but while I have an interest in the relationships I currently have, I hope that my children and grandchildren will have a good and happy life, my interest wanes the farther they drift from my experience. I loved my father, I never met my grandfather and Know nothing about my grandfather.

While we all share the same genetic identity, we are all separate people and my great grandfathers suffering has absolutely no effect on me today (actually, there's some interesting science on epigenetics and how food shortages at key development stages can turn on some genes that can have intergenerational effects, but that's a different discussion)

The fact that something is argued over has no bearing on whether it's true or not. Most of the greatest scientific discoveries were hotly contested.

A good argument can shed a lot of light on whether something is true or not.
if you define argument as 'a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion ' then argument is the first step in ascertaining the truth

The fact that there have been scientific disagreements forever and there continue to be disagreements is largely because we don't have all the evidence to be able to decide which premises are true and which are false.
Science is making progress on this issue, When we can rule out false premeses then we can discount the arguments that rely on them as a foundation, and when we have evidence that leads us to greater confidence that other premises are true, we get closer to knowing which arguments are true.

Strictly speaking, I think science says that consciousness is destroyed when the brain is destroyed but, yeah, science answers what happens to the body but it doesn't address the soul.

Science has looked for evidence of a soul and so far it has only found a brain (and related nervous system)

We would all like to believe that we have a transcendent soul, but there is no evidence for this unfortunately.

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think that we are a) made in the image and likeness of God and b) sinners.

It could be thus, that "attractive" aspects of our beings such as kindness,
laughter, generosity, compassion, love, relationship, intimacy .. stem from the former. And "unattractive" aspects of our being such as selfishness, pride, anger, spitefulness, wickedness .. stem from the godly aspects being supressed and distorted.

If (and it appears to me to be) the biblical case is that damnation arises from a rejection of what God is and stands for (the above godly things) then that damnation merely involves God granting a persons hearts desire and removing himself from their scene. Which means, in effect, his removal of the image of God in which they were made.

Which mean the removal of all that is "attractive" about that personhood.

Where that to occur, then all you are left with is a personhood that has no redeeming features of any kind. None. All there would be is what is vile and disgusting about them. Which would appear as vile and as repulsive as can be - given you haven't the normal offsetting of unattractive traits which we thankfully mostly have when also possessing the image of God in us here in this life. You might try to compare with the most vile humans who have ever lived and you would be getting somewhere.

And so, I can't see there being a problem for those in heaven considering those in Hell - even if it concerned their own "mother". The person in Hell isn't their mother anymore since without the redeeming features of the image of God they are a different being altogether. A vile and ugly one.

Those in Hell are their only because of their hearts desire and a will that refused to relinquish that which God attempted to wrest from them - the spiral of death they were embracing in their refusal to acknowledge to themselves just how ugly their sin had made them become. That's what would sit uppermost in the mind of the heaven-bound. Not the fact that the person used to be "mother"

I reckon.

If that's the case, then hell is Empty, because the only people who would choose to become the most vile disgusting creature would be someone with a mental illness, and God would be a bit mean to, firstly, give someone a mental illness, and then force them to live with the consequences of that for all of eternity

Looking at this rationally, there are far too many contradictions in this whole debate.

God wants us to choose to be good of our own free will, but he is the one who creates us all and our personality is determined by our genes and our up-bringing, neither of which we are responsible for.

There are psychopaths out there but psychopaths are people that are missing very important parts of their brain which control self control and empathy. if someone who appears healthy suffers a stroke while driving a car and crashes into a school, does anyone hold the driver morally responsible if any children get injured? No, because that person could not control the car due to his brain not working

If someone with severe autism has a temper tantrum and attacks his carer and causes him/her injury, do we hold the autistic person morally responsible for that? We shouldn't because moral responsibility requires that there is the freedom to choose otherwise and an autistic person has impaired judgement which he/she has no control over.

If god creates someone who has all the genetic traits that will lead him to be a violent heartless psychopath, and then has him born into an abusive household where nobody even attempts to teach him right from wrong, is it morally right that God should hold this person responsible for his actions? Where is the free choice there?

You take away an eternity of nirvana and replace it with something vile and horrible on the basis of losing a rigged game.

antiskeptic

Akrasia wrote: »

If that's the case, then hell is Empty, because the only people who would choose to become the most vile disgusting creature would be someone with a mental illness, and God would be a bit mean to, firstly, give someone a mental illness, and then force them to live with the consequences of that for all of eternity

It's not the most vile and disgusting creature a person chooses to be. That's but the consequence of their choice. Their choice revolves around their rejection of God (in the sense of rejecting what he is and stands for).

They don't need to believe in God to be able to reject him thus. If it is the case that a conscience is God-installed, then our response to it's call is our answer to Him.

Looking at this rationally, there are far too many contradictions in this whole debate.

Debate with me or debate with all the various views ( in which case there will be undoubted contradiction)

God wants us to choose to be good of our own free will

That's not my view. Or the Bibles (I would argue). My view is that God knows that no matter how hard we try we won't choose good. At least not flawlessly so. We are always going to fail. We're sinners afterall. Sin is what sinners do.

No. God is interested in our response to our sin (and the consequences that follow from our sin). Will we suppress the truth ("this act I'm about to act out upon is the wrong thing to do") so as to sin. And will we suppress the truth ("that was a wrong thing I did there just now") after we sin. And will we suppress the guilt and shame that follow wrong doing ("I did no wrong, I've nothing to feel guilty about. They deserved it..")

We all suppress truth. But how will it work out in the end. Will we implode under it's pressure. Or will we remain defiant to the end.

but he is the one who creates us all and our personality is determined by our genes and our up-bringing, neither of which we are responsible for

I'm sure He can differentiate between that which follows from nurture and that which follows from own will. Even our imperfect courts can draw that distinction and take into account a persons background when weighing up a wrong doing.

There are psychopaths out there but psychopaths are people that are missing very important parts of their brain which control self control and empathy. if someone who appears healthy suffers a stroke while driving a car and crashes into a school, does anyone hold the driver morally responsible if any children get injured? No, because that person could not control the car due to his brain not working

Ditto above.

If someone with severe autism has a temper tantrum and attacks his carer and causes him/her injury, do we hold the autistic person morally responsible for that? We shouldn't because moral responsibility requires that there is the freedom to choose otherwise and an autistic person has impaired judgement which he/she has no control over.[/quote

Ditto above

If god creates someone who has all the genetic traits that will lead him to be a violent heartless psychopath, and then has him born into an abusive household where nobody even attempts to teach him right from wrong, is it morally right that God should hold this person responsible for his actions? Where is the free choice there?

Ditto above. I'm sure there are psycopaths who've made themselves so. Who have followed the path of evil down every step until the pit was reached.

You take away an eternity of nirvana and replace it with something vile and horrible on the basis of losing a rigged game.

Thus not perhaps. If you start out with incorrect assumptions then at an incorrect conclusion you may end up.

sherr1ngton

Firstly, let me assure everyone that there is no-one going to burn for eternity in hell.

God is not a sadistic torturer.

God does not turn away from His children, His children turn from Him and yet, God's door is always open to His children.

I think that God would be a little saddened if He read this thread. It seems that most of His children will be too busy having fun to be concerned about their loved ones being tortured for eternity. Because they deserve it.

One of the traits of a psychopath, since that term was brought up, is a lack of empathy. There seems to be a lack of empathy here for those in hell which would include people that are there because they had never heard of Jesus.

Another trait would be an inability to bond with other people. I could never be happy knowing my mother or children were in constant torment and I would be a pain in God's bum as I constantly petitioned Him on the grounds of mercy which the bible constantly harps on about.

I think that God would be very sad to see the ease with which some posters here can stop caring about their loved ones.

Even the fact that one could envision not caring about ones loved, whether in life or death, would make God sad, I think.

This is something that Jesus said in Matthew 25:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

How many will burn for eternity on account of they didn't visit their mothers in prison?

All of which is academic as no-one is going to burn in the eternal fire.

The spirit is pure and untouched by flesh and when we pass on, it is our spirits that return to God. And every one of them gets to go home. Sure, Hitler's soul may be somewhat embarrassed at the way its charge behaved but the trangressor is no more. The evil that Hitler represented in this world was conquered by death but the spirit was not the transgressor and will not be tortured in lieu of the incarnation of Hitler.

Tell your children: No-one is going to hell!

God is not a beast.

leonil7

unfortunately heaven and hell is not a matter of opinion or based on good sentiments.
to believe no one is going to hell, is to be against christ, for it was Jesus who said the eventual reality of such things:

Mat 13:40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.
Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.


Mat 25:29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
Mat 25:30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
Mat 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
Mat 25:32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Mat 25:33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Mat 25:35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
Mat 25:36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
Mat 25:37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
Mat 25:38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
Mat 25:39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'
Mat 25:40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
Mat 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Mat 25:42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
Mat 25:44 Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?'
Mat 25:45 Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.'
Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not the most vile and disgusting creature a person chooses to be. That's but the consequence of their choice. Their choice revolves around their rejection of God (in the sense of rejecting what he is and stands for).

They don't need to believe in God to be able to reject him thus. If it is the case that a conscience is God-installed, then our response to it's call is our answer to Him.

Lets use me as an example. I have 'rejected god' purely on the basis that I have not been convinced by the arguments that are given to support believing in him.

While I reject that god exists (or remain to be convinced), I don't go out of my way to be a bad person. I am a humanist. I believe that we will serve ourselves and our communities the best by trying to live up to post enlightenment standards of behaviour, respecting others, treating others with dignity and kindness and expecting that they should afford us the same treatment in return.

Because I don't believe in God, I have not worshipped God. If your religious belief defines a good life as one that includes worship and devotion to god, then I am not a good person. But if you define a good person as someone who tries his/her best to live a life that does the most good and causes the least harm then I would consider myself to be a good person.

Debate with me or debate with all the various views ( in which case there will be undoubted contradiction)

That's not my view. Or the Bibles (I would argue). My view is that God knows that no matter how hard we try we won't choose good. At least not flawlessly so. We are always going to fail. We're sinners afterall. Sin is what sinners do.

I am under absolutely no illusions that I am a saint or flawless and of course there are many things that I wish I could do, and wish I hadn't done, but I don't consider myself to be a 'Sinner'.

Nobody is perfect, there is no such thing as perfection, the idea of perfection for anything more complex than geometry and mathematical concepts is incoherent. Everything happens in a context and nothing is as simple as it seems on first glance.

I don't like the idea that we should all be declared as 'sinners' and no matter what we do, we're always going to be 'sinners'.

We should be teaching our children that the most important thing is to try our best and by striving to improve ourselves, we will see improvements, but it takes effort and we need to keep working at it.
This is a more positive attitude than the negative hopeless attitude that we're all hopeless and can only beg for forgiveness and mercy from a perfect being.

No. God is interested in our response to our sin (and the consequences that follow from our sin). Will we suppress the truth ("this act I'm about to act out upon is the wrong thing to do") so as to sin. And will we suppress the truth ("that was a wrong thing I did there just now") after we sin. And will we suppress the guilt and shame that follow wrong doing ("I did no wrong, I've nothing to feel guilty about. They deserved it..")

We all suppress truth. But how will it work out in the end. Will we implode under it's pressure. Or will we remain defiant to the end.

The feeling of guilt is not restricted to religious people, it appears to be something that we have evolved as a mechanism to help us live successfully in social groups.
If we break the rules, our brain will have a stress reaction to that, probably out of worry that we might get caught (the consequences of getting caught could be retribution, or the loss of respect, or the breakdown of a valued relationship)

In a secular moral outlook, when we do something wrong, we will have the same feelings of guilt as a religious person, but while a religious person can offload this guilt by asking for 'God's forgiveness', it's not that easy for a secular person. The secular person has to find another mechanism.

Sometimes this is to make amends to the person who was wronged, or more often, to rationalise the behaviour in some way as to absolve yourself of your moral responsibility)

There have been psychological studies that show religious people find it easier to forgive themselves for wrongdoing and are less likely to change their behaviour afterwards. (but also, religious people have more things to feel guilty about when you include the unrealistic expectations that many religious doctrines have for the thoughts and behaviours of their followers)

I'm sure He can differentiate between that which follows from nurture and that which follows from own will. Even our imperfect courts can draw that distinction and take into account a persons background when weighing up a wrong doing.

I'm sure there are psycopaths who've made themselves so. Who have followed the path of evil down every step until the pit was reached.

How lenient do you believe your God will be?
Will I be sent to hell because I haven't met his standards?
Will a Murderer be allowed into heaven because he had extenuating circumstances?

(and now we're into all the arguments about why God would ever create a brain that is incapable of knowing right from wrong)

Thus not perhaps. If you start out with incorrect assumptions then at an incorrect conclusion you may end up.

There are so many different combinations of presumptions and assumptions and contingencies and interpretations and contexts and quotations that can be used to support or reject any possible understanding of this topic that it all just comes across as incoherent.

if there are 100 Christians in a room (lets even allow that they are christian scholars who have spent years studying the bible and theology) and every one of those Christians has a different understanding of what heaven and hell is, (whether they even exist) and how God expects us to behave and what the rules are etc, then what is an outside observer to conclude other than that this whole belief system is inherently incoherent.

sherr1ngton

leonil7 wrote: »

unfortunately heaven and hell is not a matter of opinion or based on good sentiments.
to believe no one is going to hell, is to be against christ, for it was Jesus who said the eventual reality of such things:

Fortunately, that is a matter of opinion.

Who makes the soul, the spirit? And why?

Also, Jesus spoke in parables. He wasn't relating history when He was talking about the good Samariton. He wasn't saying that a mustard seed can actually move a mountain. He wasn't saying that it is sinful to wash the inside of the cup as well as the outside.

Nor is it a sin to wash your hands before eating.

He was speaking in metaphors.

It is the same with the eternal fire; it's a metaphor.

When He told the disciples to beware of the yeast, it wasn't actual yeast He was talking about.

I'd be interested to know how you seperate passages of the bible that are metaphors and passages that are to be taken literally.

Jesus had a literary style and your interpretation of the eternal fire is a departure from that style.

It's a bit like watching a comedian and regarding his stories as jokes except where the joke is a little close to the bone in which case it is regarded as not a joke. Well, the meaning you infer from a joke does not necessarily reflect the intention of the comedian who simply wants to make you laugh.

You laugh at the good Samariton, you laugh at the mustard seed and you laugh at the dirty vessel but when it comes to the eternal fire, it stops being funny to you.

You see, it really is a matter of opinion.

The soul is created pure and is Godly and cannot be touched by the flesh. The soul is simply God's window to the world and one doesn't destroy the window on account of what one sees through it.

Think about it, according to Catholicism, more than five sixths of all human souls that were ever incarnate are going to be punished for eternity in the fires of hell. What kind of business or processing plant can survive when 83% of its produce is waste?

If hell were a reality created by God to punish souls, then one would have to assume that hell and not heaven were the point of God's plan.

Do you honestly think that God would be happy knowing that for every soul that comes back to Him, another five will be tortured for eternity.

So, either God is primarily concerned with filling hell, or He needs to re-jig His plant to improve the quality of the souls He produces or the idea of hell is a device by way of which we scare our children into submitting to the will of God.

No-one is going to hell.

And the reason that no-one is going to hell is that a plan to torture souls for eternity would be abhorrent to God.

Remember, God destroyed the world in a flood and then felt bad about doing that and promised never to do it again.

It would be perverse to preach that God subsequently came up with the idea of eternal torture.

The problem with the bible is that God occasionally acts out of character and it is noteworthy that God acting out of characters totally fits the agenda of the author of the story that has God acting out of character.

God does not act out of character. How can pure water make itself into vinegar?

It is with this in mind that we should read the bible. This and common sense.

God does not design torture chambers, men do.

antiskeptic

Akrasia wrote: »

Lets use me as an example. I have 'rejected god' purely on the basis that I have not been convinced by the arguments that are given to support believing in him.

The question is whether that 'rejection' of God is the kind of rejection of God that counts. I would say not. Or at least not necessarily.

The rejection of God that counts consists (I would argue) of two strands:

1) Sinning (which is rejecting what God is about). God is selfless (for example) so selfishness is a rejection of what God is about. Sin is just a name for such acts of rejection.

2) Rejection God's attempt to use your sin to bring you to your knees and to the realisation that you need God to bail you out. At which point he would bail you out and save you

The first rejection is normal (in the sense that all are born sinners and so all will sin). The second is a question of your own will. Some people relent and are brought to their knees. Others hold out to the end and are lost

While I reject that god exists (or remain to be convinced)

The former is a ludicrous position imo, the latter eminently reasonable

I don't go out of my way to be a bad person. I am a humanist. I believe that we will serve ourselves and our communities the best by trying to live up to post enlightenment standards of behaviour, respecting others, treating others with dignity and kindness and expecting that they should afford us the same treatment in return.

And in following your personally-arrived-at moral framework you will be as everyone else in the world: in line with God's standard for behaviour in some respects and out of line in others. Christian or no - everyone is operating from a personally assembled code. You use your reference points, I use mine. Neither of us will be in line with God's standard - for all our views will be skewed.

As an aside: I wouldn't argue that religious adherence is a necessity for salvation. I'm pretty sure all sorts, religious and otherwise, will be 'in heaven'

Because I don't believe in God, I have not worshipped God. If your religious belief defines a good life as one that includes worship and devotion to god, then I am not a good person.

But if you define a good person as someone who tries his/her best to live a life that does the most good and causes the least harm then I would consider myself to be a good person.

The question isn't whether you are a good person or bad person. The question is whether you are a perfectly good person or not. if not then Hell. If so then Heaven.

Since no-one can obtain to being a perfectly good person under own steam, God has provided a means whereby he does the heavy lifting. Because we are unable to. The question then is whether you avail of his provision or not.

No one get's to heaven by trying their best.

I am under absolutely no illusions that I am a saint or flawless and of course there are many things that I wish I could do, and wish I hadn't done, but I don't consider myself to be a 'Sinner'.

It doesn't really matter what you think if God exists and is subjecting you to his mechanism of salvation/damnation as we speak. What you think doesn't prevent that mechanism working w.r.t yourself nor does what you think necessarily impede your being saved.

As an aside: although "sinner" has certain historical connotations associated with RC, it's just an explanation for why you have those moral flaws on your record. It says it's inbuilt into your character to be subject to selfish desires which you allow hold sway at times.

I'm sure you detect those desires operating within you: the urge, the attempt to resist them, the giving into .. it's not like it's undetectable.

Like I say though, you can by all means figure these desires stem from something else. It doesn't alter the mechanism to which you are being subjected by God.

Nobody is perfect, there is no such thing as perfection, the idea of perfection for anything more complex than geometry and mathematical concepts is incoherent. Everything happens in a context and nothing is as simple as it seems on first glance.

Nobody perfect here I would agree. But God is perfect. And those in heaven will be perfect (made so by him, not by own efforts). There will be no stains, no blemishes, no selfish desires, no more sin or rot or disease or death.


At least, that's my idea of perfect. And God's idea of perfect.

I don't like the idea that we should all be declared as 'sinners' and no matter what we do, we're always going to be 'sinners'.

It's just a word to describe our condition. We have a nature inclined in the direction of that which is ugly (as well as beautiful). You might not like, for example, our being declared mortal either but that's just another word to describe a human condition. What is, is whether we like it or not.

We should be teaching our children that the most important thing is to try our best and by striving to improve ourselves, we will see improvements, but it takes effort and we need to keep working at it.
This is a more positive attitude than the negative hopeless attitude that we're all hopeless and can only beg for forgiveness and mercy from a perfect being.

It's not positive if it's incorrect. Since I too believe my position to be true I see your positive as burying head in sand. I certainly wouldn't teach my children to bury their heads in the sand.


It's not like your stance isn't problematic anyway. If someone sets their own standard then it's not hard to see why hopelessness won't arrive. They can always stave off that unpleasantness by ensuring their standard is set low enough for them to score 7/10. Can't they?

Which is another kind of hopeless.

The feeling of guilt is not restricted to religious people, it appears to be something that we have evolved as a mechanism to help us live successfully in social groups.

Like I say, the mechanism of salvation is universally applied irrespective of a persons belief system. It utilizes universals such as everyone born with a propensity for wrongdoing. And it utilizes universals such as everyone born with an ability to feel guilt. It isn't affected by misplaced guilt (those guilt raisers brought about by societal/religious teaching which are not sourced in God's view).

If we break the rules, our brain will have a stress reaction to that, probably out of worry that we might get caught (the consequences of getting caught could be retribution, or the loss of respect, or the breakdown of a valued relationship)

...and sometimes the guilt isn't as self-serving. Sometimes it's guilt because we feel we were nasty, or selfish or perverted or...

How lenient do you believe your God will be?
Will I be sent to hell because I haven't met his standards?
Will a Murderer be allowed into heaven because he had extenuating circumstances?

Hitler, if he died a saved man, will be in heaven. The best person you can think of, if they die a lost person, will be in Hell. Everyone who sins (which means everyone) will be in Hell unless they are saved before they die.

The default is Hell. Everyone born is on a path to it. The only thing that can stop that happening is salvation.

(and now we're into all the arguments about why God would ever create a brain that is incapable of knowing right from wrong)

No-one can point to enough extenuating circumstances to absolve them of all their wrongdoing. Some of it will always belong to them and them alone. And even an atoms-worth of sin is enough to condemn.

There are so many different combinations of presumptions and assumptions and contingencies and interpretations and contexts and quotations that can be used to support or reject any possible understanding of this topic that it all just comes across as incoherent.

I was referring to my own argument. Your assumptions weren't taking it on board were it was coming from.

I know there are lots of different Christian views (many sharing in many fundamentally important ways even if there are differences in the details/particular aspect) but if discussing with me then the problems need to be identified in the particular version I'm positing.

sherr1ngton

Akrasia wrote: »

Lets use me as an example. I have 'rejected god' purely on the basis that I have not been convinced by the arguments that are given to support believing in him.

While I reject that god exists (or remain to be convinced), I don't go out of my way to be a bad person. I am a humanist. I believe that we will serve ourselves and our communities the best by trying to live up to post enlightenment standards of behaviour, respecting others, treating others with dignity and kindness and expecting that they should afford us the same treatment in return.

Because I don't believe in God, I have not worshipped God. If your religious belief defines a good life as one that includes worship and devotion to god, then I am not a good person. But if you define a good person as someone who tries his/her best to live a life that does the most good and causes the least harm then I would consider myself to be a good person.

And so would God.

I hope you don't mind me saying but I don't think you have rejected God, you've (correctly) rejected and innaccurate representation of God.

God is a creator, the consummate artist. He doesn't care whether you like His work or not. You are His work and He is proud of it. He knows what greatness is because that is all He knows.

God does not require man's validation and we are validated by our existence before God.

And let me add just this one thing.

If I were God and I looked down and saw men doing good, making the world a better place by bringing a little peace in some corner of it and those men knew nothing of religion then I would glow with pride at my creation.

I would think that if all men acted as these faithless ones do then there would have been no need to send Jesus to be among us.

I would think that I would be happy to spend eternity in the presence of such men and there would be no question of such men being thrown into the fire.

And to be fair, I am made in the image and likeness of God and so I may be reflecting God's will in some way when I say this; anyone who says that all men are born through sin, anyone who says women are dirty after giving birth to little boys and even dirtier if they bear little girls or anyone who says that lust is a sin has a problem with sex.

Anyone who has a problem with sex has missed the point of creation.

It's up to us to harmonise with creation and you are as eventually, after a period of enlightenment, everyone will be for to not harmonise with creation is to cause decay and death and humans have evolved an aversion to the stench of death and decay.

This is what is meant by 'God's will be done.'

Eventually we will pass out of the ages of faith by necessity and in order to preserve our place in creation.

God's will be done but it can be speeded up or slowed down by the way we interact with each other and creation.

And people who tell other people that they are going to hell slow it down.

Religion is the means by which our leaders abuse the power of God.

The power of God is the means by which men will overcome religion.

leonil7

no it is a matter of faith.

unless of course you simply believe jesus was just expressing an opinion.

if jesus says something so poignantly clear, it is a matter of faith to believe in him. to doubt is unbelief.

and there is no contradiction or metaphor. you can look from genesis to revelations and not only jesus, but the prophets and apostles say the same thing.

yes dear hell is real. eternal punishment is real.

2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

sherr1ngton wrote: »

Fortunately, that is a matter of opinion.

Who makes the soul, the spirit? And why?

Also, Jesus spoke in parables. He wasn't relating history when He was talking about the good Samariton. He wasn't saying that a mustard seed can actually move a mountain. He wasn't saying that it is sinful to wash the inside of the cup as well as the outside.

Nor is it a sin to wash your hands before eating.

He was speaking in metaphors.

It is the same with the eternal fire; it's a metaphor.

When He told the disciples to beware of the yeast, it wasn't actual yeast He was talking about.

I'd be interested to know how you seperate passages of the bible that are metaphors and passages that are to be taken literally.

Jesus had a literary style and your interpretation of the eternal fire is a departure from that style.

It's a bit like watching a comedian and regarding his stories as jokes except where the joke is a little close to the bone in which case it is regarded as not a joke. Well, the meaning you infer from a joke does not necessarily reflect the intention of the comedian who simply wants to make you laugh.

You laugh at the good Samariton, you laugh at the mustard seed and you laugh at the dirty vessel but when it comes to the eternal fire, it stops being funny to you.

You see, it really is a matter of opinion.

The soul is created pure and is Godly and cannot be touched by the flesh. The soul is simply God's window to the world and one doesn't destroy the window on account of what one sees through it.

Think about it, according to Catholicism, more than five sixths of all human souls that were ever incarnate are going to be punished for eternity in the fires of hell. What kind of business or processing plant can survive when 83% of its produce is waste?

If hell were a reality created by God to punish souls, then one would have to assume that hell and not heaven were the point of God's plan.

Do you honestly think that God would be happy knowing that for every soul that comes back to Him, another five will be tortured for eternity.

So, either God is primarily concerned with filling hell, or He needs to re-jig His plant to improve the quality of the souls He produces or the idea of hell is a device by way of which we scare our children into submitting to the will of God.

No-one is going to hell.

And the reason that no-one is going to hell is that a plan to torture souls for eternity would be abhorrent to God.

Remember, God destroyed the world in a flood and then felt bad about doing that and promised never to do it again.

It would be perverse to preach that God subsequently came up with the idea of eternal torture.

The problem with the bible is that God occasionally acts out of character and it is noteworthy that God acting out of characters totally fits the agenda of the author of the story that has God acting out of character.

God does not act out of character. How can pure water make itself into vinegar?

It is with this in mind that we should read the bible. This and common sense.

God does not design torture chambers, men do.

sherr1ngton

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nobody perfect here I would agree. But God is perfect. And those in heaven will be perfect (made so by him, not by own efforts). There will be no stains, no blemishes, no selfish desires, no more sin or rot or disease or death.


At least, that's my idea of perfect. And God's idea of perfect.

What then does God need with hell?

The fate of our souls is not dependent on a 2000 year old story that has come down to us after generations of Chinese whispers and reinterpretations that came into the bible through edicts of those seeking to satisfy their own agendas of power and control.

How can one say on the one hand that men are responsible for evil but on the other hand, no evil person would ever try to corrupt the bible?

God does not need utilise hell as a mechanism to attract followers, His creation speaks for itself. It is men who benefit and profit from the notion of hell.

Bad men.

antiskeptic

sherr1ngton wrote: »

What then does God need with Hell?

Gehenna, one of the names associated with Hell was Jerusalem's rubbish tip. That's one purpose. A place for eternal creatures who reject God to exist with what a rejection of God entails. A place to punish wrongdoing.

I don't see anything in those that offends perfection. Justice and wrath can be perfect.

The fate of our souls is not dependent on a 2000 year old story that has come down to us after generations of Chinese whispers and reinterpretations that came into the bible through edicts of those seeking to satisfy their own agendas of power and control.

The fate of your soul is in the hands of whoever created it, if created. If they chose the imperfect in the process of that so be it. God so often deals with mankind through men. Imperfect men.

I don't see the problem so long as He's the one deigning it so.

How can one say on the one hand that men are responsible for evil but on the other hand, no evil person would ever try to corrupt the bible?

I can't think of how anyone could suppose the Bible uncorrupted by error. But when it comes to principles, important principles, you aren't relying on a word or a sentence or a paragraph. You are relying on the thrust of scripture. You can't corrupt the whole thing.

God does not need utilise hell as a mechanism to attract followers, His creation speaks for itself. It is men who benefit and profit from the notion of hell.

What he needs and what he does are two different things.

sherr1ngton

leonil7 wrote: »

no it is a matter of faith.

unless of course you simply believe jesus was just expressing an opinion.

if jesus says something so poignantly clear, it is a matter of faith to believe in him. to doubt is unbelief.

and there is no contradiction or metaphor. you can look from genesis to revelations and not only jesus, but the prophets and apostles say the same thing.

yes dear hell is real. eternal punishment is real.

2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

First off, these are not the words of Jesus.

To take as an example of what I'm getting at, your quote from the bible implies that God intends for sinful angels to suffer indeterminitely.

Well, is Lucifer not a sinful angel?

If sinful angels are in hell then how can Satan be among us? And what are the devils and demons among us?

How does one make sense of that contradiction?

If Jesus wanted us to understand it that way then why didn't He write it down? Like all the other prophets did?

I suspect that He probably did. He was a highly educated man. I think that anything that Jesus would have written would not have profited the church. I don't think it was Jesus' intention to make the Vatican rich or to keep people poor.

Jesus wanted peace and happiness for all peoples of all nations, He wanted to overcome death, disease and suffering, not war, not oppression, not monetary profit.

What would Jesus think of the popes who sanctioned the crusades, the pope that assisted in the murder of the Knights Templar or the good Christians who were burning people at the stake for daring to hold a different view to the church?

What would He think of people telling their children that they are going to hell?

Don't you see my point? The bible has been edited and amended by precisely these people. They were not acting in the name of God, they were doing it in the name of power and wealth. Greed.

Greed is part author of the bible.

The bible speaks for men who want to control you, it is your heart and conscience that speak for God.

In a sense, the bible is part of God's judgement. It is up to us to realise that we are being led away from God. Look at the world, we have manufactured our own hell at home.

God doesn't care who started the fight, He just wants all His children to get on. He might have to work harder on an errant son but He never gives up on even a single one of his children.

God's judgement on the universe is the universe. It will be the way it is tomorrow because of the way it is today.

To God, evil is like a crease in a piece of clothing. You don't incinerate the clothing to get rid of the crease, you iron it out to make the cloth flat.

Creation is the cloth that is being ironed by God and God is constantly removing creases. There are many creases in such a great cloth and when it is finished, creation will be a splendid cloak around the shoulders of God.

And all evil will be made good.

And no burning involved. Neither of angels nor of people.

sherr1ngton

antiskeptic wrote: »

Gehenna, one of the names associated with Hell was Jerusalem's rubbish tip. That's one purpose. A place for eternal creatures who reject God to exist with what a rejection of God entails. A place to punish wrongdoing.

I don't see anything in those that offends perfection. Justice and wrath can be perfect.




The fate of your soul is in the hands of whoever created it, if created. If they chose the imperfect in the process of that so be it. God so often deals with mankind through men. Imperfect men.

I don't see the problem so long as He's the one deigning it so.




I can't think of how anyone could suppose the Bible uncorrupted by error. But when it comes to principles, important principles, you aren't relying on a word or a sentence or a paragraph. You are relying on the thrust of scripture. You can't corrupt the whole thing.



What he needs and what he does are two different things.

I'm sorry, God does not create rubbish and therefore has no use for an incinerator.

Creation is a story being told by God. He is the author. The idea of God punishing souls is like Arthur Conan Doyle punishing Moriarty. Moriarty came from Doyle and so Doyle would have to punish himself.

Let me assure you that God has no intention to incinerate Himself for eternity. God is not a masochist and nor is He sadistic, both of which would be required for the existence of hell.

We are fleeting thoughts in the mind of God and we will not be held to account for the dreams of God.

antiskeptic

sherr1ngton wrote: »

I'm sorry, God does not create rubbish and therefore has no use for an incinerator.

Man creates rubbish.

Creation is a story being told by God. He is the author. The idea of God punishing souls is like Arthur Conan Doyle punishing Moriarty. Moriarty came from Doyle and so Doyle would have to punish himself.

Or reward himself in the case of those in heaven. Is that not possible either. And if not then you are claiming that God can't create separate beings

We are fleeting thoughts in the mind of God and we will not be held to account for the dreams of God.

If we are then this thought of God disagrees with you.

sherr1ngton

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can't think of how anyone could suppose the Bible uncorrupted by error. But when it comes to principles, important principles, you aren't relying on a word or a sentence or a paragraph. You are relying on the thrust of scripture. You can't corrupt the whole thing.

You can't?

They can't?

What about Peter? Could he have corrupted the whole thing from the start?

The passage quoted above precedes a misogynistic, anti-sex rant:

13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you./SIZE][URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30514e"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]e[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2 14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer,/SIZE][URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30516f"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]f[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2 who loved the wages of wickedness.

Why did Jesus never say anything even remotely like this?

Maybe Peter misunderstood Jesus. Do you think that someone who has the kinds of problem that Peter has with sex is the best person to act as moral arbiter?

Jesus rescued a prostitute from the rantings such as Peter has above. Does Peter consider himself as without sin and so he feels entitled to start casting stones.

But now there is no Jesus to speak up for the prostitute and Peter has the floor.

And Paul.

Yes, the whole message is corrupted. On the one hand Jesus freaks out in the temple because it's the sabbath while on the other hand He justifies His disciples working on the sabbath by saying the the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

Now, either you are happy to believe that Jesus was a hypocrite or else you must conclude that the entire story has been rewritten.

Myself, I choose to go with the latter and so I try to isolate those contradictions and I find that when I look at the words of Jesus, some seem altruistic, the good Samariton story for example, while others seem hypocritical, the parable of the talents, for instance.

Then what I do is to first ignore the altruistic stuff and read the rest in context with Peter and Paul and I find that there is some agreement there.

Then I look at the altruistic stuff in context with Peter and Paul and I find that I'm reading about two completely different personalities.

My view is that when Peter and Paul laid down a framework for Christianity, they reckoned without the gospels. I think that originally, the gospels only contained the altruistic stuff, the principled stuff and that parts like the parable of the talents were added later in order to support the capitalist approach of the church.

'And Jesus said make profits for your master or there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

I don't think that Jesus was interested in profiteering but I think Paul and Peter were.

It is literally impossible to discern the truth from the bible but we can apply common sense to our reading of it.

And where God or Jesus seem to act out of character, we should be suspicious.

sherr1ngton

antiskeptic wrote: »

Man creates rubbish.

Rubbish, like man, is transient. Souls are not rubbish or man and are not transient.

God recycles everything and nothing is ever lost from His sight, it is simply changed from one form to another.

The universe comes from God word. How can you punish words?

sherr1ngton

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or reward himself in the case of those in heaven. Is that not possible either. And if not then you are claiming that God can't create separate beings

Reward Himself? What do you give to a man that has everything?

My point is, who made Moriarty evil and Sherlock Holmes good? Who fault is it that Holmes has a morphine habit?

Should Doyle have continued to punish Moriarty outside of the book for what Moriarty did in the book?

I don't think that I claimed the God was incapable of producing seperate beings.

We are seperate from each other but nothing is seperate from God.

Or ever will be.

Some character in God's book intruduced the concept of hell in the same way that a sci-fi writer might have a character introduce the concept of alien abduction.

Neither alien abductions nor hell exist outside the imagination of man. It just so happens that God's children have free will and tend to let their imaginations run wild. It's a creative driver but one of the side effects is that sometimes flights of fancy conjure up fearful things like 'hell' and centuries of indoctrination have convinced many of us that such things exist outside the imagination, in reality.

And this makes God chuckle. How relieved we will be we when find out the truth.

sherr1ngton

antiskeptic wrote: »

If we are then this thought of God disagrees with you.

And by the grace of God you can.

And neither of our souls are in peril.

leonil7

the point of the quotation is that HELL is real.

you have to agree with that point first. if you dont agree there is such a place, or neither Jesus nor the writers of scripture never mention such a place, then i suppose your issue is not accepting what has been written.

but if you do AGREE that there is such a place, then you should ask yourself why is there such a place ? for what purpose.

i dont know where you stand as you seem to jump back and forth about about an idea that eventually everyone goes to heaven (since no one goes to hell).

if you can quote me from scripture that there is no such place or that no one goes there eventually, then i'l engage you with this discussion. otherwise i leave you to your own thoughts of uphoria.

sherr1ngton wrote: »

First off, these are not the words of Jesus.

To take as an example of what I'm getting at, your quote from the bible implies that God intends for sinful angels to suffer indeterminitely.

Well, is Lucifer not a sinful angel?

If sinful angels are in hell then how can Satan be among us? And what are the devils and demons among us?

How does one make sense of that contradiction?

If Jesus wanted us to understand it that way then why didn't He write it down? Like all the other prophets did?

I suspect that He probably did. He was a highly educated man. I think that anything that Jesus would have written would not have profited the church. I don't think it was Jesus' intention to make the Vatican rich or to keep people poor.

Jesus wanted peace and happiness for all peoples of all nations, He wanted to overcome death, disease and suffering, not war, not oppression, not monetary profit.

What would Jesus think of the popes who sanctioned the crusades, the pope that assisted in the murder of the Knights Templar or the good Christians who were burning people at the stake for daring to hold a different view to the church?

What would He think of people telling their children that they are going to hell?

Don't you see my point? The bible has been edited and amended by precisely these people. They were not acting in the name of God, they were doing it in the name of power and wealth. Greed.

Greed is part author of the bible.

The bible speaks for men who want to control you, it is your heart and conscience that speak for God.

In a sense, the bible is part of God's judgement. It is up to us to realise that we are being led away from God. Look at the world, we have manufactured our own hell at home.

God doesn't care who started the fight, He just wants all His children to get on. He might have to work harder on an errant son but He never gives up on even a single one of his children.

God's judgement on the universe is the universe. It will be the way it is tomorrow because of the way it is today.

To God, evil is like a crease in a piece of clothing. You don't incinerate the clothing to get rid of the crease, you iron it out to make the cloth flat.

Creation is the cloth that is being ironed by God and God is constantly removing creases. There are many creases in such a great cloth and when it is finished, creation will be a splendid cloak around the shoulders of God.

And all evil will be made good.

And no burning involved. Neither of angels nor of people.

antiskeptic

sherr1ngton wrote: »

And by the grace of God you can.

"you"?

I am but a thought of God (you said). A dream of his. And so are you. It appears God's thoughts are in conflict with each other.

antiskeptic

sherr1ngton wrote: »

You can't?

They can't?

What about Peter? Could he have corrupted the whole thing from the start?

What whole thing? His epistles?

That's not the whole thing.

The passage quoted above precedes a misogynistic, anti-sex rant:

13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you./SIZE][URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30514e"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]e[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2 14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer,/SIZE][URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30516f"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]f[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2 who loved the wages of wickedness.

I take that to be an anti fornication rant. carousing, adultery, greed, appear to be the traits mentioned.

Are you of the view that sex of any kind is good? Or would you agree that wickedness can express itself through sex?

Why did Jesus never say anything even remotely like this?

Jesus? I don't recall him writing anything. Are all the gospels corrupted too?

Jesus rescued a prostitute from the rantings such as Peter has above. Does Peter consider himself as without sin and so he feels entitled to start casting stones.

There is a difference between righteous anger and judgmentalism. You don't have to be perfect in order to be righteously angry. Ask the parent of a molested child.

Yes, the whole message is corrupted. On the one hand Jesus freaks out in the temple because it's the sabbath while on the other hand He justifies His disciples working on the sabbath by saying the the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

Jesus freaked out about how something designed to allow man to commune with God was being prostituted to money. He also aborred it being made a religion of - man having to attend religiously for fear of breaking a law.

You'll forgive my exiting the discussion with you at this point. No insult intended but these are kindergaarten level objections you're raising. They don't display even the most elementary understanding of what's going on.

Benny_Cake

Mod note: FYI, sherr1ngton has been sitebanned so he won't be responding here again.

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

As an aside: I wouldn't argue that religious adherence is a necessity for salvation. I'm pretty sure all sorts, religious and otherwise, will be 'in heaven'
........
The question isn't whether you are a good person or bad person. The question is whether you are a perfectly good person or not. if not then Hell. If so then Heaven.
.....
Since no-one can obtain to being a perfectly good person under own steam, God has provided a means whereby he does the heavy lifting. Because we are unable to. The question then is whether you avail of his provision or not.
....
No one get's to heaven by trying their best.
.......
Hitler, if he died a saved man, will be in heaven. The best person you can think of, if they die a lost person, will be in Hell. Everyone who sins (which means everyone) will be in Hell unless they are saved before they die.
.....
The default is Hell. Everyone born is on a path to it. The only thing that can stop that happening is salvation.
...........
No-one can point to enough extenuating circumstances to absolve them of all their wrongdoing. Some of it will always belong to them and them alone. And even an atoms-worth of sin is enough to condemn.
............
I was referring to my own argument. Your assumptions weren't taking it on board were it was coming from.
......
I know there are lots of different Christian views (many sharing in many fundamentally important ways even if there are differences in the details/particular aspect) but if discussing with me then the problems need to be identified in the particular version I'm positing.

Ok, so you beleive we're all going to hell unless god chooses to save us.
What do we have to do in order that god will choose to save us?

homer911

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, so you beleive we're all going to hell unless god chooses to save us.

God "chose to save us" when he sent Jesus to die for us 2000 odd years ago..

What do we have to do in order that god will choose to save us?

We dont have to do anything for God to "choose to save us". We have to decide to accept the free gift of salvation already on offer. The price of that gift has already been paid

antiskeptic

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, so you believe we're all going to hell unless

..we capitulate in our resistance to God's attempt to save us. Before time runs out and it's too late.

What do we have to do?

Nothing as such.

God's mechanism of salvation does the work involved in getting us to the point where he can save us. Technically speaking, that involves bringing our desire to rebel to an end, by bringing us to our knees in defeat.

In practice that can take on any number of forms depending on the person circumstances. A person might get to the end of the barrel through alcohol, through an addiction, through a bereavement. But it might also be the accumulation of despair after a life of satisfaction-seeking which repeatedly fails to scratch the itch. It could be a sudden realisation of the ugliness of own sin, which by the measure of the world, wouldn't raise an eyebrow. The common thread however is the the persons will capitulating in light of a recognition of truth of how low they've actually sunk.

Or the will not capitulating, if that's what the will decides. To carry on plumbing new depths of whatever it is that scratches the itch. To suppress and bury the nagging that says this isn't the way it's supposed to be - with the person knowing they stand on the wrong side without necessarily knowing what or where the right side is


-


The only thing we can do, as such, is resist being brought to this point of capitulation. To resist being defeated. And so, the only doing we can partake of is our being damned.

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

..we capitulate in our resistance to God's attempt to save us. Before time runs out and it's too late.




Nothing as such.

God's mechanism of salvation does the work involved in getting us to the point where he can save us. Technically speaking, that involves bringing our desire to rebel to an end, by bringing us to our knees in defeat.

In practice that can take on any number of forms depending on the person circumstances. A person might get to the end of the barrel through alcohol, through an addiction, through a bereavement. But it might also be the accumulation of despair after a life of satisfaction-seeking which repeatedly fails to scratch the itch. It could be a sudden realisation of the ugliness of own sin, which by the measure of the world, wouldn't raise an eyebrow. The common thread however is the the persons will capitulating in light of a recognition of truth of how low they've actually sunk.

Or the will not capitulating, if that's what the will decides. To carry on plumbing new depths of whatever it is that scratches the itch. To suppress and bury the nagging that says this isn't the way it's supposed to be - with the person knowing they stand on the wrong side without necessarily knowing what or where the right side is


-


The only thing we can do, as such, is resist being brought to this point of capitulation. To resist being defeated. And so, the only doing we can partake of is our being damned.

Really?

So God works by making our lives so difficult that we (hopefully) eventually break down and admit that we are useless by ourselves and need Gods help?

So if we're happy and just live a normal life where we deal with the usual ups and downs and the good and the bad with strength and grace we're doomed to go to hell? But if we break down and beg for forgiveness from god, then we will be saved?

Are you serious?

tylercheribini

Everyones idea of what is a "Heaven" or "Hell" differs so how could they possibly exist on that basis alone. Personally my idea of being trapped for all eternity with my dead relatives is hell to me but heaven to others.

Akrasia

homer911 wrote: »

God "chose to save us" when he sent Jesus to die for us 2000 odd years ago..



We dont have to do anything for God to "choose to save us". We have to decide to accept the free gift of salvation already on offer. The price of that gift has already been paid

So all we have to do is just believe?

What if I don't believe?