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.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

TotN wrote:
"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..

Okay, first, did God tell you this personally? If not, where is this information located in the Bible?

Second, if God created Satan whole, with his own hand, then He either got exactly the result He intended to get, or He failed to get the result He intended to get. If God is omnipotent, and the Bible says that He is, then God knew exactly what the result of creating Satan would be when He created Satan, and God either got exactly the result He intended to get, or he failed to get the result He intended to get. If God is omnipotent, then Satan was created to rebel, and there was never any other possibility. The Bible specifically says that God is omnipotent. The Bible specifically says that God made us in His image. The Bible does not specifically promise us free will, however. That part you have made up and declared to be true.

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.

The only way this makes any sense, is if God selectively choose not to know things. But if God selectively chose not to know things, He would first have to know what to selectively not to know. If God selectively chose not to know certain things, it must be because those things were the things God intended. If God selectively chose not to know that things would occur because those were the things He actually wanted to occur, then God got exactly the result He intended right from the start. Or to put it another way, if God CHOSE to fail, then God did not fail. Like a trip down the rabbit hole, the the more detailed the explanation, the curiouser thing become.

Or another way of putting it is, your belief system is a victim of it's own convoluted illogic.

[Bust Nak]

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.

What made you think a freewill will that never sins does not have freewill in the first place? If you think a created free will that never sin doesn't actually have freewill then angels don't have freewill.

[ttruscott]

Okay, first, did God tell you this personally? If not, where is this information located in the Bible?

It is in the logic that rests on GOD being righteous with no wickedness in HIM* and a hatred for wickedness** that would preclude HIM ever creating it as some like to represent HIM. And yes, I believe I was led to understand that the illogical contradictory doctrines of many sects had a proper resolution more fitting with the self revealed nature of GOD. Some people might know a little bit about the word ra but they do not know GOD if they think HE creates or does moral evil.

* Psalm 92:15 "The LORD is just; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him." and 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

**Psalm 11:5 "The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth."

The only way this makes any sense, is if God selectively choose not to know things.

The Bible implies HE did this whether it fits your only way or not...

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
This implies HIS omniscience is limited to 'all HIS works' and it started at 'the beginning of the world, the age of creation.' All HIS works describe HIS creative decrees.

Therefore if HE did not decree into creation something, HE did not know it...and I contend HE did not decree the results of our true free will decisions so HE did not know what those results would be until we decided them for ourselves.

The implications of this verse fit perfectly with it being totally illogical and out of character for the GOD who is righteous and loving to create someone whom HE knew before their creation would end in hell. Love would not do that, so if someone does end in hell HE either did not love them or did not know what they would choose as to their end relationship with HIM before HE created them.

[ttruscott]

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.

What made you think a freewill will that never sins does not have freewill in the first place?

Aside from the confusing syntax here, I have no idea what you are on about... I supposedly think ??a freewill will that never sins does not have free will ??...if he never sins because he chose to never sin by his free will, how does he not have a free will???

If you think a created free will that never sin doesn't actually have freewill then angels don't have freewill.

What gave you the idea I think this?? You misrepresent me. I'm the one in this conversation that claimed "There is already a free will that never sins, within the Trinity and all the elect holy angels."

There is a great difference between a free will that never chooses to sin and being created with a (so called) free will that cannot sin, (which you support) which is a contradiction of free will.

[Bust Nak]

What made you think a freewill will that never sins does not have freewill in the first place?

Aside from the confusing syntax here, I have no idea what you are on about... I supposedly think ??a freewill will that never sins does not have free will ??...if he never sins because he chose to never sin by his free will, how does he not have a free will???

That's the point, a free will that will that never sins does have freewill.

You misrepresent me. I'm the one in this conversation that claimed "There is already a free will that never sins, within the Trinity and all the elect holy angels."

I know, that's why I am questioning you where you were getting that free will that denies free will business from.

There is a great difference between a free will that never chooses to sin and being created with a (so called) free will that cannot sin, (which you support) which is a contradiction of free will.

Incorrect, all I am calling for is a free will that never chooses to sin. This talk of a free will that cannot sin is all on you so don't you try and pin that on me again. This is far from the first time you tried this, I called you out for this exact thing yesterday here, on top of the times before.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 51 by ttruscott]

It is in the logic that rests on GOD being righteous with no wickedness in HIM* and a hatred for wickedness** that would preclude HIM ever creating it as some like to represent HIM. And yes, I believe I was led to understand that the illogical contradictory doctrines of many sects had a proper resolution more fitting with the self revealed nature of GOD. Some people might know a little bit about the word ra but they do not know GOD if they think HE creates or does moral evil.

* Psalm 92:15 "The LORD is just; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him." and 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

**Psalm 11:5 "The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth."

This of course depends on what standard of righteousness and wickedness one chooses to accept as valid. My own standard is that anyone (or any Being) that orders children and babies to be hacked to death is irredeemably wicked. Since actions speak louder than words, what any Being that has demonstrated the capability of being THAT wicked chooses to say about Himself has little value. Anyone who wishes to understand the nature of the God of the OT should carefully read the Book of Job.

But this was your original statement:

ttruscott wrote:
"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.."

Nowhere does the Bible claim that God created us with free will. The Bible DOES indicate that God is omnipotent however, which means that everything that occurs does so in accordance with God's omnipotent will. True free will is nowhere promised, because no such condition is possible. You keep insisting that God gave us free will. Free will is a desperately important part of Christian doctrine. And yet the Bible makes no such promise. Christians claim that our free will is an obvious fact. And yet if no God existed to begin with, free will would simply be an undeniable fact of nature.

The Bible implies HE did this whether it fits your only way or not...

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
This implies HIS omniscience is limited to 'all HIS works' and it started at 'the beginning of the world, the age of creation.' All HIS works describe HIS creative decrees.

Therefore if HE did not decree into creation something, HE did not know it...and I contend HE did not decree the results of our true free will decisions so HE did not know what those results would be until we decided them for ourselves.

The implications of this verse fit perfectly with it being totally illogical and out of character for the GOD who is righteous and loving to create someone whom HE knew before their creation would end in hell. Love would not do that, so if someone does end in hell HE either did not love them or did not know what they would choose as to their end relationship with HIM before HE created them.

If God is omnipotent then Satan was created to be exactly what he turned out to be, and there never was any out for him. I can see no connection to the concept of "righteous" here. This is the definition of that which is wicked. And as Numbers 31:15-18, Joshua 6:20-21, Joshua 11:19-2 and Ezekiel 9:4-7 show, God is perfectly capable of acts of hideous wickedness. All He needs are mindless devoted minions who are capable of convincing themselves that hacking babies and children to death must sometimes be a "righteous" thing.

"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Except, according to you, those things He chooses NOT to know. Which would first require him to know what He then chooses not to know. This logical contradiction in thought seems to be unapparent to you and many other Christians. You believe that it is necessarily so because it MUST necessarily be so to conform to your prefered assumptions.

The Bible "implies" that it is the nature of God to be self contradictory. According to you. God is omnipotent, and yet God makes mistakes. No such Being is possible! You can't really expect such an obviously self contradictory doctrine to go unnoticed by others. And people who are outside of your convoluted belief system and are evaluating it critically based on logic, recognize that those things which actively contradict themselves have no actual possibility for proving to be true. This stuff is the textbook definition of nonsense.

[chriss]

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?

Before I answer let me say that this is an interesting discussion and has made me think. I am preparing to go on holiday which is why I have been slow in answering. I may not be able to contribute for about 2 weeks (hopefully less).

Anyway I have a bit of time to start my answer.

Our problem does appear to be, at least partly, in the definition of what 'relative' means. I still hold that one cannot debate a relative statement whereas you appear to believe that it is possible to do so.

Painting A is better than painting B is not a moral statement but it is a relative one.
I believe that when you give a reason that painting A is better than painting B, you are implicitly suggesting that, in some way, painting A matches some universal criteria better than painting B. For example, you might be saying that painting A is a more accurate representation of the scene than is that of painting B. So painting A more closely resembles a photograph of the scene. Before I can judge whether you are correct in saying that painting A is better than painting B, I have to find out what universal criteria you are using in order to agree that painting A is better than B. In the case of paintings such universal criteria can exist. However, I understand that you deny that any universal criteria can exist for morality. That is what I understand by 'morality is relative'. So, yes, I think that your attempt to give me a reason for your belief is an implicit acceptance of some universal criteria.

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.

So when you give the statement., 'it is neither correct nor incorrect', you actually mean 'I believe that it is neither correct or incorrect'. My belief or your belief that something is true does not make it true. If I say that I believe the statement 'it is wrong to kill an abortion doctor' is complete that it is just your belief against mine. How do we resolve this? Also if someone believes that it is OK to kill an abortion doctor why would you condemn him? Should not his beliefs have equal weight to yours?

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.)

So, if the government passed a law prescribing the death penalty for abortion doctors, would you accept that?

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?

So, are you saying that different moral stances can only be resolved by force? Yet other people on this thread are criticising God for using force to impress his moral stances on others.

... 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."

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.

Based on your previous answers, the statement 'it is wrong for Bob to kill' actually means 'I believe that it is wrong for Bob to kill' so, despite the ambiguity, why would it be false?

I think maybe we have taken this as far as it can go. I am sure we shall shortly find other things to debate in the very near future. I am a fairly orthodox Christian and I believe that you are fairly strongly opposed to it, at least in some areas.

[ttruscott]

"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Except, according to you, those things He chooses NOT to know. Which would first require him to know what He then chooses not to know. This logical contradiction in thought seems to be unapparent to you and many other Christians. You believe that it is necessarily so because it MUST necessarily be so to conform to your prefered assumptions.

HE knew exactly what HE did not want to create - the results of our free will decisions, unprogrammed and undetermined by HIM. This therefore made these results unknown to HIM. Your logical contradiction in this instance is meaningless because it is logically possible for HIM to not create the results of our willful choices to ensure they were indeed by a free will even though that would mean HE would not know those results until we chose them. HE was not choosing what HE did not want to know, HE was choosing to not interfere with our choices by choosing the results for us which had the effect of a lack of knowledge.

Your focus upon HIM not wanting to know something is meaningless since it is a mere byproduct of HIS not creating for us the results of our free will decisions. HE did NOT allow us the ability to create something new, the results of our free will decisions, SO THAT HE would not know what they would be BUT SO THAT they would be our own creation, our own responsibility and an expression of what we wanted ourselves without being forced or programmed by HIM.

[ttruscott]

Incorrect, all I am calling for is a free will that never chooses to sin.

And my answer must stand as I said it before: there are indeed billions of billions of people, the holy angels, and the Trinity, who have a free will that never chose to sin nor will ever do so, by the expression of that free will. You are calling for that which already exists as if it does not exist and is something new.

That all folk did not choose to be sinless and holy is the point of a FREE will; they are FREE to reject good for an evil they think is better. The only way they can not have the ability to choose sin is to not have a free will with the problems that creates for sincere relationship bonding.

[Bust Nak]

Our problem does appear to be, at least partly, in the definition of what 'relative' means. I still hold that one cannot debate a relative statement whereas you appear to believe that it is possible to do so.

The simplest way I can think of, is that relative means something that is true for one person but false for another. You say you cannot debate a relative statement, I can grant you that much, beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Having said that, remember your original contention - you said you do not have to defend subjective statement. My counter claim is, you don't have to defend objective statements either, if you are not trying to convince someone; and if you are trying to convince someone, you can defend subjective statement just like objective ones.

Painting A is better than painting B is not a moral statement but it is a relative one.

Yes, and as such is a great analogy. Objectivist like you have asked "if morality is subjective then how can you condemn killing of doctors." That's like asking "if aesthetics taste is subjective then how can you say Picasso paints ugly?" I can call them ugly exactly because it is subjective. A lot of your questions can be answered by yourself by reframing it to an equivalent question re: aesthetics.

I believe that when you give a reason that painting A is better than painting B, you are implicitly suggesting that, in some way, painting A matches some universal criteria better than painting B...So, yes, I think that your attempt to give me a reason for your belief is an implicit acceptance of some universal criteria.

Have you ever tried to convince someone that your favourite musician is better than another? Or perhaps debated which actress is the prettiest? I am guessing yes. Does that mean there is some universal criteria for music taste or beauty? My answer is no - there is no question that taste is subjective.

So when you give the statement., 'it is neither correct nor incorrect', you actually mean 'I believe that it is neither correct or incorrect'.

No, I meant "factually, it is neither factually correct nor factually incorrect." I was making an objective, factual claim. My subjective claims will be labelled with "I believe" and other such qualifiers.

My belief or your belief that something is true does not make it true. If I say that I believe the statement 'it is wrong to kill an abortion doctor' is complete that it is just your belief against mine. How do we resolve this?

Whether the statement 'it is wrong to kill an abortion doctor' is complete or not, is an objective matter - it either is complete or it isn't, regardless of personal opinion. We resolve it like any other factual claims, first we look at the evidence for and against, and if that doesn't resolve it, we look at philosophical arguments. I am guessing there is not universal objective moral law that you can get me to look at, otherwise you would have presented it already. So here we are, arguing philosophy.

Also if someone believes that it is OK to kill an abortion doctor why would you condemn him?

Quite simply because I do not believe that it is OK to kill abortion doctors; I believe it is wrong to kill abortion doctors.

Should not his beliefs have equal weight to yours?

No, because there is no objective way to measure the weight of subjective opinion, which weights more depends on who you ask.

So, if the government passed a law prescribing the death penalty for abortion doctors, would you accept that?

No. If it wasn't clear before, I don't care much for rights, it's a man made construct that has little use beyond legality in the formal setting of a court. I care about doing the right thing.

So, are you saying that different moral stances can only be resolved by force?

No, I am saying there is no way to resolve moral stances; and I am saying in the absence of such a way, we make do with force. Sticking a thief in prison doesn't tell us anything about whether it is right to steal or not.

Yet other people on this thread are criticising God for using force to impress his moral stances on others.

Right you are, and is it not most ironic that the proposed objective moral law giver, is acting the same way as moral subjectivists?

Based on your previous answers, the statement 'it is wrong for Bob to kill' actually means 'I believe that it is wrong for Bob to kill' so, despite the ambiguity, why would it be false?

It would be false if I do not actually believe that it is wrong for Bob to kill. Much like "I believe bitter gourds are tasty" is false because I actually hate those things. Is that not obvious? Or have I misunderstood your question?

I look forward to more of this when you return from your holiday.