Is Hell Real ?

harrylittle

I saw a few vids on u tube of near death experiences about hell and it spooked the daylights out of me.

youtube!

vested interests .

uck51js9zml2yt

harrylittle wrote: »

I saw a few vids on u tube of near death experiences about hell and it spooked the daylights out of me.

Your asking athiests!!

jimmytwotimes 2013

lol

wotzgoingon

Of course it's real. I know hundreds of atheists there and I'm pretty sure I'm going there too. Sure that's where all the fun is did you not watch the South Park episode. Sure heaven is full of Mormons and Saddam Hussein as they had to send him there as he was causing too much trouble down in hell.

pauldla

Such an innocent first post. Welcome to boards! Spend enough time here and you'll come to the conclusion that yes, hell is certainly real. You don't even have to wait until you die to experience it.

Michael OBrien

harrylittle wrote: »

I saw a few vids on u tube of near death experiences about hell and it spooked the daylights out of me.

Taking it serious for a moment. Hell is a concept that exists in some form across many religions, with wildly different views and causes for going there and what happens when you get there. Other religions use other forms of coercion as well, or include secondary places like 'limbo' or purgatory.
All of these are nonsense. However you are referring to NDE's which are NEAR death experiences. None of these people actually died. None. of. them.

Leaving aside actual liars and frauds, which do exist in the NDE community, there are plenty that claim visions of something after they think they died. But as they never died those visions are hallucinations brought about due to the trauma of the event.

Just like when people claim amazing experiences when on drugs or during intensive meditation or fasting, if you mess with your brain's normal functions you get odd results.

Most religious NDEs report visions that match their religion they were either raised in or converted to. They mutually contract each other.

Biologically our brains form memories through neural pathways, so their reports are unscientific as they claim to have LEFT their bodies and still remember what occured. Even if you did leave your body you cannot have memories if not attached to your brain.

What is MOST likely is that during the period of recovery the brain scrambles to make sense of the chaos it is in and creates false memories that are then further modified with retelling and filled in. Mass hallucinations show that this is very common where false memories are concerned.

We see this in stories of alien abductions, where the SAME type of stories originally involved angels and fairies before the aliens meme came into the public consciousness about a 100 years ago. Now that Xfiles and other shows promote the 'Grays' alien so much that many alien abduction stories involve 'Grays' where before that it was more of a mix.

So to summerise. NO, there is no metaphysical hell, only what we put ourselves through. There IS a physical town in Norway that is called Hell however.

RobbieTheRobber

In a follow up question to the OP, I'd like to know if Adventure Bay is real?

GLaDOS

Asking in the Atheism forum, the answer you will inevitably receive, for the most part, will be no.

Ultimately there's essentially no evidence for it, and facts are the currency round these parts.

seamus

harrylittle wrote: »

I saw a few vids on u tube of near death experiences about hell and it spooked the daylights out of me.

Did you find it curious that all of the people who reported these experiences were Christians, Muslims or Jews, and they couldn't find any Sikhs or Australian Aboriginals who have near-death experiences of the same hell?

When your brain is operating in a subconscious state - be that sleeping or while on hallucinogenic drugs, or in a near-death state - it goes to imagery that it knows and themes that it's familiar with. So when you dream, you're generally interacting with people and places that seem at least slightly familiar. You don't find yourself working on a coffee plantation in Guatemala or living in a shack in Bangladesh. You find yourself in your own home, your own workplace, at the school you went to, usually interacting with people and things you know.

Likewise if someone's brain brings them to "hell", it's going to be the hell they have pictured in their minds; screaming, crying, fire, demons, pitchforks and all that fun stuff. You don't hear many NDEs describing how they found themselves on a boat, crossing the river Styx.

This proves that "Hell" in the NDE sense is entirely a fabrication of a distressed brain, not a real place.

Insect Overlord

Back when I was in 5th Year there was a born again Christian in my History class whose sole ambition in life was to return to Africa and spread the Gospel when he was finished his schooling. He was very enthusiastic about his message for a while after he joined the school, but eventually realised not to bother when nobody in our year took him seriously. I think he even got suspended at one stage for bringing pornographic imagery into the school so he could teach us how wrong it was. :pac:

I mention him because one of his other amazing documents was a CD made by "Russian scientists" who had drilled deep down into the Earth's core and recorded the sounds of the "Hell" that they found down there. Undeniable proof, apparently.

These days you can hear the whole ridiculous thing on YouTube.

robindch

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I mention him because one of his other amazing documents was a CD made by "Russian scientists" who had drilled deep down into the Earth's core and recorded the sounds of the "Hell" that they found down there. Undeniable proof, apparently.

Popette produced that recording for her extended family some years back - it's the kind of thing a kid would point at and laugh, followed, a few worried seconds later, by the parents.

Insect Overlord

robindch wrote: »

Popette produced that recording for her extended family some years back - it's the kind of thing a kid would point at and laugh, followed, a few worried seconds later, by the parents.

I've never bothered to listen to it myself, but it certainly made most of us laugh back when we were all 17/18.

I read Dante's Inferno around the same time. I really must read it again now and see if I understand it a bit better.

NIMAN

It's a totally unanswerable question.

Ask it in here and you'll get a resounding no.

Ask it in the Christianity forum, and many might say yes.

It'll come down to your own beliefs in the end.

Insect Overlord

NIMAN wrote: »

It'll come down to your own beliefs in the end.

I love McDonagh's line about it, as spoken by Colin Farrell.

There's a Christmas tree somewhere in London with a bunch of presents underneath it that'll never be opened. And I thought, if I survive all of this, I'd go to that house, apologize to the mother there, and accept whatever punishment she chose for me. Prison... death... didn't matter. Because at least in prison and at least in death, you know, I wouldn't be in ****in' Bruges. But then, like a flash, it came to me. And I realized, **** man, maybe that's what hell is: the entire rest of eternity spent in ****in' Bruges. And I really really hoped I wouldn't die. I really really hoped I wouldn't die.

moonboy52

I think George Carlin's quote is appropriate here:

“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”

judeboy101

Yes hell is real and I'm married to her daughter

tayto lover

Of course Hell is real but it's impossible to get near the fire with priests in the way.

Hotblack Desiato

L'enfer, c'est les autres. - Sartre

Hell is other people

the_syco

Hell is what religions threaten you with. No religion, no hell.

pauldla

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I love McDonagh's line about it, as spoken by Colin Farrell.

What am I trying to say? You're a bunch of ***** elephants!

harrylittle

I've seen that clip on utube I suppose you could call that physical evidence that hell is real

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I mention him because one of his other amazing documents was a CD made by "Russian scientists" who had drilled deep down into the Earth's core and recorded the sounds of the "Hell" that they found down there. Undeniable proof, apparently.

Insect Overlord

harrylittle wrote: »

I've seen that clip on utube I suppose you could call that physical evidence that hell is real

Nope. Just physical evidence that somebody had a tape-recorder, a microphone, and access to some gory movie sound-effects. And then later a computer and internet access. And a YouTube account.

YouTube comments are proof of hell on Earth though.

harrylittle

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Nope. Just physical evidence that somebody had a tape-recorder, a microphone, and access to some gory movie sound-effects. And then later a computer and internet access. And a YouTube account.YouTube comments are proof of hell on Earth though.

Its possible it could be a phoney ... but at the same time its possible it could be real .. The reason i say it could be real is that i read somewhere that hell was at the center of the earth. Looking at any diagram of the earth it shows the center of the earth as molton lava ...just like a hellish lake of fire that some NDEs describe ... they also describe some parts of hell to be cave like ..dark , rock walls , and very hot ...which can also descibe the interior of the earth.

So whether that utube clip is real or not is nearly down to the chance of tossing a coin ... heads, that utube clip is false ... tails, hell is real...

harrylittle

harrylittle wrote: »

Its possible it could be a phoney ... but at the same time its possible it could be real .. The reason i say it could be real is that i read somewhere that hell was at the center of the earth. Looking at any diagram of the earth it shows the center of the earth as molton lava ...just like a hellish lake of fire that some NDEs describe ... they also describe some parts of hell to be cave like ..dark , rock walls , and very hot ...which can also descibe the interior of the earth.

So whether that utube clip is real or not is nearly down to the chance of tossing a coin ... heads, that utube clip is false ... tails, hell is real...

SO you're saying it's a 50/50 choice that a magical, eternal pain dimension exists in the the centre of the world... or some one faked something that easily faked on youtube?

You understand why most people know that's not a 50/50 thing, right?

Also, NDEs are not magic and none of them ever describe hell oddly enough.

NIMAN

harrylittle wrote: »

Its possible it could be a phoney ... but at the same time its possible it could be real .. The reason i say it could be real is that i read somewhere that hell was at the center of the earth. Looking at any diagram of the earth it shows the center of the earth as molton lava ...just like a hellish lake of fire that some NDEs describe ... they also describe some parts of hell to be cave like ..dark , rock walls , and very hot ...which can also descibe the interior of the earth.

So whether that utube clip is real or not is nearly down to the chance of tossing a coin ... heads, that utube clip is false ... tails, hell is real...

You should seek professional help for these delusions.

pauldla

harrylittle wrote: »

Its possible it could be a phoney ... but at the same time its possible it could be real .. The reason i say it could be real is that i read somewhere that hell was at the center of the earth. Looking at any diagram of the earth it shows the center of the earth as molton lava ...just like a hellish lake of fire that some NDEs describe ... they also describe some parts of hell to be cave like ..dark , rock walls , and very hot ...which can also descibe the interior of the earth.

So whether that utube clip is real or not is nearly down to the chance of tossing a coin ... heads, that utube clip is false ... tails, hell is real...

So the chance is 50/50? I'm going to go with the more controversial 51/49, because reasons.

Michael OBrien

harrylittle wrote: »

Its possible it could be a phoney ... but at the same time its possible it could be real .. The reason i say it could be real is that i read somewhere that hell was at the center of the earth. Looking at any diagram of the earth it shows the center of the earth as molton lava ...just like a hellish lake of fire that some NDEs describe ... they also describe some parts of hell to be cave like ..dark , rock walls , and very hot ...which can also descibe the interior of the earth.

So whether that utube clip is real or not is nearly down to the chance of tossing a coin ... heads, that utube clip is false ... tails, hell is real...

1. The center of the earth is NOT molten lava. Its solid Iron. the pressure is too great for it to be liquid.
2. The earth has a diameter of about 8000 miles. We have never dug anywhere close to that, even 1%.
3. The bible was based on a FLAT earth model.
4. Odds don't work like that. Everything we know points to Hell not existing, and that the video is obviously false. So the odds are close to 100% that its fake. You don't go 50/50 with two possibilities simply because they are two. With that logic you can submit any two options, no matter how absurd and say that.

Michael OBrien

NIMAN wrote: »

It's a totally unanswerable question.

Ask it in here and you'll get a resounding no.

Ask it in the Christianity forum, and many might say yes.

It'll come down to your own beliefs in the end.

Ah no, it does not come down to your own beliefs. We share one reality. So it comes down to facts and what evidence there is for any claim. Christians believe on faith for their religious views most of the time BECAUSE they don't have evidence for their beliefs.
Also 'hell' predates that faith with hades and exists in other religions too, like Hinduism, which is also older. So even if there was a hell, it by no means means it is the Christian hell (of which there are many interpretations and some who don't accept hell even within Christianity).

pleas advice

Is this heaven, is this hell.
Who cares? Who can tell?
Anyone for the last few Choc Ices?

Gregk961

Definitely of the belief that hell is here on earth. There is no need for magical demons prodding you with forks, life is filled with suffering for a lot of people and I'm sure to them it feels like eternity.

I think The Tempest sums it up better than I can
"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here"

antiskeptic

harrylittle wrote: »

Its possible it could be a phoney ... but at the same time its possible it could be real .. The reason i say it could be real is that i read somewhere that hell was at the center of the earth. Looking at any diagram of the earth it shows the center of the earth as molton lava ...just like a hellish lake of fire that some NDEs describe ... they also describe some parts of hell to be cave like ..dark , rock walls , and very hot ...which can also descibe the interior of the earth.

So whether that utube clip is real or not is nearly down to the chance of tossing a coin ... heads, that utube clip is false ... tails, hell is real...

The Hell you describe, and the one atheists believe in (for the purposes of arguing against it), doesn't exist.

Assembling such an image of Hell, requires it's proponents (which includes quite a few turn-or-burn street corner evangelists) to read the Bible literally, when it literally isn't intended to be read that way.


Hell, it appears, (simply) involves you being stripped of those aspects of yourself which are reflective of God, in whose image you are made. You are relational, for example: you empathize with others, have concern for others, are interested in others. And they with you. And so relationships (interestingly, either the best or worst things about life) exist.

You and they are so, because He is so. Stripped of that characteristic, you would be left only with the opposite side of the coin: selfishness, anger, impatience, hatred. No relationship possible in Hell thus, or, insofar as there is one, it can be carried out only on the basis of selfishness, anger, impatience, hatred.

You can consider many other elements of your character: generosity, selflessness, joyfulness, humor, ability to love, etc., etc. and apply the same consideration as above. They too have their less pleasant opposites.

-

The argument goes that you, like me and everyone else, exhibit both sides of our character in the course of our lives. We display the side informed by being made in his image and the side which is at enmity with his image. We do so, mixing both side up almost seamlessly at times.

-

Hell, like I say, is a place where you are stripped of that which was made in God's image. You are left with what's left. It it hard to imagine such a creature (for creature is what we are talking about - if no image of God remains) but we can look around in history and consider those in whom the image of God was already, as far as we could detect, extinguished. Not pretty.


Hell doesn't involve high temperatures. The writers of the Bible, who had come to appreciate the magnitude of the consequences involved, painted a picture. And they thought of the most horrendous environment possible for a human being to possibly picture.

Its not that they didn't cover the subject in great depth and explain in a full sense the how and why's and who's of Hell. The picture however, serves as a thumbnail. A focus point.


Real Hell, I imagine, is far far worse than the picture.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hell, like I say, is a place where you are stripped of that which was made in God's image. You are left with what's left. It it hard to imagine such a creature (for creature is what we are talking about - if no image of God remains) but we can look around in history and consider those in whom the image of God was already, as far as we could detect, extinguished. Not pretty.

It's always been weird to me that anyone is ok with this system and would be ok with enjoying heaven while others are suffering like that. Or that people would argue that eternal torture, of any kind be it fire and poking or a complete destruction of the self and more of a mental torture, is a just or good thing.

A good God would not visit torture on anyone, by action or inaction.

NIMAN

Hell was invented by man to keep people afraid and in control.

Sciprio

Think of all the people throughout human history who has done horrible things in the name of their religion only to be awarded eternal life in a heaven, Spending eternity with those people? Does that sound like a heaven to you? I'd take a chance on the hell personally, get away from all the evil folk trying to kill and maim people.

Peregrinus

Sciprio wrote: »

Think of all the people throughout human history who has done horrible things in the name of their religion only to be awarded eternal life in a heaven, Spending eternity with those people? Does that sound like a heaven to you? I'd take a chance on the hell personally, get away from all the evil folk trying to kill and maim people.

Ah, but it's only the folk who kill and maim on behalf of my religion who end up in heaven. In hell you'll be stuck with all the evil folk who kill and maim on behalf of all those other religions, who are a far more numerous group.

So stick with us. There'll be fewer killers and maimers, plus all those clouds and harps and suchlike. And none of those nasty lakes of burning pitch.

antiskeptic

Sciprio wrote: »

Think of all the people throughout human history who has done horrible things in the name of their religion only to be awarded eternal life in a heaven, Spending eternity with those people? Does that sound like a heaven to you? I'd take a chance on the hell personally, get away from all the evil folk trying to kill and maim people.

The problem here is one of standard.

We all recognize how useless it is to attempt to make measurements unless we have a standard to work off.

The standard to compare our varying degrees of evil is God. IF* it is the case that in him there is no darkness at all (no selfishness, no spitefulness, no greed, no malice, no lies, no deceit, etc. etc.) THEN we would have a standard of goodness infinitely beyond our experience.

"Horrible things" would include our own horrible things. The question then is how far our own horrible things and the horrible things others do fall short of the standard.

It would seem that the standard is very high. So much so, that to compare both your horrible things and the horrible things of say, a Hitler, to the standard, is to compare the distance between 2 grains of sand lying on a beach from the Sun.

It becomes irrelevant. I mean, how ridiculous for the slightly nearer-to-the-Sun grain of sand to say to the one below it "I'm so much closer to the Sun than you!"

As for getting away from all those nasty people? If you read my last post you'll see the mechanism of Hell described. It involves all of the image of God being stripped from a person: all the propensity for goodness. Similarly, the person in heaven (actually, it's a recreated and perfect Earth we'll inhabit) is stripped of all the propensity for evil they are infected with.

Hitler could be in heaven. Stripped of all that is evil about him, he will be radiant. Radical I know, but this gig isn't about how good you are (or think you are when you compare yourself to others). It's about the fact that you aren't good. And need God to sort that problem out for you.

Be brought to meet the standard by him. Or be found falling short of the standard and lose those aspects of you you think are yours but aren't actually - the image of God in which he made you.


*Of course, folk will turn to the Old Testament and argue the IF not true. That's not relevant to this discussion. I'm only pointing out your misthinking in the event the IF is true.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

It's always been weird to me that anyone is ok with this system and would be ok with enjoying heaven while others are suffering like that.

There's two aspects to it.

The first is that the person won't be a person anymore. They cease to exist in the form we knew them. Rather than being my mother, father, friend, brother, they are repulsive creatures, consisting only of that which is ugly. With nothing of the image of God left occupying them what else is left?

We have nothing to compare them with directly but might consider a Hitler or a Stalin or some other putrid human. I imagine Hitler and Stalin had some redeeming features (a.k.a. some trace of the image of God in which they were made) somewhere so even they aren't a full picture of the utter depths to which the creature in Hell is reduced to.

The second thing is that their being stripped so is a choice they have plumped for. We don't have to get into the hows and whys of this, but for the purposes of discussion this is a given.

God has set things up such that a person has a choice - to be made fully in the image of him (stripped of the infection of sin) or be stripped of the image of him. We don't get to chose what the choices are, we just get to chose from the choices on offer.

The difficulty is overcome by the fact that the person's choice is being respected. God wants that none perish, but the choice of an individual trumps his desire that they chose him. Aren't we in the middle of a discussion regarding the 8th that centres on respecting the individuals choice, no matter how unpalatable the consequences? Well follow that logic.

Or that people would argue that eternal torture, of any kind be it fire and poking or a complete destruction of the self and more of a mental torture, is a just or good thing. A good God would not visit torture on anyone, by action or inaction.

The eternal nature of it lies simply in the fact that there is no need to revisit a persons decision. They were faced with a choice, we assume (for the sake of argument) the set up the choice is perfectly fair for each and every person.

The torture isn't inflicted by God. That's the killer. It's inflicted on the person by the persons own choice: they consisted of both the image of God and sin-infection, experienced what both sides of the coin were like. And chose the latter.

Hector Savage

harrylittle wrote: »

I saw a few vids on u tube of near death experiences about hell and it spooked the daylights out of me.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Taking it serious for a moment. Hell is a concept that exists in some form across many religions, with wildly different views and causes for going there and what happens when you get there. Other religions use other forms of coercion as well, or include secondary places like 'limbo' or purgatory.
All of these are nonsense. However you are referring to NDE's which are NEAR death experiences. None of these people actually died. None. of. them.

Leaving aside actual liars and frauds, which do exist in the NDE community, there are plenty that claim visions of something after they think they died. But as they never died those visions are hallucinations brought about due to the trauma of the event.

Just like when people claim amazing experiences when on drugs or during intensive meditation or fasting, if you mess with your brain's normal functions you get odd results.

Most religious NDEs report visions that match their religion they were either raised in or converted to. They mutually contract each other.

Biologically our brains form memories through neural pathways, so their reports are unscientific as they claim to have LEFT their bodies and still remember what occured. Even if you did leave your body you cannot have memories if not attached to your brain.

What is MOST likely is that during the period of recovery the brain scrambles to make sense of the chaos it is in and creates false memories that are then further modified with retelling and filled in. Mass hallucinations show that this is very common where false memories are concerned.

We see this in stories of alien abductions, where the SAME type of stories originally involved angels and fairies before the aliens meme came into the public consciousness about a 100 years ago. Now that Xfiles and other shows promote the 'Grays' alien so much that many alien abduction stories involve 'Grays' where before that it was more of a mix.

So to summerise. NO, there is no metaphysical hell, only what we put ourselves through. There IS a physical town in Norway that is called Hell however.

Excellent post, and OP the fact that the YouTube videos scared the bejaysus out of you is EXACTLY what religious organizations want to get you in.

It's total and utter nonsense, not a shred of evidence - NONE ZERO ZIP!

Stick around here for some sense on the matter, be careful with the Christianity forum - if you are in a vulnerable state of course, otherwise
it's a great laugh over there.

Think of this, according to Christian beliefs I am going to hell for not believing in something that has never shown any evidence of itself, I've never murdered or hurt anyone -

Yet some child rapist and murderer can get in to heaven if he repents and converts to <insert religion here> ... this alone tells you how f*cking ludicrous the whole thing is.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's two aspects to it.

The first is that the person won't be a person anymore. They cease to exist in the form we knew them. Rather than being my mother, father, friend, brother, they are repulsive creatures, consisting only of that which is ugly. With nothing of the image of God left occupying them what else is left?

Could you clarify whether or not that such a being can experience suffering and that Hell in general is unpleasant to some part of the person.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The second thing is that their being stripped so is a choice they have plumped for. We don't have to get into the hows and whys of this, but for the purposes of discussion this is a given.

God has set things up such that a person has a choice - to be made fully in the image of him (stripped of the infection of sin) or be stripped of the image of him. We don't get to chose what the choices are, we just get to chose from the choices on offer.

The difficulty is overcome by the fact that the person's choice is being respected. God wants that none perish, but the choice of an individual trumps his desire that they chose him. Aren't we in the middle of a discussion regarding the 8th that centres on respecting the individuals choice, no matter how unpalatable the consequences? Well follow that logic.

It's probably been explained to you that submission or torture is not a "choice".

Nor does God seem to be all that bothered with choice when he creates people who's personhood relies solely on what he imbues them with, then plans to strip away.

And why are they the only choices? Why can't god just make someone cease to exist? Why let them exist in eternal torture? What if someone would prefer not to exist after they die? Tough titties to their freedom to choice?

Again, it boggles the mind how you are able to rationalise this set up as anything other than evil.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The torture isn't inflicted by God. That's the killer. It's inflicted on the person by the persons own choice: they consisted of both the image of God and sin-infection, experienced what both sides of the coin were like. And chose the latter.

Could god make it so that they aren't tortured at all? Could he not stop the torture if he wished?

pauldla

Could god make it so that they aren't tortured at all? Could he not stop the torture if he wished?

Indeed. If they (or should that be we?) are to be reduced to some sort of subspecies could they not all be reincarnated as some form of amoebic life form and then left in an infinite reincarnation loop in some corner of infinity?

Of course there is always the possibility that this is what in fact happened in the first place.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Could you clarify whether or not that such a being can experience suffering and that Hell in general is unpleasant to some part of the person.

Indications are that the suffering is intense. The creature (I can't but avoid the notion, since personhood involves being made in the image of God) has all the capacity that we have, sans the image of God element.

It's probably been explained to you that submission or torture is not a "choice".

Its true that the full consequences aren't known at the time of choosing. A person knows neither the nature of God or the nature of anti-God when the choice is made.

No matter. The issue isn't that the full consequences be known. The issue is whether the clues in both directions open to the person are balanced.

We have no problem with the idea of making choices without having full awareness of all the consequences involved in our choice.

It's a question, like I say, of balance. And being sufficiently informed.

Since the choice involves good or evil, we have plenty of experience tasting both options such as to decide which end we want.

Nor does God seem to be all that bothered with choice when he creates people who's personhood relies solely on what he imbues them with, then plans to strip away.

We're imbued with his image and his anti-image. He'll strip away the one or the other.

That's the choice.

And why are they the only choices? Why can't god just make someone cease to exist? Why let them exist in eternal torture? What if someone would prefer not to exist after they die? Tough titties to their freedom to choice?

The choice not-God isn't a neutral one. It's enabled by the choice anti-God.

In order for there to be a choice for God, the opposite is required. Something to act as a counterfoil, a comparison. Something to push away from good with. Something to attract one towards.

I don't see how you can have a neutral morality, for example. Neutral does nothing, enables nothing.

Again, it boggles the mind how you are able to rationalise this set up as anything other than evil.

You would have to counter the rational rigorously, rather than handwave

Could god make it so that they aren't tortured at all? Could he not stop the torture if he wished?

God cannot make a square circle. Nor can he make a balanced choice that is imbalanced. Good is something that acts, feels, experiences .. in a particular way. It's balance is something that acts, feels, experiences in a counter way. As powerful, but opposite.

You can't have someone choose for their hearts desire and then obliterate them. You are denying them the very same thing (but opposite sign) that you are granting those who have eternal existence "in heaven"

The persons choice is uppermost. It can't be usurped just because the consequences are appalling.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indications are that the suffering is intense. The creature (I can't but avoid the notion, since personhood involves being made in the image of God) has all the capacity that we have, sans the image of God element.

Ok, so something suffers. Gotcha.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its true that the full consequences aren't known at the time of choosing. A person knows neither the nature of God or the nature of anti-God when the choice is made.

That makes it much, much worse.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're imbued with his image and his anti-image. He'll strip away the one or the other.

That's the choice.

Leaving aside this being nonsense, why does he not imbue either? Why do it at all when it leads to countless beings suffering?
What about being who would prefer not to exist? They don't get a choice, agreed?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The choice not-God isn't a neutral one. It's enabled by the choice anti-God.

In order for there to be a choice for God, the opposite is required. Something to act as a counterfoil, a comparison. Something to push away from good with. Something to attract one towards.

I don't see how you can have a neutral morality, for example. Neutral does nothing, enables nothing.

This is a lot of word salad that does not address the question I asked.

If a person did not want the reward offered by god, nor the punishment, then their choice is not respected.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God cannot make a square circle. Nor can he make a balanced choice that is imbalanced. Good is something that acts, feels, experiences .. in a particular way. It's balance is something that acts, feels, experiences in a counter way. As powerful, but opposite.

More nonsense that addresses nothing.
When god does his thing and takes away all his stuff, (that he gave in the first place), why not just remove the remaining creature? Why allow something to suffer so needlessly?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can't have someone choose for their hearts desire and then obliterate them. You are denying them the very same thing (but opposite sign) that you are granting those who have eternal existence "in heaven"

None of this makes any sense.
If given the choice between eternal suffering, or submitting to a despot like this god you are arguing for, I would absolutely prefer to not exist.
Your god does not give me that option for no good reason other than he would prefer me to suffer.
This is something an evil being does and it is not choice.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The persons choice is uppermost. It can't be usurped just because the consequences are appalling.

So a person's choice is the most important thing. But a person isn't able to make any choice and the choice is made for them when god creates them.
Again, you must do a lot of mental gymnastics to make this sound like a good thing.

Also, after trying to decipher what you are talking about, it seems that you are claiming that people's reward in heaven is dependent on others suffering.
If that's the case, again it's horrifying and disgusting and I would have no part of heaven if given the "choice",

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so something suffers. Gotcha.

Suffering is the secondary thing. The primary thing is the exercise of choice. It comes first.

Leaving aside this being nonsense,

For the purposes of discussion we are assuming God exists and makes us in his image and that image infected by sin. Thus imbued with polar opposites, making us the way we are.

why does he not imbue either? Why do it at all when it leads to countless beings suffering?

You can't imbue the one or the other without choice. Else you've merely created a robot. Choice is essential to personhood.

What about being who would prefer not to exist? They don't get a choice, agreed?

Remember that the choice anti-God is something desired. We do evil because we chose to do it, want to do it. Good and evil are attractions. It is our will that chooses between them

The argument is whether the full consequences of our choice, not known at the time of choosing direction is fair.

Like I say, I don't see a problem there. We frequently choose without knowing full consequences and have no issue with there being consequences we didn't appreciate at the time of our choosing.

This is a lot of word salad that does not address the question I asked.

If a person did not want the reward offered by god, nor the punishment, then their choice is not respected.

There is no neutral position. We are created into the choice environment and know no other environment. We can't decide mid stream that we want neither since we've already been set on the path of choice in our very creation.

To hold as you do means not being created at all.

I don't know where that goes - like I say up top: if not created in the first place there'd be no person to prefer not being given a choice.

More nonsense that addresses nothing.

It addresses the nature of choice.

When god does his thing and takes away all his stuff, (that he gave in the first place), why not just remove the remaining creature? Why allow something to suffer so needlessly?
None of this makes any sense.
If given the choice between eternal suffering, or submitting to a despot like this god you are arguing for, I would absolutely prefer to not exist.

For the sake of argument we are supposing God being the things I described. And for his opposite to the the things I described.

We aren't given the choice between eternal joy and eternal suffering. For the sake of argument we are supposing the person making their choice based on life around them: how it is their heart responds to good (in them and others) and evil (in them and others)

In this argument, a person only comes to believe in God, and heaven and hell, after they are saved. After they have made the choice for. Similarily, they will not believe in God, heaven and hell in their making a choice against God. In both cases, the consequences are only believed in post the choice being made (after being saved, if for good. After life, if against good)

We set aside cultural Christians or people who think they believe in heaven and hell but who aren't saved.

Your god does not give me that option for no good reason other than he would prefer me to suffer.
This is something an evil being does and it is not choice.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I was dealing with choice having to be fulfilled. As I say up top, the consequences of the choice are secondary to the choice itself. Choice must be upheld for it to be a choice.

And there are but two options given.

You seem to want your cake and eat it: be able to chose contra-God (which is enabled by acting/thinking/speaking/desiring that which is contra to God. But don't want to pay the price for it.

Just let me have my fun and then not exist.

Isn't that a little dishonest? Wanting the goods, but not paying the price?

So a person's choice is the most important thing. But a person isn't able to make any choice

You don't have to be able to make any choice you want in order to make a choice. As in life, we are presented with options, we chose between them and enjoy/suffer the consequences of them

Nothing different here. Okay, the choices last forever, but as I say, the issue is balance and fairness. Not the extent of the consequences.

Once a choice balanced and fair, then I see no need for complaint. And you have perfect balance. Good and evil are polar opposites. We are supposing, for the sake of argument, that a person has a fairly balanced choice in either direction - that it doesn't matter whether they are brought up in a Christian environment or heard of Jesus and the like.

It's not important how the mechanics of that are worked out - we can just assume the choice is balanced for the sake of argument.

and the choice is made for them when god creates them.
Again, you must do a lot of mental gymnastics to make this sound like a good thing.

Again, for the sake of argument we are supposing God as I've drawn him, not as you've drawn him.

Its not really a matter of what we find good or not. Our view isn't an objective one. The issue is whether or not the choice given is balanced and fair. I would object if I thought (like the Calvinists do, with their predestination-to-salvation gig) that the choice was skewed or non-existant.

Also, after trying to decipher what you are talking about, it seems that you are claiming that people's reward in heaven is dependent on others suffering.
If that's the case, again it's horrifying and disgusting and I would have no part of heaven if given the "choice",

Reward in heaven isn't a function of others suffering. The bit you quoted merely says that choice is the uppermost consideration. Not the consequences of the choice.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no neutral position. We are created into the choice environment and know no other environment. We can't decide mid stream that we want neither since we've already been set on the path of choice in our very creation.

Here's the fundemental problem you are waffling your way around.
You are saying here that we don't have a choice.
God choose to make us. We had no choice in that.
We can't choose not to play his game because God has already chose that we are playing. We have no choice in that.
We can't reject his messed up disgusting reward. We have no choice there either.

The choice is between submitting to a tyrant or eternal torture. This is not a choice either.

I could lead a perfectly good and holy life, but you are saying that if I don't submit to your particular god, for whatever reason, I get, and deserve eternal suffering.
That's not a good thing.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Reward in heaven isn't a function of others suffering. The bit you quoted merely says that choice is the uppermost consideration. Not the consequences of the choice.

Waffle.
Could heaven exist if god instead just erased beings from existence rather than let them suffer?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Waffle.
Could heaven exist if god instead just erased beings from existence rather than let them suffer?

Hmm. You're not dealing with the problem presented to you. You're merely sidestepping it


A person makes a choice from a balanced set of proposals

The consequences of their choice are delivered to them in full, whichever way they choose.

Not delivering the consequences of their choice obliterates their having chosen in the first place. Which obliterates them being persons in the first place.


Since delivering the consequences of their choice is an essential part of the process, I don't see how your proposal can work. The need to annhilate the hell bound simply doesn't arise. Unless you can find a way around the problem presented to you.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since delivering the consequences of their choice is an essential part of the process, I don't see how your proposal can work. The need to annhilate the hell bound simply doesn't arise. Unless you can find a way around the problem presented to you.

So Heaven cannot exist without beings suffering.

No reason god couldn't have made the choice between oblivion and heaven and leaving eternal torture out of the equation entirely...

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

You are saying here that we don't have a choice.

I am saying we have a choice. Good or evil.

God choose to make us. We had no choice in that.

True

We can't choose not to play his game because God has already chose that we are playing. We have no choice in that.

True

We can't reject his messed up disgusting reward. We have no choice there either.

For the sake of argument we are supposing my version of God, not yours. IF it is the case that God is all that is good (selfless, loving, forgiving, patient, kind, generous) then the only thing that would find that objectionable, is it's counter.

The choice is between submitting to a tyrant or eternal torture. This is not a choice either.

As above.

I could lead a perfectly good and holy life, but you are saying that if I don't submit to your particular god, for whatever reason, I get, and deserve eternal suffering.

For the sake of argument we are dealing with God as described. I'm not supposing you have to accept him in any "I accept the Christian God" sense. Abraham never heard of Jesus and I'm pretty sure there'll be all sorts in heaven: atheists, muslims, Catholics. And am pretty sure folk who identify as Christian will be in Hell

This is a matter of the heart, not religion.

Anyway. Nobody can live a holy life. We all sin. That's part and parcel of the stage-setting environment we live in. Forces to attract us to good. Forces to attract us to ill. Us running back and forth between the two. Us plumping ultimately for the one or the other.

It has nothing to do with how you behave. Indeed, it can be by behaving sinfully that we exposes ourselves to the draw of good (in that we come to hate what our sinful selves are).

It's why the drumbeat pattern of scripture and of life around us finds the down, the destitute turning to God. It is when they've come to the end of their own ability to plow their own furrow as they see fit, independent of God, that the turn comes.


The atheists are right on this front at least. God is indeed a crutch. But only for those who recognise they are in need of one.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So Heaven cannot exist without beings suffering.

No reason god couldn't have made the choice between oblivion and heaven and leaving eternal torture out of the equation entirely...

The reason why people can't be annihilated has been presented to you just above. Are you able to continue?

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

I am saying we have a choice. Good or evil.

True

True

For the sake of argument we are supposing my version of God, not yours. IF it is the case that God is all that is good (selfless, loving, forgiving, patient, kind, generous) then the only thing that would find that objectionable, is it's counter.


As above.

If those things are true, your God cannot be selfless, loving, forgiving, patient kind or generous.
No being that is any or all of things would allow suffering.
No such being would make a system where people suffer for any reasoin
No such being would force anyone to choose between torture and submission.

If your God exists and this is how the afterlife works, then he is evil.