What do Christians really think of Non-Believers?

[InkL0sed]

>implying that objective morality exists
>2012

AoG: sophisticated moral philosopher.

[kentington]

Well not really, as I still don't know what you believe to be true. If you don't mind answering some questions it would help me understand how you reconcile the obvious deficiencies of mainstream Christianity, feel free to answer "I don't know".

Is Hell a physical place of punishment and pain? If not, what is it?
If so then is Hell forever?
What are the criteria for getting into heaven instead of hell?

I have more to say on the vineyard story and the moral grey scale, but I don't think I can make points about that until you answer the above questions.

Here are my views to your questions.
1) I don't think Hell is physical. I don't think we will have physical bodies. I also don't look at it as a form of punishment. Pain, yes. I don't know what it is exactly.
I don't see it as punishment because I don't think it is something God is doing. I think the pain is the separation from Him. Someone mentioned humans being able to adapt a tolerance from pain.
2) I am not sure on that one.
3) The only way to get into Heaven is to have your sins cleansed. i.e. Accept Jesus as your savior and ask for forgiveness.
I see it like sin cannot be in the presence of God. Sin is anything that separates you from God. Jesus removed the sin and we can now be in His presence.

[Night Strike]

Yes. I don't understand what makes you think Christians shouldn't participate in government. I also think you have some pretty crazy ideas about the 144,000, etc., which makes me think you either have your own set of beliefs or follow an out-of-the-norm denomination, both of which I would question being actually Christian.

well, as a christian i hope you at least agree with me that a christian could be defined as a follower of Jesus, and a follower of Jesus believes n his kingdom, right?

so then, when you believe in the kingdom of Jesus, why support inferior forms of government? that'd make you a traitor.

We support an inferior form of government because that is the government that God has allowed to be in power at this point in our lives. God's kingdom is eternal and we will be under that direct jurisdiction after death. Until then, God allows for mankind to rule mankind, and we as Christians are expected to respect that government and are free to participate in it. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible saying that we would be a traitor to God for simply participating in government. In fact, I'm guessing that the exact opposite would be true because God wants for moral and upright people to stand up and assist others. God himself even set up governments among the Israelites throughout their time, so he knows that governments instituted among men is a necessary component for law and order.

yes, we're expected to respect the government, but no, we should not actively participate in it.

simply because one human government is not better then the other. why get involved in wars and fill your hands with their blood, if you don't have to.

he did because Israel was his nation, that's different. and besides, the Israelite did not get to choose their kings. in fact, they didn't even have kings until after the asked, and the king was a curse, not a gift.

you do know that satan rules this world right? what you're stating now is blasphemy.

Satan's rule over this world only extends as far as God allows it to extend. God is still ultimately the one in control. And God has instituted governments among men and sees nothing wrong with his people participating in those governments. And it's actually the participation of his people that will help make sure governments are moral and not totalitarian.

[pmchugh]

Well not really, as I still don't know what you believe to be true. If you don't mind answering some questions it would help me understand how you reconcile the obvious deficiencies of mainstream Christianity, feel free to answer "I don't know".

Is Hell a physical place of punishment and pain? If not, what is it?
If so then is Hell forever?
What are the criteria for getting into heaven instead of hell?

I have more to say on the vineyard story and the moral grey scale, but I don't think I can make points about that until you answer the above questions.

Here are my views to your questions.
1) I don't think Hell is physical. I don't think we will have physical bodies. I also don't look at it as a form of punishment. Pain, yes. I don't know what it is exactly.
I don't see it as punishment because I don't think it is something God is doing. I think the pain is the separation from Him. Someone mentioned humans being able to adapt a tolerance from pain.
2) I am not sure on that one.
3) The only way to get into Heaven is to have your sins cleansed. i.e. Accept Jesus as your savior and ask for forgiveness.
I see it like sin cannot be in the presence of God. Sin is anything that separates you from God. Jesus removed the sin and we can now be in His presence.

You are in the nightstrike category then. I find this God horrible. Here is why:

1. He creates morality, i.e. the rules.
2. He creates people who are by their nature unable to follow these rules.
3. Unless the people apologise for breaking these rules (amongst other things) then he abandons them.
4. By abandoning these people he causes them a possibly eternal and certainly unbearable pain.

What a dick.

show

[kentington]

Well not really, as I still don't know what you believe to be true. If you don't mind answering some questions it would help me understand how you reconcile the obvious deficiencies of mainstream Christianity, feel free to answer "I don't know".

Is Hell a physical place of punishment and pain? If not, what is it?
If so then is Hell forever?
What are the criteria for getting into heaven instead of hell?

I have more to say on the vineyard story and the moral grey scale, but I don't think I can make points about that until you answer the above questions.

Here are my views to your questions.
1) I don't think Hell is physical. I don't think we will have physical bodies. I also don't look at it as a form of punishment. Pain, yes. I don't know what it is exactly.
I don't see it as punishment because I don't think it is something God is doing. I think the pain is the separation from Him. Someone mentioned humans being able to adapt a tolerance from pain.
2) I am not sure on that one.
3) The only way to get into Heaven is to have your sins cleansed. i.e. Accept Jesus as your savior and ask for forgiveness.
I see it like sin cannot be in the presence of God. Sin is anything that separates you from God. Jesus removed the sin and we can now be in His presence.

You are in the nightstrike category then. I find this God horrible. Here is why:

1. He creates morality, i.e. the rules.
2. He creates people who are by their nature unable to follow these rules.
3. Unless the people apologise for breaking these rules (amongst other things) then he abandons them.
4. By abandoning these people he causes them a possibly eternal and certainly unbearable pain.

What a dick.

show

You can't say that He abandoned them.
I don't know how God deals with those incapable of accepting God. I don't know how He deals with those babies and children who don't make it. However, I do believe that there is a point of maturity where responsibility falls on the person, until that point I think the kids and those with problems that prevent them from full cognitive ability are not necessarily separated from God when they die. I don't know how it works and I don't pretend to. He says He is a just God and I will take it at that.

You say He is a dick, but you are the one rejecting Him. You say He could have provided alternative and more humane ways, but He is not human and you are projecting your moral standards on Him. He doesn't want robots, so He gives people choice. You also have to see that in Revelation it mentions that Jesus will rule on Earth for one thousand years. At the end of this thousand years there will still be people who choose not to follow Him. This shows that even though people will have the proof in front of them once and for all they will still choose to do things their way and without God.

[pmchugh]

He says He is a just God and I will take it at that.

Sounds rather dogmatic to me. Dogma is the ultimate tool of the totalitarian dictator.

You say He is a dick, but you are the one rejecting Him. You say He could have provided alternative and more humane ways, but He is not human and you are projecting your moral standards on Him. He doesn't want robots, so He gives people choice. You also have to see that in Revelation it mentions that Jesus will rule on Earth for one thousand years. At the end of this thousand years there will still be people who choose not to follow Him. This shows that even though people will have the proof in front of them once and for all they will still choose to do things their way and without God.

This thread is intended to show that not only can God not live up to my moral standards, but he is actually more immoral than almost everyone alive today. No one would condemn another human to be tortured for eternity even if they could, yet your God sinks that low. Why should we take Gods morals anyway? He made them up and some of them are rather arbitrary from reading the Bible (you know the ones I mean) while others are impossible to follow and reminiscent of an Orwellian society, e.g. thought crime.

Answer me this, if you had unlimited control over everything what would you choose to do with Adolf Hitler when he died:

A. Attempt to rehabilitate him.
B. Cause him to become non-existent.
C. Entrap him but stay with him so he does not come under excruciating pain.
D. Punish him for a period of time before reverting to B or C.
E. Cause him unbearable pain, repeatedly, forever.
F. Something Else.

Finally in the words of Bell:

The fundamental way that millions of people were told about Jesus was that “God loves you, God has a wonderful plan for your life, God loves you so much that He sent Jesus because God wants a relationship with you… and all you have to is accept, trust and believe. If, tonight, you reject what I’m saying to you right now and are hit by a car on the way home, God would then have no choice but to punish you eternally with torment and fire in Hell.” God would, in that split second, become a totally different being. If there was an earthly father who was like that we would call the authorities.

[zimmah]

Yes. I don't understand what makes you think Christians shouldn't participate in government. I also think you have some pretty crazy ideas about the 144,000, etc., which makes me think you either have your own set of beliefs or follow an out-of-the-norm denomination, both of which I would question being actually Christian.

well, as a christian i hope you at least agree with me that a christian could be defined as a follower of Jesus, and a follower of Jesus believes n his kingdom, right?

so then, when you believe in the kingdom of Jesus, why support inferior forms of government? that'd make you a traitor.

We support an inferior form of government because that is the government that God has allowed to be in power at this point in our lives. God's kingdom is eternal and we will be under that direct jurisdiction after death. Until then, God allows for mankind to rule mankind, and we as Christians are expected to respect that government and are free to participate in it. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible saying that we would be a traitor to God for simply participating in government. In fact, I'm guessing that the exact opposite would be true because God wants for moral and upright people to stand up and assist others. God himself even set up governments among the Israelites throughout their time, so he knows that governments instituted among men is a necessary component for law and order.

yes, we're expected to respect the government, but no, we should not actively participate in it.

simply because one human government is not better then the other. why get involved in wars and fill your hands with their blood, if you don't have to.

he did because Israel was his nation, that's different. and besides, the Israelite did not get to choose their kings. in fact, they didn't even have kings until after the asked, and the king was a curse, not a gift.

you do know that satan rules this world right? what you're stating now is blasphemy.

Satan's rule over this world only extends as far as God allows it to extend. God is still ultimately the one in control. And God has instituted governments among men and sees nothing wrong with his people participating in those governments. And it's actually the participation of his people that will help make sure governments are moral and not totalitarian.

if god was in control then explain me this:

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

the above quote is even funnier when you believe that jesus is god. Either way, if god was in control, couldn't he just say: "whatever dude, why are you trying to give me something that is not yours anyway?" the fact that Jesus did not question the fact that satan had control over them, means he had.

As long as the war of armageddon has not been fought, satan controls the world, yet god still kinda protects his "nation" (obviously a symbolic nation) from harm, we don't have to get involved in politics though and we shouldn't. it's choosing between Evil A and Evil B. there's both as evil. We know that the war of armagedon will be won, even though it hasn't started yet, because satan has been defeated 98 years ago when he was banished to earth. And it wouldn't make sense at all that satan would beat jesus anyhow.

[zimmah]

He says He is a just God and I will take it at that.

Sounds rather dogmatic to me. Dogma is the ultimate tool of the totalitarian dictator.

You say He is a dick, but you are the one rejecting Him. You say He could have provided alternative and more humane ways, but He is not human and you are projecting your moral standards on Him. He doesn't want robots, so He gives people choice. You also have to see that in Revelation it mentions that Jesus will rule on Earth for one thousand years. At the end of this thousand years there will still be people who choose not to follow Him. This shows that even though people will have the proof in front of them once and for all they will still choose to do things their way and without God.

This thread is intended to show that not only can God not live up to my moral standards, but he is actually more immoral than almost everyone alive today. No one would condemn another human to be tortured for eternity even if they could, yet your God sinks that low. Why should we take Gods morals anyway? He made them up and some of them are rather arbitrary from reading the Bible (you know the ones I mean) while others are impossible to follow and reminiscent of an Orwellian society, e.g. thought crime.

Answer me this, if you had unlimited control over everything what would you choose to do with Adolf Hitler when he died:

A. Attempt to rehabilitate him.
B. Cause him to become non-existent.
C. Entrap him but stay with him so he does not come under excruciating pain.
D. Punish him for a period of time before reverting to B or C.
E. Cause him unbearable pain, repeatedly, forever.
F. Something Else.

Finally in the words of Bell:

The fundamental way that millions of people were told about Jesus was that “God loves you, God has a wonderful plan for your life, God loves you so much that He sent Jesus because God wants a relationship with you… and all you have to is accept, trust and believe. If, tonight, you reject what I’m saying to you right now and are hit by a car on the way home, God would then have no choice but to punish you eternally with torment and fire in Hell.” God would, in that split second, become a totally different being. If there was an earthly father who was like that we would call the authorities.

probably first A then B. maybe also a bit of D but that may be part of A as well. because punishment is sometimes a tool to rehabilitate, if used correctly. (unlike unlimited pain for eternity, that doesn't really help anyone)

[Night Strike]

(unlike unlimited pain for eternity, that doesn't really help anyone)

Hell was not designed to help anyone. It is a place where unbelievers will live completely separated from God. People don't get an eternity to realize their views were wrong: they have to make that decision while alive. What is the point for Jesus dying on the cross if God is just going to let everyone into heaven anyway?

if god was in control then explain me this:

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

the above quote is even funnier when you believe that jesus is god. Either way, if god was in control, couldn't he just say: "whatever dude, why are you trying to give me something that is not yours anyway?" the fact that Jesus did not question the fact that satan had control over them, means he had.

As long as the war of armageddon has not been fought, satan controls the world, yet god still kinda protects his "nation" (obviously a symbolic nation) from harm, we don't have to get involved in politics though and we shouldn't. it's choosing between Evil A and Evil B. there's both as evil. We know that the war of armagedon will be won, even though it hasn't started yet, because satan has been defeated 98 years ago when he was banished to earth. And it wouldn't make sense at all that satan would beat jesus anyhow.

You call yourself a Christian but don't believe that Jesus is God? And those verses just demonstrate the hubris of Satan. How great would it have been for Satan to convince the Son of God to bow down at his feet? It would have been the ultimate triumph for Satan. He had already convinced God's greatest creation to sin against God, so it would have just completed his pride to turn the Son of God against God. God has given Satan dominion over earth, but God is still in control. God allows things on earth to happen because we are a sinful people (see the story of Job), not because he has no control on the earth. If God had no control, Satan would make sure to immediately kill any Christians so they couldn't spread God's Word. And Satan was only defeated/banished 98 years ago? You have some crazy interpretations of the Bible.

And you still haven't provided a rationale for why Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. Under your beliefs, Christians can't interact with anyone/anything in the world because there is evil in the world. We are not supposed to be "of the world", meaning we are not supposed to participate in evil. But governments are not inherently evil.

[patches70]

because satan has been defeated 98 years ago when he was banished to earth.

I would like an expanded explanation on this....

[daddy1gringo]

You call yourself a Christian but don't believe that Jesus is God?

I think you're referring to when he said this:

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

the above quote is even funnier when you believe that jesus is god.

I don't think he was saying that he doesn't believe Jesus is God. I think his point is that since Jesus is God, if God was in control of the earth, then Satan wouldn't be able to offer him the authority; he already has it. I'm not taking sides in this dispute, just clarifying to avoid wasted words arguing something that nobody said.

[pmchugh]

You are wrong DG.

god is jesus? then how do you explain this:

And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

he's pleased with himself?

and this?

Saying, Father, if you be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but yours, be done.

his will and his fathers will are not the same? how can this be if he's one person? and besides, the father is greater then him.

You have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that when Jesus also was baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

jesus often prayed, was he talkng to himself then?

and how do you explain this?

So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

it is total none-sense to claim Jesus is God. the bible does not support this idea in the slightest.

Do you have any response to me DG?

[daddy1gringo]

pmch: I was not aware that Zimmah had said that. Where was that, somewhere in this thread? I don't remember seeing it.

[daddy1gringo]

DG, Bell seems very elusive. He talks a great deal about Hell and yet says nothing at all. As far as I can tell he is denying it exists as a physical place of pain. One quote shows he is, as you say, in complete agreement with me:

The fundamental way that millions of people were told about Jesus was that “God loves you, God has a wonderful plan for your life, God loves you so much that He sent Jesus because God wants a relationship with you… and all you have to is accept, trust and believe. If, tonight, you reject what I’m saying to you right now and are hit by a car on the way home, God would then have no choice but to punish you eternally with torment and fire in Hell.” God would, in that split second, become a totally different being. If there was an earthly father who was like that we would call the authorities.

From this and various other quotes I think he understands that Hell, in its traditional way, is completely immoral. In which case you should agree with me (if you agree with Bell) that the world view stated by mainstream Christians such as nightstrike, is completely wrong and quite horrible.

To transition into a defense of a more traditional position, I’ll mention something in which I agree with Bell, and something in which I disagree.

Or maybe not

If you don't mind me summarising some of your following arguments I believe you are in essence saying "Unbelievers can go to Heaven". While I think this is contradictory to some other statements in the Bible (such as psalms 14:1) I will take what you say at face value, as you correctly point out I am not refuting your God ITT only that your God is morally just. I would still argue that a God with Heaven and Hell in the traditional sense is vastly immoral regardless of the criteria used to decide who goes into which camp.

Now the thing in which I disagree with Bell. In that “trailer” video, and at least one place in the book, he talks about the idea that millions of people are going to suffer forever in hell and asks, “Is that ‘Good News’?” My response would be, “No, that isn’t Good News, that’s the bad news. The Good news is that because of what Jesus did, Nobody has to be one of them.” Nobody, not you, not anybody else, has to be one of them, because of what Jesus did. That’s the “Good News”.

The bolded part seems to suggest that you still believe in a physical place of pain in contradiction with Bell.

So to answer your question of how Christians see unbelievers, there isn’t just one answer, but I can say for certain that with the exception of Westboro Baptist Church and a few other fringe-loonies, it’s nothing like the contemptible caricature that has you so pissed off in your original post.

Hope this helps.

Well not really, as I still don't know what you believe to be true. If you don't mind answering some questions it would help me understand how you reconcile the obvious deficiencies of mainstream Christianity, feel free to answer "I don't know".

Is Hell a physical place of punishment and pain? If not, what is it?
If so then is Hell forever?
What are the criteria for getting into heaven instead of hell?

I have more to say on the vineyard story and the moral grey scale, but I don't think I can make points about that until you answer the above questions.

First, thanks for a response that seems to be in the spirit of honest discussion.

I’m going to ask you to be open-minded with regard to your basic premise behind the thread, not so much that you may be wrong, as that there may be a whole different way to look at it. I know it’s kind of Ironic putting it this way, but your position is pretty judgmental: “This idea is just immoral, and anybody who holds with it is ‘horrible’” (even in the sanitized edit of your OP, and worse in the original). That’s pretty “black-and-white” and dogmatic. Once again I am aware of the irony, since we’re talking about my believing in eternal judgment in hell.

Now one reason that Bell seems evasive to you, and why what I say may also seem so, is that we are cautioned about speaking too confidently about this. Obviously, and especially given some of the other things I’ve said, I don’t have the authority to say that a given person is going to heaven or hell. Even when talking about a hypothetical person, I have to be cautious. I can judge arguments, excuses, and ideas, and say “that doesn’t cut it,” but “this person is going to hell” requires knowing the person as God does, completely.

Besides that, the Bible makes it clear that there will be a lot of surprises in this matter. It specifically talks about surprises as to who will be there and who won’t. Jesus preferred many who people would consider “less godly” over many who seem more godly, and “Man looks at the outward appearance, but God judges the heart.”

The Bible is a book; God is not. He can surprise you, and he doesn’t always consider it necessary to explain everything he has planned. There is a lot he doesn’t have to tell us. He wants us to take this seriously, and realize that this is no joke; it really is life and death. Yet he is free to be more merciful than we expect. (Vineyard parable)

So, yes, there is some “I don’t know” involved in my answer, but that’s not all there is to it. There are things that I know and things that I don’t, and things that I am reasonably sure of.

One thing I know. I know God; he hangs out at my house and walks around with me. We chat. I know his character, his sense of humor, and what breaks his heart and makes him weep. I know that he is better than I am: more just, and more loving. As certain as you are that a permanent hell would not be moral, that is exactly how sure you can be that that’s not what God is doing.

You are convinced that if there is a hell that is eternal punishment, that would be unjust, or immoral as you put it, and any God involved with such a thing could not be moral and certainly not loving. I am not. Bell is not the first to put forth the view that everybody will end up in heaven, I have heard others. I can’t say for certain that they are wrong, but that’s not how I read it, though I would be glad to be wrong.

In the Bible, in history, in the news and in my own life, there are a lot of things that God does or allows that seem to contradict that he is as good as they say. On many of them, in all of those arenas, I have discovered that further investigation shows things are not what they seem at first, and God’s goodness is even more amazing than I thought. Do those things answer everything? No they don’t. But I have seen His goodness vindicated in enough of the situations where I have come to understand, that I have reason to trust him in the ones that I don’t understand. So it is faith, but not blind faith.

So yes, I believe that there is a hell that is eternal punishment and some will experience it. I also believe that God is “moral”, both just and loving. And yes I believe that those two statements can co-exist.

But I am more certain about God’s character than about my interpretation. If it could somehow be objectively proven that it is impossible for God to be good, and for there to be a permanent hell of punishment at the same time, my response would be, “I guess I must be wrong about hell then.”

Whether the traditional view of hell is correct or not, one other thing I know. No one will go there without really deserving. Who really deserves it? I’m not qualified to say, nor are you.

I’ve already dealt with the issue of people in places and times where they haven’t heard of Jesus, and with people here and now who have arguably legitimate reasons that they are unable to receive the message outwardly.

As for everybody else, I’ve had these conversations with more people than I could count, for about 36 years, and generally, even when the person begins by claiming his objections are logical and intellectual, when it comes down to it, reason is inconclusive and the real objection is that they refuse to accept God as who he is. They want to be their own king, their own God. They also want to be their own savior, insisting that they are good enough and not a “sinner”. I can’t judge anybody. It’s up to you to measure your shoe size and see if it fits.

So the bottom line is that what you believe about hell doesn’t need to be a hindrance to your getting to know the same God I do. It’s not about what you believe about that, or about any of a million other things. It’s not about what everybody else says. It’s about coming to know Him, the source of that sense of fairness and kindness that makes you angry about the subject in the first place. Matthew 5:6 -- Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.

[pmchugh]

First, thanks for a response that seems to be in the spirit of honest discussion.

I’m going to ask you to be open-minded with regard to your basic premise behind the thread, not so much that you may be wrong, as that there may be a whole different way to look at it. I know it’s kind of Ironic putting it this way, but your position is pretty judgmental: “This idea is just immoral, and anybody who holds with it is ‘horrible’” (even in the sanitized edit of your OP, and worse in the original). That’s pretty “black-and-white” and dogmatic. Once again I am aware of the irony, since we’re talking about my believing in eternal judgment in hell.

I asked people to prove me wrong and I will not dismiss people who reason well, in fact I think zimmah and Bell have fairly moral interpretations of Hell. I may be judgemental in my OP but I am not dogmatic.

You are convinced that if there is a hell that is eternal punishment, that would be unjust, or immoral as you put it, and any God involved with such a thing could not be moral and certainly not loving. I am not. Bell is not the first to put forth the view that everybody will end up in heaven, I have heard others. I can’t say for certain that they are wrong, but that’s not how I read it, though I would be glad to be wrong.

I hope you fully convert to Bells ideas, for if I "knew" God to be a just and good character then the only way I could reconcile the place of Hell would be to agree to such an alternative.

So yes, I believe that there is a hell that is eternal punishment and some will experience it. I also believe that God is “moral”, both just and loving. And yes I believe that those two statements can co-exist.

I cannot comprehend two such opposing ideas and I think that the only way in which religious people can is by assuming that they and the people they love will end up in heaven. It is almost doublethink to believe two such contradictory ideas.

But I am more certain about God’s character than about my interpretation. If it could somehow be objectively proven that it is impossible for God to be good, and for there to be a permanent hell of punishment at the same time, my response would be, “I guess I must be wrong about hell then.”

Well it will be hard for me to prove anything "objectively" as of course I believe in relative morals but I can certainly try and explain why I think that Hell is an unjust concept.

In this explanation I am taking the Hell of eternal pain as a means of punishment.

Pain, in itself, is not always a bad thing. It deters us from situations dangerous to our livelihood. Without pain, we would likely have succumbed to accidents and became extinct long ago. In this way pain acts as a deterrent to dangerous situations. Can we justify Hell in such a manner?

I would say no. Hell could, in theory, deter people from sinning but surely one who acts good only to reach heaven and avoid hell has not done anything "good". God judges the heart, not the actions of people and as such Hell would not help people to be good. So what is the purpose of this pain? As dg puts it, it is punishment.

I think the concept of this Hell is at best an Eye for an Eye, a Tooth for a Tooth and even to get there I had to invoke quasi-reasoning of God feeling all of your sins as eternal pain. Now, as far as I can gather God cannot let a single sin into heaven and only Jesus death on the cross allows you to be washed of all your sins. This implies that one single sin, big or small, is an offence which righteously would be punished with eternal torment in Hell (without Jesus "sacrifice").

Now we come to the crux of the matter. Why is it right to cause someone eternal pain for something as meaningless as say sex before marriage? I struggle to fill the gap here. Hell is not a means, it is eternal and by definition it is an end. People are by their very nature unable to live a life without sin as the Bible teaches us.

This means that the rightful and deserving end to all humanity is eternal pain with no purpose other than retribution for breaking rules that they never agreed to keep to or even could keep if they so desired. If God is just, why should he create such a doomed and inherently evil race of creatures that are supposedly made "in His image"?

[chang50]

show

[/quote]

You can't say that He abandoned them.
I don't know how God deals with those incapable of accepting God. I don't know how He deals with those babies and children who don't make it. However, I do believe that there is a point of maturity where responsibility falls on the person, until that point I think the kids and those with problems that prevent them from full cognitive ability are not necessarily separated from God when they die. I don't know how it works and I don't pretend to. He says He is a just God and I will take it at that.

You say He is a dick, but you are the one rejecting Him. You say He could have provided alternative and more humane ways, but He is not human and you are projecting your moral standards on Him. He doesn't want robots, so He gives people choice. You also have to see that in Revelation it mentions that Jesus will rule on Earth for one thousand years. At the end of this thousand years there will still be people who choose not to follow Him. This shows that even though people will have the proof in front of them once and for all they will still choose to do things their way and without God.[/quote]

I would definitely be one of those.Even if I was 100% sure God existed,I would just acknowledge the fact,and still not follow him,I have way too much self-repect to live like that.If he decided to punish me for exercising the freewill he gave me,knowing in advance that I would do so,I would judge him totally unworthy.

[jak111]

With how sickly some of you believe in god and what you believe him to do to non believers. If heaven and hell are real, send me to hell, I'd rather not be stuck with a stubborn douche. Just saying, at least Satan would tell you how it is not "Be good little boy and I'll reward you" ~Words of a pedophile.

[PLAYER57832]

it is total none-sense to claim Jesus is God. the bible does not support this idea in the slightest.

[/quote]
This is a major dispute within Christianity. Most Protestants, etc say Jesus is God. Jehovah's Witness (to name one example) and some other churches do not.

Depending on the version of the Bible you read, the most often cited passage is the one where Jesus is talking with the disciples and asks them who he is, the response is "God". However, its not something all Christians agree upon.

[daddy1gringo]

With how sickly some of you believe in god and what you believe him to do to non believers. If heaven and hell are real, send me to hell, I'd rather not be stuck with a stubborn douche.

You're absolutely right. Judging people like that, who does he think he is, God? Oh, wait....

[jak111]

With how sickly some of you believe in god and what you believe him to do to non believers. If heaven and hell are real, send me to hell, I'd rather not be stuck with a stubborn douche.

You're absolutely right. Judging people like that, who does he think he is, God? Oh, wait....

A fairy tale character? You are correct good sir. Though have you read Little Red Riding Hood? That's an interesting fairy tale, it has more action in it than the bible.

If such a man existed it'd be programmed into us to follow his codes. For a person to be able to judge someone without coming in front of that person and telling him face to face the rules, but yet judging him if he does not believe in something that wasn't even mentioned until 2000 years ago when humans have been around longer than that.

god is a figment of people's imagination from long ago. Good for morals and way back when to keep thieves and rapists in line, but in present day his fairy tale is made into some sort of fake fact without any evidence that he even existed. If he's so powerful whom created him? he must have came from somewhere, not just magically be there one day and make everything happen, then disappear with soo much space out there.

I'm willing to put my money on the type of aliens with more advanced technology than us, than this tale that was passed down over the generations.

[Phatscotty]

What really matters is that religion is where we come from, where our story as a species started. It's what made us what we are today.

[Frigidus]

What really matters is that religion is where we come from, where our story as a species started. It's what made us what we are today.

How so? What has religion done to advance us as a species? If anything it has held us back technologically.

[Maugena]

What really matters is that religion is where we come from, where our story as a species started. It's what made us what we are today.

WE SPAWNED FROM RELIGION, GAIZ!

[macbone]

As a Christian, let me just say that I love you guys. =)

Also, did anyone read Dumbing of Age today?

Click image to enlarge.

[chang50]

What really matters is that religion is where we come from, where our story as a species started. It's what made us what we are today.

Where do you get this nonesense from?Our story as a species,whatever that means,long predates religion.But even if it didn't,and it made us what we are today,that still wouldn't make any of them true..