Eternal Hell

[amortalman]

I have two questions primarily for Christians.

1) If your brand of religion teaches that unbelievers will be judged by God and cast into Hell and the Lake of Fire for eternity to suffer there with no possibility of death or escape, is this action by God a just punishment, and why?

2) The second question is purely hypothetical and reaches way out there. If your God gave you permission to do as you please concerning eternal Hell, to keep it, or to abolish it in favor of, say, annihilation, would you keep it or do away with it?

NOTE: In regards to question number one I'm thinking about the story told by Jesus of the rich man and Lazarus found in Luke chapter 16. The Lake of Fire is mentioned in Revelation 20:10-15 and 21:8.

To me, an eternity of suffering in Hell defies logic and any sense of compassion what-so-ever. During my years as a Christian in an evangelical church, I've heard many preachers preface a sermon on Hell by saying they don't like to talk about it and don't like the concept of it but they must preach it because that's what the Bible teaches. I was once a part of a Biblical teaching program for children 2nd through 6th grade. I can only imagine the nightmares some of them had after being told that without Jesus they would go to Hell forever. Someone might argue that it's better that than to go to Hell. But does the fear tactic really work, and if it does, is that the best way, to scare the hell out of them?

In my understanding of the Bible, and what is being taught to millions of people in evangelical churches around the world, there are two kinds of people who will be cast into Hell. Those who have never heard the gospel and those how have rejected the gospel after having heard it. According to that teaching, there are countless millions of poor souls being tormented in Hell right now because they never had an opportunity to hear about Christ. Furthermore, there are hundreds if not thousands that are dying every day and going to Hell for lack of an opportunity to decide. Is that just?

Finally, I'm hopeful that the second question will cut to the Christians heart concerning the doctrine of Hell and reveal the insanity of it. To me, someone who would keep Hell if given the chance to abolish it is a Sadist of the worse kind. But then again, if a Christian says that he would do away with Hell is he demonstrating that he is more merciful than God?

What say you?

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by amortalman]

Finally, I'm hopeful that the second question will cut to the Christians heart concerning the doctrine of Hell and reveal the insanity of it. To me, someone who would keep Hell if given the chance to abolish it is a Sadist of the worse kind. But then again, if a Christian says that he would do away with Hell is he demonstrating that he is more merciful than God?

I suggest neither of those two extremes apply, because the doctrine as tradionaly taught does not apply.

I agree. But it's interesting that no Christians who do believe that has not directly responded to me to state their defense.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 277 by Checkpoint]




[center]Hey wait a minute.. this is dry kibble.. I ordered the sushimi[/center]

Maybe the drug he was on was the Holy Spirit.

There's a problem with that hypothesis...

1. We know that hallucinogenic substances cause hallucinations.
2. We know that other brain conditions can cause hallucinations.
3. We even know that people dream.

We are in heated debates concerning the existence of the "Holy Spirit". We have not yet demonstrated that it's a real phenomenon.

So, if you want to compare well known, factual phenomena with vaguely defined, controversial, unverified hypothetical claimed phenomena.. I would say that you are making a big, honking CATEGORY MISTAKE.

The supernatural so called "Holy Spirit" hypothesis isn't in the same category as the natural, verified knowable, testable phenomena that can cause hallucinations.

It's not even close.

So, your "MAYBE THE HOLY SPIRIT" is pretty much a non-sequitur.

You are comparing apples and oranges, my friend.
Or as I might put it.. "Kibble and fish"

[amortalman]

I seem to have run into your problem now as well. The quotes seem screwed up for some reason.

Quote:
It may not make sense that people would want to suffer forever, but I've covered that aspect already. My bad, I didn't cover that with you. People do insane things all the time. They want to do these things, and if they do these things their entire lives then why would they all of a sudden change their minds and do what makes perfect sense? They wouldn't if they could so there's no reason to suppose that when they die they will all of a sudden want to avoid being miserable for eternity. They wanted to be miserable for their entire earthly life so it stands to reason that this is what they will want to do for eternity. I used to know a lot of people that were like that. They enjoyed being miserable. It was what they were accustomed to. It was what was familiar to them. They weren't interested in learning to behave in totally unfamiliar and uncomfortable ways.

Me:
From the perspective of my original post, my comments on hell, the kind of place I and the Christians I posed the questions to believe it is, do you still say that some people would willingly choose to go to THAT kind of hell over going to heaven? You say they enjoyed being miserable all their lives. Do you really think anyone but a raving lunatic who really didn't know what he was getting into would choose to burn alive forever? Sure, people do crazy things all the time, but that? Do you think anyone who knows exactly what they're doing would choose to go to a place of suffering, with no chance of escape, forever even it didn't consist of actual fire.

I think the thing you're forgetting is that they aren't going to like the alternative any better. They may even find the alternative to be worse. People who spend their lives engaging in immoral depraved behavior aren't going to then want to spend time with God. They don't want anything to do with God in the first place, at least that's how Paul describes them.

[quote/]

And my contention is that they would rather spend eternity with God in heaven than eternity burning alive in hell once they see the truth of them both. We're going round and round on this and it has nothing to do with the debate question.

Jesus says the same thing. He tells the story of the man preparing the feast and inviting all of his friends, but they all decline his invitation. He then tells his servents to invite perfect strangers off the street in, and some of them can't even be bothered to get dressed up for the occasion. Nobody has a clue what's going on. We're all raving lunatics. We don't have enough sense to take off the grubby dirty clothes we've been working all day mucking out the horse manure, get a shower, and get dressed up for a feast.

The way I see it Jesus wasn't saying the same thing at all. If you had furnished the biblical reference for that story then we could all see that you got the story wrong. So wrong that it fails miserably to support your concluding statement.

Quote:
The story isn't meant to be read as if this rich man actually was in some place of torment; it's meant to be seen as a story to convict the Pharisees of their squandering their opportunity to share the oracles of God; or rather coveting and hoarding the oracles of God for themselves. In other words, what some interpret to be pointing to what happens when people die, is really about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

Me:
Well, that's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But, anyone's interpretations of scripture could be wrong.

Including yours; perhaps especially yours. Of course you're also entitled to your own private interpretation.

Well, that's what I said, isn't it? "Anyone" means anyone, including me. I am not offering my own private interpretation. It's the interpretation of countless seminary professors and others who have used the principles of hermeneutics to interpret the Bible.

My point is that we should refrain from making dogmatic statements as if it is the final truth of the matter.

I'm not making dogmatic statements. My statements are based on historical fact. These ideas were brought with them from the Babylonian captivity. They believed that when someone died, they went to one of three places: 1. Abraham's bosom; 2. under the throne of glory; or 3. Eden, Gk. "Paradise". When someone would die they would say, "today he sits in Abraham's bosom". This is why some scholars think Jesus was a Pharisee. He wasn't teaching anything anyone hadn't heard already. The fact that the Pharisees were getting really ticked off should be your first clue that this isn't about where people go when they die, but where they're going (on a superficial level). Really, it's about how they hoarded the blessings of God for themselves. This is a recurring theme with Jesus and the Pharisees and elders, e.g. the parable of the good Samaritan, the fit in the temple with the money changers, the " brood of vipers" comment; pointing out that they would see sinners going into heaven while they stood and watched; they kept people out of the kingdom, and wouldn't go in themselves, etc.

Your statement above beginning with, "The story isn't meant to be read as if this rich man..." is a dogmatic statement. To claim that it's not dogmatic you would have to prove that your interpretation of the passage is the right one above all others and you can't do that. There isn't much argument about what is written in the Bible, but there's a hell of a lot of argument about what it means.

Me:
Not at all. According to what I (and millions of others) have learned and been taught the rich man and all the other wicked dead will be removed from the temporary hell at the final judgment. There they will actually face God to give an account of their lives. In a sense, they were judged at their death and found themselves in the temporary hell awaiting the final judgment. If may not make sense to you, but to many Bible scholars and students it does

Well, for anyone in temporary hell, a reprieve to go and stand before God would be a blessing. I would think they would bow before God and gratefully thank him for letting them out of their temporary hell for a while to be judged. If they are allowed to give an account for their lives, I would think they would have spent all their time in temporary hell thinking of all the things they would say to forestall the inevitable. There's a similar idea around about doing the same thing when the grim reaper comes to take your soul to the underworld. You stall him long enough for him to run past his allotted time to take you, so he has to come back later when he's gotten caught up.

You're sidetracking. My quote above beginning with "Not at all" was in response to your previous post that asks: "How can the rich man be judged and his brothers are still living as if the judgement hadn't happened at all? Do you see the problem?" I said not at all. I went on to try to explain how evangelicals understand that the rich man in Luke 16 was in a temporary hell. For some reason, you choose not to respond to that issue but instead begin another point of contention altogether about the man being glad for some kind of reprieve. I think we've muddied these waters too much already, don't you?

Again, I think it is important to note that you are referring to a text that explicitly indicates that all of these people are jumping into the lake of fire,

Where, exactly, is that text you say I'm referring to? I said no such thing. The Bible never says that people jump into the lake of fire and I never said it, either. What the Bible says is that they were thrown into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15 says, "And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

and the last to jump into it are death and the grave. They die. The text doesn't say that they jump into eternal life, but that death is swallowed up. If death were swallowed up first, then perhaps we could conclude that anyone that jumped in afterwards would perhaps be tortured forever since death was dead and gone.

Again, you're making statements as if only your interpretation is the right one. You cannot furnish conclusive proof that your's is the ultimate truth, and neither can I. The difference is, I don't need to furnish any proof. I'm not making dogmatic statements about what the Bible teaches. You are. I'm simply stating what millions of Christians right here in the USA believe concerning judgment and eternal hell, and upon THAT fact I asked them the two questions. If you want proof I can furnish a copy of The Baptist Faith and Doctrine. There are over 15,000,000 members in the Southern Baptist Convention and the majority believe that. It doesn't matter that they're wrong in their beliefs. They THINK they're right, they THINK they have the final truth, and that's all that matters when it comes to the questions posed.

You can argue all day that they're wrong about eternal hell, about whether the rich man/poor man is a parable or not, about whether there is a tempory hell and eternal hell. It doesn't matter! It's not an issue in the context of the OP I submitted. The only thing that matters is that THEY believe it.

All the rest of the debating I've been doing with you is to try, unsuccessfully so far, to show you what THEY believe.

It doesn't make sense to call something "death" or "the second death" if they're going to be alive forever.[/quote]

Oh, but it makes sense to THEM! They believe there is a spiritual death as well as a physical death. You're actually trying to debate what THEY believe.

Then there's things like the title, "son of perdition" which means liable to die. Then there's the description of the devil being turned to ashes from within.[/quote]

That's interesting about the devil being turned into ashes. I know you won't mind furnishing the scripture that backs that up. I could have missed it so I'd like to see it.

Ashes are a description of complete annihilation.[/quote]

Let's settle the issue of the devil first before you try to legitimize a possible falsehood with a fact.

I'm just saying that you can't really torture someone who is completely burned to ash. The description Jesus gives also indicates that the fire burns forever, not those who are burned by it necessarily.[/quote]

Again, you need to take your argument to those who believe such things, not me. I'm not supporting their claims. I'm arguing within the context of what they believe.

Quote:
The Jewish mind didn't see death as some place one went to await judgment. The person just died and that was it; they're dead. Then on Judgement day they're resurrected and face their Maker.

Me:
That's right. But according to other beliefs, Jesus brought more revelation about the afterlife. Take the repentant thief on the cross, for example. Jesus said to him that on this day he would be with him in paradise. That's certainly not the grave.
Paradise is believed to be the place the repentant and righteous go to be comforted and wait for the eternal heaven just as the wicked (not because he was rich) rich man went to a temporary hell to be punished and await the final judgment and the Lake of Fire. In light of these beliefs, it makes sense.

The problem with this theory is that the thief asked Jesus a very direct question. He asked him to remember him when he entered into his kingdom.

That's right. But you ignored the main issue and that was that Jesus told him that he would be with Him that every day in paradise. How could he be with Jesus in paradise if his soul didn't go there when he died confirming what evangelicals believe about the souls of the saved going to Paradise which is (in their view) a temporary heaven. Now if you want to argue against that view I suggest you take it up with those who believe that way.

The kingdom of messiah is referred to numerous times in scripture; it is a Paradise on earth. The prophets speak of it in glowing terms. How anyone could miss this doesn't make much sense at all. This "believed to be...etc" place is simply just some fabricated idea. If you think it makes sense, then why do you ask that others think about it?[/quote]

I could argue that according to THEM you are wrong. But what's the point? None of this is central to the original post. But if I were the one making these claims you would have a legitimate debate with me over it. But I'm not the one claiming this is true. I never really wanted to debate with you on what THEY believed. You're the one who wanted to debate about what the Bible actually teaches and I took you up on it but it's a side issue we should not have gotten into in this particular post.

Quote:
... but why would God give someone the opportunity to do away with hell. God creates hell, and then decides to ask you if you'd like to just get rid of hell altogether. This is why I find this question fascinating. The God of the universe creates everything even hell, and then one day He decides, Hey, I think I'll let you decide what to do with hell". I then proceeded to point out some possible assumptions about just what kind of God are we dealing with here.

No, God would never do that! I didn't say he would. It is a hypothetical question. It may be fascinating, ridiculous, "way out there" as I said, but it is NOT an invalid question. Is there such a thing as an invalid question? Might be a subject for debate.

I'm not suggesting that the question is invalid. I'm simply pointing out some of the ramifications of this question that you may not have considered.[/quote]

Whether or not I considered the ramifications is immaterial. The ones I posed the question to might need to consider the ramifications of what they're believing.

The question was meant to try to get those Christians to THINK about what they're believing instead of sweeping the troubling issue of hell aside and hide their heads in the sand. Every believer I've ever known has had loved ones and friends who they deemed "lost" and headed for hell. IF given the chance would they abolish hell and save their loved ones and friends? I think many would start to do it and then realize that it's going to make them appear more merciful than God. So why doesn't God just annihilate all those sinners instead of torturing them forever in fire? Good question I think.

I'm not saying it isn't a bad question. I'm simply pointing out that we're dealing with a capricious god. A god that provides a place for these people to go, and then, on a whim; let's someone decide if they want to get rid of hell.

Do you suppose maybe this picture of hell was man made instead of God made?

I thought you said it was a hypothetical question; I assumed it had to be human imagination.[/quote]

Yes, I certainly did. Hypothetical questions are posed to things which are true OR thought to be true.

But then one might ask, why would God write such a book that the concept of an eternal, blazing hell could be formed? That would be cruel.

I doubt it, especially when there are so many people who would rather be miserable their whole lives than do anything to rectify the situation.[/quote]

That statement is very questionable. You throw this stuff out there without any verifiable evidence. That's no way to debate. These are the kind of statements that belong in the discussion forum, not here. You're dealing with complicated psychological issues. But to say that misery-lovers exist with no extenuating circumstances to explain it and that these same people would choose a fiery eternal hell over comfort in heaven is beyond ridiculous and I think you know it.

People throughout history have agonized over going to hell and lived austere lives to try to please God and keep from going there.

Yet, another good example. There are countless others such as those who hate pretty much anyone who is better than them. Those who are incapable of taking responsibility for their own mistakes, are always blaming others for their own blunders. They will never be able to get honest with themselves, and grow into maturity so they will never be able to handle an eternity of bliss with God in heaven. They would much rather blame god for their misfortunes for eternity.[/quote]

Already explained.

Quote:
It (the story of the rich man) can't be about what happens after one dies. There was no question what happens after one dies. Jesus would have looked like some sort of lunatic teaching what happens after someone dies.

Me:
Jesus would, of course, teach about what happens after someone dies if the teaching was new revelation, wouldn't he?

Perhaps, but there's really no reason to make this assumption in the first place. Where the dead go, and the resurrection were all well known ideas. The Pharisees believed in a resurrection while the Sadducees didn't believe in an afterlife.[/quote]

So there's no reason for them to make the assumption in the first place. I agree.

Why wasn't it taught by Moses or the prophets?

It was taught by the prophets, and others in scripture.[/quote]

An eternal hell with fire for the condemned was not taught. If it was you'll have to show me.

You got me. There's a lot of pieces of the Bible that just don't fit.

Especially if you're missing pieces.

Quote:
This would be like him teaching an adult how to tie sandals, or how to draw water from a well. The Pharisees are the authorities on morality and ethical behavior.

Me:
Wasn't that a huge point of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees? They THOUGHT they were the authorities on morality and behavior. Jesus pointed out that his Father was the authority.

Jesus didn't have a problem with what they were teaching when they were "sitting in the seat of Moses"; i.e. when they were teaching from the Torah, and the Prophets. He only had a problem with their behavior and their funny ideas about adding to their own self importance.

Quote:
They, as well as everyone else in that society; knew what happened when someone died.

Me:
No, they thought they knew.

The point is that Jesus doesn't teach anything new about death and the afterlife except as it relates to the gospel message, and this doesn't contribute to the gospel except insofar as it shows how not to live; i.e. being a miser with the gifts God gives.[/quote]

Even if that is true it is totally irrelevant to the topic of the OP.

Quote:
Their body went into the ground and the spirit that gave that body life went straight back to their God. That soul that died ceased to know anything from that point on.

Me:
Even the wicked people and all those who rejected God went straight back to God?

Yep, Ecclesiastes states: "7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." The spirit is the Hebrew word "ruach" and is translated as "the breath of life". It's what gives life or animates all life. When God breathed the breath of life into the dirt he had formed into Adam's body, the text says that Adam became "a living soul". When the spirit leaves the dirt, the soul ceases to exist. This idea is found in numerous places in scripture.

In that case, no one goes to hell, everyone goes to heaven unless you believe that the evil spirits in heaven were going to be thrown out of heaven at the end of the end of time. No wonder Jesus had to straighten them out on this!

Jesus isn't straightening anyone out on this. He's getting the Pharisees so ticked off they're just going to kill him.[/quote]

Because he was straightening them out and it hurt their pride, maybe?

No one goes anywhere when they die. Their body goes into the ground and "knows nothing". The spirt that animated their bodies goes back to God. Their spirit is not their soul. The soul is the combination of the spirit and the body. When the spirit leaves the body, the soul cease to exist. The body returns to dirt.[/quote]

Ok, that's plausible for those who believe in God and the Bible, but it's only one interpretation of the scriptures.

Quote:
This was not something that Jesus would be teaching about in the first place. His concern was with what happened AT the judgement; not what happened between death and the judgement. He's not teaching the Pharisees what happens after they die, he's teaching them that they are hypocrites.

Me:
No, many believe he's teaching them what happens to wicked, greedy people (like the rich man) when they die. And again, you can't just set yourself as the final authority on what Jesus was teaching. Other sincere, intelligent students of the Bible interpret scripture differently.

I'm not presenting myself as an authority. I'm simply pointing out a few facts from the text as well as the historical and cultural context in which this all occurred.[/quote]

When you are "pointing out a few facts from the text" as the only viable interpretation you're claiming authority. Simply saying what the text does not help your argument any because ten people can have ten different opinions on what the text MEANS. You might point out what the text says, but the conclusions you draw from it are not necessarily the correct ones, no? Except maybe in your own mind.
Quote:
There is nothing in the definition or usage of the figure Parable that requires names be used or excluded from the figure. This is a non sequitur.

Me:
An equal argument can be made that your position is a non sequitur.

I doubt it, not without redefining the definition of the figure, or making up some arbitrary rule like "no names can be used in the figure Parable".[/quote]

You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say it was a rule. I said that, within the context of the scriptures involved, there are justifiable reasons why some do believe it. I gave reference to an article that points to plausible reasons why many do not believe this is a parable. For one, Jesus did not say it was a parable. Also, in this story alone he used the name of a person, not in his other parables. Those are just two reasons why many Christians think this is not a parable. With that said, one could argue that they're just making the story fit their doctrine. Could you not be doing the same thing? All my arguments are within the framework of what evangelicals believe.

But what you're really doing in this whole debate is saying to them, you're wrong, and since you're wrong no one can ask you to defend what you believe and nobody can use what you believe in order to engage in a debate with you.

If you care to check it out you can go to got?questions.org and read about legitimate other views.

Sorry, but the definition and usage of the figure is the only legitimate view. What people invent to support their fabricated theology isn't legitimate.[/quote]

Don't you mean that your interpretation of that story is the only legitimate view? I'm sure there are a few hundred biblical scholars that would beg to differ!

A lifetime of suffering on earth is completely logical if you believe what science has shown, that life came about by natural selection and gene mutation. Suffering is then understood to be the natural consequences of living on this planet among often hostile inhabitants of all kinds, including viruses and germs, not to mention violent weather, earthquakes, etc.

A natural consequence of idiots, and the feeble minded.[/quote]

So now you're resorting to ad hominem statements.

The ironic thing is that this work of fiction deals with your viruses and germs quite effectively. The text even suggests that you perform a scientific experiment to see for yourself.[/quote]

In what way does the Bible deal with viruses and germs? Where are they mentioned? By "the text" I assume you mean the Bible. So, where in the Bible does it say that we perform a scientific experiment?

Science took a few thousand years to figure it out for itself because it wasn't into looking at mythologies, regardless of whether they contained easily reproducible results.[/quote]

Oh. Well, that explains everything.

Science has shown that it is now attempting to become the new and improved religion on the block complete with high priests, and a laity exercising blind faith in all their orthodox pronouncements. Believers from all denominations are easily deceived.[/quote]

Science and the scientific method couldn't care less about religion, much less in becoming one. All true science has ever been interested in is finding the truth, and if the truths they find upset those who believe in myth and legend and the ancient writings of a nomadic people, well, that's the price it pays for progress. High priests? You can't use the analogy of religious structures to science. Well, maybe you can in your mind. Blind faith? Is it blind faith to believe that the Polio vaccine will prevent Polio? Is it blind faith to take an aspirin for a headache? Many Christians have no trouble enjoying the millions of benefits of science, but balk when science interferes with their precious traditions.

But if one believes that God created us (making him responsible for us) and loves us and is full of compassion and kindness, then the terrible suffering of people including children and animals becomes a huge issue to try to justify.

They don't seem to be lacking any defenders for their faith.[/quote]

True. But as science advances, I think it will dispell more and more of the ridiculous claims (in my opinion) of a supernational god to explain things. Science has always bravely pushed itself forward against ignorance and superstition and I suspect it will continue to do so.

Quote:
I find this a bit biased to say the least. When there is no god to create everything, it's suddenly perfectly acceptable and reasonable that suffering exist, but if there is a god, then he must be a monster? If suffering makes sense without a god, why must a god do anything any different?

Me:
Because the Bible portrays God as merciful and compassionate. By definition God is love. "God loves the little children of the world." Yet, throughout history...

Wait. You said this was fiction, right? Since when does fiction depict historical events?[/quote]

Who said it did? Not me. Let me paste here what I said:
Me:
Yet, throughout history children have suffered horrible abuses and the suffering that comes from earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanoes, storms - all the things referred to as "acts of God."

As you should have been able to see, I was stating events that are independent and outside of the Bible. No fiction there.

I was, as always, arguing a point within the context of what the Bible teaches, not what I believe. It is perfectly legitimate to say that Atticus Finch successfully defended a black man accused of raping a white woman in the book and movie To Kill a Mockingbird. Yet it was all fiction.

If evolution created...

You're conflating your terms. Creation is what a Creator creates. Evolution doesn't create anything. There is no creation in evolution. Evolution cannot create anything.[/quote]

Got me on that one! I should have said that evolution produced...

Quote:
What's so different about natural selection and gene mutation and a god that "elects" those who he decides are more suitable for life? Perhaps he uses the exact same mechanism to decide which would make your accusations seem a bit unwarranted.

Me:
Why do you propose that God used evolution to create us?

Not necessarily. I'm just pointing out that the texts are similar in their framework.[/quote]

If one is going to believe that God worked in evolution then one needs to toss Genesis 1 out of the Bible. These new views of creation from theists only came about after scientific evidence for evolution made it impossible to ignore.

That's not what Genesis teaches, in my opinion, and that of most Christendom.

Well, we're dealing with apples and oranges. Creation deals with the origin of the universe, life etc. whereas Evolution deals with a process, a "mechanism" of evolution. Even though Darwin titles his book, "The Origin of Species", he doesn't find or deal with the origin of anything whatsoever.[/quote]

No, because he was only dealing with the origin of species. He wasn't under obligation to explain how the earth or the universe came about.

There is no scientific evidence that God's hand was in it at all.

Why do you even bring that up in the first place? We're dealing with a work of fiction, no? Why would a work of fiction be involved in evolution?[/quote]

Remember, I'm working within the context of what the Bible says.

A created god wouldn't have anything to do with evolution unless the theory itself were to be found to be an invention of men. I guess, in a sense it is, in that someone came up with the theory. From that standpoint I can see what you're saying. On the other hand, if we were to be dealing with an actual god, especially a transcendent deity, then there can be no scientific evidence as transcendent deities cannot be analyzed by science. Science is impotent to deal with transcendent deities.[/quote]

That's right. As far as I know, science only deals with ideas and theories using the scientific method. Science isn't interested in trying to prove whether God exists or doesn't exist. Like Joe Friday said, "Just the facts, mam."

Quote:
Why not just say that this whole process is unjustified without some god?

Me:
Because that's not what I believe and it's not what science teaches.

So science justifies human suffering, torture, rape, genocide, wars, pestilence etc.? How is that different from what this fictional deity does?[/quote]

No, science does not justify, it explains.

In ancient times people didn't have the science we have today.

Sure they did, they called it religion. Science is no different. Science looks at the world around us and attempts to explain what's going on as best they can. Science creates it's own mythologies as a framework to understand the world around us. These frameworks are referred to as theories or hypotheses.[/quote]

Look at what you're saying. You just said that ancient people had the science we have today. So, could they extract DNA back then?
The theories and hypotheses you mentioned are what led to the great and awesome discoveries of science that make everyone's life better and healthier. Did religion ever do that? Science tries to explain the world through observation, questioning, reason, and the scientific process. Religion tries to explain the world by claiming that a supernatural being whom they've never seen, heard, nor touched created everything and gave us rules to live by.


Quote:
This is interesting to me for a number of reasons, but it's really no different than the abortion issue. This isn't meant to derail your question into some tangeant, but to show that a woman has the right to abort her baby for any reason whatsoever. She doesn't need a reason to begin with. It's no different with the god of the bible. This is His world. He created it, and He's free to do with it as He likes. I'm not saying that's what he's doing though. All of the arguments that are used to justify a woman's right can be just as easily used for God and his right to justly deal with his creation as he see's fit. Given that he's a just deity, his reasons will be much better than a woman getting an abortion.[/quote]

I don't know what country you live in but in the USA there are restrictions on abortion and they vary from state to state. So in the USA, a woman does not have the right to abort her child for no reason whatsoever.

Me:
IF the God of the Bible created this world and all living things...

What are you on about? The god of the bible is a work of fiction. He is the product of a lot of different authors imaginations. He didn't actually create anything in our world. You need to keep this straight in your head. You need to keep the two separate.

Covered this already.

then, yes, HE can do as he pleases with it and us, including allowing the unnecessary suffering of children and animals and tossing the majority his creation in the burning hell when he's through with it.
For the record, I'm totally against abortion except in certain cases. And here again, you've stated your opinion on that subject as if it was a universal truth.

I did no such thing. You've taken leave of your senses. I'm merely pointing out legal distinctions and comparing them to the text.

Ouch! A shot below the belt. You could get a warning from the moderator for that. But you should know that, right? You said nothing about pointing out legal distinctions in your response. I take what you say at face value. I can't read your mind to decipher what you really mean. Further,

I'm pointing out that we live in a world where we can do what we want with our private property and most people don't have a problem with that [/quote]

And neither do I. But some people don't believe that an unborn child is the private property of the woman carrying it. Private property of human beings went out with slavery. But here's something you never hear about. What are the rights of the father of the child? It takes two to make a baby.

Did you think I would agree with you on that subject? Is that why you put it out as a given? To many millions of women and men, the life of an unborn child is precious and should be protected by a civilized society.

Why? What does that have to do with a civilized society? Are you suggesting that the society we live in is uncivilized because we abort a million babies a year? What's so uncivilized about that?[/quote]

No, what I'm saying that it's an uncivilized practice. Since when is it civilized to kill millions of a society's children?

Since when is an unborn child precious? To whom? You? Don't make me laugh.[/quote]

That comment isn't only disrespectful but it calls my character into question. How do you know what is precious to me? What gives you the right to judge me like that? As a moderator, you of all people should set an example by abiding by the rules. Are you even aware there are rules against that kind of talk?

You're no authority on what's precious or civilized. Society decides what is precious, and civilized; the mob rules. The mob says that abortion is perfectly acceptable, even condoned for any reason.[/quote]

I don't have to be an authority to know what's precious to me. Yeah, and the mob ruled in Nazi Germany, too.

Quote:
If we're dealing with an infinitely just, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, wise deity here, then a perfect human being who does one thing wrong, even if it's forgetting to say 'hello' to someone in passing is practically as evil as a Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot in relation to God. In other words, you're in no position to pass judgment on a God like that. it would be like telling us that you completely understood quantum physics and string theory when you were four years old.

Me:
But we're not dealing with an infinitely just, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, wise deity here. We're dealing with a fictional character and that gives me the right to pass judgment on him.

You do realize that you're passing judgement on a fictional character, don't you? You can't pass judgment on fictional characters; they're not real in the first place.[/quote]

Within the context, I can make a judgment call. To use the same example I used earlier, I can judge that Atticus Finch was a good defense lawyer and upheld civil rights.

My description of this fictional deity is accurate. It's how this fictional deity is portrayed by the author, and therefore it really doesn't matter what he does, it's condoned, just, right, correct, etc. It's really no different than mob rule, except instead of the mob, it's this one fictional deity who decides what is right and wrong. We don't live in a world of gods so there is no right or wrong anyways. Given that there can be no objective standard of right or wrong, whatever this fictional deity does makes no difference whatsoever. There can be nothing wrong with annihilating his whole creation if he wants to on a whim. You either do what he says, or get ready for some smiting. The same holds true in this world except that when you do something stupid, you get a good whupping for no apparent reason. [/quote]

I really don't get what you're talking about.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 281 by amortalman]

I don't believe in a Hell. I view God as loving, loving everyone; and when you love persons, you do not coerce them with threats of terrible punishments and torment. Hence, I am in agreement with you on the question of Hell. I believe in a universal salvation. There has already been more than enough pain and suffering in this world. We don't need that sort of thing in the hereafter.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 281 by amortalman]

I don't believe in a Hell. I view God as loving, loving everyone; and when you love persons, you do not coerce them with threats of terrible punishments and torment. Hence, I am in agreement with you on the question of Hell. I believe in a universal salvation. There has already been more than enough pain and suffering in this world. We don't need that sort of thing in the hereafter.

Yes, there's been enough pain and suffering and I, as the leader of this world,

ask that all prisoners shall be set free, that we do away with criminal prosecutions.

I also ask that all citizens support me.

[amortalman]

[Replying to American Deist]

The truth is many thousands of Christians do actually read, and study extensively, the Bible and still come to the conclusion that a literal hell of torment forever exists and awaits the unrepentant wicked and all unbelievers.
When I was a "faithful" active Christian one nagging issue never went away and that was how could God condemn anyone to that kind of horrible nightmare. But I lived with it like so many others. It wasn't until I could no longer ignore the issue and
many more that piled up that I broke free.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 282 by hoghead1]

[center]

Who do we thank for that?[/center]

I believe in a universal salvation.

Salvation from what?
From all the pain and suffering God made sure we are getting?

There has already been more than enough pain and suffering in this world. We don't need that sort of thing in the hereafter.

We don't "NEED" pain and suffering in this one, either.
Who do we thank for that situation?

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 284 by amortalman]

Then they are mistaken because that is not what the Bible says. I suspect they stop short of Revelation 20 and 21.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 286 by American Deist]



[center]
Theological certainty[/center]

Then they are mistaken because that is not what the Bible says.

These other groups of Christians might say the same about you.
Everyone religious group seems to be convinced about their own brand of theology.

Isn't the diversity of religious opinions great?
Isn't certainty comforting?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 281 by amortalman]

I don't believe in a Hell. I view God as loving, loving everyone; and when you love persons, you do not coerce them with threats of terrible punishments and torment. Hence, I am in agreement with you on the question of Hell. I believe in a universal salvation. There has already been more than enough pain and suffering in this world. We don't need that sort of thing in the hereafter.

Do you reconcile this with the verses that say things like: Psalm 11:5 The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he HATES with a passion.

hates: NASB Translation
detest (1), enemy (3), enmity (1), foes (1), hate (78), hated (28), hated her intensely (1), hates (19), hating (2), hatred (1), turned against (1), turns against (2), unloved (7).

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
enemy, foe, be hateful odious, utterly as a primitive root; to hate (personally) -- enemy, foe, (be) hate(-ful, -r), odious, utterly.

or do you just prefer your own opinions over HIS word because you think your morality is above the morality of GOD as depicted in such verses?