Hell is love

[Wootah]

The existence of hell is one of the best indications that God is loving.

His willingness to love his children by keeping them separate from the Devil's children demonstrates that love.

The eternity of hell is explained to my mind by the fact God is a God of life. We were created to live forever. Many other religions believe their God has the right to destroy even his children. But what security is there in that?

We all practise hell all the time. Aren't there people that you don't like or don't want to associate with? Don't we all cast people out of our lives?

Would you ever let a paedophile near your child? If yes then you don't love your child. If no then you are loving and you practise hell.

A Christian or any person arguing against hell is no different to a criminal arguing against prison.

Rebuttals?

[Purple Knight]

If I can do to the paedophile what I would if I hated him, without hating him, then so too with the child. I don't have to want the rape to happen, I can be sad that it happens, but I can still not stop it because I'm turning the other child.

It's not you being abused in that scenario. It's worrying that you apparently see no moral distinction between your decision to offer your own body to someone's abuse, and your decision to offer them someone else's body.

I know I said "give" but in this scenario it just means don't stop the rapist. I did also lay that out. I'm going to use the same standard for others on the child. If he fights off the rapist I won't stop him, even though he's using force which I consider wrong.

It literally says in the Bible, don't resist evil. Let them do it. I'm not quoting the Bible because I believe in it, but because this New Way is the highest morality and everyone knows so.

Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to Mithrae in post #27]

Emotional but not logical or debatable. Maybe go back to post 1 and steelman in for yourself?

https://constantrenewal.com/steel-man/

Of course it's not debatable, which is why you have to employ rhetorical sleight of hand like comparing punitive suffering for all eternity with mere preventative custody in the OP - despite annihilation having exactly the same effect without all the cruelty - or even more disingenuously with parents' behaviour-correcting discipline in the other thread.

Which is worse, ethnic cleaning over the years or eternal torture?
Which is worse, conquest and suppression over the decades or eternal torture?
Which is worse, gas chambers or eternal torture?

We generally don't allow torture of even our worst criminals, but your deity supposedly plans to use it for all eternity against average people on whom he inflicted their 'sinful nature' to begin with! It is quite literally the cruelest, most unloving and most unjust thing we can imagine, there's simply no debate about that... and that's despite the fact that we really can't even come close to fully conceptualizing it.

[Mithrae]

It's not you being abused in that scenario. It's worrying that you apparently see no moral distinction between your decision to offer your own body to someone's abuse, and your decision to offer them someone else's body.

I know I said "give" but in this scenario it just means don't stop the rapist. I did also lay that out. I'm going to use the same standard for others on the child. If he fights off the rapist I won't stop him, even though he's using force which I consider wrong.

It literally says in the Bible, don't resist evil. Let them do it. I'm not quoting the Bible because I believe in it, but because this New Way is the highest morality and everyone knows so.

It also literally says (in that same gospel) that Jesus resisted evil by casting out demons, rebuking the scribes and Pharisees and forcibly driving money changers from the temple. Common element in almost all of those incidents? The victims were people other than Jesus, but when his own time came he gave himself up for crucifixion. You're quoting a paragraph which says "Don't resist evildoers seeking to wrong you, instead offer them your cheek etc.," snipping out those first three words from their actual context, and taking from them a 'lesson' which is clearly contradicted numerous times throughout the story at large. And declaring on that shoddy basis that you'd let a rapist abuse your children... and that's the best notion of morality you have

[Purple Knight]

It also literally says (in that same gospel) that Jesus resisted evil by casting out demons, rebuking the scribes and Pharisees and forcibly driving money changers from the temple. Common element in almost all of those incidents? The victims were people other than Jesus, but when his own time came he gave himself up for crucifixion.

Another way to take it is that he never hit anybody, ever. He turned over tables. He used words to remove demons. He was nasty to people who were wrongdoers. Did he ever use force? Did he?

You're quoting a paragraph which says "Don't resist evildoers seeking to wrong you, instead offer them your cheek etc.," snipping out those first three words from their actual context, and taking from them a 'lesson' which is clearly contradicted numerous times throughout the story at large. And declaring on that shoddy basis that you'd let a rapist abuse your children... and that's the best notion of morality you have

I'm not snipping anything. I got it here.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/self_defense

I also remember when Lot threw his daughter to rapists to protect angels. I understand that protecting angels is a big deal but this at least means that letting someone rape your child is not inherently, absolutely impermissible.

[Wootah]

[Replying to tam in post #26]

(and if death is the punishment, then eternal punishment is simply eternal death)

If death means annihilation then what happened in Genesis? Hint: They didn't die.

They were dead in their sins but alive and conscious. Like hell will be.

Death is better viewed as separated from God. Non-Christians are dead people walking.

[Bust Nak]

Not really. If God annihilates and that is part of a loving God then a loving God could annihilate his children. There would always be that fear in heaven. But a loving God creates hell for 'not his children'. So as an adopted son I would have no fear.

Why this and not "If God created hell and that is part of a loving God then a loving God could send his children to hell. There would always be that fear in heaven. But a loving God annihilates 'not his children'. So as an adopted son I would have no fear?" You need to explain the difference between the two, as far as fear goes, that leads those in heaven fearing God could turn on them with one but not the other.

God is doing that now. Reaching out to you now. At some point, he has to say OK you can have it your way.

Does he though? You are familiar with the parable of the prodigal son, what time limit did that father set beyond which he would no longer accept his son's return?

When we were young and dating, we might ask a girl out and she says no and we keep trying but if you love her then you have to stop.

Sure, one should stop asking, else it turns into harassment; but if the guy truly love her, then he would leave the door open for her.

Parents are delusional aren't they? Rather than helping the people around them, they would still rather selfishly focus on their own progeny. Richard Dawkins doesn't call it the selfish gene for nothing.

And God is bounded by similar instincts?

Yep!

And that does not immediately strike you as problematic that a supposedly perfect deity, to borrow your own words - shows the worse kinds of love, lacks moral courage and is delusional, much like a mum selfishly focusing on her mobster child?

How can he do that? Love requires free will. Forcing you into heaven isn't love.

And yet you say God would still be perfectly loving and justified to let all of us go to hell, which would include those who wouldn't want to go to hell. Forcing those who don't want to into hell isn't love, you can't have it both ways.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #13]

In hell. Why not just destroy without hell?

No I didnt ask you that, I asked if by "hell" do you mean inflict unspeakable [and unending] torture on individuals ? If not what do you mean?


JW

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Wootah in post #17]

Are you a person that says the devil made me do it or a person that takes responsibility for your own actions?

Assuming The Devil is real, I would think he'd oft have some type of responsibility for some of a person's 'bad' actions (assuming your definition of 'bad'). But, (if) we have free will (which is debatable) we have to be responsible for at least some of our actions, good or bad.
That said, if God is the ultimate, supreme, all knowing/seeing being that he's said to be, ALL responsibility rolls up to him: he put people here, he put 'the devil' here, he allowed 'the devil' to tempt mankind knowing what would happen, etc. Therefore, I find it detestable on every level that God would think humanity would ultimately be responsible for all our actions when he could have prevented every. Single. Thing that happens to people.
Christians, claiming otherwise, are excusing their god.

Trust me, you are going to hell for your own sins, not the devil's or Adams.

Zero reason to trust you for anything. Just like you have zero reason to trust me. Having lived the lie of Christianity for decades, I would have to disagree totally with you. I'd go so far as to say you're wrong and lost in your need to have 'a god'. But that's neither here nor there. It wouldn't have had to have been said if you didn't introduce your 'trust me' statement.

I'd urge you to be more selfish then.

As I said, I was a Christian for a long time. I've had enough selfishness, than you.

Lead the selfish life of Christ and the world will see you as more selfless (but they won't like you).

I think most don't care about the life one leads or not. But when a person tries to force their belief on others or when they tell others how 'wrong' or 'bad' they are for not believing like you*, that's when they have issues. And to those people that do this, they don't deserved to be 'liked'.

We can't perfectly understand God, ever.

Yes and no. We can't, if God is truly what it's said he is. But we can when we make it up. And, from what I've seen, many 'make him up'.


*said in a general sense.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #26]

(and if death is the punishment, then eternal punishment is simply eternal death)

If death means annihilation then what happened in Genesis? Hint: They didn't die.

The second death means annihilation (utter destruction).

They were dead in their sins but alive and conscious. Like hell will be.

Death had entered into them - so that dying, they will die. But they were not dead in hell. They were yet alive on the earth.

As well:

1 - Hell - the world of the dead - is emptied out and then tossed ITSELF into the lake of fire (same with Death). No one will be in 'hell' (the world of the dead) at that point, because 'hell' (the world of the dead) will be emptied out and destroyed. It is destroyed because there will be no more dead; therefore, there will be no more need for a world of the dead. This is how SURE God is of his plan, He knows there will never again be a need for such a place, because a) the last enemy, Death, is destroyed so that there will be no more death, and b) there will be no more dead.

2 - People in hell now - the world of the dead - are not conscious. Christ likened death to a sleep; even in the OT David and Moses were said to 'rest with their fathers'. (2Samuel 7:12; Deut 31:16). There is not enough life in that place (sheol/hades/hell - the world of the dead) for them to be awake (alive).

(see earlier links re: Lazarus and the Rich Man)

Death is better viewed as separated from God. Non-Christians are dead people walking.

But people actually die, and are actually buried, and actually descend to the place called 'hell' (hades/sheol). You can't arbitrarily exchange the 'walking dead' (where death is in a person who is yet alive), for a person who has literally died and descended to the world of the dead (to await the second resurrection, also called the resurrection of the dead)... or gone under the altar if in Christ (to await the first resurrection, which occurs at Christ's return).


Those are two different concepts being used interchangeably, confusing the issue - but it makes no sense to do that if you are talking about hell (as the world of the dead), or even hell from the other two words (gehenna or tartarus. Please see earlier post here: viewtopic.php?p=1045164#p1045164 )

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tcg]

Death is better viewed as separated from God. Non-Christians are dead people walking.

Why should we accept such empty rhetoric? You do know that Christians aren't the only people who believe in God?

In any case, I'm not a dead person walking. I'm doing just fine.

To support your assertion you'd need to provide verifiable evidence. Based on the other threads on hell that have been created so far, I don't see any reason to expect such a presentation on this thread.


Tcg