Question about hell

[notachance]

This is a question for people who believe in a literal hell:

If my son didn't believe I loved him, and in response I locked him up in the basement and tortured him, wouldn't I have proved him right?

Doesn't the fact that God is the kind of guy who would torture me, by definition make him unworthy of my love?

[Alchemy]

one mans "brutality" is another mans rite of passage man. what the hell IS brutality? is there a book out there that has a list of what things constitute brutality? i want to read it! i wonder if "tossing transgressors into hell" is on the list and how far up or down the list it is.

We don't need a list of brutality to prove the OP correct, which is to refresh your memory

"Doesn't the fact that God is the kind of guy who would torture me, by definition make him unworthy of my love?"

We need only show that putting someone into Hell is torture and that anyone who would torture anyone else is not worthy of love.

Yours and the posts of many others have shown that Hell wold be a torturous place. Therefore, if we have a fair amount of agreement that a Hell would have to be a torturous place then all that remains is to decide whether the being that would damn anyone to this Hell simply because we did not love it, was worthy of our love in the first place.

To my mind, the idea of being forced to love someone is ridiculous and goes against the idea of what love is.

[AquinasD]

I understand. It's metaphorical.

What are you trying to say that "tortured in the presence of the lamb" is a metaphor for? Is "in the presence of the lamb" not a metaphor for "in the absence of the lamb"? If that's NOT what you're trying to say, then please explain. I don't get it.

The part of the verse you referenced, Revelation 14:10, speaks of torment. Let me put it in context;

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.

Here it is saying that those who sin against God by worshipping "the beast and its image" will be subject to God's wrath, implying the positive punishment of burning sulfur (whether or not this is literally how it would be done, it is still implied that the punishment is positive; fine). I will first note that this is different from the scenario presented in the OP, in which the son's wrong against the father is merely believing that the father didn't love him. What was implied there is that it wouldn't make sense to mete out some positive punishment against the son for this failure; I'm agreeing, at least insofar as the son's choice was not committed out of some spite to hurt the father, but that's not the situation meant to be outlined.

In this case, we are speaking about people who actively choose to spite God, choosing instead to give over their lives to "the beast and its image." They have chosen, in other words, opposition to God, since the beast represents exactly that.

Now, God has given these people their entire being, yet they actively choose to spurn Him. They owe Him everything to an infinite degree, because God is infinitely honorable and worthy of worship, but give Him nothing. To that end they deserve punishment, for such positive punishment can serve justice, and this punishment is not meant to make the people love God, since (speaking in terms of eternal fate) they have chosen to hate God, abandoning all possibility of coming to be reconciled with Him.

What is not stated in the passage is that this torment is meted out in Hell, and it would seem to be implied that it isn't, that this is a punishment given elsewhere, if it is occurring in God's presence. Hell would be afterward, and there could be some other positive punishment in Hell (though Hell itself is a negative punishment; what else there is as a positive punishment is something in addition to Hell, and would be based on that degree and means of which people have chosen their separation from God.

Also, this is NOT the only passages of the Bible which clearly indicate that hell is a place of positive punishment. Are you saying that EVERY SINGLE time the Bible says "Hell is a place where you are actively tormented", we should interpret that as a metaphor for "Hell is a place where you are NOT actively tormented"?

I don't think you could provide a passage which clearly states "Hell is positive punishment from God." I haven't denied that you could provide evidence that God intends positive punishment for those who choose to hate Him, only that "Hell is positive punishment." It is a technicality, but one that requires attendance.

Lastly. let me ask you something else. If a child goes into a tantrum and says "I am not hungry. I don't want to eat" and the parent in response "gives him what he wants", namely the absence of food, only instead of doing it for a few hours, he deprives his child of food forever, until the child is dying an agonizing death by starvation... is that kind of negative punishment (not positive, but negative) acceptable? Or does it make the father a monster?

It is presumed that the "choice to Hell," so to speak, is something the person has chosen once and for all, rather than being some choice in which a person isn't so fully settled that they might "change their mind." It is a decision which is made when the person can't choose any other way, cementing their acceptance or rejection of God totally through some manner of deliberation.

So your analogy doesn't hold, since in this instance God is only relinquishing someone to Hell not on the basis of something they could or would change their mind about, but on the basis that they have decided they wouldn't make up their mind any other way than rejection.

How is infinite (negative) punishment for finite crimes any less evil, immoral and despicable, than infinite (positive) punishment for finite crimes?

Who says the crimes are only finite?

The refusal of fulfilling some obligation that is absolutely owed to God who is infinitely worthy implies an infinite crime.

Seriously bro. Why don't you just admit it. A benevolent God that tortures billions, whether through positive or negative action, is a fundamentally oxymoronic concept which make Christianity a self-contradictory proposition.

Your use of the word "torture" is obfuscatory, even if only by accident. You haven't demonstrated that punishment is necessarily torture, so you haven't demonstrated that any punishment meted out by God against sinners would necessarily be torture.

[notachance]

Aquinas:

Ah dude, you love splitting hairs.

The situation is very simple:

Am I completely free to love God, hate God, ignore God, fight against God, rebel against God, reject God, spite God, believe that he doesn't exist, disobey his commandments, start a competing religion, worship the devil, not worship anything, etc without fear that I might be tormented forever in the afterlife?

Can I be absolutely certain that no matter what, HE WILL NEVER TORMENT ME?

Can I be absolutely certain of at least that?

It's a very simple question, which requires a yes or no answer.


The reason I ask is this: If I cannot count on an entity to not torment me, then I am justified in not loving it

[SteveC]

It just occurred to me that forumwarrior drives god's get away car. He's an accomplice to the crime. He's as cold and steely eyed as his boss. Lucky for him, he was born into god's gang and not a rival gang - he'd be going to hell with the rest of us.

I agree. Of course that would be from his perspective. I'm a little worried that God might be driving his get away car. People tailor gods to themselves after all.

Well said, it's easy for me to forget who created what during the course of these discussions.

[AquinasD]

Aquinas:

Ah dude, you love splitting hairs.

That's not exactly a valid objection. Yes, so the difference between truth and lies can be thinner than a hair; so many chemists would insist there's a big difference between C21H30O2 and C21H30O (hint: one will get you high, the other will do nothing), and doctors operate with instruments thinner than hair in order to save lives.

I'll answer your question in your new thread.

[notachance]

I'll answer your question in your new thread.

ok

[forumwarrior]

We need only show that putting someone into Hell is torture and that anyone who would torture anyone else is not worthy of love.

Yours and the posts of many others have shown that Hell wold be a torturous place. Therefore, if we have a fair amount of agreement that a Hell would have to be a torturous place then all that remains is to decide whether the being that would damn anyone to this Hell simply because we did not love it, was worthy of our love in the first place.

To my mind, the idea of being forced to love someone is ridiculous and goes against the idea of what love is.

why do you like to use tunnel vision? if thats all you NEED then hell, there must be no god! surely a just god wouldnt FORCE you to love him! but wait a second! i just had a thought.

if god would reward you with paradise, what reason would there be to hate him?

all youre saying is the opposite of that!

if god would punish me, why should i love him to begin with?

its silliness. its ridiculous. its a petty argument.

in every worldly scenario imaginable, you have people being punished for negative choices. babies get spanked. criminals get prison. dogs get their nose rubbed in the pee. and because its a god you dont believe in in the first place, you guys are gonna say "well its TORTURE and TORTURE is wrong!"

i wonder if babies getting spanked think theyre being "tortured." i wonder if criminals in prison think theyre being "tortured." i wonder if dogs with their face in pee think THEYRE being "tortured."

"but its burning in fire and wailing and gnashing of teeth! thats EVIL!"

i think theyll get used to it. i think over time itll be just like going out to get the paper. routine. the guys in dantes inferno felt well enough to relay their stories. surely it couldnt have been that bad.

i dont have a perfect understanding, but as far as i understand the idea of hell. its an ending place. eventually were going to come to a time when well either be chosen to go into the barn, or not. read this parable.

<< Matthew 13 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible
Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. 25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. 26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. 27 And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? 28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? 29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

its not ABOUT "torture." its about a guy harvesting his field. he keeps the good stuff and throws out the bad stuff. when you think about it in the case of a person, it makes good sense! but let you think about it in the case of GOD, and oh my! call the aclu! the cockle is being WRONGED! where is justice?

i dont understand you guys thinking.

[Janx]

why do you like to use tunnel vision? if thats all you NEED then hell, there must be no god! surely a just god wouldnt FORCE you to love him! but wait a second! i just had a thought.

if god would reward you with paradise, what reason would there be to hate him?
all youre saying is the opposite of that!
if god would punish me, why should i love him to begin with?
its silliness. its ridiculous. its a petty argument.

That is oppression forumwarrior and I'm willing to illustrate how this is so.

This is an analogy of the first commandment and the consequences of failing to follow it: a father tells his child that he is a jealous man. The child must either love him, and in return be loved and have everything be provided for, or be killed.

- agreed so far?

If the child chooses to show love, no matter how genuine and benevolent the father's actions appear to be, all of this is based on a contingency. The child is being coerced by a threat: love or die. This is a stacked game. There are only two options for the child: with one options being something no one in their right mind would want; such a situation is labeled as oppression. The punishment for disobedience, being death, is cruel. Combining traits of oppressions and cruelty the father becomes a tyrant.

i dont have a perfect understanding, but as far as i understand the idea of hell. its an ending place. eventually were going to come to a time when well either be chosen to go into the barn, or not. read this parable.

its not ABOUT "torture." its about a guy harvesting his field. he keeps the good stuff and throws out the bad stuff. when you think about it in the case of a person, it makes good sense! but let you think about it in the case of GOD, and oh my! call the aclu! the cockle is being WRONGED! where is justice?

i dont understand you guys thinking.

The child may not hate such a father but certainly it would be a challenge to love this father if one was to hold the freedom of choice as a virtue; or if one was to believe that jealousy and injustice were reason to withhold one's love. For some individuals the prize is not enough a reason to love when there is a gun being pointed at their head for thinking otherwise.

There is no salvation for some by your faith because they are incapable of loving a jealous and unfair tyrant. The demand for love, with the consequence of death, from such a God is entrapment. So you see forumwarrior by the virtues your God gave us we are designed to burn.

[Alchemy]

We need only show that putting someone into Hell is torture and that anyone who would torture anyone else is not worthy of love.

Yours and the posts of many others have shown that Hell wold be a torturous place. Therefore, if we have a fair amount of agreement that a Hell would have to be a torturous place then all that remains is to decide whether the being that would damn anyone to this Hell simply because we did not love it, was worthy of our love in the first place.

To my mind, the idea of being forced to love someone is ridiculous and goes against the idea of what love is.

why do you like to use tunnel vision?

I'm debating the OP as put forward. This is a debating forum where specific questions are put forward for discussion. Your answers to seemingly every question you participate in blatantly ignore this and spiral off into ridiculous tangents and strawman arguments that do nothing to further your argument of the question as presented or your credibility as an honest debater.

The rest of your post is pretty much a cut and paste of your previous off topic nonsense, which I won't bother responding to although I do enjoy the parable you quote and the rhetorical question you pose about cockle being wronged as being especially preposterous.

... read this parable.

<< Matthew 13 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible
Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. 25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. 26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. 27 And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? 28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? 29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

its not ABOUT "torture." its about a guy harvesting his field. he keeps the good stuff and throws out the bad stuff. when you think about it in the case of a person, it makes good sense! but let you think about it in the case of GOD, and oh my! call the aclu! the cockle is being WRONGED! where is justice?

i dont understand you guys thinking.

[Mr.Badham]

I've read almost every word from page 1 to 10, and I still can't figure out what difference it would make if God did love me eternally or hate me eternally. How would hell be different if God didn't love me?

Also; Eternal love would suggest that I could repent at any time within the confines of eternity. Why is that not so?

Here's a question;
My mother is a good Christian. She's going to heaven if there is one. I am an atheist. I am going to hell if there is one. My mother love me very much. The knowledge that I am suffering eternally would be torturous to her. How could she enjoy heaven knowing I am in hell? Are sympathy and empathy not traits of someone bound for heaven.