Is your gods punishment fair?

[Confused]

I am new to this site, so please bare with me if I seem a little of center. I will try to stick to the rules. After reading these threads for many years, I am just now getting the courage to start to ask questions of my own. feel free to correct me if I mess up.

Ok, lets for the sake of this thread say that the god of christianity is all knowing. Lets say the he knew what you were going to do before you were born, but loved you so much he still allowed your birth to occur. Let us even go far out into the left field and say that he knew what choices you would make in all decisions although he didn't force you to make them. I am not arguing free-will vs determinism. I am only wondering how it is that this god who knew what you would do, loved you so much he allowed your birth to do what you were going to do, and then punished you for doing what he knew you were going to do. If he already knew what would happen, and then allowed it to happen, how can he then turn around and sentence you to eternity in hell for what he knew you would do and allowed you to do?

Maybe I am missing some logical link here, but it seems to me that if this god knew the birth of an individual would result in the torture and death of even one person, isn't this god the actual guilty party for setting into motion an inevitable event? Is this the god that so many people would like for me to follow?

So does anyone know:
1) Does god love you so much that knowing what you would do and what you would become, he still allowed your birth so that you might know his love?

2) Is god some sadistic being who knows what you are going to do, allows you to be born, gets a cheap thrill watching you carry out some of the most sadistic crimes against humanity before sending you to the eternal fires of hell?

3) There is no god.

Personally, I have to say that there isn't enough available information to make an informed decision, but logic tells me its 3. If there is a god-fearing individual who can logically tell me otherwise, I would love to hear it.

[achilles12604]

The fact that it is evil is a decision taken by each individual.

Your wording of this sentence is amusing. But I got your meaning. And I agree. In fact I think I said the same thing only I believe that all people across the world would agree that this act was evil. Since it is almost universally thought to be so, there must be an underlying source for this general consensus.

This does not necessarily follow...but I understand that this is what you believe to be true.

This is I believe evidence of God, beneath our inherent moral values. But at any rate, it is kind of beside the point since I already stated that this was the major difference between atheists and theists and your comments just showed me to be right.

And I believe it is evidence of evolution.

Doesn't make either one of us 'right'

Absolutly. Hence, this debate will go one until the end of the earth. I still think knowledge can be gleened from educated debate however.

[Confused]

Lets change it to a rampaging 6 ton elephant. This doesn't matter because it isn't the cookie/gun/elephant which is what Christians say is deadly. It is the sin of taking the cookie/gun/elephant.

The object itself is not dangerous no matter what the temptation is. The sin itself is what condemns someone, not the object. So change it to whatever you wish.


Your point is that God should be responsible for directly comming into a situation and causing us to only be able to choose the right option. But this is in DIRECT conflict with free will. If God the big parent came into the room and snatched away our cookie from our hand, then he just violated our free will because now there is no option to ignore/disobey him. The ONLY option is to accept him which is in effect forcing us.

You are ignoring the point. If you leave a loaded gun where a child can find it, and you know this child is too young to understand the consequences, what are YOUR responsiblities?

Think about it.

The child was given the ability to understand. I told her not to take the gun. Because she understands what I am saying and I said it, it now her choice to obey or not to obey. Remember that the gun itself is not dangerous. This is why I used a cookie at first but it really doesn't matter what it is.

Lets put names in.

I Chris, was told by God to avoid sleeping with everyone I see but to rather restrain myself for my wife.

Sleeping around in and of itself is not dangerous. It can be done safely with a lot of testing and protections. However, it is also a sin and that is what is dangerous about it. God's instructions were clear and the cnsequences for violating those instructions were equally clear.

See the gun is not the problem. The decision to disobey God, is what is dangerous, and he warned us about that.

But if god already knew you were going to sleep around on your wife, where does he get the right to punish you for it. He knew it was going to happen, allowed your birth for it to happen, and although he gave you the personal choice not to let it happen (free will), it still happened as he knew it would. Now he is going to send you to hell because you fulfilled his future for you???? Is that justice?

[Confused]

So we're assuming an omnipotent, omniscient God is doling out punishment in this scenario. This would mean that God knows, before someone is born, all the evil they will choose to do. For God it has already happened. If that is the case then how can the person choose differently than God sees before he is born without God needing to be less than omniscient or perfectly omniscient? In this case the person, not even born, has to make the poor decisions God has seen or else it would prove God is not all-knowing.

Another question, if God can do anything (omnipotent) then why not create a world where all the humans are such that through their free will choose to be good? Why create a world where people will do evil in the first place? It seems like if before God ever said "Fiat Lux" he already knew of the need to send people to hell. Why not tweak things until you have people with free will and nature such that they will choose good? Then say "Fiat Lux" If you put a design flaw in then you're responsible for the errors. If Adam was perfect and had no design flaws he wouldn't have disobeyed or been tricked into eating the apple, that is not a sign of perfection.

Totally one sided. Just because someone knows what will happen in the future doesn't mean they are forcing you to choose the options you choose to get their. They only know the end result. They know you are going to go right instead of left. That doesn't mean they are forcing you to go right or left. Just because you know something may happen doesn't mean you are forcing it to happen. No one is pulling your steering wheel left or right. They only know that you will steer right. Should you steer left, they would be wrong. Either way, no one told you which direction to take.

[Confused]

That is true, I did mention Omniscience in my post. A non-perfect knowledge of the future is one way around that, however it doesn't make the punishment fair, that only explains free will. Having the punishment fit the crime is a way to resolve this, but I think the whole point of this debate is whether God's punishment or what he sees as worthy of punishment is fair. So yes, if the punishment is fair then God's punishment is fair, but that doesn't get us very far from the OP. We're then left with the questions, what is fair punishment? and what is worthy of punishment? There are a lot of threads open already about whether certain things are actually evil or if some bronze age goatherd elder said, "gay sex is icky" and threw that one in for good measure on his own.

I don't question if the punishment is fair in the sense of does it fit the crime. I question is it fair to punish at all. If he already knew what i was going to do, and still allowed my birth, should he have the right to punish me at all since all i was doing was what he predicted i would do.

[Confused]

My point is that those who rebelled had no choice, because in God's perfect knowledge before they ever existed they rebelled they couldn't do otherwise since his knowledge is perfect.

God knowing what people may do in advance (his omnicience) has no bearing on man's free will choices to do as they want to. The decision to rebel is the individual's choice. God merely knows what they will do in advance.

Also it isn't an eternity of exile it's an eternity of torture. Wailing, fire, gnashing of teeth and darkness. It isn't the eternal timeout corner the damned are sent to.

Even if God were seen as cruel and capricous, you can't change the fact that he is in control of the universe and will do as he pleases. If hell is real, and scripture says it is, then one shouldn't be worrying about if it's nice or not for people to go there, they need to be more concerned about how they're going to keep the one who is in charge from sending people there altogether. In other words, that's reality. That's the real world, so to speak, and thinking it isn't proper isn't going to make one iota of difference to the one who is sending people there for their hard-heartedness.

Assume Satan runs the universe and is in control, and we know everyone will go to hell after they die, unless they bow down and confess he is Lord. What are you going to do, tell him you don't think that's nice? Will that make any difference to what will ultimately take place if you don't bow down to him? Again, that would be reality, and it doesn't depend on if people think it's right or not. It depends on who is in charge and how they operate.

He may not influence our free will. But he does punish based on an already known. He knows what we will do, and instead of preventing our birth to prevent the catastrophe we may cause, he allows our birth and leads us to our condemnation in the process.

Now assuming hell is real and the damned go there, who dictates the damned? The person who allowed the person to become damned? Now for the satan analogy, does it matter who sends you to hell?? If they knew what you were going to do, then they have no right to judge you for doing it and not stepping in to prevent it.

Who is in charge of the universe???? An elusive god that is contradictory and gave man the ability to question everything but then made it impossible for us to prove anything??? His scriptures are encrypted so much so that scholars can't agree on what is real and what isn't. And once again, he loves us so much he allows us to be born, commit his deadly sins, and then condemns us to hell for it. Am I missing anything???

[Confused]

My point is that those who rebelled had no choice, because in God's perfect knowledge before they ever existed they rebelled they couldn't do otherwise since his knowledge is perfect.

God knowing what people may do in advance (his omnicience) has no bearing on man's free will choices to do as they want to. The decision to rebel is the individual's choice. God merely knows what they will do in advance.

Also it isn't an eternity of exile it's an eternity of torture. Wailing, fire, gnashing of teeth and darkness. It isn't the eternal timeout corner the damned are sent to.

Even if God were seen as cruel and capricous, you can't change the fact that he is in control of the universe and will do as he pleases. If hell is real, and scripture says it is, then one shouldn't be worrying about if it's nice or not for people to go there, they need to be more concerned about how they're going to keep the one who is in charge from sending people there altogether. In other words, that's reality. That's the real world, so to speak, and thinking it isn't proper isn't going to make one iota of difference to the one who is sending people there for their hard-heartedness.

Assume Satan runs the universe and is in control, and we know everyone will go to hell after they die, unless they bow down and confess he is Lord. What are you going to do, tell him you don't think that's nice? Will that make any difference to what will ultimately take place if you don't bow down to him? Again, that would be reality, and it doesn't depend on if people think it's right or not. It depends on who is in charge and how they operate.

How can you say that those who go against gods will do so willingly. Most of us living in reality who can't have the same day to day conversations with god like christians seem to be able to, can't seem to figure out what his will is. What is truth. Which religion is the true one. Which scripture do we follow. Keep in mind that most all humans have heard the famous line "beware of those who come in my name, for they are false prophets". I diverge, my apologies. Once again, how can whoever controls the universe punish me for something he allowed to happen?

[Confused]

The fact that it is evil is a decision taken by each individual.

Your wording of this sentence is amusing. But I got your meaning. And I agree. In fact I think I said the same thing only I believe that all people across the world would agree that this act was evil. Since it is almost universally thought to be so, there must be an underlying source for this general consensus.

This does not necessarily follow...but I understand that this is what you believe to be true.

This is I believe evidence of God, beneath our inherent moral values. But at any rate, it is kind of beside the point since I already stated that this was the major difference between atheists and theists and your comments just showed me to be right.

And I believe it is evidence of evolution.

Doesn't make either one of us 'right'

I am not looking to debate what is deemed as evil etc.....none of this has even been relevant. Allow me to enlighten. Regardless of whether man or some divine entity has deemed something as evil or wrong, it that man or divine entity knew you were going to do it and allowed it to happen, is he not just as guily as i. If so, then should god not be in the same hell he has created?

[Metatron]

Actually hell is a topic I have taken a bit of interest in. Having read the scriptures I have come to conclude that the fire and brimstone ideology presented in the 1800's by preachers trying to scare people into heaven, is wholely innaccurate. Here is why. . .

1) Throughout the entire bible, both Old and New Testaments, fire was used symbolically as God's purity and his justice. His cleansing is one of fire. Men are supposedly purified by the fire of the holy spirit. Why should we suddenly suppose that now we should take the fire litterally?

2) Jesus describes hell as a dark place with weeping and knashing of teeth. The outer darkness. However, he does not describe fire of any kind here. On the contrary if there were fire, would there not be light?

3) Once dead, the body no longer operates. Since physical pain caused by fires would require nerve recepticals to transmite this information of pain up a limb and to a brain, this would be impossible after the person is dead.

4) Emotions however, are a mystery to mankind so far. Science has located some chemicals which are released in response to emotions, but the origin of emotions is lost within the brain. In short science does not know why a movie makes one person cry, has no impact on another and makes another angry. All three can be exposed to the same movie and the chemicals released and reactions of each are totally different.

Because emotions and especially the cause and origins of those emotions are vastly unknown, I tend to think that they are deeply tied to the soul, the spirit of a person. Now, if our souls were designed to interact not only with each other but also with God, and suddenly God was shut off from our souls for ever, I can understand why there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. That sould would be banished much the same way as banishment was used against people in the past. They were sent away into isolation from everyone and everything they held dear.

Imagine how much more this would be if you were banished from EVERYTHING. Absolutly everyone you ever loved was simply not there anymore. No spiritual connections with them but most importantly no connection with your creator. This would be enough to cause great distress and I think that emotions can possibly transend the Grave to a spiritual realm.


In short, Hell, the fire and brimstone a lot of people are still stuck on, does not exist. There is no scripture which really supports its existence. It was a creation of the Catholic Church to scare people into repentence, and it was a horrible idea. I would be willing to bet evil spiritual forces had a hand in pressing this one on the people.

Banishment, not firey tourture. Those who still think of hell as firey tourture should come out of the 19 century and join us today.

If hell is not a place of fire and torture how do you explain this:

The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16)

19"Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.

20"And a poor man named Lazarus (S)was laid at his gate, covered with sores,

21and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.

22"Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to (T)Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.

23"In (U)Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.

24"And he cried out and said, '(V)Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in (W)this flame.'

25"But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that (X)during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.

26'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'

27"And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--

28for I have five brothers--in order that he may (Y)warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"But Abraham said, 'They have (Z)Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'

30"But he said, 'No, (AA)father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'

31"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Sorry, this does not sound like simple separation from God here. The rich man in the story is burning in agony.

[achilles12604]

Jesus was trying to explain how the man would feel when there.

I'll buy into your idea that hell might really be filled with litteral flames rather than them being symbolic of God's justice, if you can show me how the rich man still had a tounge in hell when his whole body was laied in the ground.

[Metatron]

Jesus was trying to explain how the man would feel when there.

I'll buy into your idea that hell might really be filled with litteral flames rather than them being symbolic of God's justice, if you can show me how the rich man still had a tounge in hell when his whole body was laied in the ground.

Let me get this straight. You want ME to defend the logic of the bible? I thought that was your job. I'm merely reading what it says. It clearly describes a man who says that he is in agony in flames. There are also the statements "being in torment", "you are in agony", and "this place of torment". I don't see anything symbolic about this. Given the rather straight forward language of the account, I believe that the burden is on you to show that the passage does not mean what it plainly appears to mean.