Isn't it obvious there should be no hell?

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I think it is quite obvious that there should be no concept of original sin where sinners are condemned to hell to suffer for eternity. I am going to explain why. It is no different than how it is quite obvious that what Hitler did to the Jews was wrong and sadistic. If you just use your gut moral instinct, then it will become quite obvious to you that what Hitler did was wrong and sadistic. However, if you were indoctrinated with some sort of teaching that taught you that what Hitler did was right and you believed this, then you would have been led away from your very morality as a human being towards a false and cruel teaching.

This false and cruel teaching would have changed your sense of morality over towards a cruel and unrighteous moral standard that you have been fooled into thinking was a righteous moral standard. When it comes to fundamentalist Christianity and other religions that teach a God who condemns even kind and respectful family members to hell for being sinners, then this is the same scenario. Anybody who believes that an all loving and all just God would do that would have been led astray from their sense of righteous morality towards a new moral standard that is unrighteous, cruel, and is a moral standard that they have been fooled into thinking is an all loving, all just, and righteous moral standard.

Just from using my own gut moral instinct, I can obviously see how such a God would be a cruel and sadistic God just as how I can use my gut moral instinct in seeing how Hitler was cruel and sadistic as well. There are many kind people out in this world who would also agree with me as well. This says a lot here. This clearly says here that religions such as fundamentalist Christianity twist our sense of morality to where we believe that the cruel and unrighteous acts of a morally atrocious God are instead righteous and holy acts of an all loving and all just God. Sinners, including kind people, are condemned on judgment day by this type of God, they go to hell to suffer for eternity, and God never chooses to get them out and put them someplace else.

This, to me, is obviously a worse treatment than even Hitler. If only people would just use their gut moral instinct, focus on that, and forget all of the false and cruel teachings they were taught, then they will obviously see how the moral standard set forth by these types of religious Gods and figures is a cruel, unjust, and morally atrocious moral standard regardless of how many loving and just acts these types of Gods have performed. These Gods performing loving and just acts does not justify their cruel and morally atrocious acts no matter how you try to justify it. The reason why I am not a fundamentalist Christian is because of the very fact that I have used my gut moral instinct. However, other people sacrifice their gut moral instinct and believe in false teachings.

[Bust Nak]

Let's take the personal out of this... Yes, I believe that the elect sinners can be brought back to their free will decision to accept YHWH and to join HIM in heaven. They can be justified by Christ, sanctified by the Holy Spirit as they are made righteous by discipline, Heb 12:5-11.

Right, so the corrupted (elected sinners) can be cleansed, but not the non-elected.

NO one ends in hell accidentally. One must make a committed decision against YHWH's claims of righteousness and commit so strongly to their claim he is a false god and the first liar in all of creation that they are more willing to go to hell if HE ever proves HIS deity than ever stay in any place under HIS jurisdiction.

But that in itself is an accident. People only accidentally makes a committed decision against YHWH's claims of righteousness and accidentally commit so strongly to their claim he is a false god and the first liar in all of creation that they are more willing to go to hell if HE ever proves HIS deity than ever stay in any place under HIS jurisdiction. All because God for his own selfish (not to mention nonsensical) reasons, did not provide good reasons for people to believe his claims, it is just random luck who ends up believing him.

There was a way for them to keep safe from hell and yet do and believe as they wanted, the way the sinful elect took, but which they refused. They knew that if HE was GOD that their natures would change so they could never be acceptable within HIS sight again, that they could never fulfill HIS purpose of their creation nor ever be brought out of their evil to righteousness yet they went ahead, so strongly did they hate HIM and HIS claims to be above them...

And God is to blame for that, if not wholly then partially.

Neither can GOD be any other than who HE is. HE cannot abide by that which does not conform to HIS character of righteousness and will end it being in HIS presence by curing it or by banishing it from HIS presence.

He can abide by those who does not conform to his character - He is abiding by us temporally right now.

Those who rejected HIS help in the cure are without resource to be redeemed and so must be banished.

Same challenge as before, there is no must because the status quo can be maintained - you claim a little bit of corruption ruins the whole thing, but that turns out to be a red herring because you have since confirmed that the elected corrupted can be cleansed of this corruption.

Every sinner who can be saved will be saved, as HE promised.
Only those whom HE promised HE would comply with their wishes to never help or interfere with them will be banished.
To end in hell is to be unable to be saved from hell by one's own free will decison to go that far in their animosity to HIM and HIS ways.

There could never have been any sinners to begin with, never a need for Hell, had God been omnipotent, because you have affirmed time and again that freewill does not necessarily lead to sin, and if it freewill that never sins is not logically impossible then God can make it happen with his omnipotence.

[Bust Nak]

I would still say that there is a difference. If we disagree about something then it makes a great difference whether I take your statement to just say that you believe something or whether it includes an implicit or explicit request that I should also believe what you believe.

You think I am not implicitly asking you to also believe that painting A is better than B when I give you reason why I think A is better than B?

I am saying that what I call an objective statement always carries such an implication. What I call a relative statement does not carry that implication. It is only when I feel that that you are asking me to believe what you believe that I would need to ask you to give reasons. If you are not asking me to believe what you believe then you do not need to give me reasons for your belief.

That's the same for both objective facts and subjective taste - we give reasons for the times we want others to align their beliefs with our, and at other times we don't bother giving reasons when we don't care much what another believe. We are talking about beliefs here, beliefs about objective facts or beliefs about subjective taste are both beliefs and have this facet in common.

Now there is an interesting statement. I think that we could spend a lot longer debating what that means and whether it is right than we have spent on this subject. I have been looking on the net about moral subjectivists and I think I am a moral realist but I could still be wrong. it is a complicated question.

Sure, moral realist is just another term for moral objectivist.

I was making the point that, if I say 'It is wrong to kill an abortion doctor', ( missing out the I believe or equivalent) then you must take that statement as incorrect. Therefore I still think that if I say that it is wrong to kill the doctor as an absolute prohibition which is true for everyone, then you must say I am wrong. Therefore you must allow the possibility that there is someone for whom it is not wrong to kill the doctor.

If you say "it is wrong to kill an abortion doctor" explicitly omitting the I believe or equivalent, then I, as a subjectivist, would take the statement as incomplete. The subject is missing form that statement - as such it is neither correct nor incorrect.

If you insist that "it is wrong to kill an abortion doctor" should be taken as an objective and absolute prohibition, then yes, I must say you are wrong; however your conclusion that "there is someone for whom it is not wrong to kill the doctor" does not follow, because there is an subjective prohibition from yours truly. I shall expand more below.

I would say that in the absence of a universal moral law giver then everyone has the right to do whatever they want. Surely you cannot refuse him the right unless you yourself were the universal moral law giver. Maybe I should not have used the term 'right' in this argument. However, who or what gives you the right to do the things that you do?

The government (and the various forms there of.)

I do not think that a decision not to do something or a lack of power to do it affects your right to do it.

Okay, but what right are you talking about? To kill abortion doctors? Who has that right and who gave it to him? Why does it matter if he has that right or not when there are people like me, who would either stop him or punish him afterwards, regardless of his alleged rights?

... Your statement 'I believe that no-one has such a right' cannot be true because you believe all moral statements are relative, that is are not true for everyone. Therefore your belief cannot be true for everyone and therefore someone must believe that he has such a right...

But that statement can be true and it is true - I do indeed believe that no-one has the right to kill abortion doctors; and it is not true for everyone - some people believes that he has the right to kill abortion doctors, Scott Roeder is one such person.

So what exactly is the problem here? Why do you think the fact that "I believe that no-one has such a right" is not true for everyone would somehow imply "I believe that no-one has such a right" cannot be true for me?

Once more for emphasis, the statement "it is wrong for Bob to kill" is ambiguous. It can mean 1) "killing is wrong according to Bob" or 2) "Bob should not kill." Furthermore "Bob should not kill" could mean 2.1) "the objective moral law says Bob should not kill" or 2.2) "I disapprove of killing when the perpetrator is Bob."

1) is a factual claim that may or may not be true depending on what Bob thinks.
2) is a moral claim.
2.1) is a moral claim by an objectivist, which may or may not be true depending on the objective moral law, if indeed there is such a thing as objective moral law.
2.2) is a moral claim by an subjectivist, which may or may not be true for everyone, if indeed morality is subjective.

A moral subjectivist can say "it is wrong for Bob to kill" with 2.2) in mind, without contradicting his thesis that moral is subjective.

Apply the same break down to "no-one has a right to kill abortion doctors" and you will end up with the following subjective statement, corresponding to 2.2) above:

"I disapprove of killing of abortion doctors by anyone." This is true for me, but false for some other people. This moral statement is entirely consistent with my stance as a subjectivist, this is how the claim "no-one has a right to kill abortion doctors" is compatible with moral subjectivism (and also true, for me, Bust Nak.)

Resolve this ambiguity and it is clear subjectivism doesn't imply "anything goes, do as you will."

[ttruscott]

There could never have been any sinners to begin with, never a need for Hell, had God been omnipotent, because you have affirmed time and again that freewill does not necessarily lead to sin, and if it freewill that never sins is not logically impossible then God can make it happen with his omnipotence.

You have said yourself that GOD cannot do logical inconsistencies even if omnipotent. Well, a free will unable to sin is a logical inconsistency since 'being unable' is contradictory to being free, ie, able.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There could never have been any sinners to begin with, never a need for Hell, had God been omnipotent, because you have affirmed time and again that freewill does not necessarily lead to sin, and if it freewill that never sins is not logically impossible then God can make it happen with his omnipotence.

You have said yourself that GOD cannot do logical inconsistencies even if omnipotent. Well, a free will unable to sin is a logical inconsistency since 'being unable' is contradictory to being free, ie, able.

Did Satan have true free will, or was his fall predestined? If Satan has free will, can he see the error of his ways and ask for forgiveness? Or was he just eternally, umm, living an existence raped of all positive possibilities from the moment of his creation?

[Bust Nak]

There could never have been any sinners to begin with, never a need for Hell, had God been omnipotent, because you have affirmed time and again that freewill does not necessarily lead to sin, and if it freewill that never sins is not logically impossible then God can make it happen with his omnipotence.

You have said yourself that GOD cannot do logical inconsistencies even if omnipotent. Well, a free will unable to sin is a logical inconsistency since 'being unable' is contradictory to being free, ie, able.

But I didn't say anything about freewill unable to sin. I said very clearly, and I quote "freewill that never sins."

[ttruscott]

There could never have been any sinners to begin with, never a need for Hell, had God been omnipotent, because you have affirmed time and again that freewill does not necessarily lead to sin, and if it freewill that never sins is not logically impossible then God can make it happen with his omnipotence.

You have said yourself that GOD cannot do logical inconsistencies even if omnipotent. Well, a free will unable to sin is a logical inconsistency since 'being unable' is contradictory to being free, ie, able.

Did Satan have true free will, or was his fall predestined?

He was created with a free will that he used to rebel against YHWH.

If Satan has free will, can he see the error of his ways and ask for forgiveness?

Not Satan. The nature of sin is that in enslaves, addicts the person to evil. This addiction cannot be self cured. Rejecting the only help available to cure one of an addiction to evil is to choose to be eternally evil. That Satan did this, knowing that if YHWH ever proved HIS Divinity he would end in hell, is proof of the depth of his commitment to his pov that YHWH was a false god and a liar and to his desire to end in hell rather than ever live with YHWH in heaven. On earth we hear this as, "Better a king in hell than a servant in heaven..."

This is summed up by the Christian doctrine we are saved by grace through faith (ie, HIS work on our behalf) and not by our works so Satan is doomed.

Or was he just eternally, umm, living an existence raped of all positive possibilities from the moment of his creation?

Of course not. Our evil is our own and no one else's and so are the natural and legal consequences of choosing to sin by our free will.

[ttruscott]

But I didn't say anything about freewill unable to sin. I said very clearly, and I quote "freewill that never sins."

There is a free will that never sins, the Trinity and all the elect holy angels. You said very clearly that HE should create a free will that can never sin and to be created that way denies free will since free is the direct opposite of being forced or being restrained.

Of course if i gottheworng

[ttruscott]

But I didn't say anything about freewill unable to sin. I said very clearly, and I quote "freewill that never sins."

There is already a free will that never sins, within the Trinity and all the elect holy angels. You said very clearly that HE should create a free will that can never sin and to be created that way denies free will since free is the direct opposite of being forced or being restrained.

Of course if I got the wrong quote, a post reminder helps...

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There could never have been any sinners to begin with, never a need for Hell, had God been omnipotent, because you have affirmed time and again that freewill does not necessarily lead to sin, and if it freewill that never sins is not logically impossible then God can make it happen with his omnipotence.

You have said yourself that GOD cannot do logical inconsistencies even if omnipotent. Well, a free will unable to sin is a logical inconsistency since 'being unable' is contradictory to being free, ie, able.

Did Satan have true free will, or was his fall predestined?

He was created with a free will that he used to rebel against YHWH.

If Satan has free will, can he see the error of his ways and ask for forgiveness?

Not Satan. The nature of sin is that in enslaves, addicts the person to evil. This addiction cannot be self cured. Rejecting the only help available to cure one of an addiction to evil is to choose to be eternally evil. That Satan did this, knowing that if YHWH ever proved HIS Divinity he would end in hell, is proof of the depth of his commitment to his pov that YHWH was a false god and a liar and to his desire to end in hell rather than ever live with YHWH in heaven. On earth we hear this as, "Better a king in hell than a servant in heaven..."

This is summed up by the Christian doctrine we are saved by grace through faith (ie, HIS work on our behalf) and not by our works so Satan is doomed.

Or was he just eternally, umm, living an existence raped of all positive possibilities from the moment of his creation?

Of course not. Our evil is our own and no one else's and so are the natural and legal consequences of choosing to sin by our free will.

Not Satan. The nature of sin is that in enslaves, addicts the person to evil. This addiction cannot be self cured. Rejecting the only help available to cure one of an addiction to evil is to choose to be eternally evil. That Satan did this, knowing that if YHWH ever proved HIS Divinity he would end in hell, is proof of the depth of his commitment to his pov that YHWH was a false god and a liar and to his desire to end in hell rather than ever live with YHWH in heaven. On earth we hear this as, "Better a king in hell than a servant in heaven..."

This is summed up by the Christian doctrine we are saved by grace through faith (ie, HIS work on our behalf) and not by our works so Satan is doomed.

So clear up the confusion for me. Satan was created with complete free will and therefore God failed to achieve the result He expected and intended when He created Satan? Was God actually taken by surprise by this outcome?

[ttruscott]

So clear up the confusion for me.

Still confused? Sure, its easy...

Satan was created with complete free will and therefore God failed to achieve the result He expected

GOD created everyone in HIS image to choose by their free will to either holy, in accord with HIS righteousness, or to be rebellious and contrary to HIS righteousness. GOD created all with a free will so HE was perfectly prepared that some might choose to be evil like Satan did since there was nothing stopping him. Our decision by our free will was what HE created us to do, so the fact Satan made his decision fulfilled HIS purpose and there was no failure of any kind..

and intended when He created Satan?

The result HE intended by our creation was that the person would choose, that's all. The results of our choices were to be dealt with later.

Was God actually taken by surprise by this outcome?

Not in the least - HE expected choices to happen and HE wanted choices to happen no matter what they were. The only thing that I contend (not very orthodox) is that HE did not know just who might chose to rebel until they did rebel...at least, HE did not know before HE created them.