Eternal hell or annihillation make no sense

[Ignatius A]

Why would a good and loving god create a place of eternal torment in the first place? Why would the only place, outside of his good graces, be this place by default? Where is the goodness and love in torment that never, ever ends

The answer to the first question will make you VERY unhappy. In spite of what you've been told there are in fact consequences for the decisions you make. You want to do whatever you like and expect that everyone will accept it. That's not how it works with God but he gave you free will. You can choose him if you can not choose him. He doesnt force anything on you but choices have consequences. If you have torment that never ever ends that's YOUR choice not God's choice.

 

[Ignatius A]

..and that's the key..
The question then becomes "will there be any souls that remain unrepentant?"

..and the answer is, unfortunately, yes.

Yes. Heaven would.be hell for the unrepentant sinner.

 

[Soandso]

The answer to the first question will make you VERY unhappy.

Alright, let's hear it!

In spite of what you've been told there are in fact consequences for the decisions you make. You want to do whatever you like and expect that everyone will accept it. That's not how it works with God but he gave you free will. You can choose him if you can not choose him. He doesnt force anything on you but choices have consequences. If you have torment that never ever ends that's YOUR choice not God's choice.

You completely sidestepped my questions and didn't answer them at all, so let's try again. They are very straight forward questions

Firstly, why would an all good and loving god create a place of eternal torment in the first place?

Secondly, why would an all good and loving god make it so the default fate for every person who isn't in his good graces to be tortured always and forever in this place of eternal torment without ceasing?

I understand actions have consequences, but that's not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the fact that the one who constructed these consequences is all good and loving. He made these rules, and he could have made them anything he wanted. We aren't just talking about torture either, but torture that just doesn't end. Doesn't seem logical to me for a loving or good god to set the stage in this way. Seems rather evil and hateful to me

 

[YoursTrue]

Alright, let's hear it!



You completely sidestepped my questions and didn't answer them at all, so let's try again. They are very straight forward questions

Firstly, why would an all good and loving god create a place of eternal torment in the first place?

Secondly, why would an all good and loving god make it so the default fate for every person who isn't in his good graces to be tortured always and forever in this place of eternal torment without ceasing?

I understand actions have consequences, but that's not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the fact that the one who constructed these consequences is all good and loving. He made these rules, and he could have made them anything. We aren't just talking about torture either, but torture that just doesn't end. Doesn't seem logical to me for a loving or good god to set the stage in this way. Seems rather evil and hateful to me

I just tuned into this conversation but would like to mention that the eternal torment in fire is symbolic of total destruction of evil and those characters unwilling to change, and also recognition by those living that whatever is "in" that destruction is not suffering but detestable to God and man. I agree that if God were to torture anyone it would be a horrible thing.

 

[Ignatius A]

Alright, let's hear it!



You completely sidestepped my questions and didn't answer them at all, so let's try again. They are very straight forward questions

Firstly, why would an all good and loving god create a place of eternal torment in the first place?

Secondly, why would an all good and loving god make it so the default fate for every person who isn't in his good graces to be tortured always and forever in this place of eternal torment without ceasing?

I understand actions have consequences, but that's not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the fact that the one who constructed these consequences is all good and loving. He made these rules, and he could have made them anything he wanted. We aren't just talking about torture either, but torture that just doesn't end. Doesn't seem logical to me for a loving or good god to set the stage in this way. Seems rather evil and hateful to me

Dont start with the silliness that I didn't answer the questions. I answered but apparently you dont like the answer or it's not the answer your looking for. I don't care what answer you're looking for. If you can't handle my answer move on. If you can then address it. Your whole response here speaks directly to what I said in my previous post. I will give you one more shot though.

To your first question, hell is properly understood as separation from God. It's not a place per se as much as a consequence. You are free to decide not to be with God. That decision has consequences.

The second question is just the drama queen version of the first. Why? BECAUSE CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES. You say you understand choices have consequences then blast God for creating the consequences. Any consequences you experience are YOUR choice not his. It's reasoning like yours that leads places like Harvard to hire an atheist to hear their religious studies department.

 

[Soandso]

I just tuned into this conversation but would like to mention that the eternal torment in fire is symbolic of total destruction of evil and those characters unwilling to change, and also recognition by those living that whatever is "in" that destruction is not suffering but detestable to God and man. I agree that if God were to torture anyone it would be a horrible thing.

Ahh, so you're an annihilist. I'd be curious to know what your thoughts are on verses that constantly refer to a place of eternal torment. Take for example Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Why constantly refer to a place that's misinterpreted to mean total destruction as a place of eternal torment? I don't get it. Why mention eternal torment at all, then?

 

[Ignatius A]

Ahh, so you're an annihilist. I'd be curious to know what your thoughts are on verses that constantly refer to a place of eternal torment. Take for example Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Why constantly refer to a place that's misinterpreted to mean total destruction as a place of eternal torment? I don't get it. Why mention eternal torment at all, then?

Because being separated from God is eternal torment.

When Jesus says, "I am the vine..." John 15:5 he doesn't think he is actually a vine and we shouldn't either right?

 

[Mock Turtle]

In agree hell is separation from God and heaven is being with God.

Free will may not be simple but it's not very complicated. Sin would separate us from God. Sin requires an act of the will, mean it's a conscious decision to do wrong. If I find a $20 bill on the sidewalk I can put it in my pocket thats not stealing. If however I see it fall out of someone pocket and I wait until they are gone and they pick it up, that stealing. I knew who it belonged to and hose to keep it. That's stealing. Not simple but not at all complicated.

If I find a gold bracelet in the gutter - with no person around as to who it might belong to - is it stealing if I make no attempt to find the owner? Given that this is what I found once - but I took it to a police station, given that I am mostly quite honest. After a month, with no one claiming it, I became the owner. I suspect it was an old lady getting out of a taxi or car and it fell off her wrist with her noticing this. And probably wealthy enough not to miss it anyway. Did the best I could - given I wasn't going to put an advert in the local paper over such.

 

[Ignatius A]

If I find a gold bracelet in the gutter - with no person around as to who it might belong to - is it stealing if I make no attempt to find the owner? Given that this is what I found once - but I took it to a police station, given that I am mostly quite honest. After a month, with no one claiming it, I became the owner. I suspect it was an old lady getting out of a taxi or car and it fell off her wrist with her noticing this. And probably wealthy enough not to miss it anyway. Did the best I could - given I wasn't going to put an advert in the local paper over such.

And?

 

[Mock Turtle]

And?

If I find a gold bracelet in the gutter - with no person around as to who it might belong to - is it stealing if I make no attempt to find the owner?

 

[Ignatius A]

If I find a gold bracelet in the gutter - with no person around as to who it might belong to - is it stealing if I make no attempt to find the owner?

Yes. If stealing is a sin then consent of the will is a necessary for sin. Keeping it without any attempt to find the owner is consent of the will.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes. If stealing is a sin then consent of the will is a necessary for sin. Keeping it without any attempt to find the owner is consent of the will.

So $20 is OK but something of greater value might not be? Where is the transition point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why?

Because or actions and sins is finitive. Infinitive punishment for finitive sins is not just.

God is loving and just. So my conclusion is that eternal hell or annhilation of the soul do not exist. That is my belief

What is your thoughts about this?

So we have the following premises and you're saying that there's a contradiction among them?

1. God exists
2. God is loving and just
3. Souls exist
4. God inflicts punishments on people's souls after death.
5. At least some of the punishments inflicted by God are infinite punishments for finite sins.

... and you resolve the contradiction by rejecting premise 5.

I agree that there's a contradiction, but it seems to me that rejecting any of the premises resolves the contradiction, so I don't see how we would choose rejecting 5 over the other options.

 

[muhammad_isa]

...
4. God inflicts punishments on people's souls after death.
...

..and what do you understand from the above?
In what way, does G-d inflict punishment?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

..and what do you understand from the above?
In what way, does G-d inflict punishment?

I don't think God exists at all to inflict any punishment. I was paraphrasing @Starlight 's argument in the OP.

 

[Ignatius A]

So $20 is OK but something of greater value might not be? Where is the transition point?

If you want to say it's OK I couldnt care less but it is different. We don't "own" $20 bills like someone who used a bunch of $20 bills to purchase (own) the gold bracelet. Unless someone memorized the serial numbers on the $20 bill you found they can't claim that specific bill is there's but someone who could describe the bracelet could make the argument that specific bracelet belongs to them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you want to say it's OK I couldnt care less but it is different. We don't "own" $20 bills like someone who used a bunch of $20 bills to purchase (own) the gold bracelet. Unless someone memorized the serial numbers on the $20 bill you found they can't claim that specific bill is there's but someone who could describe the bracelet could make the argument that specific bracelet belongs to them.

So keeping an item you find on the ground is a sin if the item is non-fungible but not a sin if it is fungible?

I'm confused.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes. Heaven would.be hell for the unrepentant sinner.

One reason it would be hell is because they could not sin anymore since there are no physical bodies in heaven, only spiritual bodies.

1 Corinthians 15
New Living Translation

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.
42 It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever.
43 Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength.
44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

 

[Ignatius A]

So keeping an item you find on the ground is a sin if the item is non-fungible but not a sin if it is fungible?

I'm confused.

I know you are

Consent of the will is the same difference regarding sin. Let's try an experiment:

If I tell you I found a $20 bill and a gold bracelet which of the two would you best be able to prove to me that the specific ones of each that I have, you own?

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you want to say it's OK I couldnt care less but it is different. We don't "own" $20 bills like someone who used a bunch of $20 bills to purchase (own) the gold bracelet. Unless someone memorized the serial numbers on the $20 bill you found they can't claim that specific bill is there's but someone who could describe the bracelet could make the argument that specific bracelet belongs to them.

But it's more about the use of the word 'sin', given there just is a grey area as to such things and not some 'law' as to such - and seemingly as to the value of anything found. Given that if I found a wad of cash I probably would have taken this to the police station too.