How can a benevolent God stand for the existance of a hell with eternal suffering?

[Sniffles]

Furthermore, I don't like wasting my time on speculation of that nature when people are starving and being tortured to death in THIS realm of existence.

That is an important point, but we must always keep in mind that this-worldliness is just as bad as other-worldliness. The latter at least makes us concern ourselves about eternal matters, rather than merely temporal ones.

But of course, I follow my namesakes in stressing that temporal and eternal salvation cannot be fully seperated, or else you destroy the ultimate value of both.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

one of my friends IRL told me that the idea of hell doesnt exist in the OT...in the OT its simply just punishment in this life and then death being the ultimate punishment...

...then suddenly the NT brings up this much darker view of being sent to place of terrible suffering... funny how i read somewhere Jesus preaches twice as much on hell as he does heaven.... yet ive never read a biblical description of heaven.

Well if this is true, then 2*0 = 0.

i kind of have to assume that absence of God would be torture in some sense we cant describe: like think about it...he takes away all the gifts you have? what is left? if you somehow can live on im guessing it would suck....

If God is the source of life, then separation from God would be death.

"If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath,
All flesh would perish together,
And man would return to dust."
Job 34:14-15

 

[Didums]

well how does he suddenly stop loving us when we die just because we did what he programmed us to do?!

God never stops loving us, even when we're in Hell. And arguing "doing what he programmed us to do" is a rather odd argument to make, since among many other things, it neglects the act of original sin.

Well I can still say that I love you after I kick you in the nuts repeatedly, but does that seem logical to you? I guess thats the kind of logic that follows in suit with our entire species being screwed over because a rip-woman decided to eat a knowledge apple because a snake said so. But then again the zombie jew gave us a second chance at salvation by dying for our entire species, and this somehow gave us the choice to get to Cloud City, even though the choice we make isn't in our control. (you've gotta love the appeal to ridicule, too fun, too fun.)

A rather odd argument to make? You obviously don't understand the concept of omniscience, you may understand the definition, but not the implications that it makes. (nor does any theist)

The notion of God pre-ordaining people to Heaven or Hell is a Calvinist notion that is not found within most other Christian traditions that I know of.

God is only God if he Knows your destiny, free will cannot exist with the notion of a God, which I explained in my thread that you failed to comprehend. Were we to have free will, that would limit God's knowledge of the future, and therefore inhibit his Omniscience.

Catholicism holds that one goes to Hell because they consciously choose to reject God's ways and not seek proper repentence.

Yea, sucks that God chose to ignore the fact that they would choose to reject his ways, he should have made them so that they would. (remember we don't have free will with God existing, we're all living according to his plan.)

 

[Sniffles]

Well I can still say that I love you after I kick you in the nuts repeatedly, but does that seem logical to you?

That begs the question of whether or not logic even applies to this situation, especially since it's one of faith.

I guess thats the kind of logic that follows in suit with our entire species being screwed over because a rip-woman decided to eat a knowledge apple because a snake said so. (you've gotta love the appeal to ridicule, too fun, too fun.)

And you conviently forget the other half of the story, that God literally sacrificed himself to himself in order to purchase man's redemption from the fall.

God is only God if he Knows your destiny, free will cannot exist with the notion of a God

Ahh the age old debate between Compatibilism and Incompatibilism.

Yea, sucks that God chose to ignore the fact that they would choose to reject his ways, he should have made them so that they would.

God isn't interested in robots, he wants actual men.


Just for you, I'll cite extensively from my namesakes poem "Freedom", which concerns this very issue:

"Because I myself am free, says God, and I have created man in my own image and likeness.
Such is the mystery, such the secret, such the price
Of all freedom.
That freedom of that creature is the most beautiful reflection in this world
Of the Creator's freedom. That is why we are so attached to it,
And set a proper price on it.
A salvation that was not free, that was not, that did not come from a free man could in no wise be attractive to us. What would it amount to?
What would it mean?
What interest would such a salvation have to offer?
A beatitude of slaves, a salvation of slaves, a slavish beatitude, how do you expect me to be interested in that kind of thing? Does one care to be loved by slaves?
If it were only a matter of proving my might, my might has no need of those slaves, my might is well enough known, it is sufficiently known that I am the Almighty.
My might is manifest enough in all matter and in all events.
My might is manifest enough in the sands of the sea and in the stars of heaven.
It is not questioned, it is known, it is manifest enough in inanimate creation.
It is manifest enough in the government,
In the very event that is man.
But in my creation which is endued with life, says God, I wanted something better, I wanted something more.
Infinitely better. Infinitely more. For I wanted that freedom.
I created that very freedom. There are several degrees to my throne.
When you once have known what it is to be loved freely, submission no longer has any taste.
All the prostrations in the world
Are not worth the beautiful upright attitude of a free man as he kneels. All the submission, all the dejection in the world
Are not equal in value to the soaring up point,
The beautiful straight soaring up of one single invocation
From a love that is free."

 

[Didums]

And you conviently forget the other half of the story, that God literally sacrificed himself to himself in order to purchase man's redemption from the fall.

You responded too fast for me to get my edits in, damn the quoting system! Ya I was re-reading my post and thought that its only fair to mention the zombie jew.

Edit:

Nice poem, but it is a subjective attmempt at justifying the concept of free will. It is subjective in the sense that God is being personified to want his creations to be free, not slaves to him (its also funny that an eternal creator would desire love and appreciation from his own creation, pretty Needy eh?). Its a large appeal to emotion, God couldn't possibly be a slave-whipping monarch could he? He wants us to love him willingly, you can't force love, if you force love, thats basically rape. However, the poem fails to come to a conclusion of how exactly God can still know the future, yet not know the choice we would make in our free will.

 

[Venom]

I tend to believe that people flee from God if they hate him or can't submit to him... and that's hell. Because all relationship is built on some degree of submission and sacrifice. If you flee from God, you won't be able to tolerate any sort of real love/intimacy.

i dont get this. I figure that logically, me hating God isn't an option! If he is so great and benevolent and powerful, what possiblie being could be dumb enough or hatefull enough to reject him? It seems more about him being able to prove to us he exists in the firstplace, never mind if we reject him or not. Its like his big goal is to prove his existence without ever providing proof!!!! ahhh im going insane!


if he exists and these are his laws then clearly he IS the benevolent one! I engage in testing the logical benevolence possibilities to test among the different religions in diff points in my life. honestly its only ever been christian variations, but thats not the point. the point is that the religion should stand on its own! if it has to quote its own book with, "if you dont like it, tough". then im not sure why i should believe the religion valid. I cant cite a made up paper i wrote to convince the science community of anything of importance..can i?

as far as the quote you recorded here, at my age, I have resolved that what passes for apologetics is mostly just bullshit to justify one's current belief system. You're actually looking at the ramifications of the apologetics -- "But that would mean THIS!!! And I find that repulsive, many people would find it repulsive!"

But that doesn't matter. How you feel about it doesn't matter to those who think differently. The idea is merely intellectually derived from the accepted doctrines. Thus it might seem internally consistent to them, and they don't bother to actually feel through what it means if implemented.

You're operating from a values/ethics POV.

I have intellectual trouble believing that nothing we do matters because in the end we'll all be treated the same. That seems to downplay selfishness and evil. I have to think that our behavior has definite ramifications.

You ask the good questions, hon. There aren't great answers. In the end, most people just take a "faith step," either for a particular religion or for their own personal ethics. Reason won't get you there 100%.

look at the two bolded parts. it represents my worst fears.

1. you cant believe in something to be true just because it "feels right":

"it just feels so right! we have to have a savior!?" "life would be pointless without a God, it just wouldnt FEEL right"

the feels right method of guide fails. If it were right, then that girl i had a crush on in 8th grade would be with me simply because...drum roll.... "it just FEELS so right! {nothing physical implied!}"

2. so if we can't get there on feelings... well then were do we go? to reason...

problem is exactly what you just said: we often just create logical arguments for what we already hold to be true to us.... so this often breaks down into:

"well theres both a descent proof AND refutation... FOR BOTH SIDES!"

3. So then from reason/philosophy we go to naturalism and the 5 senses... but then we are left with:
"is this really all there is?" if all there is is finite quantifiable stuff, then how does the concept of "love" and other unquantifiables exist in the universe? if love is just a chemical reaction...well how do i feel about the ramifications of this????

I guess i could reconcile atheism if i was certain of it (ok obviously not 100%). I guess atheism isn't THAT repulsive if i knew it was the truth. the butterfly effect would give me comfort: a butterfly flapping its wing can affect the path of a hurricane many years after the butterfly is dead many miles away.

I just can't commit to this one out of the fear of being wrong.

4. so then we go to just wild imagination...where literally the craziest shit of molding together string theory and God, aliens and god, chia pets and God, or any other crazy molten theory of religion that has no previous basis besides you thought it up and it seems to work???


So what am i left with??? Im coming to the sad realization that we basically know nothing...somehow a bunch of dead philosopher guys would disagree with me.... but im not sure if IIIII can ever know anything

in which case this horrible reality unfolds:

what if i am not sure enough to ever truly believe in Chirst, but too fearful of the consequences to be an atheist. so then i possibly get no everlasting life AND i didnt get to go wild in an atheist life.... ....having a world view like this would seemingly torture me....

 

[Totenkindly]

And you conviently forget the other half of the story, that God literally sacrificed himself to himself in order to purchase man's redemption from the fall.

That might have been my response years ago.

Now I have to question it.
It feels like rationalization after the fact.

It's not a bad piece of logic... but it's weak. Because the attitude needed to do that doesn't seem to conform to the attitude needed to construct a world with permanent damnation or torture, regardless of what he might have done on the side to create an escape route.

 

[Sniffles]

Nice poem, but it is a subjective attmempt at justifying the concept of free will.

Much of religion is about subjective truth.

 

[Sniffles]

That might have been my response years ago.

Now I have to question it.
It feels like rationalization after the fact.

It's not a bad piece of logic... but it's weak. Because the attitude needed to do that doesn't seem to conform to the attitude needed to construct a world with permanent damnation or torture, regardless of what he might have done on the side to create an escape route.

Well we're dealing with the paradoxical nature of God aren't we?

 

[Totenkindly]

Well we're dealing with the paradoxical nature of God aren't we?

Um... yes... but you can't just claim "paradox" as a certainty anytime a weakness in the argument is uncovered. True paradoxes and inherent fallacies often look the same on the surface.

 

[sassafrassquatch]

...

I remember being in that phase near the end. That was not fun. Still believing in God but not having a clue what to believe. You can study theology but it's all just someone's opinion and any conclusion you might reach is just your opinion. If god wanted us to know something it's well within his power to communicate effectively. Since his message is unclear he must either be incompetent, apathetic or nonexistent.

If you should find yourself standing before god after you die just tell him you couldn't make sense of it. If he says the truth was obvious you tell him "STFU n00b, you knew my thoughts, I couldn't figure it out." If he sends you to hell anyway he's a dick not worth your affection.

At least that's what I'll do if I'm wrong. You do what you like.

 

[Didums]

Much of religion is about subjective truth.

Yes but many claim objective evidence.

Now, can you please explain to me how free will doesn't prevent God from being Omniscient?

 

[ArtlessFuture]

Well, here's a few thoughts to reflect on for you. First, the simple answer to your question: A benevolent God can not wouldn't allow for the existence of eternal torture and suffering.

Ok, a few scriptures to show the condition of the dead (sinners or not)

Ecclesiastes 3:19,20 (New International Version)
Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 (NIV)
5 For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even the memory of them is forgotten.

Also, a scripture that contradicts the teaching that if you sin, you will be tortured forever:

Romans 6:23 (NIV)
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Basically humans who decide to not follow God are not going to be tortured forever. They just live their lives, and then die, with no hope of anything else. Which is fine, thats what they chose.

 

[Sniffles]

i dont get this. I figure that logically, me hating God isn't an option! If he is so great and benevolent and powerful, what possiblie being could be dumb enough or hatefull enough to reject him?

Several reasons actually. Among them pride in the face of the notion of an all-powerful being telling you what you can and cannot do. Some people can't get over that notion, and instead delude themselves into thinking they don't need God, because God is only for weak-minded fools in need of a crutch.

1. you cant believe in something to be true just because it "feels right":

"it just feels so right! we have to have a savior!?" "life would be pointless without a God, it just wouldnt FEEL right"

the feels right method of guide fails. If it were right, then that girl i had a crush on in 8th grade would be with me simply because...drum roll.... "it just FEELS so right! {nothing physical implied!}"

True, but one can also ask the legitimate question why does man have the need to have God in order to feel right. Doesn't prove it's correct, true, but neither does it disprove the legitimacy of God's existence.

2. so if we can't get there on feelings... well then were do we go? to reason...

Thats assuming reason is the only legitimate means of understanding God, while neglecting feelings. Feelings alone may not establish the legitimacy of God, but neither will reason alone. One can only understand God by using all their human faculties.

problem is exactly what you just said: we often just create logical arguments for what we already hold to be true to us.... so this often breaks down into:

"well theres both a descent proof AND refutation... FOR BOTH SIDES!"

In order to fully understand yourself, the world, much less God and have discussions about it you have to ultimately accept something on faith. Otherwise, you'll go around in endless circles(as you do later on in this post) and thus understand nothing.

what if i am not sure enough to ever truly believe in Chirst, but too fearful of the consequences to be an atheist. so then i possibly get no everlasting life AND i didnt get to go wild in an atheist life.... ....having a world view like this would seemingly torture me....

Being a Christian doesn't mean the absence of doubt about the faith or in Christ. Rather it's the ability to overcome those doubts and accept somethings on faith. But to do so means essentially placing complete trust(that's what faith is ultimately, trust) in a being you cannot fully know or understand. That's a very scarry proposition to many, and yes it can lead you down some dark corners. But to do so means incredible courage on the person's part, and many people lack that unfortunately.

 

[Totenkindly]

Also, a scripture that contradicts the teaching that if you sin, you will be tortured forever: Basically humans who decide to not follow God are not going to be tortured forever. They just live their lives, and then die, with no hope of anything else. Which is fine, thats what they chose.

Wow. That's a stretch.

Paul wasn't necessarily trying to offer a proof of whether there's eternal damnation, he was just setting up a comparison/contrast pair here (rom 6:23) of how sin results in death versus Jesus embodying life. You can't abscond with it to say specifically what sort of death is being discussed.

This is why I generally hate discussing Bible passages. They're taken out of context to prop up concepts that the writer probably wasn't even considering at the time.

 

[Virtual ghost]

do you mean that as in, "heaven isnt explicitly promised?"

or that heaven doesn't sound great?

I mean as: Heaven is probably same as hell on the long run.

Why?

I don't know what really Bible says but the picture that is common in public sounds like a bad scenario.

For example, you like writting books but about what you will write in heaven?

If you start to write novels you will have a problem becuse there is no infinite number of novels you can write without staring to repeat with time.
Your mind has boundarys and its operates inside of them.

But there is so big number of novels that can be written that it is fun to do it once again. but with time it is unavoidable that you start to repeat yourself once again. What will you do then? Start another cycle?

What will you do after 10 cycles ? 100? 10000? 1000000?
Will you still write novels?

What after 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 cycles ?

I mean you can mix writting with other activity but problem is still out there.

What will you do when that huge number that is writting up there will be number of zeros after number 1 .


There is a fact that you forget things with time but you always will be conscious of the fact that you have done this so many times that you will even need thousands of years to even say the number how many time did you do something.
(becuse it is that Big)

All people that go to heaven could ask god to delete their memory.
But in that case people will figure out what happened quite fast and once again you have same problem.

Since you can't die, the problem will be there forever always behind you and ready to destroy any fun that comes your way.
Since you can't die you really can't experiance any real adventure becuse chance of survival is 100%.


What will you do? Ask God to destroy you somehow?

The only way to avoid this problem is that after death god turns you into something else. The point is that your human consciousness is no more so that you can grow and expand further.


But in that case you have another problem. If God can turn good person into something else why can't he do the same with the bad person.
If he can change entire mental concept I don't see why he/she/it can't destroy tiny part that makes someone good or evil?

So all logical conclusions lead to sitation that there is no good and evil or right and wrong in reality we live in. (Heaven and hell included)
I say this becuse all of us will get the benefits or no one will on the long run. If all of us don't get the same path that is not fair at all. Becuse you are not guilty for the fact that you have personality disorder or that your parents did not love you when you were a baby.

If right and wrong do exist, all of us are predetermined to eternity we will not like. But if all of us will be turned to nonhumans, something might just come out right.



Or the truth is something so abstract that human brain can't do anything about the problem. Why so may people think that there will be the end of the world soon. It is because world without the end is hard to understand and/or accept.
Same works for reality without God.

 

[Sniffles]

Um... yes... but you can't just claim "paradox" as a certainty anytime a weakness in the argument is uncovered. True paradoxes and inherent fallacies often look the same on the surface.

True and that's often where faith comes in. As Tertullian famously stated:

"The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed--because it is shameful.
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is impossible."

 

[Totenkindly]

Several reasons actually. Among them pride in the face of the notion of an all-powerful being telling you what you can and cannot do. Some people can't get over that notion, and instead delude themselves into thinking they don't need God, because God is only for weak-minded fools in need of a crutch.

True.

True, but one can also ask the legitimate question why does man have the need to have God in order to feel right. Doesn't prove it's correct, true, but neither does it disprove the legitimacy of God's existence.

True. And it leads to your next point.

Thats assuming reason is the only legitimate means of understanding God, while neglecting feelings. Feelings alone may not establish the legitimacy of God, but neither will reason alone. One can only understand God by using all their human faculties.

True.

Very balanced.

Feelings don't make things true, just as much as being able to beat someone in an argument doesn't mean your points were logical; but the presence of particular feelings does insinutate things about the design/nature of human beings.

In order to fully understand yourself, the world, much less God and have discussions about it you have to ultimately accept something on faith. Otherwise, you'll go around in endless circles(as you do later on in this post) and thus understand nothing.

It's a P thing. Bear with us.

But you're right. I think ultimately for me, I realized that truth was not 100% discernable and that I had to invest and make hard choices over conflicting goods and narratives, then take responsibility for my choices.

That's living.
And I think that is faith too.

Being a Christian doesn't mean the absence of doubt about the faith or in Christ. Rather it's the ability to overcome those doubts and accept somethings on faith. But to do so means essentially placing complete trust(that's what faith is ultimately, trust) in a being you cannot fully know or understand. That's a very scarry

scary too. [altho the scars seem more plentiful sometimes!]

proposition to many, and yes it can lead you down some dark corners. But to do so means incredible courage on the person's part, and many people lack that unfortunately.

You're right. The problem simply is determining what one truly can put their faith in. Where is that line between folly and maturity?

Some people avoid faith because they are cowards.
Other people cling to faith because they are cowards.

 

[Sniffles]

If you should find yourself standing before god after you die just tell him you couldn't make sense of it. If he says the truth was obvious you tell him "STFU n00b, you knew my thoughts, I couldn't figure it out."

He'd probably respond with Proverbs 24:7 "Wisdom is too high for a fool to understand."

 

[sassafrassquatch]

He'd probably respond with Proverbs 24:7 "Wisdom is too high for a fool to understand."