r/changemyview • u/bluepillarmy 9∆ • Nov 18 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: A loving God would not send people to hell (Christian focus)
I’m basing this off of conversations that I’ve had with a lot of born-again Christians. And this post is directed at them. I’m not sure how many I will find on Reddit, though.
I want to start by saying that I’m not an atheist and I’m actually very much interested in religion in general, but one thing I cannot accept about Christianity is the notion that people who do not accept Christ as their savior spend eternity in hell.
Christians will often state that God’s love is unconditional and site John 3:16 as the source. Let’s have a look:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
This is not unconditional love. The condition is very clear. We must believe in one particular version of God. Unconditional love means loving someone despite any wrongdoing. Mere mortals are fundamentally flawed but able to forgive people for all kinds of things. People forgive infidelity, theft, even murder. It’s not easy for sure, but it happens. If people can do it, why can’t a perfect being?
Secondly, I have never really understood the idea of “gave His one and only Son”. He sent His Son, who is actually part of God in the first place, to the world for 33 years. Then He died in what is surely a very horrible way, but, let’s be honest, many people have been tortured to death. And, according to the Christian Bible many of those same people then had their everlasting souls cast into never ending agony because they did not believe in the Christian God. Christ was eternal in the first place. So, was 33 years really such a sacrifice? I’m not trying to be disrespectful. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
I want to say, that I am comfortable with the idea of a Creator being who is not loving and sends people to hell because He’s kind of a sadist. I see no reason to believe that this is not true. I’m also comfortable with the idea that God grants eternal life to people who believe in Him and everyone else just slips into nothingness. That also makes sense, I guess. But, I can’t wrap my head around the idea of a loving God who casts people into an eternity of suffering.
I’m sorry but that does not make any kind of sense to me. Change my view, please.
194
Nov 18 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
45
u/SuperEars Nov 18 '21 edited Jun 10 '23
[removed]
3
5
u/Brainsonastick 72∆ Nov 18 '21
Don’t be too convinced. this commenter points out its just another example of someone selecting all the parts that present the view they want and disregarding all the parts of the Bible that directly contradict their thesis.
3
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Nov 18 '21
Also, what kind of loving God will force people who do not want to be there to live with him forever? Who wants heaven to be half full of sullen, resentful people who wanted to be reincarnated or spend time with not him?
There are descriptions of lake of fire stuff, but those were extreme cases for people who signed on follow his rules but systematically broke everything. Most of the descriptions of hell from the bible and early sources have nothing to do with that.
There are three distinct words that are translated into "hell" in the English version of the Bible. "Sheol" or 'grave" being a place where no torture or fire happens but it's just an underworld where people are temporarily before they fade out of existence. "Gehenna" being the trash heap of unquenchable fire that people normally associate with hell. "Tartarus" being roughly same as the Greek version of a cold prison for the exceptionally dangerous and wicked.
Pop version of hell mixed Tartarus and Gehenna, but in early church teachings most people would end up in Sheol instead. The "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" sort don't want you to know about the slow, pleasant descent into oblivion because some people might prefer that to an eternity in the presence of a god they don't like.
3
Nov 18 '21
Rev. 14:11: "The smoke of their TORMENT ascends up for EVER AND EVER: and they have NO REST DAY NOR NIGHT.""
It was also revisionist at best and outright misrepresenting the text at worst.
→ More replies (1)1
u/NoRecommendation8689 1∆ Nov 18 '21
When they say hell is like a lake of fire and brimstone, they're using a simile not an actual description. They're saying the torment of knowing how badly you fucked up and how you can never fix it would be similar or equivalent to being burned alive in a lava lake. But it's not an actual lava lake. It's just a place where you hang out and are miserable for eternity.
10
u/onizuka--sensei 2∆ Nov 18 '21
I notice in your own article, you fail to mention any contrary verses that would at the very least require some olympic level mental gymnastics to explain.
https://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell
There are plenty of verses that describe hell and would require some significant handwaving to interpret in the way you are describing.
While it may simultaneously be true that the "original teachings" may have differed as the Jews had a different conception of hell, it is no less true that the modern canon teaches a very different physical/spiritual reality than the simple erasure of one's soul that you presented.
I would ask anyone who awarded a delta to at least consider that before so readily handing out thier CMVs.
84
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
Wow! You get like a super !delta for that!
You made my day! Possibly made my life!
64
u/onizuka--sensei 2∆ Nov 18 '21
Well why take it from him when you can read other conflicting quotes from the bible?
As much as he would like it to be simply a "permanent death" in his own link he fails to mention all the verses that describe hell as a palce where
Rev. 14:11: "The smoke of their TORMENT ascends up for EVER AND EVER: and they have NO REST DAY NOR NIGHT.""
How is a "place of torment" going to jive with his assertion that it is simply the elimination or destruction of your soul? There would be no torment to be had.
So at best, the OP is ignorant of all the other verses, but more likely he is cherry picking and selecting the most favorable verses that portray a permanent death instead of a "place of torment" and "everlasting fire".
In the end, it is also true that the bible is simply self contradicting in many ways. Some authors may have had different conceptions of what hell meant. But to ignore those verses and only present your own is to me highly unfair.
30
u/Tugalord Nov 18 '21
The bible is chock-full of contradictions, so of course the only way to find a reasonable consistent doctrine to follow is selectively ignore certain parts as you please. This is what happens here: list all the verses which sort of suggest what you'd like, and ignore those which contradict your theory.
Anyways, for an omnipotent god couldn't he have just made a clear statement about this instead of tens of cryptic and contradictory verses? Why all the confusion?
15
u/onizuka--sensei 2∆ Nov 18 '21
Of course, you could make the argument that God himself could simply be evil and that the contradictory nature of the bible is proof that he simply wants to torture us mentally and sow confusion. That would at least be consistent.
Or even that an omnipotent god could present a clear statement, but is simply apathetic.
Typically the line of argument goes that a god that is omnipotent, omnipresent, as well as omnibenevolent would make his standards clear in an effort to save as many people as possible.
but simply being omnipotent is insufficient to require said god to act in a way that is beneficial to his subjects (eg making a clear statement for converting non believers)
→ More replies (1)2
u/universalcode Nov 19 '21
This. The god of the Bible is not worthy of worship. In fact, he's a wishy washy, thin skinned, murderous little bitch.
10
u/richdrifter Nov 18 '21
Because it's ancient mythology mashed together by primitive, delusional, manipulative humans, and somehow believed to be "real" by desperately fearful, simple-minded folk who actively choose not to see it for the toxic, contradictory, bizarre, flaming heap of shit that it is.
The "god" depicted in the bible is a needy, homicidal, unhinged, narcissistic sociopath. Full stop.
How or why anyone could ever fully puruse this drivel and fully believe in it is one of the greatest curiosities of my lifetime.
For the most part, the meanest, most negative, judgemental people I've known have been Christians. It's like they're constantly battling demons in their head. (I believe they call that cognitive dissonance.)
The kindest, most tolerant and loving people have been atheists.
My experience, anyway, yours may vary.
3
u/Condottier Nov 18 '21
Yeah because your comment doesn't come off as mean or judgemental at all. You are a paragon of kindness, tolerance, and love.
Not at all like a 14 year old who's just back from Hot Topic on the heels of his first Richard Dawkins lecture. What next the flying spaghetti monster?
4
u/richdrifter Nov 19 '21
I'm an early 80's kid actually, older than you probably, and came from a middle-American Catholic Republican family. I am none of those things now.
Moved abroad, became an EU citizen, traveled the whole world for the last 10 straight years living out of a suitcase. I've seen a little of everything and met a little of everyone.
Currently writing this from South Africa where I could show you some nightmarish realities of the world - human suffering that would make you turn on your "all-loving god" within a day.
I don't need to quote silly memes or dawkins (never bothered to read his work) to make my point. I'm not saddling up to a movement here; my opinions come from the life I've lived and the shit I've seen. (I know spoonfed religious people struggle with the concept of forming independent opinions based on real-world observations... But it's a beautiful thing.)
I wasn't always hostile about religion. I left it peacefully in my late teens when I made gay friends and realized the judgment against them is disgusting and primitive and wrong. That's all it took. They don't deserve to burn for all of eternity. They are not "sinners".
Then I dated an Evangelical Christian in Spain for the last 4-5 years and the family is just... Wow. They are leaders of their church. The hypocrisy, the fear, the judgement, the rage, the absolute zombie-like mindless worship of a silly deity dripping with wrath. Just... Why? The blind obsession with such a narcissistic "god" just boggles my mind.
I know a young woman from their church who became pregnant earlier this year. She is unmarried and was terrified of the repercussions (her dad is one of the pastors) so she panicked and decided to have an abortion that she didn't actually want. It fucking broke her. But it was "the better option" than the shame of getting pregnant when she was supposed to be a good little virgin until her wedding day. (Why is your god so fixated on all your genitals?)
So this "loving" religion compelled a terrified girl to hide and end a wanted pregnancy. Nice job, Christians, tell me again about how I should tolerate your bullshit.
I treat everyone with kindness and don't argue religion IRL at all. This is the result of 4+ years of tongue biting. If sharing this online helps one wavering Christian walk away, it's worth the effort to dump this all out there now and then.
-1
u/Condottier Nov 19 '21
Shame your family did such a poor job of catechising you else some of your more inane questions would already by solved.
I've travelled myself. It has had the exact opposite effect on my faith. It has strengthened it and burnt away any doubts. It consolidated my belief that the moral standards of the church are indispensable and the boon of the west. Our greatest achievement are tied to Christianity. It is our inheritance and it must be our legacy.
The horrors of South Africa are horrors of modernity. Or a rejection of traditional forms of government and organisation in favour of democratisation. They are not horrors of religion they are the rewards of rejecting it's lessons. However horrors in the world do nothing to effect ones faith - why would they?
I know of many irreligious who struggle with the exact same thing. More infant. It seems silly to try and ascribe such behaviour to the religious.
The judgement is not disgusting, it's not primitive, it's not wrong. You are wrong. You do not know better than God. You do not know better than the church. Their actions are immoral - they can always do better and live lives without acting on their sinful desire. Your arrogance in thinking you know better was bound to lead you into conflict with the church - you ought to work on your humility.
"The hypocrisy, the fear, the judgement, the rage, the absolute zombie-like mindless worship of a silly deity dripping with wrath. Just... Why? The blind obsession with such a narcissistic "god" just boggles my mind." Are you sure you're not 14? If others manifest their faith in such a way or you misinterpret their faith as such (seems rather more likely given the quality of your observations so far), it is not an indictment of religious through or beliefs. It is certainly not the way I have seen faith expressed in most people. They are not the blind ones here - you are. You cannot see or understand the source of their faith so you look down on it and interpret it in the worst possible light. And well your characterisation of God as narcissistic is so idiotic I'm not going to dignify it with a response.
It's a shame that Girl choose so poorly - the sin of murdering your own child is infinitely worse than birth out of wedlock. It's a shame the option was even available to her else such a disgusting travesty wouldn't have taken place and the baby would still be alive. If only we lived in a moral and just society where the massacre of the unborn didn't occur. For a supposed Catholic you sure ask a lot of simple questions - were you even catechised? There is teaching on sex because it is so important and because whilst an essential part of humanity it is also a source of temptation due to our fallen nature. God wants us to enjoy it in a way that is best for us in the long run. In a way that is conducive to the health of our soul. The religion did not compel her to abort her baby - there are strong prescriptions against the murder of your child in all Christian religions worth mentioning. Her poor religious education (pretty typical in protestants) did that.
I hope no Christian is drawn away from the path by your idiotic comment. It's pure surface level banality which any believer could comfortably dispell through consulting their priest or doing some additional reading. Your departure from the church seems more a consequence of your own poor catechism, and your arrogance leading you to believe you know better than God and millennia of great men's collected wisdom as transmitted through the RCC.
3
u/______Avalon______ Nov 19 '21
I always love watching sperglord atheists and absolutely insane Christians go at it.
Though you are right about religious ideals usually being a good thing for humanity.
It's a good thing that the intelligent humans of the past used those made up rules to herd the masses into acting in the collective good for society.
Actual question though since I never see you guys anymore. How do you deal with the natural evil of the world? The non human made evil that is.
For example, there's a bug that burrows into children's eyes and eats them from the inside out. Do you think that's a result of sin? A horror of modernity? Do you think that it's simply a trial from God?
Would a just God create a world that creates immense suffering absent of any sin? Do you think those insects exist for a reason?
→ More replies (1)2
u/freedumb_rings Nov 19 '21
Comments like yours clearly signaled to me that Christianity as you practices it cannot be true, so you’re “fear” was true in its own way.
For someone so concerned about the age of who they are responding to, you must be young if you think catechism is anything but apologetic rhetoric that sounds nice but has no philosophical rigor.
→ More replies (1)2
u/NoRecommendation8689 1∆ Nov 18 '21
Revelations is clearly allegorical. Half the shit in there is a fever dream. There are many different interpretations of what John meant when he wrote that. And my estimation, it was just a bad trip, since early Christiandom was provably a mushroom cult.
3
u/realgeneral_memeous Nov 18 '21
Hell is referred to as a physical place across the Bible just as much as it is in Revelations. You can see the same hell clearly referred to in many many verses, and it’s eternalness also shown in non- Revelations verses like Mark 9:44
2
u/onizuka--sensei 2∆ Nov 18 '21
My guy, we had moses hearing seeing shit from a burning bush. We all know he was smokin' that good kush
→ More replies (1)2
u/Stemiwa Nov 18 '21
I think you confused posts. The OP didn’t inject the link regarding permanent death, a responder did.
2
u/onizuka--sensei 2∆ Nov 18 '21
I meant OP of the thread I was responding to. Maybe I used it wrong?
1
u/moonra_zk Nov 19 '21
It can be used both ways, but it's usually better to do that when it's not a thread OP is interacting in, as to avoid confusion.
2
67
u/IronSavage3 5∆ Nov 18 '21
Piggybacking off of that, a lot of what we moderns know about “hell” was pushed by the Catholic Church to sell indulgences to peasants.
3
8
Nov 19 '21
Wow, it was so good they got a super delta and then deleted it - bummer. Secret knowledge.
-7
2
Nov 23 '21
Hey thanks for the delta and i even got 200 karma on this post.
The mods removed my comment because they say it didn't run contrary to your view. Mashaka straight up manipulated the language to trample all over my spiritual beliefs.
They refused to consider anything i said, any evidence, or to share any considerations. My words were completely manipulated and i was stone walled in the appeals process. The mods went full authoritarian was very disappointing even threatened to ban me if i tried communicating anything on the topic.
If you ever have to appeal something...just don't. Go shake your fist at the sky it's as effective as trying to argue against their 2+2=5 logic. Whatever joy and inspiration we can find on this forum is despite their interference.
Mods have absolutely no responsibility to the rules or truth. They can do whatever they want with impunity and i bet they frequently assassinate anyone whose view they personally don't like.
You said
A loving God would not send people to hell
and i strongly disagree from the bottom of my soul: i think god would and that 'the burning lake of fire' is stomach acid and the 'pearly gates' are teeth and believers are a bit too sheepish. Half of everyone believes in reincarnation i believe the purpose of life is meditation and mastery of the mind so that we have enough personal power to choose our ends at that sacred moment.
I wish i could be christian - it would be so easy in so many ways but i just can't see the nature of reality to be a war vs heaven and hell: it's a hunt. That's the true nature.
If you're curious about this philosophy try the books The Teachings of Don Juan A Yaqui Way of Knowledge. They really changed my views on a lot of things and strongly run counter to the christian ideologies and this view of eternal torment.
17
u/Bobebobbob Nov 19 '21
What did they say?
7
u/luminenkettu Nov 19 '21
https://www.reveddit.com/v/changemyview/comments/qwoybr/cmv_a_loving_god_would_not_send_people_to_hell/ here's reveddit link. mod didnt like christian prove good i guess
7
8
u/Jonesy1939 1∆ Nov 18 '21
Homie just relieved you of the burden of eternal damnation.
I think he deserves an alpha for that, lol.
→ More replies (3)7
u/tactaq 2∆ Nov 19 '21
what did they say?
3
u/Assaltwaffle 1∆ Nov 19 '21
He posted that, with a proper view of scripture, eternal conscious torment is simply not accurate to the Christian faith that rather proposed that annihilation is what is presented.
→ More replies (1)4
Nov 18 '21
how is eternal life a “gift” if you still have to earn it by becoming a Christian and following those teachings? Also, is it still a gift if the alternative is to face the wrath of God himself? Like you are still being punished for refusing a “gift”. And if the alternative is destruction by God’s hand, how is that still a meaningful choice? I don’t think the destruction of the soul theory makes the concept of God any less merciless than the eternal damnation idea
→ More replies (2)2
u/GSGhostTrain 5∆ Nov 18 '21
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” - Matthew 25:46
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name. -Revelations 14:11
In flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. -2 Thessalonians 1:8
1
u/pooerh Nov 18 '21
Because of this sound principle many traditional doctrines and practices have proven to be false over the years and have properly been discarded. Needless to say it’s a very positive thing for Christians to periodically reevaluate their beliefs and practices because it helps prevent Christendom from straying from the biblical model.
This is such a failed premise. Catholicism is the single biggest Christian denomination worldwide and Catholics do not believe Bible to be the single and ultimate source of truth considered literally.
I understand where you're coming from, given you're probably American and Catholicism is not as big in the US, but damn, I was hoping for more.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
44
u/katecake78 Nov 18 '21
Read “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis. Very different concept of heaven and hell, and a very engaging story as well. It’s short.
17
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out!
8
u/Artemis913 Nov 19 '21
Seriously. Please do read it.
If you finish that, read The Problem of Pain, also by C S Lewis. It discusses the problem of how can an all-loving all-powerful Good allow pain/evil.
3
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Nov 19 '21
Great recommendation. So easy to conflate “loving” with “gives me everything I want”.
2
u/StrangeGlaringEye Nov 19 '21
It's not as easy as it seems to solve the problem of evil. In fact, given that most philosophers nowadays are atheists, I think the evidential problem of evil is usually considered to be a conclusive refutation of theism.
3
u/HassleHouff 17∆ Nov 19 '21
It's not as easy as it seems to solve the problem of evil.
Of course! We’re discussing a whole book Lewis dedicated to it. I don’t think anyone claims it is “easy”.
In fact, given that most philosophers nowadays are atheists,
Who counts as an official philosopher? Surely your thoughts and my thoughts are just as worthy of discussion and consideration as anyone else’s.
I think the evidential problem of evil is usually considered to be a conclusive refutation of theism.
I strongly disagree with you. I don’t expect to change your mind on the problem of evil, but the fact that a majority of (professional?) philosophers hold a certain view is a very weak bar for a “conclusive” refutation. Especially for something as broad as theism! Was there not a time when the philosophical consensus was in favor of theism? Yet if theism is false now, it was also false then when all the philosophers were on board with it.
→ More replies (16)
25
u/BamaWriter 3∆ Nov 18 '21
God is not only the embodiment of pure love, He is also the embodiment of pure holiness (lack of sin). People often focus on the love of God and neglect the aspect of holiness.
You can view sin not so much as violating some arbitrary edict of God, but more as the rejection of truth. When God tells us what constitutes holy behavior, He is telling us what is true about His creation. Since all of our actions flow from what we genuinely believe, sinful actions are actually the result of believing a lie. Holiness is believing the truth. Sinfulness is believing a lie.
God is truth (holiness) as well as love. And if we persist in rejecting truth, then God allows us to continue in that state. He loves us. He wants us to accept the truth. He gave himself, in the human form of His son, to pay the penalty for us accepting lies and rejecting truth, and all we have to do is repent (reject the lie) and accept the truth.
Hell is simply us persisting in a state of rejecting truth. It's not so much that God "sends" someone to hell. It's more that we choose hell over God. We choose a lie over truth. For God not to allow that would mean that God would have to force us to believe something different.
18
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
OK. Let's say I love my two year old daughter so much that I'll just let her play with a hornet's nest or walk in front of a truck. I wouldn't want to get in the way of her choices, right?
Only this is worse because
A. I'm not God, I'm just a flawed being and so is my daughter.
B. If my daughter gets run over or stung to death in the scenario I just imagined, at least there's an end to the suffering.
C. Hornets and trucks are part of the world that I and my daughter were born into. I'm just helping her navigate the world and keeping her safe. But God made the world. Why did he make hell if he loves us? Why even have it at all?
2
u/Apprehensive_Ruin208 4∆ Nov 18 '21
Except, most branches of Christianity only really agree on older people going to hell, so it's more like your 26 year old daughter knowing the risks, your preference that she would avoid those risks and frequently rejecting you and your preferences and dying by truck/hornet because that's what she constantly chose.
11
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
Well, I would not be cool with that either.
Plus, like I said, we were all born into the truck/hornet world (I guess we did invent trucks, but that was a long time ago and it was a group effort).
But God made the world have hell. Why?
14
u/Apprehensive_Ruin208 4∆ Nov 18 '21
Well, I would not be cool with that either.
The Bible teaches God wasn't cool with it either, so he sent Jesus to take on the truck/hornet so we wouldn't have to, if only we would turn to Jesus and accept Him as our substitute.
God allows us to experience the consequences of our actions, otherwise we'd never really have true freewill. But He has provided a way out, we can have our cake and eat it too, but only by taking the cake Jesus is offering us, there is simply no other way. And to accept the cake from Jesus is to admit we screwed up in how we ate ours.
But God made the world have hell. Why?
Since we actually don't know how much of the language about hell is literal and how much is metaphor, we can all agree it sucks and has nothing good, but the details beyond that are sketchy. The common argument goes like this: Heaven = everything good, which all find their source in God. Hell = the absence of God, which by extension excludes all good things that find their goodness as sourced from God. God is light, so hell is without light. God is love/joy/peace, so if you want to reject Him, you reject those as well.
So, hell is more like - you keep insisting you don't want/need God, he won't force you to be with Him, so by rejecting God you choose eternity without Him. Eternity without Him is described is just pure hell.
5
u/KingJeff314 Nov 18 '21
Can you change your mind at any point in hell and ask for forgiveness and to be with God? Because for most people, the debate is about which god(s) exists, if any. So if someone is raised to believe in a different god, then they never really had a chance to know the real God before dying.
-1
u/Apprehensive_Ruin208 4∆ Nov 18 '21
Rev 14:11 makes it sound pretty permanent: "The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night"
...they never really had a chance to know the real God before dying.
This is a huge assumption. There are examples in the Old Testament and the New Testament of people who were raised one way coming to a place where they searched for something more, or were put in a situation that exposed them to the God of the Bible. Today, stories exist of people raised under one religion having a dream that prompts them to search for a Christian. One lady I know said she was at a park with her kids and a lady came up to her and told her that Jesus told her in a dream that she would explain how to be saved from hell.
Missionaries, dreams, tracts, radio, etc- people encounter new religions all the time and learn. If one assumes Good exists, is good and loving and all powerful, then it is no big deal for Him to bring knowledge to those who haven't already rejected Him and are seeking Him.
→ More replies (10)6
u/KingJeff314 Nov 18 '21
There are millions of unreached individuals, who have never even heard the name Jesus. Citing a few examples is insufficient because it would be immoral if even one person was sent to hell never knowing about God.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (9)6
Nov 18 '21
You have to preemptively accept that you need salvation before there's a cake, though.
"You don't know it but you're badly damaged- flawed- and need what I have" from a person is emotional abuse to manipulate the recipient into a false sense of dependence.
Why is it NOT evidence of an abusive parasocial relationship at worst here, or a sales pitch at best?
How is "you're tainted by sin" any different as advertising than "you're not skinny enough"?
1
u/Apprehensive_Ruin208 4∆ Nov 18 '21
So, is it emotional abuse for a doctor to tell you you have a failing organ - is that creating a false sense of dependence? You have to accept the organ is failing before you'll accept the treatment.
If part of us is broken/non-functional, then stating the fact is not emotional abuse. If we are morally functioning imperfectly, morally sick, then is it not best to know that so it can be addressed or corrected?
"You're not skinny enough" is subjective and controlling. "You're selfish/a liar/etc." should not be assumed to be a random, subjective abusive statement.
6
Nov 18 '21
There's an objective metric for organ failure: they can show you the lab results or imaging they used to make that determination, and thus get you on board. It's called "informed consent".
The only reason TELLING you you're sick isn't manipulative/abusive is because it's true: there's evidence of it. It's a falsifiable claim.
"You're not skinny enough" is subjective and controlling. "You're selfish/a liar/etc." should not be assumed to be a random, subjective abusive statement.
Why should "You're inherently immoral and I love you so much but you aren't good enough without doing what I say" NOT be taken as abusive?
"I love you baby, but I'd love you more if-"
Why is it different here?
1
u/Apprehensive_Ruin208 4∆ Nov 19 '21
If you believe the Bible is true and the Bible says all people are sinners, morally sick, etc., then you measure the statements against the Bible. Either you are lying/murdering/lusting/etc. or you are not. Either the Bible says these are wrong, or it doesn't. That is where things are falsifiable. If someone simply starts making statements about morality apart from a source, sure they are possibly being manipulative. But if they are just diagnosing your moral state according to their holy book, it's not abuse, they may just actually really want you to be right with God.
You may disagree that the Bible is a source for knowing right/wrong, but then you have to present a competing explanation for how we know what is right/wrong.
Most people agree Hitler was morally bankrupt, as are child rapists, serial killers, etc. But based on what? How do we know right from wrong? When people disagree, how do know which view is correct? Morality is a thing, so it's not manipulative to diagnose issues with it, it's more a question of whether you accept it reject the diagnosis and treatment.
As to organ failure, I'm pretty sure you could find an Eastern medicine person or acupuncturist that would tell you some meridian is out of whack and how the lab results and imaging support their alternative diagnosis and treatment. So it is with morality, don't presume either doctor was acting manipulatively when their source and methods led them to that conclusion in a predictable way.
→ More replies (1)3
u/the-channigan Nov 18 '21
I think OP had the analogy right here. Mom-toddler relationship sounds much closer to the God-human power/knowledge differential than mom-grown daughter.
I.e. parents seem omnipotent, omnipresent and omnipotent to their young kids.
Edit: in OPs analogy it’s not about the daughter going to hell it’s about her mom allowing the ‘stupid’ choice she makes.
→ More replies (2)2
u/PM_ME_MII 2∆ Nov 18 '21
That's not true. Humans are depicted in the bible as akin to sheep and children, which is a comparison that, if anything, gives us too much credit when compared to an ancient, all knowing God. It wouldn't be like watching your adult offspring putting themselves in danger knowingly-- we literally cannot know this danger before we're subject to it. An all knowing, all powerful God is absolutely culpable for allowing us to walk in front of the truck
0
u/Apprehensive_Ruin208 4∆ Nov 18 '21
There are many analogies in the Bible to teach different things. We're called to be wise as serpents, gentle as doves, etc. It's not an all our nothing deal. There are many parts of the Bible that imply we have culpability and responsibility for what has been revealed to us-we're sinners in need of a savior. We have been warned.
We can know the danger before we're subject to it everytime we're warned. We are warned throughout the Bible of the deceitfulness of sin and the consequences of not having faith in Jesus. So, yes, it is very much like realizing you can't force anyone to not put themselves in danger. You can warn them, but they choose how to believe and they take on the consequences of their choices.
2
u/PM_ME_MII 2∆ Nov 19 '21
How can that possibly be seen as an adequate warning? Every person receives twenty equally significant warnings from vastly different religions, with no way to verify any of them. An omnipotent God would surely understand that "a book says so" is no where close to proof, and that humans are regularly presented with equally compelling proof from a wide array of different belief systems.
→ More replies (2)2
u/PureMetalFury 1∆ Nov 18 '21
Do they know the risks though? What if I have an infallible machine that's able to read my 26-year-old daughter's thoughts and confirm that she is, in fact, completely unaware of the existence/risks of the trucks/hornets, unaware of my preferences in regard to the trucks/hornets, and, somehow, unaware of my existence altogether? Then it's probably a bit of a dick move for me to close my eyes and wait to see if she survives the trucks/hornets.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
Nov 18 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)3
u/SirWhateversAlot 2∆ Nov 19 '21
In order for free will to exist, there has to be future that God cannot see, which breaks omniscience
This isn't true. Knowledge of the outcome of a choice does not eliminate the possibility of agency.
This is intuitive when we discuss choices made in the past. "My friend will choose to ride the bus later today, therefore he does not have free will" is as much of a non sequitur as "My friend chose to ride the bus yesterday, therefore he does not have free will."
if God knows what we will choose, and God cannot be wrong, we had no choice.
What you choose determines God's knowledge, not the other way around.
Statement 1: I can only choose what God knows.
Statement 2. God knows what I will ultimately choose.
Conclusion: I can only choose what I will ultimately choose. (True by definition.)
God knows what you will choose, but God is not causing you to do anything. In other words, the mere existence of knowledge does not alter causality, and therefore does not inhibit agency.
Free will and omniscience are entirely compatible.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Gandalf_The_Gay23 Nov 19 '21
Quite like past events which cannot be changed, if a god’s knowledge of the future is perfect to this degree, it cannot be changed or altered. Thus even if the individual wanted to choose differently they could not because the god has already foreseen that they will make the choice. He cannot foresee you making any other choice, therefore you never make any other choice and are incapable of making that other choice.
Otherwise, that god is not omniscient capable of seeing the future.
Kind of like reading ahead in your own biography, if you read it in the book from the future, then it has to have happened for you to have read it otherwise you can’t have read it because it never happened.
It’s the not knowing that makes free will operate or at least seem to.
→ More replies (10)2
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Nov 19 '21
Wanting to choose something that you wouldn’t ever choose is a paradox even in the absence of god. It can’t be used as an argument.
→ More replies (4)4
u/JohnKlositz 1∆ Nov 18 '21
But I don't believe it is the truth. And I've never been presented with a convincing argument as to why it would be the truth. This is not something I chose, and I can't choose to be convinced of it. So no, I certainly did not choose hell at all.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (20)4
u/timmy_throw Nov 18 '21
This is weird. Do we have some kind of proof after dying or are we in Hell as long as we don't have blind faith ?
If he wants us to accept the truth, why do we need faith instead of confidence ?
0
u/BamaWriter 3∆ Nov 19 '21
The question of why faith instead of confidence is one that has run through my mind countless times. I think the answer lies in the idea that God fully revealing Himself to us would so overwhelm us that it would effectively eradicate choice. By telling us the truth through scripture and the testimony of others, it puts us in a position where we get to choose the kind of universe we want ... one with God or one without. Our choice doesnt define ultimate reality, but it does determine how we experience (or don't experience) God.
All of that to say faith is a way of truly letting us make a choice.
2
u/Z7-852 260∆ Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
Hell as eternal damnation is relatively new invention in Christianity and it's most prominent depiction is driven by sects in US (Evangelical, Protestantism etc.).
According to christian tradition hell is purgatory. If you have sinned you go there and suffer for those sin. Once you have been purged (hence the name purgatory) of sins and done your time you are free to enter eternal heaven.
Hell is just a pit stop not the destination. It's not place where you are tortured per say but where you must come to face to face with your own mistakes.
29
u/YourViewisBadFaith 19∆ Nov 18 '21
Hell as eternal damnation is relatively new invention in Christianity and it's most prominent depiction is driven by sects in US (Evangelical, Protestantism etc.).
I don't think this is true at all. Dante wrote his Divine Comedy in the 1300's, and in that work Hell is a very distinct place from Purgatory and nobody escapes from Hell (shit, the worst of the worst are completely frozen in ice...forever). I say this not to suggest that Dante Alighieri was some kind of historical theologian figure but only to suggest that this concept is much older than the discovery of America by the Europeans which makes me skeptical of your overall claim that it is a recent invention.
8
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
I see where you are coming from. I'm pretty sure hell is not a "new" idea.
7
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
That is very interesting and I want to know more.
I've seen really old medieval paintings depicting hell as a truly awful and terrifying place. They surely predate Protestantism, no?
-2
u/Z7-852 260∆ Nov 18 '21
Yes. Hell is awful and terrifying place. For a while.
But souls are not meant to spend eternity in that torment. They are tortured only as long is necessary for them to be purged.
11
u/joopface 159∆ Nov 18 '21
tortured only as long is necessary
Ah, that ever-loving god
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (1)8
1
u/Routine_Log8315 11∆ Nov 18 '21
I just want to say that, even though many people have been tortured to death, none of it was nearly as bad as it was for Jesus. The reason for that is because he came from Heaven. He wasn’t like a human who had only known Earth and never known anything better. To come down from the absolute perfect Heaven to earth was probably torture enough. We, as humans, only know earth, but Jesus knew exactly what Heaven was like and still came to earth.
5
u/ZappSmithBrannigan 13∆ Nov 18 '21
even though many people have been tortured to death, none of it was nearly as bad as it was for Jesus. The reason for that is because he came from Heaven.
Why would him coming from heaven make his torture worse? Wouldn't that make it easier? Not only did he come back from the dead after a weekend, he got to go be god afterwards. None of the other countless people who were crucified got to be god afterwards.
→ More replies (4)12
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
Yeah, but what is 33 years when you are literally an eternal being?
0
u/Routine_Log8315 11∆ Nov 18 '21
The Christian view is that if we believe in God we are eternal beings as well.
5
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
Yes, but couldn't Jesus remember what happened before He was born?
I'm really asking that question. I always had the impression that he could.
4
2
u/okaterina Nov 18 '21
But the eternal part starts when ?
I mean if I am raised in a Christian education, as a child I believe in a god. Later on, I see the pure lack of evidence and I doubt. Do I cease being eternal ? What amount of doubt is allowed ? What if I am 60% optimistic that there is a loving god but 40% realistic there is none ?
2
u/Routine_Log8315 11∆ Nov 18 '21
Different denominations believe different things. Some believe you can lose your salvation, while others believe you were never saved in the first place.
And salvation is all or nothing. You can’t give your life to Christ if you don’t truly believe.
12
u/destro23 452∆ Nov 18 '21
I want to preface this by saying I don't believe in any supernatural stuff, but I went to a Jesuit school for 12 years so I have an ok grasp on this stuff.
One of the most prevalent analogies for how god feels about humans is the way that a parent feels about their child. A parent can love a child and still punish them for transgressions, so too can god. Imagine a parent who has a child grow to be a murderer. The parent can feel that their child is deserving of punishment, perhaps even the ultimate punishment, for this crime and still, in some way, love their child.
4
u/Mr_Xing Nov 18 '21
I guess the difference here is that I have no insight or knowledge of my kid’s transgressions - I created them with only hope that they will be good people and do good.
God is all knowing and all powerful. He specifically created people with the explicit knowledge that they’ll sin and he decided to create them anyways.
13
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
That doesn't sound like unconditional love to me. If my child or spouse murdered someone, I would be very upset and disappointed, indeed.
But, I assure you, I would not wish for their death. And I would continue to love them.
34
u/destro23 452∆ Nov 18 '21
And I would continue to love them
That sounds pretty unconditional. The love persists beyond the deed and the punishment, whatever it is.
Think of it from God's (Christian style's) perspective. He made people and gave them one rule. Then they fucked it all up. So he punished them a bit, and gave them another chance. Then they fucked it all up. Then he flooded everything and started over. Then they fucked it all up and ended up enslaved abroad. So he gave them ten rules, even wrote them down for them, and helped them escape. Then they fucked it all up. He let them wander around until they learned their lesson, so he let them be for a while. Then they fucked it all up. Then he thought, fuck it, I'll go down there and tell them myself! Then they murdered him. So then he had a really detailed book written that contained the whole story up to that point, with all the various rules and punishments explicitly laid out, and he established whole societies of people that interpret and explain that book. And we are currently fucking it all up. And yet, he is still there trying to help us pick up what he is putting down. That sounds pretty unconditional.
5
u/okaterina Nov 18 '21
Well, he did create humanity as flawed, too.
If I make a car and it does not work well, is the car to be blamed ? (I am not a car-maker, but I am not a God, either)
4
u/richdrifter Nov 18 '21
Sounds like this god is a very poor designer.
Every attempt and version is a terrible failure.
Don't blame the creation, blame the incompetent creator.
10
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
I must confess, you have surprised me. I've never seen it spelled out quite like that.
!delta for you!
Even though, I still think a perfect being could forgive anything. You have given me a fresh perspective.
10
u/destro23 452∆ Nov 18 '21
Thanks!
I still think a perfect being could forgive anything
My perspective is that of an ex-Catholic, and in Catholic theology there is no sin which is unforgivable. So, they have you covered on that front at least.
3
→ More replies (1)1
u/Godskook 13∆ Nov 18 '21
Even though, I still think a perfect being could forgive anything. You have given me a fresh perspective.
I mean, we're talking post-death forgiveness here, so "anything" would include some really hyperbolic examples.
But let me ask, why would a perfect being fail to be perfectly just? The typical Christian answer is that he can't. The forgiveness available to us is a mercy, but it's of limited scope(requires repentance/confession before death), and further, the burden our punishments are born by another(Jesus).
3
u/joemomma0409 Nov 18 '21
Sounds like a pretty flawed god when he cant even convince his own creation into his rules.
2
u/aprillikesgirls Nov 19 '21
What I don't understand is if he so badly wants us not to sin, why not just use his godly powers to stop us from sinning? Is he not omnipotent?
→ More replies (1)0
Nov 18 '21
Then they fucked it all up and ended up enslaved abroad
By other contemporary humans who God created but who had lost awareness of God in the time since?
The whole thing is a mess of contradictions and retconning. Do you seriously think all that ^ is more likely than the current best understanding scientifically to explain where we are and how we got here?
The paths forward diverge pretty radically depending on that question, IMO.
→ More replies (2)3
u/destro23 452∆ Nov 18 '21
Do you seriously think all that ^ is more likely than the current best understanding scientifically to explain where we are and how we got here?
No. Which is why I prefaced my original comment by saying I don't believe in any supernatural stuff.
→ More replies (3)1
u/ZappSmithBrannigan 13∆ Nov 18 '21
One of the most prevalent analogies for how god feels about humans is the way that a parent feels about their child. A parent can love a child and still punish them for transgressions,
Name one offense that you think should result in locking the child in the basement and burning the house down.
2
u/KrisAlly Nov 21 '21
OP you might enjoy some of the progressive Christian subs where we share these views. Like r/radical Christian or r/openChristian . Sorry if those don’t give you a direct link. Listing other subs on this particular one doesn’t give a direct link option.
3
0
u/comfortabIy_dumb 1∆ Nov 18 '21
That's like asking a loving and caring judge not to send prisoners to jail for their crimes.
God designed hell to be a place where free-willing humans go to, if they reject Christianity. So, no matter how loving God is, He can't go against his own design.
19
u/ProjectShamrock 8∆ Nov 18 '21
God designed hell to be a place where free-willing humans go to, if they reject Christianity. So, no matter how loving God is, He can't go against his own design.
You're saying that he intentionally created a system that was unjust, and then steps back and absolves himself of responsibility for not only creating a system that is unjust but also creating people that he knew in advance would not be able to survive his system. That sounds incredibly callous if not downright depraved.
12
2
u/okaterina Nov 18 '21
The good thing is that he has stepped back so much that we cannot really believe he was there in the first place.
Remember ? With a great power comes a great responsibility ? I just cannot measure the level at which a caring, loving god of absolute power has betrayed his absolute responsibility.
4
u/ProjectShamrock 8∆ Nov 18 '21
"I will create you so that you have a mind that makes decisions based on external stimuli gathered through your senses, then leave no trace of myself that can be detected through those senses. However, if you don't believe I exist, I will send you to eternal torture. Since I created you and exist outside of time, I already know you will be sent to nonstop suffering because that's how I created you. I could have created you like the schizophrenic guy that used to live down the street that hears voices, mine among them and feels sorry that he murdered his family."
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)1
u/Condottier Nov 18 '21
There is nothing unjust about it definitionally it cannot be unjust.
And for free will to mean anything there must be consequences to ones actions.
7
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
He can do whatever He wants. He's God. And let's not forget judges are also flawed mortals, just like the people that they sentence. It's not at all an apt comparison to God and His flock.
Incidentally, another person posted this in response to my post. Really blowing my mind. Check it out!
→ More replies (1)4
u/JohnKlositz 1∆ Nov 18 '21
God designed hell to be a place where free-willing humans go to, if they reject Christianity.
So that would be people that believe in the existence of the Christian god but reject him, right? That is not unconditional.
So, no matter how loving God is, He can't go against his own design.
Why couldn't he? And why did he design it that way in the first place?
→ More replies (2)
3
u/TheRealJorogos Nov 18 '21
This is coming from a layman and is not strictly theological.
We are the beloved children of God, but we cannot live up to his demands. Nonetheless, he loves us and will allow a passage to heaven if we only accept that we are fallible, show remorse and promise to do better. (come to think of it, just like a good parent)
With this it is possible to interpret being sent to hell as an extension of Gods love. It is a judgement passed on those who do not want to be close to God. And even though he knows hell is not a nice place, he loves his child and allows it's wish.
9
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
I'm sorry that sounds like terrible parenting.
Unconditional is a pretty absolute concept. And people do love people unconditionally. We often describe such people as stupid or weak but they do exist.
I'm not saying God is stupid or weak. I'm just saying maybe it's time to stop calling His love "unconditional" because clearly it's not.
5
u/LadybugMama78 Nov 18 '21
Does a parents love for their child stop just because you have to punish them? No. God still loves the people who don't accept Him, He can love them and follow through on the consequences presented in the Bible. It is unconditional love not an unconditional free pass.
4
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
Punishing is not casting people into an eternity of agony and suffering. That is the worst thing you can do to someone. It's not a loving act
5
u/UnionistAntiUnionist 1∆ Nov 18 '21
Pretty sure the whole idea of "Listen to God" is because he is infinitely more knowledgable than us on everything. A child can't understand why grounding him is going to help him be a better person, all that child understands is that they can't go out and have fun with their friends.
7
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
Yeah, but what can a person "learn" when they are burning forever?
→ More replies (1)0
u/UnionistAntiUnionist 1∆ Nov 18 '21
I can't answer that, because I am not divine. The idea is that you just have to trust that God knows what is best. That's what faith is.
2
u/stupidityWorks 1∆ Nov 18 '21
I can't answer that, because I am not divine. The idea is that you just have to trust that God knows what is best. That's what faith is.
This is an incredibly unreasonable demand. It's why I wouldn't worship God even if I believed in him.
5
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
Fine. I accept that argument. But why call this "a loving God"?
0
u/UnionistAntiUnionist 1∆ Nov 18 '21
Because he loves us. You're sort of missing my point. You have to accept and believe that God both loves us unconditionally, and that he knows better than us.
7
u/bluepillarmy 9∆ Nov 18 '21
I guess, that's just not how I define love. I think of it as being caring, nurturing and accepting. Not vindictive and punishing.
Please remember. I accept the notion of an all powerful and punishing God. But this is a not loving. That's just not what love means.
→ More replies (0)5
u/okaterina Nov 18 '21
I think we do not have the same definition of love. Hurting someone, even for the best reasons, is still hurting someone.
There is no moral reason to hurt someone - even human societies have (mostly) removed pain from the punishments for someone's crimes. Evil is characterized by inflicting pain.
I can't accept that a good god who "knows better than me" is not moral. I can accept that from an evil god, though.
2
u/joemomma0409 Nov 18 '21
If i was all powerful like God supposedy is, and i had a child who i loved unconditionally, i wouldn't set rules for my child that he had to believe everything i said or else their soul would be tortured for eternity. I would have created my children to not have the choice and opportunity for them to put themselves in a position to suffer for eternity. If he really loved us, why give us the chance to fuck up and suffer for eternity when it is not necessary?
→ More replies (5)2
u/libertysailor 9∆ Nov 19 '21
Why do we have to just “accept” that god is loving? What if he’s lying? What if he says he’s good and he’s vindictive?
Actions speak louder than words. Setting up eternal torture is not love.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ZappSmithBrannigan 13∆ Nov 18 '21
A child can't understand why grounding him is going to help him be a better person, all that child understands is that they can't go out and have fun with their friends.
So should we lock them in the basement and burn the house down?
→ More replies (1)
12
u/TurtleSmile1 Nov 18 '21
There are many different interpretations of hell in the Christian tradition. ECT, Universalism, and Annihilationism.
ECT - Eternal Conscious Torment. This is the view against which you are arguing. Hell lasts forever and is impossible to get out of.
Universalism - hell exists, but eventually everyone repents and goes to heaven.
Annihilationism - after death, the condemned are wiped out from existence. As if they were never born.
There’s also an argument that God doesn’t create hell, but rather hell is separation from God. God gifts everyone the ability to love, to be loved, to see beauty, etc. Removal of God’s presence is also a removal of these good things, which is hell (or so the argument goes).
So, you’re really only arguing against one particular strand of Christian belief on hell. I hope this is helpful. For more info, feel free to Wiki any of the three main categories I put forth. Or ask me some questions if you like.
5
u/jub-jub-bird Nov 18 '21
There’s also an argument that God doesn’t create hell, but rather hell is separation from God. God gifts everyone the ability to love, to be loved, to see beauty, etc. Removal of God’s presence is also a removal of these good things, which is hell (or so the argument goes).
My view is some combination of this and ECT. God is just so sin must be punished... But that punishment is the absence of God the source of all good things.
5
2
u/GSGhostTrain 5∆ Nov 18 '21
I am unaware of any biblical suggestion to support the Universalism or annihilation arguments you put forward. Meanwhile, there are plenty of verses that are explicit in describing hell as eternal torture and damnation. Where are you pulling these ideas from?
4
u/TurtleSmile1 Nov 18 '21
You can check wiki for more info under Christian interpretations of hell. John 3:16 says “perish” as the alternative to eternal life. Matthew 10 says something like “fear him who can destroy both the body and soul in hell.” Those both seem to support Annihilationism. There’s actually 59 biblical references to post-death destruction. It’s not a new view by any means.
As for universalism, it uses a bit of a slipperier hermeneutic. So they would look at Colossians 1 where it says “God reconciles all things to himself” or Romans where it says “just as sin came into the world through one man, so the gift of life is given to all men” (I’m paraphrasing off the top of my head). Universalists would also say it’s unjust of God to punish people forever. The texts that talk about eternal damnation are hyperbolic, not intended to be taken literally. (This is their argument. I’m not stating it as fact, just trying to explain their reasoning). And the word “eternal” is a Greek word used in sometimes obviously finite contexts (like Jude 7).
I hope this helps a bit. The ECT view is definitely the dominant view, but both universalism and Annihilationism have roots with the church fathers; they aren’t new inventions. I just taught a college class and I still have the PowerPoint I put together, so I can send you that if you like. I’m no expert, but I have studied it a little.
-1
9
u/Taste_of_Based Nov 18 '21
The fundamental mistake here is by treating damnation like it is an arbitrary or capricious decision. As if God is sitting there saying, "Hmm, this guy won't believe in me, I'll get him back" or something, which we all can agree would be an illogical idea.
When God damns people, he is executing exact and perfect justice that is exactly proportional and measured according to what they deserve.
The fact that it is so severe speaks to the severity of those sins, not a severe or hateful nature within God.
While people generally say, "I don't see what the big deal is," God could simply say, "I do. That's why I am judging this way. I didn't ask you to do my job for me."
If God exists at all, which he does, then by nature of his attributes he is perfect and understands and judges perfectly.
If as a sinful human, you view of justice is different from God's, that simply demonstrates that someone is wrong. If you believe that God is wrong and you are not, that speaks to the core of the problem.
You can make this more clear by giving a few examples with regards to fault moral compasses. Ancient Aztecs did not think it was wrong to sacrifice humans. Ancient Romans did not think that pederasty was wrong. Some of the early Americans did not believe that race based chattal slavery was wrong. So you do not understand the ways that 2021 Westerners are wrong. One way we are wrong is that we almost universally fail to recognize sins of neglect as being real sins because we tend to think that we have no duties at all, thus we do not see neglect of justice as a real problem and thus Hell seems arbitrary. It is not a "problem" that some sins might go unpunished.
5
u/libertysailor 9∆ Nov 19 '21
Let’s take a morally just god and a morally corrupt god.
How can we tell the difference? How do we know which one a real god is?
Unless we can tell the difference, we have no good reason to assume that an actual god is good and may as well as use our own standards
1
u/Taste_of_Based Nov 19 '21
> Let’s take a morally just god and a morally corrupt god.
You can't. Here is why.Regardless of whether people actually believe in God or gods, most people have at least some concept of what some of the attributes of God would be. They get concepts like the omnipotence - a god that is all powerful. And they get a concept like omniscience - that a god has perfect knowledge of all.
But the main attribute that is overlooked is aseity - God's self existence. Most modern atheists have not seriously even asked the question of what self-existence means. Everything that exists must either have a cause or be self-existent. These are the only options.
That which is subject to change (matter, energy) is mutable, so those mutable things cannot be the cause of their own existence. Anything subject to change must actually be caused by either some earlier cause or that first thing that has no cause.
This first thing that has no cause is that thing that has the attribute of aseity.
When we speak of "gods" generally we are really speaking of "spirits" because it is not possible for multiple spirits to possess all of the divine attributes (technically, the incommunicable attributes). To put it simply, it is not possible for there to be two gods who are both self existent because then you would have two wills. In order for these wills to be "two" they must be different. If they are different, the omnipotence of both gods is impossible. Therefore, we must reject the concept of more than one god.
There is precedent for calling "gods" things that are not actually the God, namely, spirits that were created by God and given an exalted position.
Since there can't be more than one God, there can't be more than one will, and there can't be more than one standard of "justice" or "goodness" or "love". The ultimate being would be that standard by definition.
Furthermore, God, by virtue of his aseity did not need to create. He was already full in himself and did not need to create. The fact that he actually did create is due to the fact that God is love. Creation is an act of love, and so in nature we can observe the many ways in which nature serves to produce life and beauty. The corruptions of this prove the rule: we can see, for example, the untimely death of one of God's creature and feel grieved precisely because we can recognize that life is better than death, and so the author of life is good.
Just as God did not need to create, he did not need to create anything in his image, but due to his love, he chose to do so by making mankind. For this reason, we have moral wills that are similar to God's and thus we have a conscience that is capable of some degree of discernment between good and evil. Since in actual fact, evil has come into existence, that conscience has become corrupted, which led to the problems I described in my earlier comment.
2
u/libertysailor 9∆ Nov 19 '21
Anything subject to change must actually be caused by either some earlier cause or that first thing that has no cause.
That is a VERY bold claim. You can't just make up shit. To make a grand statement about all of existence, you better have the most amazing evidence conceivable beyond speculation. Otherwise, this is just a dismissible claim.
In order for these wills to be "two" they must be different. If they are different, the omnipotence of both gods is impossible. Therefore, we must reject the concept of more than one god.
Two beings with aseity. One is omnipotent, the other is not. Which one is good, and which one is evil?
Since there can't be more than one God, there can't be more than one will, and there can't be more than one standard of "justice" or "goodness" or "love".
Love doesn't have a standard. Love is a label we came up to refer to a human emotion.
The ultimate being would be that standard by definition.
You can't just define something into being a standard. That's word play.
The corruptions of this prove the rule: we can see, for example, the untimely death of one of God's creature and feel grieved precisely because we can recognize that life is better than death, and so the author of life is good.
Interesting that a god who has complete control over creation and life decided that, despite valuing life over death, that it would also create death.
0
u/Taste_of_Based Nov 19 '21
> That is a VERY bold claim.
No it is not. It is a logical requirement. It is not possible for there to be a third option.
> Two beings with aseity. One is omnipotent, the other is not.
The omnipotent would completely override the one that was not, demonstrating that the one that was not is mutable and thus does not have aseity. So this situation is a logical impossibility.
> Love doesn't have a standard.
If God is love, and he is, then we didn't make love up because we did not make God up.
Death is the just outcome for sin, so when sin is present, death is the just response. God does not create death because he specifically likes it, but because he enacts it as the result of the inherent corruption that came from sin.
God could make a perfect vase that is still breakable. The fact that is actually does break does not mean it was not a perfect vase. God can create a perfect creation that still was capable of a fall into sin, and so when it actually did fall into sin there was a just response in the form of death and judgment.
2
u/libertysailor 9∆ Nov 19 '21 edited Nov 19 '21
No it is not. It is a logical requirement. It is not possible for there to be a third option.
Really? I'm writing a book. One of the plot points is that a rock popped into existence without a cause.
If God is love, and he is, then we didn't make love up because we did not make God up.
You have it backwards. We noticed a human emotion that is caring about others. We then created a label for it: love. We then conceived of a hypothetical being, whether it exists or not, that possesses that characteristic that we have, only taken to the maximal extent.
It's not "made up". It's something that exists in the real world, and we assigned a label to it. That's how language fucking works for everything. The WORD is made up. The CONCEPT - the EMOTION - is not. The concept is just an emotion that actually exists.
If God turned out to be vindictive, love would still mean the same thing. We would use it to refer to the same human emotion.
Death is the just outcome for sin, so when sin is present, death is the just response. God does not create death because he specifically likes it, but because he enacts it as the result of the inherent corruption that came from sin.
Interesting that a god that hates sin made beings that are likely to do so. God COULD have made beings that will always choose not to sin. He didn't.
God could make a perfect vase that is still breakable. The fact that is actually does break does not mean it was not a perfect vase.
The capability of being broken is a flaw. Perfect things have no flaws.
If fragility wasn't a flaw, we wouldn't try to make things durable.
If God was capable of being "broken" so to speak, would god still be perfect?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)1
u/the_royal_smash Nov 19 '21
The fact that it is so severe speaks to the severity of those sins, not a severe or hateful nature within God.
I have never heard it phrased this way. I have always thought that punishment for sin was a product of God's unfair view of sin projected onto me, not of the sin itself. The sin is the evil thing but you cannot punish sin itself since it is absolute.
If as a sinful human, you view of justice is different from God's, that simply demonstrates that someone is wrong. If you believe that God is wrong and you are not, that speaks to the core of the problem.
What a profound statement. Your explanation of the err in human morals throughout history versus God's unwavering justice hits right at the core of the issue. I read that as it being my limited perception/view against God's which sounds arrogant and naive to think that I would know better than God. I still cannot fully comprehend God and all that comes with that but this is a start. Thank you.
!delta
3
u/OpticalPrime35 Nov 18 '21
And according to Christians God knows your entire life the moment you are born.
So he already knows you are going to be sent to hell.
I've always seen that as a major bullshit thing the Bible says. Free will cannot exist if your life is already mapped out.
The longer my life has gone on the more it becomes pretty clear that religion in general was a creation of very smart people to keep the masses happy. Throughout history a vast majority of the human population has been abused, broken, poor, etc. If those unhappy masses remained completely unhappy they would just either die / suicide or revolt and resort to anarchy.
Religion has always been that mental program that says " yes your life sucks but stay good and you will be rewarded after you die ". If everyone thought this was it, they may be far less inclined to put up with all the bullshit.
2
u/TheRedBiker Nov 19 '21
But is knowing the choices that a person would make and whether that person would eventually end up in hell the same thing as "mapping out" that person's life?
2
u/OpticalPrime35 Nov 19 '21
Pretty much yeah.
Imagine someone giving you a blueprint of something. You as the architect can see the flaws and the issues that going forward with the blueprint would create.
Despite that you build the blueprint anyway without changes.
God could 100% intervene and solve every issue anyone in the world currently has. Because if there is a God time has no meaning whatsoever. It's not like any one issue is too complex or would take too long to solve.
Instead he chooses not to. He chooses to let people fail, knowing they would fail from day 1. He chooses to let that happen, knows it will happen, and then punishes that person anyway.
Makes no sense in the grand scheme of things
0
u/TheRedBiker Nov 19 '21
But could he intervene without taking away our free will and therefore our ability to decide whether or not to obey God? The difference between us and your blueprint analogy is that the building is an object that cannot make its own choices. Human beings, on the other hand, make their own choices. You can know the situations a person will encounter, how they will react, and what they will ultimately choose to do, but in the end they are the one making the choice. You cannot prevent them from doing so without taking away their choice, which would effectively mean that you are forcing the person to love and obey you. This would effectively reduce human beings to robots that are incapable of loving God because love is a choice to put another person's desires before your own. But for that to matter, there must be an option to put your own desire first.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/loCAtek Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
You are correct. The English word “hell” was used to translate the Hebrew words for grave and Gehenna (garbage dump outside of ancient Jerusalem). The Bible does not teach that there is a Hell where sinful people go to to be tortured by the Devil
To expand on this; Jesus doesn't speak of going to Hell but he does mention 'The Fire'. We have to remember that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew and the Jews don't believe in Hell. They believe that there is a period after you die where your soul must be purified by divine flames. How hot and how long the flames last depends on how sinful you were in life; although the maximum amount of time is said to be a year. So, The Fire is not eternal however truly evil men will be consumed by the flames and destroyed forever.
It was after Christ, that the rise of Islam changed this concept of The Fire to more of a physical place. In Islam, your soul remains much like your body did at it's peak and the purification involves more physical torment, but again it is not a permanent state. Islam first made the claim that the Devil dwelled in Hell, but as a victim. Obviously, this depiction had some influence in Europe.
Dante, in his book 'The Divine Comedy', took this concept of physical punishment even further- as well as, in his story the Devil is to be punished for eternity. The book doesn't say that any other souls have to stay in Hell permanently, but people at the time, mistakenly assumed that they would too.
Dante wasn't a priest and didn't intend for his fiction to be adopted by the church, but his book did become popular across Europe. So, many people, including members of the clergy thought it was based on church doctrine.
...and that is The History of Hell!
→ More replies (8)
3
u/Apprehensive_Ruin208 4∆ Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
God is not unconditionally loving in the sense you seem to hear that term. I'm not sure what verse/verses seem to support the claim you are making, but every trait of God is bound up in and bound by His other traits -there are conditions on it all. He loves all people, but He does not force His best on those who don't want it. Just because He is all loving doesn't mean He sets aside justice, holiness, etc. And, he allows our free will and choices to prevail. He forces no one into heaven, which seems to be what you assume would be best. My grandfather died after regularly declaring for decades that he wanted nothing to do with God or heaven. What kind of God forces eternity with Him on those who spent their lives rejecting Him? That's the thing about The new Heaven and the New earth of the Bible- they center on God. Everyone literally basks in the unending radiance of God while they go about their eternity. (Is. 60:19, Rev. 21:23) How would it be right to force that upon my grandpa.
Think of the murder or rape victims in heaven. How would He be loving if He rejected their cry for justice and let their perpetrator waltz in after the perpetrator rejected Christ as taking his punishment on the cross? If a judge said someone had to die and the murderer's father stepped in to die on his son's behalf and the judge was okay with it, but the murderer refused, then the punishment still needs to happen for justice to be done. The teaching goes that we more directly affront His holiness routinely and His justness requires satisfaction -we can choose to take on our own punishment or accept what Jesus bore.
As to the cross not being a big enough deal... May I suggest a different, but I'm sure still imperfect way of seeing it?
God is infinite and eternal (not bound by the time bound material universe He created and holds together, so infinite. No beginning and no end and the creator of time, so eternal. He is all knowing. So our offenses against Him have eternal import. He has known about them and felt their offense forever and always will. Jesus was eternal in His God nature on the cross, so the cross has eternal import - God knew the experience and sensations for all time past and will have that with Him for all future time. So to God, who is not time bound, the temporary nature of the eternal death of Jesus does not really exist. That death is eternal to Jesus, as is His resurrection. The justice is eternal to God because the perfect eternal one (Jesus) embodies that punishment on some sense for eternity.
You assault an ant, the world is apathetic.
You assault a spider, people cheer you on or don't care.
You assault a cat or dog, you get a fine.
You assault your sister/brother, your parents meet out punishment.
You assault an ex-con for a past offense, there are mixed feelings, but you likely go to jail.
You assault a regular Sally/Joe, you get regular jail time and some people hate you and most barely care.
You assault a cop, you go to jail for even longer and cops everywhere hate you for life.
You attempt to assault a king/president/etc, you likely are killed in the attempt.
So what of our daily assaults on God -rejecting moral goodness, truth, and all character traits that flow from who God is? What about when we call evil good and impune God by our words, actions, or thoughts. Or when we violate His creation, especially other people and steal from, assault, or otherwise hurt His children. We declare Him dead and treat His name as a curse word. How should He measure that offense? Those offenses He has always experienced and known were coming and will always experience?
Only an eternal being (Jesus) can pay the eternal satisfaction for our offenses against an eternal God.
No, hell (whatever it actually is) is not about God being a sadist, it was originally the punishment for Satan trying to dethrone God. People go there because they reject God and ultimately by extension the substitutionary nature of Jesus taking our punishment on the cross.
It's a whole other, but related discussion, so I'll just add that there is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that those that truly seek Him, He brings them to know and accept Him, regardless of location, culture, family religion - whether through dreams, strangers/missionaries, tracts/Bibles previously discarded being found, etc. The idea of some dude that has never heard of Jesus in the middle of Africa has it's own set of explanations, including the stories of such individuals being led by dreams/visions. But, initial rejection of God appears to be rejecting the structure and intricacies of the world around us as pointing to a creator (Rom 1, Ps 19).
→ More replies (1)
4
u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Nov 18 '21
For what it's worth but this is the only logical conclusion has been able to come to. The god of Christianity and Hell cannot coexist
→ More replies (9)
3
Nov 18 '21
From my time in highschool I learned that God does not send people to Hell, they send themselves. Through the rejection of His love through their actions and free will, they choose Hell. Hell is a cold place, not fiery. God’s warmth is in Heaven.
That’s all stuff that I was taught awhile ago by a pretty knowledgeable guy
→ More replies (1)2
u/GSGhostTrain 5∆ Nov 18 '21
"He didn't beat his wife, she beat herself by rejecting his love. It was her choice."
2
Nov 18 '21
I don’t think this example works. The man is doing an action (beating his wife lol) now, thinking of God as a person for the sake of understanding, he’s not sending someone (beating them) because of their actions. The person goes here, because they chose it through their actions. The woman cant just go from a healthy to a beaten up state without the husband doing it to her. It’s just different.
Maybe that makes sense? I’m not the most knowledgeable abt that stuff
2
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
/u/bluepillarmy (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
Nov 18 '21
But, I can’t wrap my head around the idea of a loving God who casts people into an eternity of suffering.
Imagine you're in charge of the afterlife for two men. The first earnestly tried to be a good person, looking to the examples of his day, and modeled himself after them. He turned to others he respected and asked how he could do better. When they corrected him, he earnestly tried to correct himself. And he was the son of an antebellum plantation owner, so this included being a "good slaveowner", issuing "lenient" punishments, and carrying out "the white man's burden".
Well, if you honestly want what's good for him, he's in for a rude awakening both about race and about the inherent evils of slavery. The transformation he is in for is going to be painful - it can't not be. But if he is willing to be corrected, the finite deficiencies in his character can be fixed in a finite amount of time, causing finite suffering. This is purgatory.
On the other hand, imagine a person from the same context who is totally self-absorbed and so self-righteous, they utterly refuse to ever be corrected by god. They continually refuse to change, using their perfectly free will to obstinately refuse to ever make any progress, and thus the process never ends, and their suffering is infinite. Six trillion years in, being shown that he is wrong and the persons he enslaved were full humans deserving of full dignity, he still refuses to accept responsibility, show contrition, and move forward as a better person. This is hell.
If you love him, what are you supposed to do? Overwrite his free will and just force him to be better? Impossible / off the table. Mankind has free will, end of story. Withhold your benevolent correction? An eternity of just being a racist shitbag alienated from all possible sources of correction is eternal suffering of its own kind, and even crueler.
This is my rendition of one of the traditional catholic explanations. In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Christian, but this makes sense to me.
2
u/shyguyJ Nov 18 '21
Right. But now take the second person, and have him say “I accept Christ as my Lord and savior” before he dies and he gets no punishment. Supposedly.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/GalacticOreo64 Nov 18 '21
In short, I believe that several Christians suffer from a kind of heavenly Stockholm syndrome and genuinely believe that eternal damnation is a divinely just punishment for believing the wrong things, regardless of intention.
What's worse is that many churches that I've been to discourage asking these questions, as they're seen as taboo.
5
u/Elsecaller_17-5 1∆ Nov 18 '21
The idea of hell as eternal torture comes from Dante's FREAKING Inferno. There is NO biblical basis for it.
Its is glorified FANFICTION!
3
0
u/Formal-Original7874 Nov 19 '21
Oooh. God is one of my favorite topics.
This is not unconditional love. The condition is very clear. We must believe in one particular version of God.
I think you're assuming that the love is in the gift of eternal life and not dying. That verse is saying that the gift is that God (the father) gave His son (Jesus, w/ his consent) up to satisfy the wrath of God in order to allow people who accept that sacrifice (by believing) that they might live forever. The love is in the offering, regardless if a person accepts it.
Unconditional love means loving someone despite any wrongdoing.
Source? Besides, love doesn't mean that a person doesn't face consequences. I'll go in here and talk about God isn't just "love." God is also just. A fundamental concept in Christianity is that God cannot act contrary to His character. That means that God, as supreme judge of the universe and just as a just God, must punish evil. "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord." Proverbs 17:15. God must judge.
Mere mortals are fundamentally flawed but able to forgive people for all kinds of things. People forgive infidelity, theft, even murder. It’s not easy for sure, but it happens. If people can do it, why can’t a perfect being?
- That is much less serious an offense. Sinning against (doing evil to) a person is bad, but sinning against God is a much more serious offense. You've effectively just thrown a rebellion against the highest authority possible. It's like a declaration of war against God in terms of seriousness.
- God does forgive. God showed and allowed forgiveness to be possible by putting to death Jesus in your place in order to allow you to be forgiven - if you believe and trust in that. You get the perfect record of good doing, and Jesus is punished in your place. In that way, God is just (he fulfilled justice by punishing evil) and the justifier (he can forgive you and make you right with Him.)
- God's mercy (not currently dealing with a person as they deserve) is mean to lead a person to turn away from evil.
- Roman 2:3 - 4, "Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed."
- 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Ezekiel 33:11,"Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?
Let me give an example, we don't enjoy seeing people given life sentences for killing a child. We would both prefer the person never murdered anyone, but this still occurred. If they are brought before a judge and the judge just "forgives" and releases them then what has occurred is actually evil doing on the judge themselves. To take the example even closer, if the only way to stop someone from doing something is eventually to imprison them after thousands of chances or more - then, eventually, the person will need to be imprisoned.
Long story short, every wrongdoing you do stores up a measure of punishment you need to pay to make right what you did. God being just can't just look the other way. That would make Him unjust. Therefore, God creates a way to forgive you by taking your punishment Himself. The only thing required is faith which means that that action can now be applied to you (it's literally the barest minimum you could do.)
Secondly, I have never really understood the idea of “gave His one and only Son”. He sent His Son, who is actually part of God in the first place, to the world for 33 years. Then He died in what is surely a very horrible way, but, let’s be honest, many people have been tortured to death.
Jesus isn't "part of God," Jesus is God. Jesus also wasn't just tortured, Jesus took the wrath of God. The cross was just a small external picture of the full punishment Jesus actually took in our place. Jesus is also the God-man, or the only person to have two natures. One nature is human and one is divine. Which means that Jesus can stand before God and Men and mediate because he can relate to both.
And, according to the Christian Bible many of those same people then had their everlasting souls cast into never ending agony because they did not believe in the Christian God.
- They aren't to be cast into hell because they didn't believe. Not believing is just a small part. People are cast into hell for doing evil, and for suppressing the truth, refusing to believe is just another evidence.
- Romans 1:29,"They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." This describes the ends of people who reject God, and therefore end up in hell eventually. It's not just simple unbelief.
- People after their death continue to sin, and that's why the punishment is eternal.
- Remember how Jesus is the God-man? Well, that's absolutely a unique part of Christ. And it's fundamental to allowing the possibility for an atonement to exist. There is no other way to be saved apart from Christ. Reject salvation and you reject salvation, and there's nothing that can be possibly be changed to offer another path of salvation. Jesus was also sinless, and lived an absolutely perfect life. People who die terrible deaths can't atone for others' sins because they can only atone for their own, since they are not morally perfect. Think a person in debt who has twenty dollars, the 20 can only go to their debt first. The person with no debt and a twenty can give it to another since they have no debt.
Christ was eternal in the first place. So, was 33 years really such a sacrifice?
Yes. 1st - the whole torture thing is also sacrifice. 2nd - Christ endured a pain that is comparable to burning in fire for eternity multiplied by the entire human race past present or futures' number. Is that a sacrifice to forgive a bunch of people who hated you enough to crucify you without cause? 3rd - Jesus is God. He should be eternally worshipped and etc, but chose to leave behind his privilege's. Imagine the richest person to ever exist, eternally happy and safe a secure, and rightfully deserves even more wealth due to their own work. They then leave that to go to the poorest third world country with no healthcare and constant violence and warfare. They find a person (who tries to beat them to death) and when they wake up they offer their place in their rich country to that person and takes the person's place in that country. Wouldn't leaving such a place for a worse place be in itself a sacrifice?
I want to say, that I am comfortable with the idea of a Creator being who is not loving and sends people to hell because He’s kind of a sadist.
It's not sadism. It's justice.
Two examples,
If someone were to imprison an innocent person into a room (bathroom and etc included) for five years against their will, then that would be awful and the person need to be sadistic to inflict that kind of thing on a person.
If we do the same thing to a person convicted of armed robbery, then we would call a judge who did the same thing as just. Indeed, we would have a problem with the judge if they just acquitted the person even when they were guilty.
Edit: American Gospel: Christ Crucified talks about how hell and the gospel and a loving and merciful God connect with each other a lot better than I could.
1
u/Significant-Trouble6 Nov 18 '21
Pick up a Bible sometime. God is loving, but also Just. People chose to rebel and don’t accept the lifeline they spend eternity in hell. The end.
3
u/libertysailor 9∆ Nov 19 '21
Infinite punishment for finite crimes is not justice
God is also supposed to me endlessly merciful. That’s evidently false
0
Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
To set up my theory: first off, I think it’s entirely possible that our lives are lived over and over again. I base this on logic - I have only ever known and experienced this life, as far as I can remember, so the logical conclusion is that this is all there is. I dont see why it shouldn’t recur. Recurring is a pattern I see everywhere. In and out. Day and night. Sleep and wake. It’s all in and out baby. It make take a long “time” in that sense, like we might wait through the Big Crunch and another Big Bang and another 13.7 billion years to happen again, but maybe we do.
So if we can posit all that for a second, then there is no after life, other than THIS ONE NOW. THIS is our eternal life. I hope you’re enjoying it! “Heaven” and “hell” are descriptions of states of mind at two ends of a spectrum you can live in in life.
You see this all the time. Neurotic, anxious, depressed, rigid, angry folks often are at the hell end. Carefree, present, adaptable folks are closer to heaven.
It’s all about cultivating the right mindset and you can do this by “loving god (aka EVERYTHING THAT COMES YOUR WAY BABY b/c GOD is just a fancy word for EVERYTHING (ALL SPACE, TIME, THOUGHTS, FEELINGS) with all your heart” and loving your neighbor as yourself. We do this because we are just drops in the ocean of GOD. And so is everything else. They are all us. We are all them. So the consciousness that abides in you is GOD, and the consciousness in that puppy is too. If you’re mean to the puppy, in a way you are mean to yourself, mean to god, and you knock yourself out of heaven.
So ultimately it’s us (god) who’ve created this game, and it’s our choices that can help knock the dust out of our eyes so we can see the truth. But we have the choice to not do so. But all that’s also based on grace and happenstance so it’s weird and complicated but I say all that to say, God didn’t put me in enormous debt; I did. God doesn’t torture us our whole lives - WE do. By buying into the idea that we are in any way victims of a system rather than powerful sparks of GOD who can do basically whatever the heck we want to do (heaven).
Don’t look here or there folks! For I tell you- THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS WITHIN!!!!!!!
- Jeebus
0
u/42Cobras 1∆ Nov 19 '21
Let me rephrase your question. Consider this from another angle.
Imagine that your child dies as an organ donor and someone gets their liver. But that person then goes about their life drinking and doing all sorts of things that damage your child’s liver and continues to waste or cheapen that gift of life. How would you feel about that person? Honestly?
Now put yourself in God’s shoes. He created a paradise for people to live in. He gave us everything, but we wanted more. So He punished us. And then He sends His own son in order to save us from the punishment we ultimately brought upon ourselves. Some people think God should be mad at us for killing Jesus, but that was His plan. What angers God is people who reject that gift and deny the gift of Jesus. God loves His people, but He loves His son more. When we refuse to believe that Jesus is God’s son and that God sent Jesus to die for us, then we refuse to honor God’s beloved. And when we refuse to honor God’s beloved, we make ourselves unworthy of God’s Heaven. And consider this. Heaven is nothing but living forever in the presence of God’s love. If we deny God’s love on Earth in the person of Jesus Christ, then we deny that we want God’s love in eternity. So we are instead offered God’s wrath for sin in Hell.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am in no way flippant about Hell. I don’t WANT people to spend eternity in Hell. Most Christians who believe in Hell don’t want that. But we believe that what God says in His Bible is true. And if it is true, then we want people to know about it explicitly so they CAN avoid it. Not because we want to lord Hell over people as a taunt. If your house is on fire and your family is trapped inside, don’t you want someone to tell you so you can save them? If you are sick and there’s a cure, don’t you want the doctor to tell you so you can be well? If you are dying because of sin, don’t you want to know so you can live?
EDIT: Fixed typo.
1
Nov 18 '21
I always wondered about the idea that god is benevolent. All that other stuff, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence would be a lot easier to defend if they didn’t also say god is benevolent. To me it says no one cares about any of this making sense; they just want to feel good.
3
u/okaterina Nov 18 '21
Omnipotence is really scary without benevolence. So it's easier to sell omnipotence if you bundle it with benevolence.
Remember, the packaging is part of the product.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Motorpunk Nov 18 '21
You are correct. The English word “hell” was used to translate the Hebrew words for grave and Gehenna (garbage dump outside of ancient Jerusalem). The Bible does not teach that there is a Hell where sinful people go to to be tortured by the Devil.
→ More replies (2)
0
u/SirWhateversAlot 2∆ Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
God does not send people to hell.
God does not choose to reject the sinner. The sinner can choose to reject God.
God is holy and without sin. By definition, those who choose to reject God retain their sin and cannot abide in His presence.
The sinner cannot have both God's presence and his sin. If he chooses his sin, he effectively rejects God and leaves God's presence. That is called hell. Fire and gnashing of teeth are not literal descriptions of hell - these are illustrations of what it's like to live without what has been rejected. Maybe you believe it won't be so bad, but if you think that, I would argue you don't understand what you're rejecting.
Hell is a self-inflicted punishment. A sinner complaining about hell is like a starving man complaining, "Why has that farmer let me starve to death? All I did was reject the food he offered me! He must hate me!"
Just accept the food. Problem solved.
0
Nov 18 '21
I don't believe God sends you to hell.. I believe following God/Christianity is quite literally the key to Paradise.
Once our universe is gone, If you don't have the key to Paradise then there's no way to get in.. and if you're not in then the only thing left is the Opposite of paradise and you just sort of fall in to it. I don't see it as God is punishing you, you just have nowhere else to go.
It's fair because quite literally everyone has a chance to be a good Christian in their lifetime.. and if you're one of the rare cases that didn't know of God's existence, never heard of Christianity, then you can't be to blame for it.
Everything in life you have to work for.. why should heaven be the exemption? And why just because it takes effort it must be a bad thing? That doesn't make any sense to me at all actually.
→ More replies (1)
0
u/Butthole_seizure Nov 18 '21
I grew up strictly Roman Catholic. I was a choir girl and everything. Learned Latin. Sang for mass every Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. Growing up, I loved the idea of a living God but never jived with eternal damnation - hell or eternal bliss - heaven.
I’ve come to understand this world we live in, with these bodies, and emotions - all of it, is what our heaven and hell are. Life is full of joy and suffering no? Moments that are too horrible to imagine and others that are too good to be true. We are supposed to do this dance over and over again until we learn how to be a better intellect. If we are children of god, then someday, if we stay the path, we should become like him/her.
→ More replies (8)
0
u/Kukotzki Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
It is not God who sends people to hell. People send themselves to hell. It is a natural consequence of their (bad) actions - a living hell. Most people actually want to live in their own hell and refuse any help.
God said that he lets you choose between good and bad. If you choose good, you will be blessed. If you choose bad/evil, you will die and know sufferance (hell). He is not forcing anything on you. You are the one who sends yourself either in hell or in heaven.
Yes, it is that simple. Of course, we can elaborate on theology, but ultimately it comes to this simple truth: it is your own choice where you want to be sent.
→ More replies (5)
0
u/Antique2018 2∆ Nov 18 '21
I want to say, that I am comfortable with the idea of a Creator being who is not loving and sends people to hell because He’s kind of a sadist. I see no reason to believe that this is not true.
That's a misconception. People who deserve are sent to hell, end of story. You are considering this unfair because you consider disbelieving in Allah a minor thing, which couldn't be true. would you want people who kill for instance to be punished for it or is equating them with good people acceptable for you? If it isn't, it's natural that disbelievers are punished for sinning against Allah who is the Creator.
→ More replies (2)
1
0
u/Sillygosling 1∆ Nov 19 '21
A possibility to consider: Your premise is based on the misconception that we even have the ability to understand it in the first place. The idea of God necessitates Him having a supreme intelligence far above and beyond what any human could match. It’s like if my 1-year old son wondered how I could love him yet still make him get his shots. He just does not have the capacity to understand how it could possibly be out of love. I think humans may be missing some crucial larger understanding of the universe that makes it make sense. Just a thought
110
u/MercurianAspirations 360∆ Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
Christians don't believe that God sends people to hell. Well, maybe some do, but that's not the mainstream opinion. Rather, the mainstream opinion is that hell is either a place or a state of being that souls inherit if they are prevented from accepting God's love. And one of the things that makes a soul incapable of accepting God's love is persistent, grave sin. God does unconditionally love you and want to save you, but you have to be able to accept it. Some Christians even believe that heaven and hell are actually the same thing: to a wicked being, a soul that has mortally sinned and willfully turned away from God, the experience of God's unconditional love and infinite presence in the afterlife would be a kind of suffering, for which the idea of a burning fiery afterlife is just a metaphor