Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Question #1: Would anyone admire a “god” who was morally ambivalent--who had no interest in justice versus injustice--a “god” who would refrain from punishing evil and/or from rewarding the opposite?

If your answer is that you would not admire such a “god”, then the door must be open to your belief in the God of the Bible, who is clearly not ambivalent. In addition, the door must be open to some kind of “hell”.

It is also important to avoid the classic error of logic called circular reasoning which many atheists seem caught in--disbelieving in “god” because they hate the version of “hell” which Dante gave us and which many religions have errantly propagated… and hating what that version of hell seems to indicate about God’s character. A more rational approach would be to question the accuracy of the version, the story, the metaphors, symbols, parables, etc.

Plenty of songs and poems have been written about romantic love, many of them portraying such love as a “burning desire within the heart”. Now, who in their right mind actually believes that the writers believed in actual flames of fire within the atria or ventricles or myocardium? Apply what you have just learned to the so-called doctrine of hell, and amazing insights can begin to bloom. How would you warn other human beings of the “hell” of suicidal thoughts and feelings--guilt, shame, resentments, anger, jealously, self-condemnation and the inability to forgive even yourself?

Hey buddy, I think you've got the wrong site, the christian forum is two links down.

Question #1:

Why say this but not follow it up with "Question #2", etc?

Would anyone admire a “god” who was morally ambivalent--who had no interest in justice versus injustice

Not admire, but worship yeah.

a “god” who would refrain from punishing evil and/or from rewarding the opposite?

Depends. Are punishing evil and rewarding good both good things? Common opinion doesn't dictate what is right, and history is fraught with people and groups who break the mold. There has been, for a long time, a group of Christians who believe that no one will go to hell, for example.

If your answer is that you would not admire such a “god”, then the door must be open to your belief in the God of the Bible, who is clearly not ambivalent.

Eh. A good introduction, but needs more fleshing out to stand against any non-Christian who has a small batch of knowledge about the Bible. The fact is, in the Bible God doesn't punish bad people sometimes and is said to be the origin of all evil, at the same time.

In addition, the door must be open to some kind of “hell”.

So we're defining hell as a place of justice against evil.

It is also important to avoid the classic error of logic called circular reasoning which many atheists seem caught in--disbelieving in “god” because they hate the version of “hell” which Dante gave us and which many religions have errantly propagated… and hating what that version of hell seems to indicate about God’s character.

I am an annihilationist. I believe that after death, if you are not saved, you simply don't continue being conscience. This has its roots in the fact that that is always how it had been seen in Biblical times, and that the New Testament consistently refers to hell as destruction.

Except once.

And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever… and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

There's a lot of ways to argue that this doesn't refer to Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) but none are immediately obvious. This is the primary ECT prooftext, and it shows the primary Biblical basis for this. Some Christians might be wrong for supporting ECT, but it's hard to say people have made a simple error, and reducing it to such is not doing it justice.

Apply what you have just learned to the so-called doctrine of hell, and amazing insights can begin to bloom.

The burning fire of love is obviously a good thing. Hellfire is consistently referred to as a bad thing.

How would you warn other human beings of the “hell” of suicidal thoughts and feelings--guilt, shame, resentments, anger, jealously, self-condemnation and the inability to forgive even yourself?

I don't see the connection.

That being said, this reminds me of PUR – purgatorial universal reconciliation.

This Reddit AMA covers that some. (Theology AMAs on Reddit are surprisingly good ways to get an overview on a topic.) Essentially, through a combination of careful reading, re-reading, and linguistic disputes, there's a reasonable enough position that after a time in hellfire, all will be reconciled to God.

Ok, so this guys probably the religious version of a spambot, but Rivers is already going for it, so why the hell not?

Question #1: Would anyone admire a “god” who was morally ambivalent--who had no interest in justice versus injustice--a “god” who would refrain from punishing evil and/or from rewarding the opposite?

I wouldn't say admire, but I would be happy with the God deciding to allow humanity to decide for itself what it right and wrong rather than decide for us with a sense of morality built on an experience that is different from the human experience.

Also, why start this with "Question #1" if there is no question 2?

If your answer is that you would not admire such a “god”, then the door must be open to your belief in the God of the Bible, who is clearly not ambivalent. In addition, the door must be open to some kind of “hell”.

That idea of that kind of God scares me, that some all powerful being gets to decide for me what's right and wrong, from a perspective that's not my own, and get so decide my eternal fate is a terrifying thought.

Yeah almighty, all-knowing force that lived eternally knowing everything will turn out OK, never having to deal with peers, superiors, the looming darkness of your own mortality and hunger, why don't you decide what the appropriate actions I need to take and not bother telling me them, so you can torture me eternally when the path I chose turned out to be "wrong"

I will never get why people find the idea of such a God to be comforting when to me, it's one of the most terrifying and self-worth obliterating things I can imagine. I've had it explained to me over and over and I can just not understand it. To each their own I guess.

It is also important to avoid the classic error of logic called circular reasoning which many atheists seem caught in--disbelieving in “god” because they hate the version of “hell” which Dante gave us and which many religions have errantly propagated… and hating what that version of hell seems to indicate about God’s character. A more rational approach would be to question the accuracy of the version, the story, the metaphors, symbols, parables, etc.

1. That is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be: There is no God Why? > Because I do not see one > Why don't you see one? >Because there is no God

2. Most Atheists don't believe in God because of a lack of proof/ reason to do so, not because they hate the Christian version of Hell, not that an Atheist can't deny the existence of God and hate the Christian version of Hell at the same time.

3. What you are thinking of is what's called "Anti-theist", which is different than Atheist, but not mutually exclusive. It's also much less common.

4. Although you are correct that the popular vision of Hell is based off of Dante's work and not the Bible, which only gave a single description once that said it's hot there

Plenty of songs and poems have been written about romantic love, many of them portraying such love as a “burning desire within the heart”. Now, who in their right mind actually believes that the writers believed in actual flames of fire within the atria or ventricles or myocardium?

It's called a metaphor sweetie.

Apply what you have just learned to the so-called doctrine of hell, and amazing insights can begin to bloom. How would you warn other human beings of the “hell” of suicidal thoughts and feelings--guilt, shame, resentments, anger, jealously, self-condemnation and the inability to forgive even yourself?

It's either a bot, or an actual 70 year old church worker doing this manually because they don't know you can have a bot do this for them.

2/10 Not converting.

Sorry if I offended anyone by posting on this site rather than the “Christian” one. Would you agree with me, however, in the fact that “hell”, as preached by so many Christians has essentially inflamed, if not perhaps even generated many atheists? Do you recall what Darwin’s analysis of hell-preaching was? He called it “that damnable doctrine”, most likely because of what it inferred to him about God’s character. And the rest of his reaction is history.

Yes, I had a “Question #2” ready which addresses the concept of omnipotence, but I agree that question one deserves more fleshing out first. I appreciate the depth of dialogue instead of the more popular rush to judgment or to post creative snark.

The connection I was trying to make between references to a heart “burning” with desire is to suggest that many references to “hell” in the Bible may follow similar dynamics. In other words, the motive force behind the “torment” may not be a capricious dictator-god-judge choosing to finally enforce his will and his idea of justice in a judicial fashion. Instead, I am submitting a hypothesis that at some point in the future, a miraculous event will merely facilitate each person’s heart to be confronted with all the things which each of us have tried to suppress or deny, and that if our hearts have not embraced the love of God, the natural consequence is that our own selfishness, guilt, shame, anger, hatred, jealously, lack of forgiveness and lack of gratefulness, etc. “burns” within us, leading us eventually to the same condition that Judas Iscariot experienced--the burning desire to annihilate ourselves, to end our consciousness.

Whether or not such annihilation is possible, or if it will be allowed by God, represents other questions… and certainly ones which are worthy of discussion. Perhaps before entertaining these, I would ask whether eternal conscious torment (ECT) or annihilation has alienated more thinkers over history. What do you think?

RB said;
“…I would be happy with the God deciding to allow humanity to decide for itself what it right and wrong…”

Setting aside ideas regarding the future, isn’t this exactly what 99% of human history shows us--the results of humans deciding to live by what they decide as right and wrong? And how’s that workin’ for us?

I would challenge you to provide evidence for one single culture of people who live together in peace and prosperity, love, compassion, empathy, etc., who did NOT have a Judeo-Christian background of some sort, or similar beliefs in God.

RB; “It’s called a metaphor sweetie.”
Thank-you for recognizing that. Now, tell that to those who use a few obscure texts of the Bible to build a Dante-like-narrative of a literal ever-burning hell.

Heaven is the carrot, hell is the stick.

I suppose in the absence of an all-knowing, all-seeing and all encompassing power that can pass judgement instantly on whatever we do, the thought and idea behind "going to hell" for doing something bad acts as a motivator to "be a good person".

"Character is what you are in the dark" taken along with the above means that such teachings are for those moments when you are alone with only your thoughts and beliefs stopping you from doing something wrong -- it is easy to do the right thing when all eyes are on us and the expectation is to do right.

I would be happy with the God deciding to allow humanity to decide for itself what it right and wrong rather than decide for us with a sense of morality built on an experience that is different from the human experience.

The better theories of ethics and God relate to an objective, not subjective (as you pose) morality. For example, modified Divine Command Theory (mDCT) states that morality is sort of engraved in the inner being of God, if that makes any sense.

Yeah almighty, all-knowing force that lived eternally knowing everything will turn out OK, never having to deal with peers, superiors, the looming darkness of your own mortality and hunger, why don’t you decide what the appropriate actions I need to take and not bother telling me them, so you can torture me eternally when the path I chose turned out to be “wrong”

A big point of the whole incarnation thing was that God got in the dirt and mud with us.

Instead, I am submitting a hypothesis that at some point in the future, a miraculous event will merely facilitate each person’s heart to be confronted with all the things which each of us have tried to suppress or deny, and that if our hearts have not embraced the love of God, the natural consequence is that our own selfishness, guilt, shame, anger, hatred, jealously, lack of forgiveness and lack of gratefulness, etc. “burns” within us, leading us eventually to the same condition that Judas Iscariot experienced--the burning desire to annihilate ourselves, to end our consciousness.

Reminds me of the Eastern Orthodox approach to heaven and hell: A rejection of God is hell.

Perhaps before entertaining these, I would ask whether eternal conscious torment (ECT) or annihilation has alienated more thinkers over history. What do you think?

ECT, no doubt, but that's due to its dominance in Christian history. I'd suppose should they have had equal popularity that ECT would still retain the title of most alienating, as eternal slumber is far less terrifying than eternal suffering to most people.

I would challenge you to provide evidence for one single culture of people who live together in peace and prosperity, love, compassion, empathy, etc., who did NOT have a Judeo-Christian background of some sort, or similar beliefs in God.

Weird challenge.

Now, tell that to those who use a few obscure texts of the Bible to build a Dante-like-narrative of a literal ever-burning hell.

The lake of fire is hardly obscure.

Heaven is the carrot, hell is the stick.

I suppose in the absence of an all-knowing, all-seeing and all encompassing power that can pass judgement instantly on whatever we do, the thought and idea behind “going to hell” for doing something bad acts as a motivator to “be a good person”.

“Character is what you are in the dark” taken along with the above means that such teachings are for those moments when you are alone with only your thoughts and beliefs stopping you from doing something wrong -- it is easy to do the right thing when all eyes are on us and the expectation is to do right.

I get what you're saying, I'm just having a hard time figuring out how it's a reply to the rest of what's happened in this thread.

…. I'm not even Christian, but have Christians even read the bible? Biblically speaking what happens to non-Christians is that they are left in a area not outside of Yahweh's kingdom and heaven is described as being with god and singing him praise. The concept of hell comes from other religions.

Name me one passage in the bible where there's fire and brimstone.

Revelation 20:10-15, KJV. If you've read the thread you'll recognize I cited this earlier, just a different translation, which rendered it as fire and sulfur instead of fire and brimstone.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Yea… the “lake of fire” is always a thorny one because of how many ways it can be interpreted. Unfortunately, so many people jump to reductionistic conclusions. In so many texts of the Bible, literal fire is merely used for cleansing purposes or refining purposes. The historic site of Gehenna (the valley of Gehon) is a classic example. With perhaps extremely rare exception, no one was sent there for purposes of torture or torment. When poor people’s corpses and dead fetuses were thrown there, the fire and the worms didn’t kill or torture them--the purpose was to destroy (to clean up) things that were already dead. In other texts, the word “corruption” is used in conjunction with scattered bones, a clear symbol of death and decay. What is the purpose of the lake of fire? Perhaps the answer is found in the last two chapters of Revelation. God’s plan is to recreate this world and start things over again, after the universe has witnessed, and now fully understands the natural consequences of “sin” versus the natural consequences of living according to God’s “law of design”, we might say--love, grace, honor, etc. It says that in this new world, there will be no more death, graves, pain, crying, etc. Obviously, this is going to require a massive clean-up of this terribly corrupt world… hence, the need for a “lake of fire”.

As someone who left Christianity for this exact reason (intitially) I think “fixing” hell would involve a change not just of quality but also of duration. Now I’m not a fan of punitive justice anymore anyway, but when I did buy into it, my main problem was the eternal nature of the punishment. I thought that in order for a punishment to be just it must fit the crime. But, since every crime is finite, infinite punishment could never be justified.

Now when we look at what crime actually puts a person in hell it becomes even more distressing. According to Romans 3:23 “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. People deserve God’s wrath for not being perfect. For not meeting a standard that is impossible to meet. For not meeting a standard that God created us knowing we could not meet. And for missing a mark we had no choice but to miss, we deserve eternal punishment.

But there’s a way out. Just join our religion and believe as we do in Jesus Christ (oh and preferably follow our laws and donate to the church) and you can be safe too. But for everyone else who isn’t exposed to the concept of Jesus or simply don’t believe in him due to lack of evidence or because you belong to another religion? You people deserve eternal punishment for not being perfect and not following our religion.

So that’s my problem with hell. It essentially boils down to a threat. Believe as we do or face eternal punishment for a crime that was impossible to avoid. Things like torture or fire and brimstone are simply icing on the cake.

Perhaps the answer is found in the last two chapters of Revelation.

Revelation 22:17.

The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.”
And let everyone who hears say, “Come.”
And let everyone who is thirsty come.
Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift.

@Tchefuncte: There's several responses. Christianity is not limited to that American evangelical approach.

Firstly, there's the notion of natural consequences. This takes an annihilationist tactic. Jesus is the life; if you don't chose Jesus, you don't choose life. That necessarily means you'll die. It's not that you'll be punished, but just that you're gonna die because you're dying right now and Jesus is the only cure. I know it's easy to read the Bible in a punitive way, but I've worked through it, and I'm not unique in that.

The other major thing is about exposure to the concept of Jesus. The Bible is clear on this topic: you can get saved without knowing about Jesus (directly, at least).

It's a bit of an argument, so I'm just gonna present it in simple premise-premise-conclusion format.

• Jesus is God. (The Word was with God, and the Word was God.)
• We can know the divine nature – "How God acts" – through creation. (Romans 1:20)
• Conclusion: We can know how Jesus acted through creation.

• We are to act as Jesus acted. (1 Jn 2:6)
• We can know how Jesus acted through creation.
• Conclusion: We can know how to act through creation.

• We are saved by faith. (Ephesians 2:8)
• Faith is action. (Hebrews 11)
• Conclusion: We are saved via action.

• We can know how to act through creation.
• We are saved via action.
• Conclusion: We can be saved through creation.

I'm missing some nuances, but that's the gist of it. I'm essentially advocating for the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) approach, if you wanna read more. I don't want to turn this into an ongoing soapbox to proselytize my views.

this guy is the greatest shitposter of all time; anyone who thinks that this post doesn't make sense on a meme site just doesn't understand the level he's on. he's transcended humor, the fact that he's having a humorless, rational discourse on theology is the punchline to the joke, and the joke is the fact of what a joke is. you're all just playing catch-up.

> How would you warn other human beings of the “hell” of suicidal thoughts and feelings--guilt, shame, resentments, anger, jealously, self-condemnation and the inability to forgive even yourself?

Are any of these things expressions of the punitive justice of God? That any of these ideas is an expression of hellfire contradicts your initial conception of hell as a place of punishment for sin.

The upset and disorder and confusion of the pain in this world does seem rather hellish, just as the wholeness and peace of love seems heavenly. But it would be pretty bad theology to suggest that shame and anger and such are punishments sent by God for our sins, so framing hell entirely as "the place of eternal punishment for sin" might not be quite as right as "the place that Christ saves us from."

I think it would be more accurate to say that Christ saves us from separation from God (He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, "Show us the Father"?) than that He saves us from the punitive wrath of God. We need a Mediator to reconcile us to God not so much because original sin provoked a need in God to see His sense of justice appeased; that is, not because of a need deep within God to punish those who do wrong proportional to the wrong they've done, but rather, we need a Mediator to reconcile us to the Father in that we've become separated from Him deep within our hearts, and not deep within our legal standing before Him.

Hell is not so much the pain of the divine wrath responding to sin as it is the pain of the sin itself. Angry and resentful and self-condemning pains are a taste of hell because they're the experience of being made incomplete, broken, not wholly oneself. The contrast is that the wholeness and harmony of being fully oneself in the experiences of love, charity, vulnerability with others are a taste of heaven.

In short, I think that the idea of hell as the place God sends us punitively in response to sin doesn't square well with the idea these things you've listed are hell, but hell as the place of pain from which Christ saves us -- that place we go ourselves against God's sending, which is sin, fits much more neatly into the idea that our brokenness here on earth is hell.

I am amazed and delighted at the depth of thought here--hadn’t really expected it. My thoughts resonate with virtually every other person on this thread, especially Tchefuncte Bonaparte. I think that common sense tells most of us that authentic love, admiration and emulation can never be generated by someone holding a gun to our head and demanding it (i.e. the threat of a punitive hell scenario).

Why have so many do-gooder self-appointed people who presume to represent God insisted that God is an eager and wrathful punisher? So many stories of the Bible reveal just the opposite. After the first murder in history, did God come down to Cain and say; “I’m so angry that you broke my rules… I am going to have to punish you for eternity in order for my sense of justice to be satisfied”? No. It is clear from the narrative that God came on behalf of the victim, Able, metaphorically saying that his blood was crying out from the ground. The same metaphor was used in the narrative leading up to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. So many other texts connect the dots between God’s “justice” directly to the protection of the innocent, weak, dependent, etc. and to the restoration of, and to the victims of injustice.

Now, for a real epiphany, read I Corinthians 13, verse 5 in the New Living Translation. The end of the verse says that love…keeps no record or takes no account of being wronged. Elsewhere, God is describes most simply as being love. Hence, we should understand that when God does take account of injustices, it is not because of His personal offense--it can only be because of His impulse and resolve to protect those who do not deserve to experience injustice. Instead of painting God as an eager punisher, this paradigm sees Him as a reluctant punisher, yet one who does not shirk His judicial responsibilities. As I asked before, who of us would admire, worship or love a God who would shirk such responsibility or who would abstain from trying to rectify the problem of injustice in the world (meaning eventually, not necessarily immediately)?

And even in God’s reluctant punishment of the wicked, it does not mean that natural consequences are not the operative force, simply being allowed or facilitated by God. Once you begin to accommodate this possibility in your brain, so many of the Bible’s obscure texts take on a new meaning and God’s character takes on an entirely more reasonable and wonderful light, IMHO.

In my OP, I eluded to a second question. I noticed a quotation in an earlier thread which was attributed to Epicurus. It represented human speculations and calculations regarding God’s nature or character:
*
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
*

This represents a classical example of reductionism; oversimplification. If someone has the potential to do something, does that automatically mean that they MUST do it… that they have no right to withhold their abilities, due to complex considerations? So many people’s impulse is to put God in a box, so to speak… a box designed by human proportions, concepts and limitations. This represents classic pagan thought, not Authentic Hebrew or Christian thought.