Child Abuse

[Danmark]

Does the threat of eternal damnation for improper behavior constitute child abuse?
Example:
Is it psychologically damaging to a child to tell her (or him) "You're going to Hell" if the child told a lie?" Is the purported damage nullified if the child is taught repentance and faith in Jesus as the son of God will extinguish the treat of eternal damnation?

[Elijah John]

Does the threat of eternal damnation for improper behavior constitute child abuse?
Example:
Is it psychologically damaging to a child to tell her (or him) "You're going to Hell" if the child told a lie?" Is the purported damage nullified if the child is taught repentance and faith in Jesus as the son of God will extinguish the treat of eternal damnation?

I think you may have constructed a bit of a straw man there. Who does that? Although I will admit that Fundamentalists and Evangelicals will often say that one must be perfect, or "accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior." If not, one is doomed and heading to hell..

I saw a show on TV which featured street preachers in the UK telling random people on the street "if you've even told one lie, then you're a liar. Or if you've stolen even one thing, no matter how minor, then you're a thief. Neither of whom will enter God's Heaven.

But mainline Christians don't talk that way, ony Fundamentalists/Evangelicals. The two ought not be conflated.

[Tcg]

But mainline Christians don't talk that way, ony Fundamentalists/Evangelicals.

Given that the vast majority of mainline Protestants believe in hell, it's rather hard to believe they wouldn't talk about the very thing they believe in.

• "Compared with non-Christians and the unaffiliated, U.S. Christians are more likely to believe in both afterlife destinations. The existence of heaven is almost universally accepted by Mormons (95%) and members of historically black Protestant denominations (93%), as well as by about eight-in-ten or more evangelical Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and mainline Protestants.
  
  Meanwhile, 82% of evangelical Protestants and members of historically black Protestant churches say they believe in hell. Somewhat fewer Catholics, Mormons, mainline Protestants and Orthodox Christians also hold this view."
  
  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -and-hell/

The recent movement among a small number of liberal Christians to teach that unbelievers don't go to hell, but rather face annihilation, while the believers get to spend eternity in some claimed paradise is no less abusive than the traditional idea of hell.


The good news of course is that there is no rational reason to believe in either heaven or hell. There is no reason to believe there is a heaven to miss out on nor hell of any version to fear. Of course young children who hear adults talk about any of the mythological versions of hell aren't likely to be able to reject this absurdity. They will undoubtedly suffer due to the superstitious beliefs and teachings of the adults around them.



Tcg

[rikuoamero]

Does the threat of eternal damnation for improper behavior constitute child abuse?
Example:
Is it psychologically damaging to a child to tell her (or him) "You're going to Hell" if the child told a lie?" Is the purported damage nullified if the child is taught repentance and faith in Jesus as the son of God will extinguish the treat of eternal damnation?

In my case, I had severe problems with the ten commandments, namely the one to honour thy parents. I had problems with my mother as a child (not now). At the time, I felt extremely guilty. Here was something I "should" have been able to do, every child loves their parents right? and I couldn't do it. I thought there was something wrong with me, I thought I was destined for hell.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 9 by Danmark]

You noted one concept of Hell which is held (often, but not always, without Biblical reflection), which I (and many other Christians) do not hold. Other concepts would include annihilationism and an eternal existence where one becomes more and more alone (like CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce"). I think both of those can be reconciled with a just, loving God. I am willing to explore those views deeper, if you still question whether these views can be reconciled.

What is the purpose, or use, of eternal hellfire/annihilationism/eternal loneliness? Have you actually tried to picture such things? I've imagined myself dying today, learning there is in fact a god, and then being told I'm destined for hell. Okay...what's the point? What end is being served doing any of the three?
The only end I can imagine for hellfire or loneliness is sadism, to satisfy a desire to inflict pain on others. Last I checked, this isn't what a loving caring god, or indeed anything that is loving and caring is supposed to be doing. Imagine me in some sort of void a trillion years from now, with the knowledge that there is in fact a god and I screwed up. Why am I still there a trillion years from now? If it's hellfire, why am I being tortured?
If your belief is that God is NOT a sadist, okay then...now you need to explain an eternal hell, an eternal punishment of some kind. What happens there? Can you show that what you believe is actually true? I believe that if you go out and shoot someone, human authorities will seek to prosecute you and put you in prison. Not only do I believe this, I can demonstrate it, I can show you things like courts, judges, lawyers and prisons. Where is this 'hell', whatever it is?

[The Tanager]

What is the purpose, or use, of eternal hellfire/annihilationism/eternal loneliness? Have you actually tried to picture such things? I've imagined myself dying today, learning there is in fact a god, and then being told I'm destined for hell. Okay...what's the point? What end is being served doing any of the three?

I think it has to do with stopping humanity's free, hellish actions. I think the Christian message is that humans were never capable of acting heavenly on our own. We were made to exist in union with God and, through that union, our actions will be heavenly rather than becoming more and more selfishly hellish towards others. Guaranteed universalism, it seems to me, negates free will. Annihilationism stops the hellish actions of those who will not come freely into union with God. Eternal loneliness stops us from committing hellish actions on other people, at least, while resulting from one's freedom of becoming more and more self-centered. I don't see what is served by eternal hellfire, nor do I think it is the actual Biblical picture.

The only end I can imagine for hellfire or loneliness is sadism, to satisfy a desire to inflict pain on others. Last I checked, this isn't what a loving caring god, or indeed anything that is loving and caring is supposed to be doing. Imagine me in some sort of void a trillion years from now, with the knowledge that there is in fact a god and I screwed up. Why am I still there a trillion years from now? If it's hellfire, why am I being tortured?

I do not believe that it is sadism (well, eternal hellfire does seem sadistic to me). I'm sure you've heard these kinds of "slogans" before, but I think there is truth in a phrase like "Hell is a door locked on the inside." I think we want our own will. We want to decide what is good and evil for us. But we simply don't get to decide that. We shouldn't. The creator knows us best and knows how we work best. And the creator wants what is best for all. We don't get to change reality to fit our selfish concepts and desires. It would be hellish of God to let an individual human do that.

Annihilation would obviously not result in people in a void a trillion years from now with any knowledge. It would result in those people getting what they wanted: no union with God, who is Life itself, according to Christianity. In the "eternal loneliness" view, as Lewis painted the picture, one becomes lonely because they increasingly focus on themselves and their desires. They can't stand other people who aren't living up to their standards, so they move away on their own. They aren't just sitting there thinking "God exists and I screwed up," they aren't thinking about God at all. And they did this to themselves.

If your belief is that God is NOT a sadist, okay then...now you need to explain an eternal hell, an eternal punishment of some kind. What happens there? Can you show that what you believe is actually true? I believe that if you go out and shoot someone, human authorities will seek to prosecute you and put you in prison. Not only do I believe this, I can demonstrate it, I can show you things like courts, judges, lawyers and prisons. Where is this 'hell', whatever it is?

It's not the same kind of thing as societal enforcement. But neither is math, the fact that rape is wrong (and not just disliked by those in power), the existence of Socrates, philosophical worldviews, among other things. Hell is a doctrine whose intellectual acceptance comes further down the list, i.e., is built upon many other doctrines like the existence of God, the sin of humans, the historicity of Jesus and Jesus' resurrection, the reliability of the Bible, etc. each building upon the others.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 15 by The Tanager]

I think it has to do with stopping humanity's free, hellish actions.

Can I get this in bold please? You believe there is something wrong with human free will? And here all along I thought I had been hearing Christians trumpeting free will. Was I imagining that?

I think the Christian message is that humans were never capable of acting heavenly on our own.

Well maybe if God hadn't made the forbidden tree and the forbidden fruit, there wouldn't have been a disobeying of the command to not eat from it.
Please don't leave God out of the equation here. He is, in this discussion, at least partially at fault for this.

We were made to exist in union with God and, through that union, our actions will be heavenly rather than becoming more and more selfishly hellish towards others.

So what happened to thwart this purpose? Was it the eating of the forbidden fruit from the forbidden tree that was left in the middle of the garden completely unguarded?
In fact, if we're talking about a perfect god, how does it even make sense to talk about something thwarting its purpose?

Guaranteed universalism, it seems to me, negates free will.

So would acting "in union" with God if we're then somehow incapable of doing anything else. The Borg in Star Trek act in union with themselves and the Queen; they're incapable of anything else. The Queen does not want any drone thinking or doing anything of their own will; she is shown several times to act against any threat of a drone leaving her union.

Annihilationism stops the hellish actions of those who will not come freely into union with God.

Someone who walks up to a Borg drone and says "Assimilate me" also has their free will stopped from that point onward. I don't see the difference between someone who "freely comes into union" with your God and someone who says to a Borg drone to assimilate them. Both are then part of a collective from that point onward and thus don't have free will. So the point you tried to raise here is moot.

Eternal loneliness stops us from committing hellish actions on other people, at least, while resulting from one's freedom of becoming more and more self-centered.

So it's not just loneliness from God, it's loneliness from other people, too? Each person in this hypothetical is literally completely alone?
Okay, again, I ask what is the point? If hell (whatever form it takes) is to prevent hellish actions (what, violence etc?), then why is hell necessary for your god? Why can't your god do something here, in this world? I'm already not doing hellish actions, and yet, according to your religion, I would be sentenced to a hell of some sort anyway.
Hell is superfluous, is my argument. There seems to be no point to it. If I'm sentenced to eternal loneliness, what end is served by that? Notice that I'm talking about ME. I'm not violent.

I don't see what is served by eternal hellfire, nor do I think it is the actual Biblical picture.

There are words to suggest hellfire, from the Bible.

I do not believe that it is sadism

It is if its imposed on someone else without their consent and its unending. As I said, picture me in a void a trillion years from now. I've had no contact with anyone or anything. I'm all alone. What end is served there, if not to inflict the pain of loneliness upon a human ape, a social animal? If it's not sadism, what is it?

well, eternal hellfire does seem sadistic to me)

Glad we can agree on that. I wouldn't inflict it even on a Hitler. Whether hellfire or loneliness or annihilation, I wouldn't inflict an eternal punishment. Why isn't your god as merciful as myself?

but I think there is truth in a phrase like "Hell is a door locked on the inside."

How can it be eternal loneliness if I'm able to unlock the metaphorical door myself? Why describe it as such?

I think we want our own will.

Has Christianity trumpeted and praised free will, yes or no?

We want to decide what is good and evil for us. But we simply don't get to decide that. We shouldn't.

Why not? According to your holy book, your god apparently decided (or at least his appointed spokespeople did, with no word against it from himself apparently!) that rape victims be forced to marry their rapists if they didn't cry out loud enough. What you're advocating for here is just to sit on our hands, nod along with whatever this god thing creature says and not think about these things for ourselves.

The creator knows us best and knows how we work best.

By mere virtue of being our creator? I disagree. I don't agree that this comes automatically with the territory. Today, we have AI programs being written, with their programmers not understanding their code.
What you're saying here is promoting a perpetual infantile state of affairs for humans, which doesn't work. Eventually, we all have to grow up and take some damned responsibility.

And the creator wants what is best for all.

Which is why this creator takes a hands off approach and lets millions starve to death, or lets Nazis stuff Jews into gas ovens.
Try again.
I don't buy your propaganda. I'm saying these things to shock you into actually thinking, into reading what it is you yourself write. Look at it. You are saying your god is real, that he wants the best for all of us, and all the while, this is in a world where the Holocaust happened.
Either the gassing of all those Jews was the best thing possible for all those gassed Jews...or maybe, just maybe, what you said doesn't apply.

We don't get to change reality to fit our selfish concepts and desires. It would be hellish of God to let an individual human do that.

Herr Hitler? For all this talk about the consequences of hellish human actions and free will, it ignores that we actually HAD a Hitler. According to what you're written, we should never have had a Hitler at all. Such a person should only have been a hypothetical at best, instead of being an actual part of our history that your god did nothing to prevent.

Annihilation would obviously not result in people in a void a trillion years from now with any knowledge. It would result in those people getting what they wanted: no union with God, who is Life itself, according to Christianity.

Is everything that is alive, or was alive right up to now, in union with God? Seems to me to be the logical conclusion of this argument. For things to be alive, they have to be in union with God...and yet we live in a world that even Christianity says is not in union with God.
So clearly some sort of existence is possible even without being in union with your god.

In the "eternal loneliness" view, as Lewis painted the picture, one becomes lonely because they increasingly focus on themselves and their desires. They can't stand other people who aren't living up to their standards, so they move away on their own.

This sounds just like the god you worship. According to the "You are not welcome in ‘the congregation of the Lord’ if " thread started by Zzyzx, your god apparently once had a list of criteria for who could be in his congregation, and in that thread, there is at least one Christian who has said that it's because God can't stand non-perfect people.

They aren't just sitting there thinking "God exists and I screwed up," they aren't thinking about God at all. And they did this to themselves.

Really? How do you know this? Are you a mind-reader? So in all the eternity they spend in the loneliness void, they never think about God existing and them screwing up? Are they...incapable of thinking that thought?
I thought you said something earlier about the door being locked on their side...?

Hell is a doctrine whose intellectual acceptance comes further down the list, i.e., is built upon many other doctrines like the existence of God, the sin of humans, the historicity of Jesus and Jesus' resurrection, the reliability of the Bible, etc. each building upon the others.

I agree. It would be pretty stupid to believe in the Christian hell (whichever form it takes) all the while not believing in the Christian God or the Christian Jesus.
Still, Hell is used as a cudgel. It is used as a threat, as a scare tactic, to enforce certain behaviours and thoughts. If one believes in a hell and believes certain behaviours will result in them going there, then they are far less likely to do those behaviours...and if those behaviours include things like say...questioning whether a certain Jewish man walked out of his tomb three days after dying on a cross in front of a large crowd and displaying multiple magical powers...that's just a coincidence I take it?

[The Tanager]

rikuoamero,

Thank you for challenging me on my thoughts, helping me to think through these issues further, and allowing me to share my own thoughts as we both pursue truth.

Can I get this in bold please? You believe there is something wrong with human free will? And here all along I thought I had been hearing Christians trumpeting free will. Was I imagining that?

Sorry for my confusing wording there. I believe strongly in human free will. I'm saying there is something wrong with our choosing to perform hellish actions. God wants to stop those, but in a way that does not eradicate our free will.

Well maybe if God hadn't made the forbidden tree and the forbidden fruit, there wouldn't have been a disobeying of the command to not eat from it. Please don't leave God out of the equation here. He is, in this discussion, at least partially at fault for this.

I wasn't leaving God out of it. God is to "blame" for our free will, which necessarily involves the possibility of disobedience. I don't agree it is blameworthy, but rather I think it is praiseworthy. The choice is between (a) no free will (which means no love) but perfect moral actions and (b) free will (which allows for love) but possibly imperfect moral actions (which allows for suffering). I think (b) is the better choice in spite of the suffering.

So what happened to thwart this purpose? Was it the eating of the forbidden fruit from the forbidden tree that was left in the middle of the garden completely unguarded? In fact, if we're talking about a perfect god, how does it even make sense to talk about something thwarting its purpose?

Whether that story is historical or metaphorical, yes, we were allowed to choose evil by God. God doesn't want us to choose evil, but He also doesn't want us to be robots. God's purpose is to have free creatures who are in union with Him. To get that result, there must be the possibility of having free creatures who are not in union with Him.

So would acting "in union" with God if we're then somehow incapable of doing anything else. The Borg in Star Trek act in union with themselves and the Queen; they're incapable of anything else. The Queen does not want any drone thinking or doing anything of their own will; she is shown several times to act against any threat of a drone leaving her union.

I don't think those acting in union with God are incapable of doing anything else, even when in "Heaven" (I put that in quotes because I think Heaven breaks in to our life through Christ and extends into eternity; it isn't just some future place). I think they simply stop wanting to sin. It's like a marriage, where two wills are freely becoming one in their will. While God always pursues those who leave His union, it's not in the same way the Borg Queen does.

So it's not just loneliness from God, it's loneliness from other people, too? Each person in this hypothetical is literally completely alone?

Yes.

Okay, again, I ask what is the point? If hell (whatever form it takes) is to prevent hellish actions (what, violence etc?), then why is hell necessary for your god? Why can't your god do something here, in this world?

Hell is necessary because of free will. Union with God is not forced. Forced universalism negates free will. God does stuff in this world to combat our hellish actions, according to Christianity. That's the life, death, resurrection of Jesus and the working of the Holy Spirit in one's life.

I'm already not doing hellish actions, and yet, according to your religion, I would be sentenced to a hell of some sort anyway.

Everyone does hellish actions. You are probably less hellish than many. You are probably less hellish than many Christians currently. You may be less hellish than me. There is no reason to compare between humans, though. According to Christianity, without God, you will not be able to rid yourself of all hellish actions. With God, you will be able to continually improve and rid yourself of all hellishness. Hell and Heaven are extensions of this life, not some separate reward/punishment.

Hell is superfluous, is my argument. There seems to be no point to it. If I'm sentenced to eternal loneliness, what end is served by that? Notice that I'm talking about ME. I'm not violent.

The end served is that you would be given what you want, without negatively effecting other free creatures. Hellish actions go beyond voilence. We are all self-centered and can harm others in many various ways, in what we call big ways and small ways. If you read many of the ancient Christians, as they get older and have been maturing longer, you'll see them talking about how they have realized more and more things in their life that are hellish or sinful that they never thought were hellish before.

There are words to suggest hellfire, from the Bible.

Words come in a context. I think society (in large part medieval society) has provided the hellfire context to those words, rather than the authors of the texts themselves.

It is if its imposed on someone else without their consent and its unending. As I said, picture me in a void a trillion years from now. I've had no contact with anyone or anything. I'm all alone. What end is served there, if not to inflict the pain of loneliness upon a human ape, a social animal? If it's not sadism, what is it?

But eternal loneliness is with their consent. So is annihilationism, people are choosing no union with God, which necessarily means no union with Life, if the Christian worldview is true.

Glad we can agree on that. I wouldn't inflict it even on a Hitler. Whether hellfire or loneliness or annihilation, I wouldn't inflict an eternal punishment. Why isn't your god as merciful as myself?

So, it is merciful to allow humans to continually harm each other forever? To allow more Hitlers without any end ever?

How can it be eternal loneliness if I'm able to unlock the metaphorical door myself? Why describe it as such?

One is able to unlock it, but one is so self-centered that they don't want to and, therefore, never do.

Has Christianity trumpeted and praised free will, yes or no?

Christians believe different things about free will. I trumpet and praise free will.

Why not? According to your holy book, your god apparently decided (or at least his appointed spokespeople did, with no word against it from himself apparently!) that rape victims be forced to marry their rapists if they didn't cry out loud enough. What you're advocating for here is just to sit on our hands, nod along with whatever this god thing creature says and not think about these things for ourselves.

I'm not advocating that at all. God tells us to use our minds. I think specific questions like this are tangental to the claims I've been making. You could reject some books of the Bible as authoritative with examples like this and I'd still make the same claims I have. If you think this question is vital to the claims I've made, then help me to see how and I'll gladly talk further about this. Or, once we are done in this thread, if you want to start another thread specifically on passages like this and tell me you started it, I'd gladly hear you out and share my thoughts there.

By mere virtue of being our creator? I disagree. I don't agree that this comes automatically with the territory. Today, we have AI programs being written, with their programmers not understanding their code.

AI programmers aren't starting from scratch and they aren't omniscient. Those are vital differences.

What you're saying here is promoting a perpetual infantile state of affairs for humans, which doesn't work. Eventually, we all have to grow up and take some damned responsibility.

What makes it infantile? We have free will. We are responsible for our choices. Do you mean we have to grow up and decide what is right and wrong? If so, why? Why allow a Hitler to have that responsibility?

Which is why this creator takes a hands off approach and lets millions starve to death, or lets Nazis stuff Jews into gas ovens.
Try again.
I don't buy your propaganda. I'm saying these things to shock you into actually thinking, into reading what it is you yourself write. Look at it. You are saying your god is real, that he wants the best for all of us, and all the while, this is in a world where the Holocaust happened.
Either the gassing of all those Jews was the best thing possible for all those gassed Jews...or maybe, just maybe, what you said doesn't apply.

And then after considering the Holocaust we move to other forms of great suffering and take those away and then even smaller sufferings. Otherwise you'd be saying that it's okay to cause a little bit of harm to others. I think all harm is bad. So, in the end we must take away all free will going down this line of reasoning. The choice then comes down to a choice between a world with free will or one without free will. I think a world with free will is better than one without.

Herr Hitler? For all this talk about the consequences of hellish human actions and free will, it ignores that we actually HAD a Hitler. According to what you're written, we should never have had a Hitler at all. Such a person should only have been a hypothetical at best, instead of being an actual part of our history that your god did nothing to prevent.

Why do you think what I've said logically leads to that? The context of my statement there was our desire to choose what is right and wrong, rather than God deciding what is good for humans. Hitler didn't change that reality. Killing Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. was not good even though Nazi Germany tried to do it.

Is everything that is alive, or was alive right up to now, in union with God? Seems to me to be the logical conclusion of this argument. For things to be alive, they have to be in union with God...and yet we live in a world that even Christianity says is not in union with God.
So clearly some sort of existence is possible even without being in union with your god.

There are different senses of union within annihilationism. God gives individuals many chances to ask to return. God is in union, in the sense of keeping people alive, even in their disobedience, out of hopes that they will choose full union. Eventually, God grants them the separation they want fully, which means separation from Life itself, resulting in annihilation.

This sounds just like the god you worship. According to the "You are not welcome in ‘the congregation of the Lord’ if " thread started by Zzyzx, your god apparently once had a list of criteria for who could be in his congregation, and in that thread, there is at least one Christian who has said that it's because God can't stand non-perfect people.

There are many different kinds of Christianity. I have no knowledge of that thread and the context of that statement. If you want to ask me any question about my views as it relates to the "eternal loneliness" view, then I will gladly answer them.

Really? How do you know this? Are you a mind-reader? So in all the eternity they spend in the loneliness void, they never think about God existing and them screwing up? Are they...incapable of thinking that thought?
I thought you said something earlier about the door being locked on their side...?

They aren't incapable, they have simply created a habit that they wanted created. Now, I'm not claiming this is demonstrable concerning reality. But, I don't need to. I am responding to a claim that a loving God and Hell are logically incompatible. I'm showing a coherent possibility that rebuts that, if it were true. All I need to do to counter the claim I was countering is show that there are logical scenarios that have a loving God and a Hell. Whether it is true would result from a cumulative case like I previously said.

Still, Hell is used as a cudgel. It is used as a threat, as a scare tactic, to enforce certain behaviours and thoughts. If one believes in a hell and believes certain behaviours will result in them going there, then they are far less likely to do those behaviours...and if those behaviours include things like say...questioning whether a certain Jewish man walked out of his tomb three days after dying on a cross in front of a large crowd and displaying multiple magical powers...that's just a coincidence I take it?

I agreed at the start that hell is misused by many. And there is nothing wrong with questioning Christian doctrines. God tells us to use our minds. I've grown tremendously in my faith through doubts.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 17 by The Tanager]

So, it is merciful to allow humans to continually harm each other forever? To allow more Hitlers without any end ever?

This is not what I said. Up to this point in the response, you had been quoting me and responding to me but this? This is something made up by you.
What I said was, I would not visit an eternal punishment upon anyone, even a Hitler. I asked why your god can't be as merciful as I.

The choice is between (a) no free will (which means no love) but perfect moral actions and (b) free will (which allows for love) but possibly imperfect moral actions (which allows for suffering). I think (b) is the better choice in spite of the suffering.

Your choice of (b) would negate heaven. You have just now chosen Not-Heaven (after all, isn't heaven the place or state of being that is without suffering?)

Whether that story is historical or metaphorical, yes, we were allowed to choose evil by God.

If it's metaphorical, then when did the primal choice of evil occur? What was the actual choice then?

God doesn't want us to choose evil, but He also doesn't want us to be robots.

All one has to do is read the Bible to find plenty of times where your God apparently issued commands, wanted them to be followed and then got angry when they weren't. King David for example is told not to conduct a census...he does so and this ticks Big G royally.

God's purpose is to have free creatures who are in union with Him. To get that result, there must be the possibility of having free creatures who are not in union with Him.

Do you understand God? Yes or no? I myself would say no to understanding an actual real god, it would be a Lovecraftian entity, beyond our comprehension.

I don't think those acting in union with God are incapable of doing anything else, even when in "Heaven"

So let's say you're in Heaven right now. Are you capable of choosing to rape and murder someone?

I put that in quotes because I think Heaven breaks in to our life through Christ and extends into eternity; it isn't just some future place)

I have no idea what this means. I'm not kidding. This sentence is gibberish to me.

I think they simply stop wanting to sin.

So they can't freely choose to do certain things. There goes that free will out the window. Sounds like a lobotomy occurs.

It's like a marriage, where two wills are freely becoming one in their will.

Wrong. In a marriage, the two individuals remain two individuals. They are still plenty capable of falling out of love with one another, of deciding to, and acting on the decision to, do things not in the best interest of their partners.

While God always pursues those who leave His union, it's not in the same way the Borg Queen does.

Annihilationism? In Star Trek Voyager, the Borg Queen is shown willing to destroy entire cube ships, each holding tens of thousands of drones, to prevent the possibility of a single drone becoming an individual. In the annihilationism view, people are blinked out of existence to prevent a situation apparently distasteful to your god.

Hell is necessary because of free will.

Are you sure about that? Judaism existed just fine as a religion for several centuries without a hell.

Union with God is not forced.

Again, sure about that? Something demanded of you with a metaphorical gun put to your head counts as 'forced'. Even something that I view as necessary, taxes, is done under penalty of prison.
I am forced to pay my taxes.

God does stuff in this world to combat our hellish actions, according to Christianity. That's the life, death, resurrection of Jesus and the working of the Holy Spirit in one's life.

Then this makes your god out to be pathetic, in that these things did jack all to help with Hitler, and all the other murderous dictators throughout history.
After all, you're surely not going to describe the 'stuff' God does in this world as effective...right?

Everyone does hellish actions.

And what constitutes a hellish action?

You are probably less hellish than many.

I am. What many Christians probably say got Hitler sentenced to hell, I am not guilty of, but your god is to a far greater degree, according to the OT. Hitler killed a few million, while God floods the entire planet.

According to Christianity, without God, you will not be able to rid yourself of all hellish actions.

A statement I do not agree with.

With God, you will be able to continually improve and rid yourself of all hellishness.

How then do you explain the many improvements I have made since I gave up Christianity? Surely it ought to be the case that one should fail at an endeavor unless they believe in God?

The end served is that you would be given what you want, without negatively effecting other free creatures.

Me being separated from people who love me would negatively affect them. I suppose the Big G could do that lobotomy thing and erase all memory of me then...

Hellish actions go beyond voilence.

Such as...?

We are all self-centered and can harm others in many various ways, in what we call big ways and small ways.

This is also true of your Big G.

If you read many of the ancient Christians, as they get older and have been maturing longer, you'll see them talking about how they have realized more and more things in their life that are hellish or sinful that they never thought were hellish before.

So they get more and more neurotic...? I guess that explains where the rules against shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics came from - someone of an advanced age figured out that they were sinful and passed on this amazing discovery.

Words come in a context. I think society (in large part medieval society) has provided the hellfire context to those words, rather than the authors of the texts themselves.

Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

The words are there, in the text. Sure, you may cry "Context!", but here's the thing. We can only ever get the proper context for a written work from the author. You are not the author of Gospel Matthew. We can puzzle over, and guess at a context, but you are not an authority on what is and is not the quote unquote proper context. You're just some guy, a person who professes to following his own preferred interpretation of these texts, an interpretation that may or may not be correct.

But eternal loneliness is with their consent.

No it's not, at least not with me. I would not choose eternal loneliness. I would choose against the jerk god character of the Bible, but I would not choose against my family and friends.

So is annihilationism, people are choosing no union with God, which necessarily means no union with Life, if the Christian worldview is true.

As I explained in my response,[strike] and you seem to have glossed over[/strike], this cannot then possibly be true. If "union with God" is necessary for life, but Christianity says this world and some/all of its inhabitants are currently not in "union with God", then you've got a pickle of a contradiction to sort out. How can you and I and other people be alive, while not being in this union you speak of?

One is able to unlock it, but one is so self-centered that they don't want to and, therefore, never do.

Much like disagreements I've had with Sye Ten Bruggencate, how do you know this of people? How is it you know of the choices people make or don't make for...all eternity?

Christians believe different things about free will. I trumpet and praise free will.

Can you choose to murder and rape while in union with your god, in this heaven? I currently can choose to murder and rape - I just don't want to. I see no reason to do so. Am I already in heaven? In union with your god, despite not believing in its existence?

I'm not advocating that at all. God tells us to use our minds.

And if by use of my mind I come to a conclusion that your god doesn't exist, or is a jerk, why then hell for people like me? Why not simply correct me?

You could reject some books of the Bible as authoritative with examples like this and I'd still make the same claims I have.

I reject all books of the Bible. You probably guessed I'd say that.

AI programmers aren't starting from scratch and they aren't omniscient. Those are vital differences.

Neither did your god. Your god started out by hovering upon the waters which were already there, and fashioned Adam out of dust, and Eve out of one of Adam's ribs.
Anyway, according to your Bible, there are instances where something happens without his knowledge. He's apparently surprised about the eating of the forbidden fruit, has to ask what Adam and Eve did, etc.
If you want to disregard some or all of the Bible as being authoritative, you can do that if you want...but then you're left there standing making claims about God with literally nothing to act as evidence.

What makes it infantile?

"The creator knows us best and knows how we work best."
"And the creator wants what is best for all."
"We don't get to change reality to fit our selfish concepts and desires. It would be hellish of God to let an individual human do that."

If we don't get to shape reality according to our concepts and desires (not necessarily selfish), then this is us being kept in an infantile state. Some parents give a locked down tablet to their kids, not trusting them in their youth with the full unlocked capabilities, but as they get older, they may be given the password to the app store.
The difference between me and your god in this regard is that eventually, I let my wards grow up and give them responsibility. Your god apparently doesn't.

Do you mean we have to grow up and decide what is right and wrong?

Yes. That's it. If we're not even allowed to make this choice, then we are being kept as children.
I'm in my 30's now. I would be highly insulted if someone came along and said "You can't decide what is right and wrong, you shouldn't be allowed to. I'll decide for you".
This is currently the attitude being uttered by the remain camp in Britain. They say that those who voted Leave in 2016 were deceived, or didn't know any better. Even if Leave voters were deceived, this doesn't then mean the result of that referendum should be overturned.

If so, why? Why allow a Hitler to have that responsibility?

...I thought you had just said you trumpeted free will? Now you're going back on that?

And then after considering the Holocaust we move to other forms of great suffering and take those away and then even smaller sufferings.

A slippery slope argument. Didn't see that coming
Your god supposedly taught the Jews not to practise human sacrifice by commanding Abraham to stop. He stopped that form of suffering apparently.
Jesus also apparently healed people of illnesses, raised the dead etc. Fed the hungry.

What are you arguing for? A benevolent god who intervenes, at least once upon a time...or a deistic god who doesn't intervene, who takes a hands-off approach?

So, in the end we must take away all free will going down this line of reasoning. The choice then comes down to a choice between a world with free will or one without free will. I think a world with free will is better than one without.

The Jews in the gas ovens might have had something to say about that. This argument of respecting free will can only ever end up with respecting the free will of the abusers, and never the victims. I've argued it before and I'll argue it again - do cops in the real world ever consider free will, while in the performance of their duties?

Why do you think what I've said logically leads to that?

If God is loving and wants the best for us...
God wouldn't have allowed Hitler to do what he did. He would have done something (perhaps appear to him like Jesus supposedly appeared to Paul?)

Unless one wants to go down the route where being gassed is the best thing that could have happened to those who were gassed by the Nazis...

Killing Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. was not good even though Nazi Germany tried to do it.

If one stands by and allows holocausts to happen, while one has the method, motive and opportunity to prevent it (especially at no cost or risk to themselves)...then one has allowed evil to happen and is therefore evil themselves.
Change my mind.

There are different senses of union within annihilationism. God gives individuals many chances to ask to return. God is in union, in the sense of keeping people alive, even in their disobedience, out of hopes that they will choose full union. Eventually, God grants them the separation they want fully, which means separation from Life itself, resulting in annihilation.

Okay, so you did address it. I retract what I said earlier in this comment, about glossing over.
And so...this is good? I've got a sister at the moment who won't talk to me, hasn't in a couple of years. My door is always open to her. I've got another sister I haven't seen in over twenty years, I respect her decision to not be part of my life, but this isn't the same as me fully cutting them off. If they ever change their mind, I'll welcome them.
Your god seems to be a bit of a jerk, to put it mildly.

There are many different kinds of Christianity. I have no knowledge of that thread and the context of that statement. If you want to ask me any question about my views as it relates to the "eternal loneliness" view, then I will gladly answer them.

Fair enough, just understand that from where I sit, no one Christian or one group of Christians can demonstrate that they are correct or you wrong. We are talking about something supernatural after all, something supposedly beyond our ken.
I'll ask you this - Is Cthulhu loving?

They aren't incapable, they have simply created a habit that they wanted created.

And I suppose then that habits cannot be broken...? Do you not see the absurdities in what you write?

Now, I'm not claiming this is demonstrable concerning reality.

I agree with this statement.

I am responding to a claim that a loving God and Hell are logically incompatible.

Which they are. You are a loving person. Would you allow an eternal punishment to befall someone, even if they literally ask for it at some point in time? What if a relative of yours says to you "I never want to see you again!" Would you make that stick forever yourself, refuse to meet them if they change their mind?

And there is nothing wrong with questioning Christian doctrines. God tells us to use our minds. I've grown tremendously in my faith through doubts.

What about doubting God's very existence? Is that allowed? Is there nothing wrong with doubting God's existence?

[Danmark]

Does the threat of eternal damnation for improper behavior constitute child abuse?
Example:
Is it psychologically damaging to a child to tell her (or him) "You're going to Hell" if the child told a lie?" Is the purported damage nullified if the child is taught repentance and faith in Jesus as the son of God will extinguish the treat of eternal damnation?

I think you may have constructed a bit of a straw man there. Who does that? ....


But mainline Christians don't talk that way, ony Fundamentalists/Evangelicals. ....

You just answered your own question, therefore it is certainly not 'a straw man.'

The Roman Catholic Church and various Christian leaders for Centuries, from Jesus to Calvin, to Jonathan Edwards have taught about eternal damnation. True, many Christians believe it is total baloney, but that is not a Biblically based objection.

Christians, Bible believing Christians have for Centuries believed that you go to Hell and exist in eternal torment if you don't do the proper forgiveness rituals. It is an embarrassing belief inconsistent with the notion of a loving and all-powerful God; it is therefore an inconvenient truth according to much of Christianity throughout history.

For me, it is just one more reason to discard the entire business of Christian dogma as a giant load of codswallop. To others it makes them squirm and dance the illogic two step. But it is not for 1 second a 'straw man.'

[Jagella]

Teaching that supposed sin will result in eternal damnation is emotional abuse, and it's abuse of adults as well as children. A person of any age can develop mental illness as a result of the Christian dogmas of an angry god and eternal hellfire. I did when I was a Christian. Teaching the person she will be forgiven does not completely remove the damage because "sin" is normal human behavior, and it is inevitable that the person will sin again.

I agree sin is normal behavior for humans, but we should still strive to rid our lives of it.

Do you think we should rid our lives of carved images, pork, and clams? Is it a good idea to encourage an attacker to attack us again? Yes, some sin is obviously a bad idea, but we need to use our heads when judging what the Bible tells us to do. Being obsessed with avoiding sin can cause mental illness, and if we go overboard in what we inflict on children or adults demanding they not sin, then we may be guilty of abusing them.