The hellfire belief

[fallingblood]

I dunno, from what I can see the most ancient religions didn't have a hell belief equivilent to the Christo-Islamic view. The Jews don't ascribe to it. I'd go as far to call this belief original to Christianity.

Actually, the belief began to originate with the Jews (I'm talking about the Christian view). It then evolved into something else.

Really, other cultures had ideas similar to hell, or at least proto-type hell that later evolved into something very different.

Outhouse is right here, the concept of hell has drastically evolved.

 

[fallingblood]

you people are all torturous vengful little creatures aren't you?
hell is there to purify the anti-agnostics and anti-agnostic tendencies, to various degrees.

We people? Agnostic-theists? Whites? Fathers? Entertainers? I have no idea what you mean by you people.

And it has nothing to do with revenge, it has to do with justice. A huge difference.

 

[Penumbra]

It is a lack of understanding. If hell exists, it doesn't mean God is a terrible god. The two do not go hand in hand. Especially since the concept of hell is very diverse.

There are diverse conceptions of hell, but they all by definition lead to God not being benevolent or loving.

There is some idea that hell is simply being distant from God. There is the idea that one has to be purged of their wrong doings, and will later be with God. There is the idea that it will be eternal damnation. And those are just three of the ideas.

If a hell is temporary, it's more of a purgatory type scenario.

For all of the others, they all lead to the conclusion of an evil (or seriously incompetent) deity. The various range of imagined hell scenarios are malevolent and barbaric, but some are more sugarcoated than others. A system that involves a deity causing or allowing eternal suffering is primitive and needs to be set aside.

None of them make God terrible in themselves. They only do if one takes a very narrow view of God and hell.

No, the broad range of hells lead to the conclusion that God is terrible, if they were to exist.

Now, if there is a divine justice in the end, is it really terrible that someone who spent their entire lives torturing others not be punished? I don't think so. I think it would be unfair for them to commit atrocities all of their lives and then be rewarded with a divine paradise. That doesn't make God unloving, or terrible. It makes him a God of justice.

Justice need not involve hell, let alone an eternal one.

At worst, when an evil person dies, let them stay dead.

At best, provide a scenario to allow the accumulation of wisdom and experience.

Not really.

What would be worse than causing or allowing eternal suffering of any sort?

Only a narrow definition. It is a matter or simply having a narrow view. I personally don't agree with the hellfire belief, but I then don't make an ignorant statement about that god.

Now that is assuming one knows what hell is. And really, those ideas can fit into a God who is loving. Because God is also called a god of Justice. And those are just parts of a divine justice.

Some things lead logically to others.

A being that would cause or allow eternal suffering leads to the logical conclusion that such a god is not benevolent or loving. People that believe they can find happiness with knowledge that others are suffering eternally, by definition, have a deficiency in empathy. It's not a matter of ignorant judgment, it's a matter of recognizing logical conclusions and definitions.

 

[fallingblood]

There are diverse conceptions of hell, but they all by definition lead to God not being benevolent or loving.

Not at all. The idea that being in hell is simply a distance from God, how is that terrible? How does that show that God is not loving? There is no torture, one is simply distanced from God.

If a hell is temporary, it's more of a purgatory type scenario.

For all of the others, they all lead to the conclusion of an evil (or seriously incompetent) deity. The various range of imagined hell scenarios are malevolent and barbaric, but some are more sugarcoated than others. A system that involves a deity causing or allowing eternal suffering is primitive and needs to be set aside.

Only if you have the preconceived notion. The fact that many Christians, as well as others, do not come to that conclusion would show that you're wrong.

No, the broad range of hells lead to the conclusion that God is terrible, if they were to exist.

Justice need not involve hell, let alone an eternal one.

At worst, when an evil person dies, let them stay dead.

At best, provide a scenario to allow the accumulation of wisdom and experience.

They only lead to that conclusion if you are predetermined to that conclusion from the get go. A misunderstanding of the nature of God (if he exists), and the nature of hell would help with this predetermined idea.

Justice, from the perspective of many people, need to have a punishment. For some, the punishment simply is a person not being able to go to heaven, and spending eternity with God. I don't see how that makes God terrible. Especially if there is no torturing or the like.

What would be worse than causing or allowing eternal suffering of any sort?

Depends on what that eternal suffering would be. The fact is, it could be much worse to suffer in this life, with a human body, than in the afterlife with a spiritual body. Personally, I find suffering in this world to be much worse than what could possibly happen in the afterworld.

Some things lead logically to others.

A being that would cause or allow eternal suffering leads to the logical conclusion that such a god is not benevolent or loving. People that believe they can find happiness with knowledge that others are suffering eternally, by definition, have a deficiency in empathy. It's not a matter of ignorant judgment, it's a matter of recognizing logical conclusions and definitions.

It doesn't lead to that logical conclusion. The only reason you come to the conclusion is because you are predetermined to accept that conclusion.

I myself an not a Christian. I don't think the Bible accurately portrays what a god would be like, if one existed. More so, I don't believe in hell. Yet, I can still come to the conclusion that God is loving.

You are not coming to logical conclusions. Your conclusions are defined by your preconceived ideas and definitions that you have created.

 

[Penumbra]

Not at all. The idea that being in hell is simply a distance from God, how is that terrible? How does that show that God is not loving? There is no torture, one is simply distanced from God.

I've yet to see a theist say that those that are separated from god are happy and filled with a sense of well-being and freedom.

If one does, then sure, that's not suffering, and that's not much of a hell.

Only if you have the preconceived notion. The fact that many Christians, as well as others, do not come to that conclusion would show that you're wrong.

Or it shows that they are wrong. Those that believe in and condone eternal suffering are showcasing negative attributes of themselves that they would do well to address.

They only lead to that conclusion if you are predetermined to that conclusion from the get go. A misunderstanding of the nature of God (if he exists), and the nature of hell would help with this predetermined idea.

It's not a misunderstanding of god or hell. There are a variety of conceptions hell.

For eternal ones:
-Some believe god sends people to be eternally tortured.
-Some believe that god set up a system that allows people to end up in a place of eternal torture, but they "send their selves there".
-Some believe that god merely separates a person from him, and that they suffer for an eternity as a result in darkness or whatnot.
-Some believe that all go to the presence of god, but that his presence causes some to feel eternally joyful and some to feel eternal suffering.
-etc.

And then there are temporary ones, such as:
-Buddhist or Hindu temporary hells that one exists in until negative karma is spent.
-Purgatory; some type of cleansing that causes suffering of some sort.

And then there are more advanced things that aren't really hells, such as:
-People simply staying dead.
-People realizing the error of their ways, which causes them some suffering but allows them to grow and change.

Any scenario that involves God causing or allowing eternal suffering lacks benevolence and love, and is instead malevolent and barbaric.

Justice, from the perspective of many people, need to have a punishment. For some, the punishment simply is a person not being able to go to heaven, and spending eternity with God. I don't see how that makes God terrible. Especially if there is no torturing or the like.

Depends on what that eternal suffering would be. The fact is, it could be much worse to suffer in this life, with a human body, than in the afterlife with a spiritual body. Personally, I find suffering in this world to be much worse than what could possibly happen in the afterworld.
It doesn't lead to that logical conclusion. The only reason you come to the conclusion is because you are predetermined to accept that conclusion.

You're utilizing straw men. I never said that not being able to go to heaven means god is evil. I said eternal hell is.

You've used straw men since your first post in here. The OP asked how people can hold a hellfire belief, and specifically an eternally tormenting one, and still believe in a good and loving god.

You responded by saying he has a lack of understanding, and began bringing up all sorts of other beliefs like hells that supposedly aren't that unpleasant, or temporary hells, which is a complete straw man of his original post.

It's as though someone has criticized the color yellow, and you've responded by saying they don't understand, and then began talking about green and blue.

I myself an not a Christian. I don't think the Bible accurately portrays what a god would be like, if one existed. More so, I don't believe in hell. Yet, I can still come to the conclusion that God is loving.

If you don't believe in hell and conclude that God is loving, that's not a contradiction. Why even mention it?

You are not coming to logical conclusions. Your conclusions are defined by your preconceived ideas and definitions that you have created.

The conclusions are based on logic.

Allowing or causing eternal suffering is, by definition, a lack of benevolence and love. You haven't addressed that at all. It's not a preconceived idea; it's what the words mean.

Benevolence means wishing to do good to others. Love means to have affection for and the concern for others. Empathy means the ability to identify with the feelings of others. Compassion means the feeling of sorrow or sympathy for another, and the desire to alleviate suffering. To cause or allow suffering is to do the opposite of good for them, unless it improves them in some way. Eternal suffering cannot improve anyone, and is not desirable.

Therefore, to cause or allow eternal suffering is not benevolent, loving, empathetic, or compassionate. To believe in and condone eternal suffering is not benevolent, loving, empathetic, or compassionate.

 

[fallingblood]

I've yet to see a theist say that those that are separated from god are happy and filled with a sense of well-being and freedom.

If one does, then sure, that's not suffering, and that's not much of a hell.

I think this is one of the problems. The idea of hell being fire and brimstone is so engrained with one type of hell they can't see anything else.

Being separated from God does not mean that one has to be suffering, and that still can qualify as well. It may feel unbearable, but that doesn't equate to suffering. Life seems unbearable at time, and it may feel one depressed, but people can live with it and still have somewhat of a happiness.

The concept of hell is still changing. It is tending to go to more of a state of loss. But again, that is not suffering per se.

To keep such a narrow view of hell simply does not do well when the concept has been changing for quite some time.

Or it shows that they are wrong. Those that believe in and condone eternal suffering are showcasing negative attributes of themselves that they would do well to address.

Or they were simply taught that way from a young age and those ideas die hard. Especially for those who do not think of the idea very much at all. There are many more factors involved that you are seemingly giving credit to.

It's not a misunderstanding of god or hell. There are a variety of conceptions hell.

For eternal ones:
-Some believe god sends people to be eternally tortured.
-Some believe that god set up a system that allows people to end up in a place of eternal torture, but they "send their selves there".
-Some believe that god merely separates a person from him, and that they suffer for an eternity as a result in darkness or whatnot.
-Some believe that all go to the presence of god, but that his presence causes some to feel eternally joyful and some to feel eternal suffering.
-etc.

And then there are temporary ones, such as:
-Buddhist or Hindu temporary hells that one exists in until negative karma is spent.
-Purgatory; some type of cleansing that causes suffering of some sort.

And then there are more advanced things that aren't really hells, such as:
-People simply staying dead.
-People realizing the error of their ways, which causes them some suffering but allows them to grow and change.

Any scenario that involves God causing or allowing eternal suffering lacks benevolence and love, and is instead malevolent and barbaric.

First, you are missing many ideas of hell. And you are too quick to say that some aspects would be considered suffering. Do you think you would suffer if there was a God, who, after you died, made you live in a realm distant from him? I highly doubt it.

However, your definitions of love and benevolence are too black and white. Does a mother who calls the cops on her son for committing an atrocity, fully knowing that she is essentially sending her son to prison for the rest of his life, not love that son? Is she barbaric and malevolent? Now, if she is an atheist, and believes that this is the only life one has, wouldn't that be unloving? For all intensive purpose, she is sending her son to a place that can be described as hell.

By what you're saying, she must not love her son, and she must be malevolent and barbaric. However, that does not need to be the case. Instead, she could greatly love her son, but be aware that he needs to be punished for his deeds. Yes, we don't have the term eternal here, but I think that is a minor point in this regard. Because the fact is, one can still be loving, yet see that people need to be punished. That there needs to be a sort of justice out there.

You're utilizing straw men. I never said that not being able to go to heaven means god is evil. I said eternal hell is.

I never said you did. I was simply talking about different ideas of justice. And really, this requires a broader term of hell. Having such a narrow one simply does not work. The reason being that the concept of hell is still changing.

Hell does not require torturing. It could simply mean that a person has to live on Earth, away from God in heaven.

You've used straw men since your first post in here. The OP asked how people can hold a hellfire belief, and specifically an eternally tormenting one, and still believe in a good and loving god.

The OP based his question on a very narrow mindset, that honestly is quite ignorant. Looking at other posts of his, I see no reason not to assume this post is more about attacking the idea of the Abrahamic God than anything else. He has a tendency to do so, and usually they are based on ignorant and narrow minded ideas.

Because of that, I see that it is more productive to use a broader view of hell, especially since the concept has been changing for quite some time.

Either way, people obviously can hold such a narrow view of hell, and still see God is good and loving. Many are quite educated folk.

Finally, the OP was more about calling the Abrahamic God evil than anything else.

You responded by saying he has a lack of understanding, and began bringing up all sorts of other beliefs like hells that supposedly aren't that unpleasant, or temporary hells, which is a complete straw man of his original post.

Not at all. It shows that he has a lack of understanding. The fact that he would hold such a narrow view shows that he has a lack of understanding. Because really, the view he is putting forth is not necessarily the most predominant view of hell anymore. It is one that is loosing ground among various groups; especially the more liberal crowd, which is growing in the Christian community.

Focusing an argument on a flawed idea does not make for a great argument. That is what the OP did. He assumed that if hell exists, it has to be one of fire and brimstone. And thus God must be evil. Instead, he should have questioned whether or not that narrow view is the correct one.

It's as though someone has criticized the color yellow, and you've responded by saying they don't understand, and then began talking about green and blue.

Not a very good analogy. It would be more like someone looking at a color tv and saying it all looks black and white to them. Then me responding and detailing the color of the set.

If you don't believe in hell and conclude that God is loving, that's not a contradiction. Why even mention it?

It seems I left some information out. I was referring to the idea that I can still see God as loving even if I take that narrow view of hell.

The conclusions are based on logic.

Flawed logic.

Allowing or causing eternal suffering is, by definition, a lack of benevolence and love. You haven't addressed that at all. It's not a preconceived idea; it's what the words mean.

No it's not. Maybe a lack of benevolence, but that is besides the point. We are talking about loving. One does not have to be benevolent to be loving. The two do not rely on each other.

God can love everyone, yet if God seeks equal justice, that could mean people being punished. Perhaps that punishment is torturing, yet that doesn't mean God doesn't love that person. In fact, as far as we know, that could weigh very heavily on God, and he could be tormented by the fact that is what he ends up finding to be justice.

Your definition of love is not fitting here. Many parents have to punish their kids in ways that they believe is torture. Does that mean they don't love them? Some parents have to send their kids to prison, which can be like hell on Earth, does that mean they don't love them? No.

Benevolence means wishing to do good to others. Love means to have affection for and the concern for others. Empathy means the ability to identify with the feelings of others. Compassion means the feeling of sorrow or sympathy for another, and the desire to alleviate suffering. To cause or allow suffering is to do the opposite of good for them, unless it improves them in some way. Eternal suffering cannot improve anyone, and is not desirable.

We are talking about love. So your other definitions really don't factor in. More so, you can't say that eternal suffering cannot improve anyone, and is not desirable. You are assuming that. For all we know, it could greatly improve some people. Maybe it would make them understand the pain that they caused others and thus become better people. You really can't say so.

More so, God can send people to hell and still have affection and concern for those people. For all you know, it could be very difficult for God to issue that punishment.

Therefore, to cause or allow eternal suffering is not benevolent, loving, empathetic, or compassionate. To believe in and condone eternal suffering is not benevolent, loving, empathetic, or compassionate.

We are talking about loving. And really, your logic here is flawed. You are using the assumption that everyone who is loving must be all those other qualities. That they could do nothing that would harm or allow suffering. That simply is not true.

You are using narrow view of God, hell, and the nature of both. That simply doesn't work. And really, in order to battle an ignorant view, such as the idea of hell being an eternal place of fire and brimstone, it doesn't work to attack it with other ignorant views, that hell is a place of fire and brimstone and thus God must be evil. It will get nowhere. That is a place where the OP is flawed greatly.

 

[Penumbra]

I think this is one of the problems. The idea of hell being fire and brimstone is so engrained with one type of hell they can't see anything else.

Well, I can't speak for the OP but I have observed he knows a thing or two about religions. He's not ignorant on the subject. He's got threads on all sorts of religions.

He selected this particular belief to discuss (which sadly is quite common in some places in the world). And in response, you've put forth straw men that have nothing to do with what he said or with what I said. Temporary hells and hells that not so bad are not what the OP addressed.

Being separated from God does not mean that one has to be suffering, and that still can qualify as well. It may feel unbearable, but that doesn't equate to suffering. Life seems unbearable at time, and it may feel one depressed, but people can live with it and still have somewhat of a happiness.

The concept of hell is still changing. It is tending to go to more of a state of loss. But again, that is not suffering per se.

If something is unbearable, they are suffering.

If one feels loss, or pain, or any negative emotion for an eternity, it's eternal suffering.

To keep such a narrow view of hell simply does not do well when the concept has been changing for quite some time.

No one said anything about "keeping" any particular view of hell.

But the fact is, lots of people believe this sort of hell and that's what the OP addressed, and what I addressed.

Or they were simply taught that way from a young age and those ideas die hard. Especially for those who do not think of the idea very much at all. There are many more factors involved that you are seemingly giving credit to.
First, you are missing many ideas of hell. And you are too quick to say that some aspects would be considered suffering. Do you think you would suffer if there was a God, who, after you died, made you live in a realm distant from him? I highly doubt it.

If he made me live for an eternity without the option to die? Sure, that would be hell.

However, your definitions of love and benevolence are too black and white. Does a mother who calls the cops on her son for committing an atrocity, fully knowing that she is essentially sending her son to prison for the rest of his life, not love that son? Is she barbaric and malevolent? Now, if she is an atheist, and believes that this is the only life one has, wouldn't that be unloving? For all intensive purpose, she is sending her son to a place that can be described as hell.

By what you're saying, she must not love her son, and she must be malevolent and barbaric. However, that does not need to be the case. Instead, she could greatly love her son, but be aware that he needs to be punished for his deeds. Yes, we don't have the term eternal here, but I think that is a minor point in this regard. Because the fact is, one can still be loving, yet see that people need to be punished. That there needs to be a sort of justice out there.

Sorry, but prison cannot be compared to an eternity of suffering.

I never said you did. I was simply talking about different ideas of justice. And really, this requires a broader term of hell. Having such a narrow one simply does not work. The reason being that the concept of hell is still changing.

Hell does not require torturing. It could simply mean that a person has to live on Earth, away from God in heaven.
The OP based his question on a very narrow mindset, that honestly is quite ignorant. Looking at other posts of his, I see no reason not to assume this post is more about attacking the idea of the Abrahamic God than anything else. He has a tendency to do so, and usually they are based on ignorant and narrow minded ideas.

Because of that, I see that it is more productive to use a broader view of hell, especially since the concept has been changing for quite some time.

Either way, people obviously can hold such a narrow view of hell, and still see God is good and loving. Many are quite educated folk.

Finally, the OP was more about calling the Abrahamic God evil than anything else.
Not at all. It shows that he has a lack of understanding. The fact that he would hold such a narrow view shows that he has a lack of understanding. Because really, the view he is putting forth is not necessarily the most predominant view of hell anymore. It is one that is loosing ground among various groups; especially the more liberal crowd, which is growing in the Christian community.

Focusing an argument on a flawed idea does not make for a great argument. That is what the OP did. He assumed that if hell exists, it has to be one of fire and brimstone. And thus God must be evil. Instead, he should have questioned whether or not that narrow view is the correct one.
Not a very good analogy. It would be more like someone looking at a color tv and saying it all looks black and white to them. Then me responding and detailing the color of the set.
It seems I left some information out. I was referring to the idea that I can still see God as loving even if I take that narrow view of hell.
Flawed logic.
No it's not. Maybe a lack of benevolence, but that is besides the point. We are talking about loving. One does not have to be benevolent to be loving. The two do not rely on each other.

God can love everyone, yet if God seeks equal justice, that could mean people being punished. Perhaps that punishment is torturing, yet that doesn't mean God doesn't love that person. In fact, as far as we know, that could weigh very heavily on God, and he could be tormented by the fact that is what he ends up finding to be justice.

Your definition of love is not fitting here. Many parents have to punish their kids in ways that they believe is torture. Does that mean they don't love them? Some parents have to send their kids to prison, which can be like hell on Earth, does that mean they don't love them? No.
We are talking about love. So your other definitions really don't factor in. More so, you can't say that eternal suffering cannot improve anyone, and is not desirable. You are assuming that. For all we know, it could greatly improve some people. Maybe it would make them understand the pain that they caused others and thus become better people. You really can't say so.

More so, God can send people to hell and still have affection and concern for those people. For all you know, it could be very difficult for God to issue that punishment.


We are talking about loving. And really, your logic here is flawed. You are using the assumption that everyone who is loving must be all those other qualities. That they could do nothing that would harm or allow suffering. That simply is not true.

You are using narrow view of God, hell, and the nature of both. That simply doesn't work. And really, in order to battle an ignorant view, such as the idea of hell being an eternal place of fire and brimstone, it doesn't work to attack it with other ignorant views, that hell is a place of fire and brimstone and thus God must be evil. It will get nowhere. That is a place where the OP is flawed greatly.

Almost all of this is completely irrelevant to the OP and to what I said.

The OP mentioned the hellfire belief, and mentioned eternal torment. This is a well-known belief, and he commented on it. And I agreed with his OP. It's not "ignorant" to highlight a specific belief, nor does it mean that one does not understand that other beliefs exist. I don't understand why you don't see how straightforward this is. Everything else is a straw man.

And as per your comments regarding eternal hell, all I can do is .

For instance,

More so, you can't say that eternal suffering cannot improve anyone, and is not desirable. You are assuming that. For all we know, it could greatly improve some people. Maybe it would make them understand the pain that they caused others and thus become better people. You really can't say so.

How can eternal suffering improve someone or be desirable? There is no assumption involved. How could they possibly improve if they are suffering eternally?

I feel like I need one of those Captain Picard facepalm pictures.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Correct Pnuembra, I was speaking about this eternal hell idea. This idea some put forth of not accepting Jesus, so going to a lake of literal fire and brimstone for all eternity, while acting as though this lines up with a good god.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, I can't speak for the OP but I have observed he knows a thing or two about religions. He's not ignorant on the subject. He's got threads on all sorts of religions.

He selected this particular belief to discuss (which sadly is quite common in some places in the world). And in response, you've put forth straw men that have nothing to do with what he said or with what I said. Temporary hells and hells that not so bad are not what the OP addressed.

He does have threads on all sorts of religions, and many of those threads are condescending, arrogant, and ignorant.

As for this particular thread, I see it just as one more attempt of his to attack the Abrahamic faiths, which he has a tendency to do so. More so, I have briefly addressed his actual idea, and also explained why his initial argument is narrow and flawed. I've also explained why, in my view, he is wrong. I have addressed how a loving God can condemn people to an eternal punishment.

Really though, I just found the OP flawed by focusing on only one idea of hell, which is not necessarily supported completely by the Bible. I saw it as nothing more than a lame attempt to once again attack the Abrahamic God based on a very narrow view of God and hell.

If something is unbearable, they are suffering.

If one feels loss, or pain, or any negative emotion for an eternity, it's eternal suffering.

That doesn't seem very bad. I really don't see how that can qualify God as being terrible then. Because just because one suffers by feeling loss, it doesn't mean it is overwhelming, where they only feel that.

If hell is simple feeling loss, but being able to feel other emotions as well, I wouldn't mind that.

No one said anything about "keeping" any particular view of hell.

But the fact is, lots of people believe this sort of hell and that's what the OP addressed, and what I addressed.

My point is that there is no reason to continue spreading this narrow view. Complaining about how God could do this, and calling him evil because he sends people to this particular view of hell doesn't do anything except spread ignorance, and cause more problems. That is a main problem I have with the OP.

That is why I have addressed the notion of other views of hell, other views that are becoming much more popular. I agree lots of people believe in this view of hell, but it is a view that is loosing followers. Especially in the more liberal congregations.

That is why I addressed this subject in the way that I did. I find it a lot more productive to discuss other views of hell, then simply call God evil because of a narrow view of hell that is not entirely even supported in the Bible.

Sorry, but prison cannot be compared to an eternity of suffering.

It's the best analogy that I think works. And it still gets the same point across. That someone who loves another can place someone the love into a place of suffering.

Almost all of this is completely irrelevant to the OP and to what I said.

It's addressing both. It's addressing the major flaw in the OP, specifically the narrow view it holds. As well as the idea that God can be loving and send someone to an eternal hell.

The OP mentioned the hellfire belief, and mentioned eternal torment. This is a well-known belief, and he commented on it. And I agreed with his OP. It's not "ignorant" to highlight a specific belief, nor does it mean that one does not understand that other beliefs exist. I don't understand why you don't see how straightforward this is. Everything else is a straw man.

It's ignorant to purport that is "the" belief. Focusing on just one belief in order to call the Abrahamic God evil is ignorant. That was the real point. God is evil because he sends people to hell. It never addresses the possibility that there is a different opinion. And really, he never supports his case. He simply calls it terrible and leaves it at that.

More so, I've already addressed how a loving God can do something like what the OP states.

And as per your comments regarding eternal hell, all I can do is .

I addressed what you wanted.

For instance,
How can eternal suffering improve someone or be desirable? There is no assumption involved. How could they possibly improve if they are suffering eternally?

I already explained that. That is what that quoted section is about.

 

[fallingblood]

God can be loving and still do something that we consider terrible. The problem here is that you are judging God by human ideas. If God exists, it can not be measured by human ideas. If God exists, the God of the Bible, then it transcends our understanding. So to try to judge it by our standards simply can't work. And that is what is trying to be done.

More so, I don't see why those who don't follow the Abrahamic God spend so much time trying to demonize it. They spend so much time relying on ignorant and narrow views to demonize God while ignoring everything else. It really is ridiculous.

 

[matthewm]

[youtube]4kSJjoEr77U[/youtube]

Eternal torment is a lie and comes from the deciever

[God]Do not be deceived, My beloved ones, by him who is a very subtle deceiver. He knows his time draws short, and so he goes out to deceive by this one doctrine - That all have eternal life, whether they believe and accept the Son, or whether they forbear and reject Life. He is deceived, and deceives, being also the father of lies, saying within himself, 'I will be like the Most High. I will live forever'... Believe him not.

 

[wordmagnifiedabovenames]

How can a person hold such a belief and still believe in a good and loving god?

Hell is mentioned in the Bible. So is a verse that says "God is love." There are lots of examples of God being loving in the Bible. It's quite easy to believe both.

However, to decide if a person subscribed to the "hellfire" belief, the "hellfire" belief would first have to be defined, which so far hasn't been done in this thread.

If it's the belief that God sends people to Hell forever not believing in Him I don't agree with it. I think the God created man to be eternal, and at the moment man (at least the people who are living on earth today) is having an earthly experience. I think that everyone has messed up somewhere, sometime during this life. I think that only perfect people can get into Heaven. If a person was perfect then there should be no reason why that person should not be allowed into Heaven. However, I only know of one person who is perfect.

Staying on earth is not a choice; earthly bodies are finite, and the earth itself is finite. Heaven is not an option unless one becomes perfect. Thankfully God made a way for that to happen. If one chooses to not become perfect and earth and Heaven aren't options, then there's really only one alternative left for eternity.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Hell is mentioned in the Bible. So is a verse that says "God is love." There are lots of examples of God being loving in the Bible. It's quite easy to believe both.

However, to decide if a person subscribed to the "hellfire" belief, the "hellfire" belief would first have to be defined, which so far hasn't been done in this thread.

If it's the belief that God sends people to Hell forever not believing in Him I don't agree with it. I think the God created man to be eternal, and at the moment man (at least the people who are living on earth today) is having an earthly experience. I think that everyone has messed up somewhere, sometime during this life. I think that only perfect people can get into Heaven. If a person was perfect then there should be no reason why that person should not be allowed into Heaven. However, I only know of one person who is perfect.

Staying on earth is not a choice; earthly bodies are finite, and the earth itself is finite. Heaven is not an option unless one becomes perfect. Thankfully God made a way for that to happen. If one chooses to not become perfect and earth and Heaven aren't options, then there's really only one alternative left for eternity.

You don't realize it word, but in not so few words you're basically saying god created people for hell.

 

[Luminous]

We people? Agnostic-theists? Whites? Fathers? Entertainers? I have no idea what you mean by you people.

And it has nothing to do with revenge, it has to do with justice. A huge difference.

I meant the general people that had posted before me in agreement for the existance of eternal torture.
what is justice except a codified form of revenge.
hell is not justice, it is consequence and means of purification.

 

[wordmagnifiedabovenames]

You don't realize it word, but in not so few words you're basically saying god created people for hell.

No, I'm saying God created people for eternity, told them what He wanted them to do (which was to be in Heaven, or at least an earthly paradise, certainly not Hell,) explained to them what would happen if they went against His instructions, then gave them the choice to choose what they wanted to do. Then He went and gave everyone a second chance anyway.

 

[asketikos]

How can a person hold such a belief and still believe in a good and loving god? Is such a belief not the opposite of goodness and love? To torment a person for all eternity for rejecting belief in him? We might call a parent good for correcting their child when they disobey, but would we call them good if they eternally corrected their child?

I am calling on people here to search their feelings and realize how un-loving and terrible this belief really is. You cannot call this love, it is quite the opposite. If this belief is correct, this is a terrible god to believe in.

I understand your question, and I think we all have this question - at least I think Christians do - when we learn about the faith.

You have to put it into contexts. You are not going to hell if you disobey god in the sense of a child disobeying their parents - for example, staying up all night watching television or having ice-cream before dinner, etc. You cannot compare mortal relationships w/ the transcendant relationship between man and God.

Secondly, in this faith you are given a choice -- you can be a sinner or a saint. You can live a life devoted to message of Christ (love), and help those in need, and turn the other cheek, and focus on your spirit rather than your selfish bodily desires -- or you can just do as you please on this earth. This is your choice.

Everything has consequences.

The concept of heaven and hell goes along w/ the concept of good and evil; science cannot address these issues.

Finally, from a certain worldview, a person does not just choose what god or gods he worships, because all created gods are false gods - except for the one god who created the universe.

If one lives a saintly life, or a life in imitation of Christ, then the fear of God is transformed into love, connection to God, and to others. It's not about Hell.

In other words -- people are in Hell not because they don't want to be in Heaven, but because they choose to, they choose to reject God.

I hope this answers some questions.

 

[Luminous]

No, I'm saying God created people for eternity, told them what He wanted them to do (which was to be in Heaven, or at least an earthly paradise, certainly not Hell,) explained to them what would happen if they went against His instructions, then gave them the choice to choose what they wanted to do. Then He went and gave everyone a second chance anyway.

such anti-agnostic theories are perhaps not capable of being definitely refuted, but
they can be shown to be groundless:
I must already be getting alzheimer's already because i don't remember that particular incident.
nor do i understand how second anything can be part of perfection...second usually means "not the first". a second chance implies the first one was not perfect, implying imperfection.
i don't see how male worship is normal or perfect.
I also don't remeber asking to be "created".
I also don't see how i am the same person i was yesterday,
maybe similar, but not the same.

 

[fallingblood]

I meant the general people that had posted before me in agreement for the existance of eternal torture.
what is justice except a codified form of revenge.
hell is not justice, it is consequence and means of purification.

Justice is not a codified form of revenge. I think justice needs to prevail, and it has nothing to do with revenge. It is only revenge if justice was only to be served to those who had wronged me. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I would like to see a complete justice, where people who committed atrocities (like Hitler, who did nothing to me) are punished.

It has nothing to do with revenge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does any crime a human can commit merit eternal torment? I mean do people really think about eternal torment? Eternal

I don't think so. IMO, eternal punishment is necessarily unjust punishment.

I mean, imagine Adolf Hitler in Hell. What would his actions in life warrant for a punishment?

Even if we picked something at the severe end of the scale - say 1000 years of torment for every murder that resulted from his commands - you'd be done in about 10 billion years.

Say you were extra-sadistic and decided to double the sentence just to make him suffer more... still, we're only at 20 billion years.

After a trillion years of torment or so, even the most ardent hater of Hitler would probably be saying "okay, stop - he's had enough." But if the punishment is eternal, it wouldn't stop... in fact, that would just be its beginning.

IMO, for a punishment to be just, it must be proportional to the crime. But an eternal punishment, by definition cannot be proportional to any finite crime.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

That's right 9-10, total agreement