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.

[Kenisaw]

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.

Sorry to cut in here, but what evidence is there for the "very morality as a human being"? If you are stating that there is an objective morality that human morals are derived from, I would like to request some empirical data to back that up...

[Divine Insight]

If only people would just use their gut moral instinct.

I think the problem with the concept of a universal "Gut moral instinct" is that not everyone has these same "moral instincts".

I tend to agree with your "gut moral instinct". I too see no sense in torturing anyone for eternity, in fact, I personally don't even see any point in using violence, torture, or any form of painful punishment as a means toward a positive or constructive solution to anything. So I'm against the very idea of painful punishment even on a temporary level.

There are far better way to teach someone a lesson, IMHO. The idea that beating someone up is the ultimate teaching method seems extremely unintelligent as far as I'm concerned. But then again, this would be an intellectual conclusion rather than a "gut moral instinct".

None the less, my "gut moral instinct" does not include the idea of getting revenge as a means of "justice".

But is this true of all humans? Apparently not. I know a lot of people who view revenge and "getting even" as being an obvious natural way to delve out "justice". And there are also many people who don't seem to have any problem with condemning others to eternal suffering. They would even sentence people to that fate themselves if they thought they had the power to do so.

Therefore the idea that there exists a universe "gut moral instinct" among humans seems to be a ideal that simply doesn't match up with reality.

As you are obviously aware the number of Christians who think that eternal damnation is justified exist in great numbers. Obviously there are Christians who do object to this concept of a hell and they simply remove the idea of everlasting punishment out of Christianity by denying that Christianity actually supports this notion, even though Jesus himself is attributed to making this claim.

But the idea that all humans would agree on what "gut human morality" should be is apparently not something that can be supported by any known evidence. There are people who don't have any problem at all with condemning others to eternal suffering. There are even people who would be glad to laugh at those who are condemned to eternal suffering. Sad as that fact may be.

[chriss]

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.

Sorry to cut in here, but what evidence is there for the "very morality as a human being"? If you are stating that there is an objective morality that human morals are derived from, I would like to request some empirical data to back that up...

I cannot at the moment think of any empirical data that there is an objective morality. The problem that you have in not accepting an objective morality is that for you 'good' and 'evil' can have no meaning. Hence, for you, Hitler and his followers are just as good as anyone else.

[ttruscott]

IF people were created to be eternally self and other aware, ie, alive and
IF they were created with a free will and
IF by their free will people were able to sin an unforgivable sin and and so become eternally evil (demons) and
IF it is true a little leaven (sin) leavens (corrupts) the whole lump (person, country, world, reality),

THEN it would be an absolute necessity for GOD to banish these eternal evil ones from HIS reality to the outer darkness to protect HIS heavenly Bride, the holy Church, from the never ending predations upon their faith and their morals by the demons.

[Justin108]

IF people were created to be eternally self and other aware, ie, alive

Can God create people that even he cannot destroy? Yes... apparently. I suppose God can also create a rock too heavy for even him to lift... And here I thought "logic" was a thing.

IF by their free will people were able to sin an unforgivable sin...

First God can't destroy people, and now he can't forgive people. I know your God is drastically different from the Christian God and all so I take it he isn't omnipotent then?

and and so become eternally evil (demons)

Wait, people become demons? That's new.

IF it is true a little leaven (sin) leavens (corrupts) the whole lump (person, country, world, reality)

God must be pretty sloppy at creating things when everything is so easily corruptible. Can't God design some kind of divine anti-virus?

[Bust Nak]

The problem that you have in not accepting an objective morality is that for you 'good' and 'evil' can have no meaning.

Incorrect. Note the difference between having a different and individual meaning, and having no meaning. Taste is subjective, what is tasty to me is not necessarily tasty to you. Yet you would not say 'tasty' can have no meaning, would you?

IF...

THEN it would be an absolute necessity for GOD to banish these eternal evil ones from HIS reality to the outer darkness to protect HIS heavenly Bride...

That is not an absolute necessity since there is another alternative - sustain the status quo indefinitely.

[The Transcended Omniverse]

IF people were created to be eternally self and other aware, ie, alive and
IF they were created with a free will and
IF by their free will people were able to sin an unforgivable sin and and so become eternally evil (demons) and
IF it is true a little leaven (sin) leavens (corrupts) the whole lump (person, country, world, reality),

THEN it would be an absolute necessity for GOD to banish these eternal evil ones from HIS reality to the outer darkness to protect HIS heavenly Bride, the holy Church, from the never ending predations upon their faith and their morals by the demons.

So, you are going by a logical argument to support your position? You do realize that many other spiritual beliefs have their own logical arguments as well that will contradict yours.

[chriss]

The problem that you have in not accepting an objective morality is that for you 'good' and 'evil' can have no meaning.

Incorrect. Note the difference between having a different and individual meaning, and having no meaning. Taste is subjective, what is tasty to me is not necessarily tasty to you. Yet you would not say 'tasty' can have no meaning, would you?

IF...

THEN it would be an absolute necessity for GOD to banish these eternal evil ones from HIS reality to the outer darkness to protect HIS heavenly Bride...

That is not an absolute necessity since there is another alternative - sustain the status quo indefinitely.

I would agree with you that taste is subjective but disagree that goodness is subjective. What I think that you are saying is that you like helping people while others like exterminating people. It is just a matter of taste in the same way as some people like Marmite and some like rhubarb. If you like helping people and hate exterminating people, why would you criticise and call evil those who like exterminating people and hate helping people?

[1213]

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 just want to say, according to the Bible, soul and body are destroyed in the hell:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

I don’t see how something that is destroyed could feel or suffer.

But I don’t also see why God should let evil people have eternal life, do you have some good reason, why God should let evil people live forever and turn eternal life into eternal suffering for all?