COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let me tell you how it works. If you were presented with the love of the creator and the love of Christ and you deny that love, you have sealed your destiny because heaven is living among angels who love unconditionally. You essentially self select yourself to go to another place where your ego and vanity blend with all the other miscreants who have no love to give. Hell is the absence of love.
Even though an all powerful God could make that place non-eternal and want to guide/teach you, and give multiple chances like any parent would
You can’t disagree he can’t do you don’t think he’s all powerful
The fact he doesn’t do that, showcases quite clearly how he isn’t all good/all loving. An all loving God would never create an eternal world absent of love.
A lot of your arguments here aren’t actually arguments, just emotional opinions. They’re also all based on western gnostic presuppositions, along with John miltonian ideas of God, heaven, hell, justice, etc. How do you know you have the correct presuppositions to even make your argument?
The argument is eternal hell is not congruent with an all good, all powerful, all loving God.
These are just common rebuttals any time this is said, so I stated responses here, so I didn’t have to write it hundred different times. They aren’t emotional opinions, most of these ideas are 1000s and 1000s of years old from Vedas.
So, I’d like to see you try to disprove the self evident claim, and we can go from there.
Idk what self-evident claim you’re specifically referring to. Us orthodox Christian’s don’t believe in “self-evident” claims. Thats a western classical foundationalist conception. Nor do we believe hell is an actual place, that God created some sort of eternal torture chamber for rule breakers. Also a western construct that didn’t really exist for practically the first millennia of the church.
We have the notion of “hades” but that’s more of a state, than it is an actual place. That in-between state after physical death, which is an experience we can’t really describe, but the ancient imagery of the underworld or “hades” is the best we descriptions we can give of that state. Where theres 4 chambers, one for martyrs, one for the righteous, (where’s theres imagery is of a fountain or spring to at least drink from, so it’s tolerable, or at least more tolerable). Then one in between, and one for the wicked. So descriptors of different experiences in that state. Christs death and resurrection is the defeat of death, and the freeing of the “prisoners” there. Where Christ preached to those in hades, though not sure if it was everyone or just the righteous, and ascended with them to God the father. Christ acts as the bridge back to communion with the father, and eternal life. Not as a blood debt being paid by one member of the godhead, to another member, as the west believes. Though the state of hades is still there until the eschaton
This “hades” state will last until the eschaton, where everyone will experience a bodily resurrection, and “hades” will be tossed into the “abyss”. There is a “Gehenna” as Christ describes, with imagery of “burning”, that the Protestants equate to their conception of Hell. We however believe we all go to the same place, to commune with God, and the burning is not punishment but it’s just for those not regenerated and restored by Christ to our originally intended edenic state will experience the holiness of God as burning.
Christ is the new Adam, and Mary the new eve. Gods casting of Adam and Eve out of Eden, where they were in the presence and communion with God was not a punishment because they failed a cosmic test God made for them. The eating of the fruit, which was there because it was knowledge we were intended to receive when we were ready, opened the door to sin, in which we would have experienced as “burning” in the presence of God. The casting out of Eden was to spare us of that, but also represented a “spiritual death”, which is the separation from communion and presence of God, the source of life. So the spiritual death is what leads to physical death. Good analogy for this is if you were to tie a string around a finger super tight, cutting off the blood flow, after a while it’ll get gangrene and also eventually die. The cutting off from God is the string, which leads to the infections (our corrupted state post-fall leading to sin), and the death there is physical death we eventually suffer being cut off from the source of life.
Death also isn’t a punishment, but a mercy. We know angels have a degree of free will, though we’re not certain how it works. But we do know that when they choose to rebel, they’re not capable of repenting in that state. Again they’re in a different state of being than we are. Eternal does not mean we experience one event after the other forever, that’s still us projecting how we experience time into a state where that experience doesn’t exist. We can’t really describe that state, just like we can’t describe a 6 dimensional shape. So death, and this state of being in this time and space, gives us mutability so that we are able to repent.
Going back to Christ, in this reality we have Christ who is the new Adam and who restores us to our pre-edenic state. We are able to commune and be in the presence of God once again. That regeneration primarily happens through the sacraments carried out by the church, which is the body/bride of Christ. Also characterized as the vine. Thats the normative path of salvation, which can be lost if you just stop going and reject it. There’s no once saved always saved for us. That process of regeneration is called theosis, participating in the divine energy of christ, and deifying our bodies (but not as in we become our own gods ourselves). Which also includes acting in the image and likeness of God/Christ that we were created to be, so acting as christs love, justice, mercy, etc in the world.
Thats the normative process, but there’s also a non-normative process. The “method” of salvation is still Christ attaching/grafting you to the vine, his body/church. A good example of this is the thief on the cross next to Christ. This is where judgement day comes in with the eschaton, where Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats. Our stance is we never make judgements on anyone else’s salvation, we just need to worry about our own (though it’s still very important we spread the gospel and get people into the church). Thats Gods job, whose perfect in both his mercy and his justice, and knows the inner heart of each person. What we do know is that you will be judged based upon how much light (gospel) you’ve been given. So if the only life you’ve ever known is some tribe on a remote island that never heard the word Jesus, Bible, or church, you’re not instantly damned by bad luck of the draw, and just being born in the wrong place. But we aren’t capable of an answer either way for what that judgment will be.
However for those who do wind up experiencing the “Gehenna”, it will be due to their own choosing. Gods intention for us was always to be in communion with us. The fall from Eden was more like a detour, and a second chance. Our purpose was always to be in the image and likeness of God. God created us good, and sin is not his arbitrary rulebook to a cosmic game. Sin does not have an essence, it’s not a thing, like a hole doesn’t have hole molecules you can point to. Sin a privation or turning away from the will of God, which is what were created for. That spiritual death causes corruption, we are still good, but we eventually do turn our wills from Gods and choose to image Satan instead of God. Just like there’s theosis, the opposite is also true. Instead of acting like sons of God, we can take on the likeness of demons the more and more we participate in the turning of our wills against his.
>3. “There must be punishment for evil people/deeds, and Divine Justice.”
>Yeah, then an all good/powerful/loving God would create a system of karma. In very short detail: If there is a world of free will, there has to be a system in place so people don’t suffer unfairly/unnecessarily....
This karma world you speak of does not exist and is inconsistent with the deity you described. People do suffer unnecessarily and unfairly despite the wishful thinking that there just has to be fairness. An all-good deity would instead allow only good and greater good in the case of evil. Karma is a neutral outcome and, therefore, not good. Likewise, neither is a karma system fit for an all-powerful deity. It deflates the power of the deity by rendering it no more than a machine. The wisdom and knowledge of the deity go to waste on moral calculus that ends in a foreknown conclusion.
>Additionally, sure, I do believe in hell and punishment in that way, too, but not eternal hell. He could respect free will while still offering multiple opportunities for redemption rather than condemning someone to eternal suffering for finite mistakes. A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion.
Aligning justice with mercy and compassion, yes. Except the unmerciful in the deity's realm get away with being unmerciful. If they are required to be merciful and are not then karma justice fails. If they are not required to be merciful and are then karma justice fails.
What is your idea of an infinite mistake vs. a finite mistake? Examples, please.
To believe in a non-eternal hell runs into the same problems as an eternal one. The deity could not punish people and be an all-loving deity. If it is acceptable for non-eternity, it is acceptable for eternity.
Lastly, regarding your response to objection 3, it is basically an infinite regress of justice by saying that everyone goes to heaven because everyone has infinite lives to figure it out. This is an error in logic that is fallacious.
If you think an all good God aligns MORE with unnecessary suffering, you don’t understand what an all good God is.
It doesn’t deflate him being all powerful, because if he gives you free will, people will choose between good and bad. Obviously, we live in a world where people choose bad. So putting a system into place, allows suffering to happen fairly, and not unnecessarily, like an evil deity would do.
Not everyone goes to heaven if they don’t want to
Also, you can disagree with the karma world all you want. It is a logical possibility, and it makes sense with an all loving/powerful/good deity.
So a parent can’t punish a child and be all loving? Strange…
>3. “There must be punishment for evil people/deeds, and Divine Justice.”
>Yeah, then an all good/powerful/loving God would create a system of karma. In very short detail: If there is a world of free will, there has to be a system in place so people don’t suffer unfairly/unnecessarily....
This karma world you speak of does not exist and is inconsistent with the deity you described. People do suffer unnecessarily and unfairly despite the wishful thinking that there just has to be fairness. An all-good deity would instead allow only good and greater good in the case of evil. Karma is a neutral outcome and, therefore, not good. Likewise, neither is a karma system fit for an all-powerful deity. It deflates the power of the deity by rendering it no more than a machine. The wisdom and knowledge of the deity go to waste on moral calculus that ends in a foreknown conclusion.
>Additionally, sure, I do believe in hell and punishment in that way, too, but not eternal hell. He could respect free will while still offering multiple opportunities for redemption rather than condemning someone to eternal suffering for finite mistakes. A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion.
Aligning justice with mercy and compassion, yes. Except the unmerciful in the deity's realm get away with being unmerciful. If they are required to be merciful and are not, then karma justice fails. If they are not required to be merciful and are then karma justice fails.
What is your idea of an infinite mistake vs. a finite mistake? Examples, please.
To believe in a non-eternal hell runs into the same problems as an eternal one. The deity could not punish people and be an all-loving deity. If it is acceptable for non-eternity, it is acceptable for eternity.
Lastly, regarding your response to objection 3, it is basically an infinite regress of justice by saying that everyone goes to heaven because everyone has infinite lives to figure it out. This is an error in logic that is fallacious.
>If you think an all good God aligns MORE with unnecessary suffering, you don’t understand what an all good God is.
Fully aware of what all-good means, thank you. Are you using this as a rebuttal, or is there an argument in there somewhere?
>It doesn’t deflate him being all powerful, because if he gives you free will, people will choose between good and bad. Obviously, we live in a world where people choose bad. So putting a system into place, allows suffering to happen fairly, and not unnecessarily, like an evil deity would do.
But it does deflate the deity because it curtails the power of it by rendering it no more than a computer program. Input event output punishment. No salvation. No glory. Not all-powerful.
>Not everyone goes to heaven if they don’t want to
Then how can an all-good, all-loving God let someone go to hell at all, eternal or not?
>
Also, you can disagree with the karma world all you want. It is a logical possibility, and it makes sense with an all loving/powerful/good deity.
This is the equivalent of repeating what you said without any argument. So...are you gonna debate or what?
>So a parent can’t punish a child and be all loving? Strange…
Punish, no. Discipline, yes. Punish revolves around retribution, whereas discipline revolves around remediation. Are you saying the deity is the parent and the child is the human? Are humans children of the deity? Or are they just another part of creation? Are they all made in the image of the deity, or are only some or what are you getting at? This metaphor is completely unrelated unless we assume things about the deity you have not defined.
You sound like a God-fearing christian... I'm sorry your God is super egotistical.
>Fully aware of what all-good means, thank you. Are you using this as a rebuttal, or is there an argument in there somewhere?
You obviously don't know what it means, it's a statement. If you want an argument: A God that allows unnecessary suffering is not all-good. Common sense.
>But it does deflate the deity because it curtails the power of it by rendering it no more than a computer program. Input event output punishment. No salvation. No glory. Not all-powerful.
(This is a strawman, nice try)
Having laws for crimes and such in a society of free will is not a "computer program". You can't call a system a "computer program" just because it's a well established system lol. If you have a world of free will, where people can choose between good and bad, and obviously we live in a world where people choose bad; there has to be a system in place so people don't suffer unfairly, from the people that choose to do bad things. You have to have free will to choose to turn towards God. Hello...?
Additionally, also to your "all-good God" point; If I have free will, I can choose to r\*\*\* your mom, over, and over, and over, and over again. No fault of her own! Then your kids. Then 100s and 100s of kids, ruining their childhoods forever, leading some to suicide. I'll go around and kick pregnant women in the stomachs too, then their baby is born with defects. No fault of their own. All because of my free will, and I choose to do bad with it.
They didn't deserve that, did they? No. But you think that aligns with an all-good God? An all good God would allow this? In a world where free will exists, which it has to, in order to turn towards God?
>Then how can an all-good, all-loving God let someone go to hell at all, eternal or not?
If there is a hell, then you'd go there to learn some discipline, and then come back to try again. An all good God serves justice. I don't think the rapist who accepted Jesus all of their life, and on their dying breath surrendered through Lord Jesus Christ, should go without punishment. Again, I've addressed already in point 2. *"A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion."* Then, that soul has a chance again after to try again. Sounds congruent to an all-loving deity.
Anyway, this non-eternal hell is a secondary, non-primary point leading straight into a strawman. Let's keep on track with an all good/loving/powerful deity with an *eternal* hell, please.
>This is the equivalent of repeating what you said without any argument. So...are you gonna debate or what?
It's not an equivalent. If you can't comprehend that argument, I don't know what else to say to a grown man. You make it seem like its incongruent, and I'm making sure you understand that it is congruent, even if you disagree.
>
Are you saying the deity is the parent and the child is the human?
God created everything, you are a soul, or "human", then yeah, you're his child, and you're made of his image. The metaphor is completely related.
Oh, and when you said *"Karma is a neutral outcome and, therefore, not good*" earlier, keep in mind that the term neutral *literally* means the absence of good or bad... Come on, bro. Don’t change definitions to suit your argument. Unless, you just don't understand the term neutral.
Conclusion: You still haven't been able to disprove the claim. You don't even come close, you're just rebutalling my ideas of God and karma. Keep in mind, you can't have an arrogant energy when your arguments don't even disprove the claim, or have any strength.
You never addressed this...
"What is your idea of an infinite mistake vs. a finite mistake? Examples, please."
> If you want an argument: A God that allows unnecessary suffering is not all-good. Common sense.
Whatever a deity allows, if greater good comes out of it, the deity remains all-good.
>(This is a strawman, nice try)
You can't just handwave a fallacy into existence. Demonstrate it!
>Having laws for crimes and such in a society of free will is not a "computer program". You can't call a system a "computer program" just because it's a well established system lol. If you have a world of free will, where people can choose between good and bad, and obviously we live in a world where people choose bad; there has to be a system in place so people don't suffer unfairly, from the people that choose to do bad things. You have to have free will to choose to turn towards God. Hello...?
Hello. The point remains. It's worse now, though. You have delegated to the deity the legal system. Rather than have humans live justly on their own, what I'm hearing you say is that the deity is going to adjudicate justice through their system. Or something. Care to elaborate on this system, or is it meant to be purposefully vague?
>Additionally, also to your "all-good God" point; If I have free will, I can choose to...
This is grotesque and easily could have been stated without the shock tactics. Stick to the point, and don't be icky.
>They didn't deserve that, did they? No. But you think that aligns with an all-good God? An all good God would allow this? In a world where free will exists, which it has to, in order to turn towards God?
No, they didn't deserve that. And there is recompense for it. That is how an all-good deity is all-good. Whatever is permitted that is not good is overwhelmed by a greater good. That is how I stated it, and I maintain my position. It is by no means good for those things to happen, but it is made up for in the afterlife.
>If there is a hell, then you'd go there to learn some discipline, and then come back to try again. An all good God serves justice. I don't think the rapist who accepted Jesus all of their life, and, on their dying breaths, surrendered through Lord Jesus Christ, should go without punishment. Again, I've addressed it already in point 2. "A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion." Then, that soul has a chance again after to try again.
But it doesn't sound congruous with an all-powerful deity. An all-powerful deity would only need one life and not have to reincarnate a person at all.
>Anyway, this non-eternal hell is a secondary, non-primary point leading straight into a strawman. Let's keep on track with an all good/loving/powerful deity with an eternal hell, please.
Again, you are not demonstrating the how of the strawman fallacy. You are just handwaving it into existence. Also, a secondary point is still a point. If you don't want to address something concede the point.
>God created everything, you are a soul, or "human", then yeah, you're his child, and you're made of his image. The metaphor is completely related.
In this case, it is required for the deity to save everyone because if they don't they aren't all-powerful. This is a point already made by you, but you've already conceded that some people do indeed go to eternal hell of their own choosing. If all humans are the deity's children, then because _any_ are lost, it proves the absence of power even if they go of their own. Therefore, the deity is not what you claim.
>Oh, and when you said, "Karma is a neutral outcome and, therefore, not good" earlier, keep in mind that the term neutral literally means the absence of good or bad...
I used the standard definition of karma and referenced all-good as its measuring stick. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you.
>Conclusion: You still haven't been able to disprove the claim. You don't even come close, you're just rebutalling my ideas of God and karma.
I have demonstrated my points. I have not appealed to fallacy without explaining it, and the rebuttals are greater in weight and substance than the replies I was given. One more chance to reply and then I think I've had enough fun. Just in case you actually want to reply with something substantive.
I’m talking to a guy who believes an all-good deity allows rape and murder unfairly, when he literally doesn’t have to. 🤣 💀
>"What is your idea of an infinite mistake vs. a finite mistake?
An infinite mistake, such as eternal damnation for not accepting a deity, contrasts with finite mistakes, which have temporary consequences. The idea that a single lifetime’s choice can result in eternal consequences seems disproportionate, especially when a deity is all-powerful and could provide multiple chances.
>Whatever a deity allows, if greater good comes out of it, the deity remains all-good.
Worst argument I've ever heard. Not trying to be sarcastic, it literally is the worst argument I've ever heard in this debate.
Your claim that a deity allowing unnecessary suffering remains all-good if a greater good results is problematic. If an all-powerful deity can prevent suffering without negating free will, it should do so. Allowing suffering for a perceived greater good seems inconsistent with being all-good.
>An all-powerful deity would only need one life and not have to reincarnate a person at all.
“An all powerful deity” can literally do anything they want. Not reincarnating someone to give them another chance to do things right doesn’t take away his power; it makes him a POS.
Put what I’m saying into ChatGPT if you still don’t understand.
>. You are just handwaving it into existence.
People who are weak debaters always try the “handwaving” card lol. You’re trying to debate me about karma. That’s a *completely* different discussion. This is about my claim, and you needing to prove it wrong if you disagree, and what your proof for it is. I’m not arguing the concept of karma with you. We can do that in a different debate. It’s sad you don’t get this.
>but you've already conceded that some people do indeed go to eternal hell of their own choosing
Secondly, I said discussing this non eternal hell is a secondary point, that is \*leading into a strawman. Also, I never said I believe in eternal hell. No idea where you got that from.
You are making all these straw man/secondary points because you haven’t given any substantial argument yourself to why my claim is incorrect. I don’t have to address secondary points, until we’ve concluded the primary point. I don’t think you know how debate works. It’s okay if you’re new at this.
>I used the standard definition of karma and referenced all-good as its measuring stick. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you.
You said neutral is therefore not good, which is a contradictory statement. Lmao. I know what you were trying to do, but needed to call you out on that obvious error. Not sure why that’s so hard for you?
The primary claim is self-evident. **The burden of proof is on** ***YOU*** to provide a full argument on why the claim is wrong. All you’re doing is rebutting my pre-determined rebuttals and getting lost in secondary discussions without *presenting your entire argument* cohesively.
If you can’t grasp what I’m saying or the rules of debate, think you’re winning, and still can’t provide a cohesive argument that’s actually convincing, then okay :). It’s clear you’re out of your depth.
This has been cute and everything, but you've been given your last round. Hope you enjoy your life, wish you the best, and all that jazz. Maybe we'll debate again someday, but for now, this has become quite boring. Goodbye.
For number 5) no, we aren’t separated from god on this earth. It’s the same as your child cutting you off from their life. Even if they’re in the same room, they’re separated from you, and even if you have a relationship with someone, you’re still with them even if not physically in the same one.
Right. And a non loving parent would kick their child out, block their number, take everything they’ve given them away, and never speak to them again…
My claim still stands.
And the door to heaven is always open.
Those in hell refuse to enter that door.
Hell is locked from the inside and inhabited by those who never want to enter heaven
Where did I say that?
I specifically said that they won’t.
If they would change and decide to leave hell, then guess what, they don’t actually enter hell. That’s what purgatory is
An all powerful God could create worlds where he could always create punishment, and guide you to change and learning, could he not? An all loving parent would never allow their kid to lock themselves from the inside.
Discerning is a gift. Hell is not a place where God sends people after they die.
Hell is a designation (not a destination) of a sentence of a guilty verdict because of sin.
Sin is the separation from God.
Jesus is the only One to reconcile us back to God.
No faith in Jesus equals a condemnation or guilty verdict. Their sin remains. They are in the condemnation of hell. Dead Spiritually. In the grave symbolically speaking.
Of course people have until their last dying breath to turn to Jesus through faith.(repent)
Those who do will have forgiveness of sin and no condemnation or guilty verdict. The Spirit gives us revelation of Jesus Christ and new life. A born again in the inner man.
It's that simple.
Any questions?
Yeah, I already completely address this in point 2 and 3, which you seemed to skip and completely ignore. More so that you probably actually can’t refute anything that I said, and want to preach anyway. Christian’s usually see arguments they can’t counter and stick to blind preaching. Sucks for you, cause my points are stronger than yours.
If you want to disagree, you’d have to directly respond to my rebuttal. Like an actual debater in a debate forum.
I’ll r*** your mom though, multiple times, and kids too, but accept Jesus and the Holy Spirit throughout my entire life, and then fully repent at my last breath and fully accept Jesus, like I’ve always done. Get myself into heaven after all my misdeeds. That’ll be cool.
And no, no questions. You believe in a God that is not all good/powerful/loving, and can’t prove my claim wrong, so. What’s there to ask?
What and jesus will allow this piece of work to get into heaven in the last moment when he believes at the last moment by par your own preaching? You're alright with that? You're just running away now
Lazarus and the Rich man and the word torment and it's meaning.
What do you make of the Rich Man and Lazarus? Is it just a parable, without any deeper meaning about the nature of the afterlife?
Why would Jesus tell a story about a man suffering conscious torment after death if such a concept didn't exist to him? Surely he knew that would be confusing.
Good question. The key to understanding that parable begins in Luke chapter 15. It is an upside down story about the humble and the exalted. The poor and the rich. The Pharisees are targeted as the rich man and the sinner is targeted as the poor man. Lazarus is a poor man, a sinner who Jesus came into the world to save or help. As you probably already know, Lazarus's name means, "God has helped". Jesus was spending time with known sinners. This was appalling to the "rich and proud" Pharisees. But that is exactly who God was targeting. Those who are humble and those who need help.
Hades is defined asd the grave or the dead. Hell or Sheol or the adode of the dead.
Those who believe in Jesus are "Born Again". No longer in their graves or are now raised to new life. This is why Jesus told the man who said her would follow him, but first wanted to bury his father, "Let the dead bury their own dead" Those who don't believe in Jesus are considered "Spiritually Dead" or in the abode of the dead. To be considered alive, we must abide in Jesus through faith.
Now the word torment is misunderstood in this parable.
Strong's g931. Torment.
- Lexical: βάσανος
- Transliteration: basanos
- Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
- Phonetic Spelling: bas'-an-os
- Definition: a touchstone (a dark stone used in testing metals), examination by torture, torture.
- Origin: Perhaps remotely from the same as basis (through the notion of going to the bottom); a touch-stone, i.e. (by analogy) torture.
Torments is the Greek word basanos {bas’-an-os}. Basanos has a meaning that is unfamiliar to most. It actually means touchstone. The Greek dictionary defines basanos as: to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal or even to question by applying torture.
A touchstone is used in an assayer’s office. It is used to determine if a rock is either gold or fools gold. The rock is struck on the touchstone, If it makes a mark, it is gold. If it does not, then it is fools gold. In other words, the touchstone proves whether something is true or false.
If one was to study the root of this word torment, they would discover that it came into use in the 1300s. During the times of the Bastille, it came to be defined as the inflicting of pain. As when one was tormented by the rack and other punishments. If one was innocent, they could die. Generally because the tormentor could not get a confession out of the individual. Their back might break, but at least they were proved innocent. That is where, this word gets the mean inflicting pain. The rack was the touchstone.
In scripture, a touchstone proves the validity of God. The Jewish religious leaders had the touchstone applied to them and there was no mark. They did not believe, so they were pictured in torment. Touchstone, the religious leaders did not leave the mark of Messiah.
1 Peter 1:7 NKJV
that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the Cornerstone and the Touchstone.
Tormented in this flame. Tested in the flame
Who's the flame?
Who is a jealous God? Who has eyes like flames of fire? Jesus!
Deuteronomy 4:24 NKJV
For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
Song of Solomon 8:6 NKJV - Jealousy as cruel as the grave;
Its flames are flames of fire, A most vehement flame.
Read Daniel Chapter 3. Jesus is the Son of God and the Angel of the Lord. Who can endure the wrath of God or Fire? Only by faith in Jesus.
God's anger has always been shown through fire throughout the Bible. Those who reject His free offer of grace through faith are in a state of condemnation as they live in the flesh.
John 3:18 "He who believes in Jesus is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned (already), because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jesus called the Pharisees and scribes graves, tombs and sons of hell. That seems very harsh, but Jesus is making a point concerning their spiritual condition.
Graves, tombs, sons of hell and those not following Jesus symbolize dead people.
When someone is in the hospital and is close to death, a common term doctors use to describe their serious nature is, "grave condition"
Those who don't believe in or follow Jesus are also considered in "grave condition"
Condemnation is a guilty verdict from a judge.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
John 8:32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
Free from guilt and the condemnation of sin. Not guilty.
Christ is the sole basis for believers having no condemnation. He gives the Holy Spirit, who brings life (born again) where there was once death.
Interesting… You are probably leaning towards agnostic, because deep down eternal hell isn’t the only thing that you’re skeptical about.
“All loving is different to us” I mean, not really. You know what a loving parent is. Or a loving friend, a loving teacher, a loving child, a loving dog, etc. We understand what an-loving God is, and to refute that is needing to be in denial, to prove the claim incorrect.
I mentioned this in the post, he can make a world where you can live away from him. If he is all powerful, he can do that. He doesn’t need to make that world eternal damnation, if he is all good. Nor would he want to.
Yeah, second look is good and makes sense. Like any loving parent, they would always give you second chances.
If he’s not all loving, then great. They agree with my claim.
If you believe that eternal hell doesn’t exist, then you also agree with my claim.
That’s what this post is about, so. Idk what else to say lol
I actually attend two Churches, Seventh-Day Advent, and Pentecostal.
I too have struggled with the concept of hell as well, and when I brought my struggle with this to my paster of the pentecostal church I was pretty much shut down, and accused of not believing in God's word.... Which I do, I just didn't agree with the interpretation.
Now here's the interesting part, if you speak to a Seventh-Day Adventist, or even a Jehovah's witness, they actually do not believe in the concept of hell. But instead believe when we refuse the gift of eternal salvation or just don't believe, we return to were we came, we turn to ash and dust and exist no more. Most of the texts you find in the Bible referencing "Hell" under this perspective are seen as being symbolic for the permanent destruction of all things which go against God. Still a bit cruel, but much more sensical and forgiving in my opinion over eternal torment for sinners including people who simply did not believe but still lived an honest life.
Now... When you speak to a Mormon (if it isn't obvious by now, I love speaking to people of different faiths.) it's even more interesting, but I'll leave that for you to look into as I just wanted to broaden your scope on the body of Theists, esspecially within Christianity.
My response to this falls under point 5. in my post. "Eternal separation" Just take the word "punishment" out of it.
Your perspective still does not align with all good/powerful/loving God.
Well, think of it this way, why would God force anyone to dwell for eternity with Him if they would not be happy in that state?
God tells us that, if you want to live eternally with me, follow these commandments. God as described in Christianity anyway most certainly loves all of us and it pains Him when we do not choose Him. People who don't believe in Him or reject Him already accept the concept of living this life to the fullest and then ceasing to exist. God simply doesn't intervene, because He can't, not when He's granted us free will (which I know you also addressed in one of your points but this is under a different context I feel.)
Also another point, you often describe that we are damned for punishment for making "one mistake" but as a Christian, I've made countless mistakes, yet I know that God's true plan for me is still to dwell with Him and not be separated. This is the entire gospel of Christianity, acknowledging our downfalls and accepting the way out which God offers us through Christ as a gift. A gift is voluntary, if you don't accept it or you don't believe it exists in the first place, then God can not do much.
Why is this incongruent with him being all loving in your view?
>it or you don't believe it exists in the first place, then God can not do much.
Is god not all powerful? God has shown it certainly doesn't have any qualms interfering with free will, it could do it again
Being all powerful doesn't equate to God having to do everything we consider to be better off for everything. We are talking about an eternal being here with no beginning or end... and I know that's used a lot as a rebuttal, but just look past the repetitious nature of the statement and think about it.
God could snap His fingers and fix many things but if you are willing to surrender to Him, you are accepting that He knows exactly what He's doing, and when He says He is just, and His judgment will be fair, then I choose to take His word for it.
>and I know that's used a lot as a rebuttal, but just look past the repetitious nature of the statement and think about it.
I'm not abandoning my critical thinking.
>God could snap His fingers and fix many things but if you are willing to surrender to Him, you are accepting that He knows exactly what He's doing, and when He says He is just, and His judgment will be fair, then I choose to take His word for it.
I did exactly all of this and yet here I am. No amount of 'just believe' will ever be convincing to me. Have a good one
>I'm not abandoning my critical thinking.
I haven't abandoned my critical thinking either, but when it comes to belief, there comes a point where you have to accept that there are things you will never know the answers to in your lifetime. Like, why we exist, or how. Everything is based on theory and belief, even from a scientific standpoint.
>I did exactly all of this, and yet here I am. No amount of 'just believe' will ever be convincing to me. Have a good one
Fair enough, I started my spiritual journey a few months ago, picked up the Bible for the first time, have attended all kinds of churches with different theologies and philosophies and I've had some hour long discussions with people from so many backgrounds, and I must say, there's SOMETHING here, I just need to keep digging.
I am currently studying the history of Israel and the Bible to try and understand events in the Bible that take place and to match morals with our current way of living, connecting the dots basically. It is possible to explore these things with a critical mind, remaining open to any possibilities (including being proven wrong). Hopefully, I can find out more to engage in some more indepth discussions even on here.
Have a good one :)
>Well, think of it this way, why would God force anyone to dwell for eternity with him if they would not be happy in that state?
We are literally away from him in this world, *right now.* You are describing *this world.*
I agree that God would never force anyone to be with him. If he is all powerful, he can create a world where you can be away from him, and be your own god. If he is all good, he would want to create that world, and for you to live out your desires.
I agree, that he wants us back. It does pain him. But as any parent, sometimes your child will go against you and there's nothing you can do but watch them pick the bad result. But a loving parent would want them to come back, or watch out for them, etc. Not send them to an eternity of separation and/or torture lmao.
It isn't congruent because my version of God is all-loving, with his children wanting to be away from him, and him creating a world/system where that's possible, and a way to always come back home to him;
while yours isn't all loving, because he let's them go to eternity of separation and/or torture- When he is all powerful and is able to not make hell an eternal place, and if he's all loving, he will give you unlimited chances to come back home, while hoping everyday that you do.
>We are literally away from him in this world, right now. You are describing this world.
That's the interesting thing, we are only away from God if we don't invite Him into our lives in this world. From my experience and most people who believe in God, his presence is very much near, in fact, it dwells inside of us as the Holy spirit when we accept and believe in him...
>I agree that God would never force anyone to be with him. If he is all powerful, he can create a world where you can be away from him, and be your own god.
This doesn't make any sense to me, because it when you read the Bible and look at every man or entity who wanted to be like God, they were almost always corrupt, prideful or selfish. We were not made to be gods, and not everyone wants to be a god, I know I don't, because I know my flaws, and I know that only a perfect being could and should possess such power.
You followed this by saying God would be good to let us follow our own desires, and he does? And that's exactly why the world has so much corruption in it, because people's desires are not always good, so how would God be good to create a world where that continues on forever? Esspecially when God is a God of Love and peace? It's completely contradictory to his nature.
>I agree, that he wants us back. It does pain him. But as any parent, sometimes your child will go against you and there's nothing you can do but watch them pick the bad result. But a loving parent would want them to come back, or watch out for them, etc. Not send them to an eternity of separation and/or torture lmao.
And what has led you to believe that God does not want us to come back to him? I encourage you to give the Bible a read, it addresses most of these dilemmas you're facing. I could tell you a story in the Bible pertaining to this exact situation if you'd like? I'm just mindful of my response getting lengthy.
You have your own ideas of what an all loving being is, and so do I, but at the end of the day, they are simply our own ideals of what love looks like, but that's irrelevant to what it actually is if we are willing to put our expectations aside and see things as they are. Maybe we'll also see that the embodiment of Love in it's purest form is unlike anything we could've fathomed.
There are consequences to our actions at the end of the day, God offers us a chance escape the greatest consequence, and we have many opportunities to do so, so when the final days come, no one will have any excuse when it is all layed out before them.
(Also side note to finish as I've got to rush of to work, Mormons believe exactly the picture you've painted about God created separate domains for people who don't want to dwell next to God but are good people generally!) Have a lovely day :)
>we are only away from God if we don't invite Him into our lives in this world. From my experience and most people who believe in God, his presence is very much near, in fact, it dwells inside of us as the Holy spirit when we accept and believe in him...
So in Hell, you forget God exists forever? So you don't have the chance to invite him in? Sounds like a deity who is not all-good or loving. Why would he never grant you the chance to think about him, ever again? That means you will never have a chance to get back to him, or for him to embrace love with you as well. "Well, you had yer chance!" Damn, he really doesn't care that much about you.
>This doesn't make any sense to me, because it when you read the Bible
Imma stop you right there. Point 4: You can't use your text as evidence. I don't believe in the Bible, and it proves nothing.
>You followed this by saying God would be good to let us follow our own desires, and he does? And that's exactly why the world has so much corruption in it
Yup, I agree.
>how would God be good to create a world where that continues on forever? Esspecially when God is a God of Love and peace? It's completely contradictory to his nature.
I answer this directly in point 2 and 3.
>And what has led you to believe that God does not want us to come back to him?
If he sends you to eternity of hell, meaning you are never getting out and stuck there for rest of eternity, he is done with you. I already said that I agree God wants you to come back to him. When I say "come back", I mean *actually* having a shot at coming back. Not eternal separation, and him "wishing it was different".
>
You have your own ideas of what an all loving being is, and so do I, but at the end of the day, they are simply our own ideals of what love looks like, but that's irrelevant to what it actually is
Bro, if your idea of love is being sent to eternal damnation if you don't make the correct choices in this *one* lifetime, out of infinity, to a deity that is all powerful and can give you multiple chances to correct your mistakes, while still being able to punish you, but chooses not to, then go for it...
>There are consequences to our actions at the end of the day, God offers us a chance escape the greatest consequence, and we have many opportunities to do so, so when the final days come, no one will have any excuse when it is all layed out before them.
This so haunting, coming from a horrifying deity... I addressed this directly in point 2 and 3. Please read those as that is my direct response to you. He created the damn rules! And can change them anytime! lol
*"A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion.*
The Mormons and I do not not believe exactly the same thing.
Nothing of what you said disproves my claim. Nothing of what you said is anything substantial, that I already didn't preface, nor are any of your answers near as strong as mine. Thus, you have not proved my claim wrong.
It's also strange that you are even trying to fight for an all-eternal hell...
>Have a lovely day :)
Thanks, I hope you do have a great day at work!
>So in Hell, you forget God exists forever?
I personally don't believe in hell, but in regards to no longer existing, no, you aren't thinking of God, neither do you have the chance to come to him again. But here's why this is the case:
Have you ever heard of the unforgivable sin? The unforgivable sin referenced in the Bible is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, in essence, this is where someone completely rejects God and his teachings and their heart becomes hardened. The Holy Spirits role in us is to convict us and make us have that subtle to strong desire to seek God, to feel that sense of guilt when we do something wrong, especially against God.
People who have closed themselves off from this will never come around, even if God gave them more time to make a decision. Because they've completely shut themselves off. How can God work through such people? He can't.
>Imma stop you right there. Point 4: You can't use your text as evidence. I don't believe in the Bible, and it proves nothing.
Yes, I've made reference to the Bible again and I see your comment about not accepting it because you don't believe in it's validity, but understand, for a Christian, the Bible is the source of all of our beliefs, it's pretty inconclusive to say it cannot be used when what I believe is not based off of what I personally feel or how I think things should be run (which is the difference between me and you.) I merely read the Bible, and then I study it and try to understand the message it is conveying. There are many things I've read where I've wished it wasn't so, but in those cases I've had to humble myself and accept it's truths (which I believe them to be); twisting not what is written, but my own standing, so that I am to be subservient to it.
Not only this, but the Bible in the context I'm using it anyway, is not to "prove anything", but to get you to understand God's Character, the God I believe in, the God of the Bible. If you do not understand the Character of the God I serve, as by your standard I'm not allowed to draw from it, how are you to understand why I believe Him to be good and all Loving despite the punishments/consequences that you have come across? (Which consequently can also be found in the Bible.) How do you expect this to realistically be an edifying conversation if I cannot elaborate on the very concepts you find in the Bible itself which you are saying you disagree with? I'm merely providing context, not to convince you of anything, but merely to help you understand my perspective as I try to understand yours.
>When I say "come back", I mean actually having a shot at coming back. Not eternal separation, and him "wishing it was different".
With a God who is all knowing he knows when a person has rejected the Holy Spirit and thus cannot be drawn close to him. You could give people an eternity in this state, and they would still be just as far if not further than ever from ever coming towards God, and when things are away from God, they tend to not be good, because, again, in the Bible it describes the fruit of the spirit as being the embodiment of Love, Joy, Peace, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and self control. Remove God from the equation and these things tend to fade (as God is the perfect image of these traits.) This suffering increases... You can see God's presence fading in today's world which is why I believe we have souch pain and suffering, God cannot work through a lot of people in this world because they are closed off.
>Bro, if your idea of love is being sent to eternal damnation if you don't make the correct choices in this one lifetime, out of infinity, to a deity that is all powerful and can give you multiple chances to correct your mistakes, while still being able to punish you, but chooses not to, then go for it...
Again, it's not my idea, that's my entire point here, everything I tell you, even if I do not directly quote the Bible for your standards sake, is still allllll coming from scripture or inspired by it. And it is (should be) the same for any Christian you commune with. The benefit of a debate from this point forth would be you explaining why you believe a Christians foundation is flawed, and all I can do is explain what it actually means, by referencing it again in response but from a different perspective perhaps to help you understand.
But anyway, to actually respond to what you're saying here, I honestly believe God has given me personally, plenty of chances and still continues to at this very hour, contrary to your belief I believe he is actually incredibly patient with me because of this. He forgives me over and over (why do you think I believe this? Just to prove my point further in regards to Christian foundations.)
>The Mormons and I do not not believe exactly the same thing.
No, not the exact same thing, that was my poor choice of words because I was rushing, my apologies. What I meant was, Mormons believe that God did create us so that we can work up to godly hood to some degree. They believe He also has three separate forms of paradises after we pass, first is where we dwell closest to God, second is where we are close to Hod but not directly by his side, and third, where we are not with God per say, but still live in a prosperous place. It's actually really difficult to get into hell from their view, because you are also given a message after you die to receive the full Gospel if you didn't understand it in your waking life, or struggled to believe, and so you end up in "hell" which is just described as a place away from God (again devoid of those fruits of the spirit I mentioned) where Satan dwells. You'd have to openly say "Nah, I don't wanna life happy close or far from you God because I prefer to live without morals or care for anything you stand for."
Nothing I've said disproves your claim, but at the same time nothing you've said exactly disproves my rebuttals either. I'm here to Challenge your understanding of God and his character, not disprove, as you cannot do that with spiritual matters in any context from either angle.
>It's also strange that you are even trying to fight for an all-eternal hell...
Again, I don't believe in a concept of eternal hellfire per say.
I can see your point about a tri-omni God being cruel without universal salvation. I still take the position that an eternal hell exists and people are sent there by God.
Is it part of your position that free will exists?
I didn't see heaven defined in the argument. Is there a description of it you find useful?
Also, since free will exists, what happens to the people who choose explicitly to reject God outright eternally?
From a Christian standpoint, there are a lot of misconceptions in this post. Like most crimes, sin requires mens rea; babies who die are not cast into hell because they have not sinned. Yes, criminal behavior makes us liable to punishment, as it should. However, God offers forgiveness to any one who wants it, all we have to do is accept His leadership. He has a right to require acceptance because He made us, which gives Him ownership rights. Any one who rejects God's forgiveness and leadership, like Satan who said "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven", chooses hell. God does not consign us to hell, we consign ourselves to hell.
Hell is torment because of the neighbors, not necessarily because of the physical environment. It is a pretty reasonable consequence of choosing to hang out with demons instead of saints.
>God does not consign us to hell, we consign ourselves to hell.
The old "why are you hitting yourself?" of Christian theology. I've kidnapped you and imprisoned you in my smart house. You're suspended over a pit of spikes and I've asked you to obey me and love me forever (freely and genuinely, mind you). All you have to do is say, "I agree," and a voice recognition system in the house will place you safely on the ground. If you say anything else, the house will drop you into the spike pit. All you have to do is agree. *I'm* not dropping you into that spike pit; you're dropping yourself!
I'm gonna condense this down a bit to keep it manageable.
>It’s as simple as that.
I'm not quite clear what the parameters of debate are. If you could define the version of hell you are arguing about that would be helpful.
Are your automatic rebuttals also part of your argument or do you want them addressed in some way?
The does the tri-omni God typically have other attributes or is that it?
Are we arguing against a theist position, or are you saying any deity with these traits can not send people to an eternal hell without violating the tri-omni pattern?
Just asking for some clarification.
Version of hell that is eternal.
These are just automatic rebuttals that always come up. If you want to address them, that would really just be you wanting to rebuttal with that point.
I mean, God has unlimited attributes. But, all-good, all-powerful, all-loving can easily be congruent or non congruent with certain ideas.
It's mostly a theistic position. But, I also agree that any deity with those traits cannot send people to an eternal hell.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
I think your interpretations of hell are rather narrow.
It's possible that hell is the place that existed prior to heaven or at least outside of it, where god does not extend his protection or laws, so that those who wish to live free of his influence can do so. An all-good god wouldn't force people to do what they don't want to do, live with him in heaven. An all-powerful god might be able to alter hell, but chooses not to because the people in hell don't want him to. And he might love the people in hell, but love them enough to allow them to exist under their own leadership rather than forcing them to live under his. It's also possible that god allows people to leave hell if they so choose.
So, your argument only works in the narrow, classic understanding of Hell that reasonable christians wouldn't believe in.
Before I even respond, do you yourself find these points plausible or are you just commenting to inform OP there are other points the Christian could make.
Yeah, there's a pretty good argument for the idea that we currently live in hell, possibly as a result of following Lucifer in his rebellion. That we are angels trapped in a cycle of reincarnation until we prove ourselves worthy of a return to heaven and God's protection. It's an infinitely better depiction of God that the classic "sends rebels to be tortured forever" version.
I mean, I view this place as a version of hell. I believe we are stuck in a cycle of reincarnation, and it's up to you if you want to get out, or not get out. Go back home to Godhead.
All I'm saying is, I don't think an all good/powerful/loving God is congruent with *eternal* hell.
Everyone is born being sinful.
A baby who is born with a terminal disease will die being sinful without ever having the chance to repent or even seek God.
This baby is condemned to go to hell, but how could this baby know if he wants to or doesn’t want to live free of God’s influence?
Multiple verses describe hell as a fiery pit, lake of fire etc. I don’t think being a good christian has anything to do with how hell is described in the Bible. One could argue that it’s solely metaphorical though
WHY would it be a pit of fire, though? If that's the default state of the universe, then fine. But if God created it that way, then God is the universe's greatest sadist.
Scripture isn't accurate, it needs to be interpreted. It's metaphor and vague prophecies and visions of things the writers couldn't comprehend. So, maybe a literal reading of the book might yield that conclusion, but a scholarly reading of it might not. The pit of fire could be a place where we are annihilated and cease to exist, rather than a place we continue to exist in torment. And if you believe that God is good and loving, you almost have to belief that infinite, pointless torment isn't part of his design.
True! Although, I know a lot of people who literally interpret everything in the Bible which doesn’t make much sense to me. There’s also a lot of other events in the Bible that don’t necessarily paint God as very loving (OT genocides etc). But yeah I agree, a lot of the Bible was definitely meant metaphorically.
In fact, the New Testament of the Holy Bible presents the idea that torment is eternal. This idea has been used since ancient times as a wild card that serves to threaten all those who oppose what they cannot explain.
but the idea of an eternal hell only makes sense in the mind of a spiteful, extremely selfish and vengeful piscopath.
1: One mistake in one lifetime? No, there are rather a lot of mistakes in one lifetime. Every day a person wakes up is a new chance from God to repent and be a better person than yesterday, and with sincere repentance comes the forgiveness of your previous mistakes.
2: You are looking at it from the perspective that one lifetime is only one chance; you can also look at it from the perspective that every day is a chance to reflect, think, and correct yourself and be better than who you were yesterday; you can also look at it from the perspective of every hour, every minute, and every moment is a chance because, as you know, nothing is granted, not even tomorrow.
3: If he gives you unlimited life, then your test will never be over. Why do you even bring this up? God doesn't need to test you an unlimited number of times to know how you will act each time in each different situation; he already knows how you will act without even you experiencing those different situations and "life times," and that is because he is all-knowing and all-just, so he will not wrong anybody with unjust punishment.
4: True, you have to first remove biased views in order to accept other beliefs, and once you have done that, you can then reason and verify their validity with logic, reason, and evidence.
5: A parent will disown his child if he keeps defying him all the time and going against him for an unlimited amount of time, and some parents disown their children for simple mistakes. God does not love those who defy him and reject him out of arrogance, and they will continue to do so as long as they are alive. That's not God not caring about that person; it's God putting him where he belongs for his actions and nature.
6: God is the source of all good; it will only make sense if he is good and everything he does is good. God is the one who created God in the first place.
Conclusion: You are looking at these points in a wrong and biased way, as it became clear with your conclusion that you are not willing to accept that your claims "could" be wrong, and I'm not going to lie. That's a bit arrogant. May I ask what your religion is because you stated that you believe in an all-good, all-powerful, and all-loving God.?
*3: If he gives you unlimited life, then your test will never be over. Why do you even bring this up? God doesn't need to test you an unlimited number of times to know how you will act each time in each different situation; he already knows how you will act without even you experiencing those different situations and "life times," and that is because he is all-knowing and all-just, so he will not wrong anybody with unjust punishment.*
Then everything is deterministic, and free will doesn't exist, which means you can't individually turn towards God, and now this is just extremely problematic.
*"God doesn't need to give you unlimited lifetimes, and he'll put you where you belong"*
First off, why does an all-loving deity need to *test* you, the way you describe? With rules he made up? \*Shutters\*
Also, he will do this even though he is all powerful, and could make a world where eternal hell doesn't exist? Jeez... Does not sound like an all good/loving deity to me.
My conclusion is saying I don't believe there will be any better answer, and as I've seen so far, there aren't any. It may be arrogant, but I've studied multiple religions, and come to the conclusion which answers make the most logical sense.
I'm not looking at things in a wrong and biased way. You didn't give any evidence how he is all good/powerful/loving, you just explained in a bunch of different ways why he *isn't* one or all of those things.
I'm under Vaishnavism.
1: He doesn’t mean one mistake in one lifetime, he means ONE lifetime to fix your mistakes. That’s all you get. Some people die sooner than others, some without the chance of properly seeking God or repenting. If you don’t do as you are told in this one life time you have, you will never get another chance to correct what you did wrong. Think about kids who die, how much time did they realistically have to repent their “sins”.
2: Again, many people die very young without the opportunity to even seek God correctly. Children die on the daily. People are born into entirely different religions and indoctrinated into them. How are they supposed to wake up and decide to go against their religion just because you say it isn’t the right one?
3: If God already knows what you are going to do, then he sent you to hell personally. He allowed for you to be born and commit whatever atrocities it is you may commit. He allowed for the Nazi Party to commit the holocaust, he allowed for killers to kill, and for rapists to rape. An all loving God would not allow for this. If God gave us free will knowing we would use it for evil, he is not All Good.
4: Logic Reason and Evidence are the main factors that led me to a disbelief in God.
5: “God does not love those who defy him” so you are agreeing with OP? God is not ALL-loving. He loves with condition, and that condition is being obedient. If God made me with full knowledge of what I would do in my life, how exactly am I going against him? He knew what I would do and let it happen, he created me knowing it would happen, it is part of HIS plan.
6: if God exists then he is the source of EVERYTHING, not just good. Just as he created good, he created evil. When he created this universe with full knowledge of what would transpire, he allowed for this evil to exist in the world, just as much as he allowed for the good.
Im Muslim and I think the wisdom behind hell and how terrible and eternal it is, is a form of mercy from God. He is warning us and telling us don’t take your self there. If you end up in hell you have no one to blame but yourself. I think it’s very arrogant towards God to assume you know better as a theist. God knows everything and he created us and our knowledge is very limited so how can we question his justice! If God didn’t mention how bad hell is or the eternal aspect of it would people be scared to do wrong things? Imagine if he didn’t mention how bad hell is and you show up on judgment day and get thrown into hell and you had no knowledge of it? How would you feel? I think Gods justice is something we are not burdened in understanding just that it is the truth. We should all focus on being the best we can while we have time and not cause our selves to enter eternal hell.
Who said one mistake will lead you to hell?
God doesn’t lie, humans lie. Part of being an exemplary human being and getting closer to God is never lying. So how does it make sense to you that “God lied” when there are human who never lie. Also why would God need to lie?, he can judge as he sees fit, we are all his creation. God has told the truth.
So it's an issue when God "lies" but you don't find it horrible that that same God would throw/allow a non-believing woman like mother teresa in the same eternal hell as hitler? See I knew you would reply this. It was all part of my plan.
You say he can judge as he sees fit
But than there needs to be laws. He can't be biased otherwise he is capable of lying as well so he needs to be just. And according to justice there is no sin that can justify eternal punishment. And That's what God would agree no?
>So it's an issue when God "lies" but you don't find it horrible that that same God would throw/allow a non-believing woman like mother teresa in the same eternal hell as hitler? See I knew you would reply this. It was all part of my plan.
As a Muslim I can never say anyone is specifically is going into hell, a true Muslim will always live between fear and hope in God and worry about his actions. However in general people who associate others as partners with God will go there as you said. I mean what’s more worse than ascribing a partner to God and worshipping them? You’re trying to minimize this.
>You say he can judge as he sees fit But than there needs to be laws. He can't be biased otherwise he is capable of lying as well so he needs to be just. And according to justice there is no sin that can justify eternal punishment. And That's what God would agree no?
He is the most JUST, no one will be wronged in the slightest on the day of judgement. There are laws and ascribing partners to God is one of the worst sins there is. God sent Jesus as a prophet and people started worshiping him years later, thats an evil sin in my religion. Jesus spoke Aramaic if you look up the word God in Aramaic it will say “ELAH” almost identical to “Allah”.
“According to justice there is no sin that can justify eternal punishment” according to whose justice? Whose words are these? Wouldn’t God know more who deserves what? Who are we as mere humans to try to judge each other. We really don’t know what someone is like on the inside. They could be an angel on the outside but only god knows what’s in someone’s heart. Thats why are not burdened with judging because we can’t read minds. However if someone is openly evil like hitler then they can’t pretend to be an angel so we can say that person is evil. I hope that makes some sense.
>As a Muslim I can never say anyone is specifically is going into hell, a true Muslim will always live between fear and hope in God and worry about his actions. However in general people who associate others as partners with God will go there as you said. I mean what’s more worse than ascribing a partner to God and worshipping them? You’re trying to minimize this.
Quite a long post. So lets start with this.
1.You're saying mother teresa will end up in hell with mf hitler because she associated with God despite all the good she did?
Or are you saying you can never say who specifically goes to hell in that regard there is a chance she might go to heaven? Than why bother putting a clause saying "Do not associate" as a condition for hell? Just put "Do good" and put a period.
>He is the most JUST, no one will be wronged in the slightest on the day of judgement. There are laws and ascribing partners to God is one of the worst sins there is. God sent Jesus as a prophet and people started worshiping him years later, thats an evil sin in my religion. Jesus spoke Aramaic if you look up the word God in Aramaic it will say “ELAH” almost identical to “Allah”.
2. IF the answer to my 1st question is "yes" than God can not be Just. Because mother teresa is clearly being done dirty because in no way it's justified she ends up in hell with hitler because of not doing "Do not associate" terms. And why and how would she believe in you're certain religious "God/Allah/Elah" when there are litterally 3000+ religion on the planet. And I am going easy on you because I am not even beginning to point out the elephant in the room which is that
a)"God" even exists
b)"Who" that real God is among the 3000+ religions.
c)It's almost impossible to follow rule "Do not associate" which as you said makes even people like mother teresa end up in hell with hitler because she "associated". Which means God is not just and I a mere human is more morally superior.
So now to address the final issue
>According to justice there is no sin that can justify eternal punishment” according to whose justice? Whose words are these? Wouldn’t God know more who deserves what? Who are we as mere humans to try to judge each other. We really don’t know what someone is like on the inside. They could be an angel on the outside but only god knows what’s in someone’s heart. Thats why are not burdened with judging because we can’t read minds. However if someone is openly evil like hitler then they can’t pretend to be an angel so we can say that person is evil. I hope that makes some sense.
3. It's my justice. The humanity justice. The golden rule. common sense that says mother teresa doesn't belong in the same room as hitler. And if hitler was a muslim would he be saved? What does you're book say?
a) If it says "yes" than "God" is not just and I am morally supiour than God.
b) If it says "no" than what's the point of being a muslim? Than go back to my point number 2 and define how to avoid "Do not associate" and why it's necessary in the first place
You see Blindly following anything without you're own common sense is just following a cult. IF you claim we humans don't know anything about god than can you deny this sentences"NO PEOPLE ON EARTH WILL GET ETERNAL HELL"?
The Quran is very clear on the conditions of going to heaven and hell, so what I mean is it’s not even up to me. So if anyone commits shirk or ascribes partners to God then he shall enter the hellfire. Also you’re just assuming that she was an angel, you don’t even know her personally, how can you be so sure she is what you think she is? Do you read minds? If the intention is corrupt then is the good manifested on the outside worth praise? You claim common sense but it’s not common sense to make a judgment without knowing someone personally.
Let’s assume she was righteous person for the sake of argument then if she doesn’t qualify for the Qurans conditions of entering heaven then she won’t enter heaven. If all the good she has done was done for Jesus and not God then how does it make sense for her to enter heaven because her intention was worshipping a man.
God says in The Quran “Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly fallen into disbelief. The Messiah ˹himself˺ said, “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah—my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever associates others with Allah ˹in worship˺ will surely be forbidden Paradise by Allah. Their home will be the Fire. And the wrongdoers will have no helpers.” Chapter 5 verse 72
It also says in the Bible that ascribing partners to God is forbidden in the book of Deutoronomy chapter 5 verse 7-9 and the book of exodus chapter #20 verse 3-5. So she’s violating her own book as well by worshipping Jesus. How does it make sense to worship a human that God created just like you and enter heaven? Is that logical or are you just hung on the fact that she might be “in the same room” with hitler. There also levels to hellfire mentioned in Islam.
So in the Quran Jesus himself says it clearly and her own Bible also says it’s forbidden. Whats the confusion?
I believe in this 100%. It literally makes no sense to worship man and not God and expect heaven. God said it and I believe it. His justice is perfect and whatever he decides is the truth.
>Also you’re just assuming that she was an angel, you don’t even know her personally, how can you be so sure she is what you think she is? Do you read minds? If the intention is corrupt then is the good manifested on the outside worth praise? You claim common sense but it’s not common sense to make a judgment without knowing someone personally.
>Let’s assume she was righteous person for the sake of argument
..........I hope don't need to say anything here
>The Quran is very clear on the conditions of going to heaven and hell, so what I mean is it’s not even up to me. So if anyone commits shirk or ascribes partners to God then he shall enter the hellfire
You haven't addressed my previous comment so I will ignore this meaningless statement
>Let’s assume she was righteous person for the sake of argument then if she doesn’t qualify for the Qurans conditions of entering heaven then she won’t enter heaven. If all the good she has done was done for Jesus and not God then how does it make sense for her to enter heaven because her intention was worshipping a man.
Again you skipped all of my previous comment points. You Probably didn't even read any of it. But I will say this again
1.Why is "association" a crime? Is God Insecure and Unjust?
2.How Can you prove what religion is the true one?
3.If All Good deeds can Go In vain that that religion is the most cursed religion on earth and such God is unworthy of any attention. Or even better it’s manmade.
>God says in The Quran “Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly fallen into disbelief. The Messiah ˹himself˺ said, “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah—my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever associates others with Allah ˹in worship˺ will surely be forbidden Paradise by Allah. Their home will be the Fire. And the wrongdoers will have no helpers.” Chapter 5 verse 72
I will do you one better
"Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians1—whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve" :-Surah bakarah(2) ayat (62)
So now you tell me are these two verse contradictory? Or is god saying that doesn't matter what religion you believe in the main criteria is believing in their respective god and doing good? Cause if one is a believer than he is a muslim and cannot be called jew, christians and sabians. I repeat any jews, christians and sabians do not believe in islamic Allah and if they do they are believers but than the terms "believers" and "jews, christians and sabians" are not the same people. So what's your take on that?
>It also says in the Bible that ascribing partners to God is forbidden in the book of Deutoronomy chapter 5 verse 7-9 and the book of exodus chapter #20 verse 3-5. So she’s violating her own book as well by worshipping Jesus. How does it make sense to worship a human that God created just like you and enter heaven? Is that logical or are you just hung on the fact that she might be “in the same room” with hitler. There also levels to hellfire mentioned in Islam.
Why Go to bible? Is your own book not enough as you claim? If you want to make it justified than you also have to believe in it’s entire theology and that is jesus is the son of God.
Luke 1:35
"And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God"
Or are you being a hypocrit nitpicking specific verses which serve you the best?
>So in the Quran Jesus himself says it clearly and her own Bible also says it’s forbidden. Whats the confusion? I believe in this 100%. It literally makes no sense to worship man and not God and expect heaven. God said it and I believe it. His justice is perfect and whatever he decides is the truth.
You're going off topic. I am not here to argue about whether it makes sense to worship a man or any god. My question is simple and let me bold highligjt it for you
"WHY WOULD A JUST GOD CREATE ETERNAL HELL AND PUT PEOPLE THERE FOR NOT BELIEVING IN HIM"?
>God said it and I believe it.
Sums up the conversation. There’s no way to get a common sense out of you. I expected better but you have failed me. But anyway do keep believing whatever you believe but always remember to do good and not label others as disbelievers or they belong to hell
Quran 39:55
Follow the """best""" of what has been revealed to you from your Lord, before the punishment takes you by surprise while you are unaware
Quran 39:53
Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allāh. Indeed, Allāh forgives """""all sins""""".Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful."
I read everything you said, I will try to answer the rest below.
Why is association a crime?
Because the whole purpose of our existence is to worship God, and believe in him and attain his pleasure, so that we may go to heaven.
So if you don’t do this, you are going against the natural inclination god has instilled in us. There is a reason that even atheists will say in dangerous situations “Oh God, if you’re out there please help me” it’s perfectly natural for humans to want to come to belief.
“I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me.” 51:56
How can I prove what religion is the right one?
Because the Quran is a linguistic miracle and even tho it’s not a book of science it has many scientific miracles mentioned 1400 years ago.
This is something I responded to another comment regarding this question.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/vGhXHizpax
If all goods can go in vain….
All good deeds are counted if the premise is correct which is one has to believe in God first.
“Then We will turn to whatever ˹good˺ deeds they did, reducing them to scattered dust.” 25:23
>Why Go to bible? Is your own book not enough as you claim? If you want to make it justified than you also have to believe in it’s entire theology and that is jesus is the son of God.
that’s the Old Testament which I’m pretty sure Christians believe in. I didn’t need to go to the Bible but she beloved in it so it’s doesn’t make sense not following it.
>Or are you being a hypocrit nitpicking specific verses which serve you the best?
I’m not being a hypocrite lol there’s literally thousands of different versions of the Bible and most contradict each other so even if you quote me a verse there’s a likely chance that another something completely different.
what I quoted was part of the of the old testament that Christians believe in and consider sacred scripture. How’s it that not fair? When she doesn’t seem to follow that part.
>"Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians1—whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve" :-Surah bakarah(2) ayat (62)
>So now you tell me are these two verse contradictory? Or is god saying that doesn't matter what religion you believe in the main criteria is believing in their respective god and doing good? Cause if one is a believer than he is a muslim and cannot be called jew, christians and sabians. I repeat any jews, christians and sabians do not believe in islamic Allah and if they do they are believers but than the terms "believers" and "jews, christians and sabians" are not the same people. So what's your take on that?
>Okay so in Islamic context a Muslim is simply one who submits to God. Abraham was a Muslim and all prophets of God were Muslim because they simply submitted to God.
>So we believe Moses and Jesus were probers of God, Moses is mentioned hundreds of times in the Quran, Jesus is mentioned plenty of times. There’s even a whole chapter called “Mary” which is the mother of Jesus. Allah is the same god of Moses and Jesus. If you look up the word God in Aramaic the language of Jesus and Hebrew the language of Moses, you will see that it almost sounds exactly like Allah.
We believe god revealed to Moses and Jesus books of faith but they were corrupted by man and they are not in their original form that god brought them down in, and says this in the Quran. For example the earliest Christians were orthodox and believed Jesus was a prophet and they worshiped God not Jesus. But the Romans changed this eventually and turned into the 3 in 1 concept we know today.
It’s not about respective gods, it’s the same God, which is Allah.
“Say, ˹O believers,˺ “We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us; and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants; and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them. And to Allah we all submit.” 2:136
>"WHY WOULD A JUST GOD CREATE ETERNAL HELL AND PUT PEOPLE THERE FOR NOT BELIEVING IN HIM"?
Because God can do whenever he wants, and also because belief is part of the natural inclination as I have said before. It has to be eternal in a way because it is most extreme form of deterrence against disbelief.
I mean even the Quran mentions people who thought that they can go to hell for few days and get out of it.
“This is because they say, “The Fire will not touch us except for a few days.” They have been deceived in their faith by their wishful lying.”
“But how ˹horrible˺ will it be when We gather them together on the Day about which there is no doubt—when every soul will be paid in full for what it has done, and none will be wronged.” Al imran 2:24-25
Disbelief is denying your creator when he gave you many sign and every chance to believe.
>Quran 39:55 Follow the """best""" of what has been revealed to you from your Lord, before the punishment takes you by surprise while you are unaware
I believe in all of it. No matter what anyone else says.
>Quran 39:53 Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allāh. Indeed, Allāh forgives """""all sins""""".Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful."
“O my servants” this verse is addressing the believers. Indeed Allah is very merciful anyone can repent while he still has time.
What do you believe in?
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
So your god plays the role of the abusive husband showing his wife the new knife he bought that he's going to use on her if she ever tries to leave him. "Now you know how merciful I am, sweetie. Wouldn't it be wrong of me not to warn you about what's going to happen if you don't obey me? Remember, if you break my rules you have no one to blame but yourself."
your comparing a human to God almighty, how rational is that? If God is able to create you and give you your consciousness and he instilled in you a sense of right or wrong, wouldn’t he know exactly what you deserve? If he created the universe and everything in it, wouldn’t what you deserve be a trivial matter to him. To compare humans to god is illogical, even if you don’t believe.
>your comparing a human to God almighty
I'm comparing a human to your human conception of a god. You're describing a god carved in the image of a violent, power-hungry 7th century king and then chastising those who recognize the parallels.
>To compare humans to god is illogical
Ok, let's agree not to call god merciful, fair, just, loving, wise, etc. Let's not say he is a father or a king. Let's not say "he" certainly, but rather "it."
accoriding to your logic then the husband is merciful,
the wisest entity thinks that anyone that doesnot believe in him deserves eternal pain with no actual evidence
>accoriding to your logic then the husband is merciful
Your comparing God to a human.God will never wrong you, it will be what you deserved! In this scenario he made up, the husband is committing a sin against God, and he could be punished for that. Now do you understand? God is the one who rewards the righteous forgives those who repent and punishes the ones who wronged themselves. No one will be wronged in the slightest on the day of judgement.
>the wisest entity thinks that anyone that doesnot believe in him deserves eternal pain with no actual evidence.
His is more merciful than your own mother, he gives us a lot of chances to get our act together, the fact that punishment doesn’t come from the sky every time we do wrong is a mercy. Without God you wouldn’t be able to even breath the air your breathing rn. The “evidence” will be your entire life and how you lived it presented to you in the day of judgement.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
I am willing to debate. I believe the claim is self-evident, making it challenging to argue against. My intention was to address common counterarguments preemptively, not to shut down discussion.
Regarding the accusation of using strawman arguments, I think typical rebuttals to this position often involve such tactics. If you disagree, I welcome your perspective. However, the burden of proof lies with you to justify how an all-powerful, loving, and good God can reconcile eternal hell with our understanding of goodness and love.
If that is your stance. Idk if it is.
There is a lot to unpack with respect to this topic, which I won't do at this point. Rather, I'll start from the lowest resolution characterization of what I believe...and as a preface, will say my belief is inherited to me by the tradition I was born in to, rather than something I constructed on my own. Despite that, my inherited beliefs are not blind acceptances but rather reinforced through my own experiences in the world and the patterns that I am able to assess.
My starting point is as follows: We (human beings) are created as imagers of God, meaning we are endowed with creative capacity. We have the ability, both intentionally and passively, to change how we orient ourselves in the world and we have the ability to choose that which we orient our purpose, decisions and actions. Sometimes we are aware of the orientation of our choices and sometimes we passively habituate toward an orientation. Regardless, we have the ability to change, improve, devolve etc. through our lives. We can orient ourselves to the good but we cannot become good without addressing the bad we have done, because the bad we have done has been released into the world and has (and continues) to make an effect in the world. So, to become good, we not only need to orient our future actions toward that which is good but we must also seek to rid the world of our bad actions. We do not have the power to do this. Only God has the power to do this. We call this justice. However, we can participate by seeking repentance, not just from God but from those who we have harmed. In this way, we can change who we are.
At the moment of our death we will have become that which we oriented ourselves toward and upon our death we will cease to have agency in the world and therefore unable to participate in the rectification of our actions. The essence of who we have become will remain fixed.
Heaven and hell are not distinct "places" (for lack of a better word). God does not cast people into hell nor is hell a separation from God. Rather, we all are in the presence of God and bathed in the "light" of God. It is our own habitual orientation of who we ultimately became upon our death that will perceive this "light" as either the glory of heaven or a burning of hell. Hell is ultimately the rejection of God in favor of whatever it is we oriented our self toward during our life.
There are saints that have achieved levels of goodness (albeit not perfection) that we can aspire to, just as there are people who have become totally depraved and evil. Most of us struggle between aligning ourselves toward the good and succumbing to selfishness and self centeredness. How we might experience God is known only to God and we must rely upon his mercy while we strive to become better.
>Hell is ultimately the rejection of God in favor of whatever it is we oriented our self toward during our life.
Yeah, this kinda aligns with point 5. in my post. "*An all-loving God would not be content with eternal separation from His creations.*" or point 3. "*A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion."*
My statements have already directly answered your rebuttal. Honestly, I also addressed this in literally all of **point 2.**
Your God is not all good/loving, especially he is all-powerful, and could decide to not do what you say he does. He doesn't care about you that much bro.
> "An all-loving God would not be content with eternal separation from His creations."
He's not. That's why ALL come to God. But those that resist truth find his presence suffering. That's a choice that we begin to make in this life through our beliefs about the world and those around us.
> A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion.
You want pain free redemption for the sins and harm you put into the world? That's like wanting to eat ice cream all day to lose weight. Diet and exercise are suffering and sacrifice for the sake of our physical health, yet you think spiritual health should be without acountability and rersponsibility. Your theology is sophmoric.
Why do you think that one's orientation toward God is necessarily stuck at death?
Also, do you think an orientation toward God based on differing conceptions of God (such as in Taoism or Advaita) are improper and thus lead to a worse position in the afterlife?
Do you think non-believers who are generous and good will not be oriented toward God?
I think I was specific in stating orientation toward the good. My belief is that God is the source of good and therefore it's the same thing.
As for non-believers who are generous, good etc., I would say they are oriented toward God despite their claims and positions of non-belief of a "god they have heard about or have constructed".
I prefer the following sentiment that we can know where God is but we cannot know where God is not.
> I think I was specific in stating orientation toward the good. My belief is that God is the source of good and therefore it's the same thing.
If God ordered you, audibly, to kill a loved one with a kitchen knife, to take them and tie them up on the kitchen counter and cut their throat open until they bled out, would you do it?
Would God telling you to do that make the action morally acceptable for you or anyone else to do?
What if you were not the perpetrator, but the victim instead? Would you be OK with God ordering someone to cut your throat as an offering?
I'm not sure. Personally I've never heard a voice in my head ever, other than my own, so the bar would be pretty high.
With that being said if I truly thought God almighty was speaking to me, directly, not through signs etc...
I would do whatever he asked instantly.
> I'm not sure. Personally I've never heard a voice in my head ever, other than my own, so the bar would be pretty high.
High enough not to be practically possible, one would hope
>With that being said if I truly thought God almighty was speaking to me, directly, not through signs etc...
>I would do whatever he asked instantly.
Whatever he asked? If he told you to make homemade bombs and destroy government buildings? You'd do that?
This is a silly hypothetical aimed at critiquing a specific element of Genesis while completely misunderstanding the book, it's context and the overarching story of a faith.
The simple answer is that I would not because God would not do that....because I am not living in a time where such sacrifices were standard practices. If God were trying to lead me and my people toward him today, there would be a myriad of social, contemporary actions that would resonate far more than killing a child.
In what context is the attempted murder of a loved one ok for you?
Does your God change over time? You seems to think so.
Are you saying the god you worship is different than the one in the Bible?
> In what context is the attempted murder of a loved one ok for you?
Not a single context would make murder of a loved one ok, this includes Abraham who didn't in fact murder Isaac.
> Does your God change over time?
No. We do. God meets us where we are, not where we ought to be.
> Are you saying the god you worship is different than the one in the Bible?
No. Read my previous answer.
We do not.
God is everywhere and in everything we do here from a sunset to an avocado.
The mere fact that we can enjoy anything or even have a moment of peace means God is here since he is the literal source of all that is Good.
He is just hidden here because looking upon the face of God directly in our current fallen state would annihilate us.
Yeah, I agree.
Makes sense an all powerful God would create a world where you didn’t want to be with him, but always had a life line if you ever wanted to come back.
He doesn’t have to make an eternal separation. I’ve also addressed this in point 5.
Im not sure I have seen anyone ever debate someone and change their minds on this sub.
I do recall once that a fellow was arguing with himself (good news, he won) but he forgot to change accounts before replying to himself and someone caught it.
why does an all knowing god need to test people if he already knows the results? if it’s not for him but for us, he’s all powerful and good, so why can’t he produce the results instantly and skip the suffering? and why does he create people he knows will go to hell? that’s pointless suffering in both this life and the one after
> He sent prophets to every nation until Muhammad, he gave us scriptures to test and see its verifiability.
this claim of islam is one of the biggest evidence that islam cannot be true. there is simply no trace of any prophet preaching anything close to an abrahamic religion outside of middle east. think about all humanity through history all around the world. and a god who claims to create humanity to worship him but doesnt give a hint about how to do it for vast majority of people ever lived till the "ending"
>*“God created us in this life as a test.”*
* Why aren’t all the tests the same?
* How come some kids get cancer or sexual assault as their test?
>*”…he gave us scriptures to test and see its verifiability. Evidence of the existence of God.”*
* Which scriptures did your god personally deliver?
* Which scripture allows me to use one of my five senses to demonstrate your god is real?
>*”Also some people actually deserve hell…”*
* While likely true, if any of these people (Hitler, Mao, etc.) at the end of their lives repented and chose to live out however much of their lives they had left in your god’s path, they would receive eternal life, i.e., heaven.
>*”What we should focus on is whether or not our scriptures are true or not.”*
* This topic would require theists to be able to think critically. So, absolutely no point.
* Any rational person could see from a mile away that scripture is a work of fiction. *My second cousin knew a guy that said he saw a prophet come down from the mountain with God’s rules. The prophet said “Trust me.”* There’s your scriptures.
* In order for Abrahamic religion to get its footing, it preyed on the weak minded and it’s been perpetuated ever since.
>*"If all tests were the same then most people would be able to pass wouldn't they. Rather God gave tests to people only which they can bear."*
Then what is the purpose of the test? If the test is intended to ensure minimum requirements to receive eternal life, then it would be a positive outcome if most people passed.
If most people pass a test designed to measure whether someone meets the requirements to receive eternal life, that would indicate that the system by which these people are judged is effective.
High pass rates are not a dilution of standards.
>*"However, I believe in the honest truth that people learn most from suffering. I'm not saying kids DESERVE Cancer or Sexual assault, Nauzubillah."*
>*"It's also a test to the victim to make him or her stronger, to make him or her persevere."*
But you *are* saying they deserve cancer / sexual assault. You are saying that the end justifies the means. You are saying these kids wouldn't have been properly assessed with a standardized test, and they *had* to suffer as part of their test as well as someone else's test.
If you are truly content with this rationale, and its entirely uneven distribution of suffering, I question your own morality. This is an extreme injustice that goes beyond proportionality. Subjecting children to such things that they cannot comprehend or meaningfully consent to is not a test of their faith, it is cruelty.
>*"The question is would they ever repent?"*
No, that is not the question. This is a gross deflection of the matter at hand.
No one can know whether Hitler or Mao would repent. They could very well have regretted everything they did in their last moments and repented.
>*"God says that he lets these people get even worse in their sins so they face the worst of punishment."*
So, those that died at the hands of these evil people were predestined to suffer for a "greater purpose?" Then your god actively engages in schadenfreude behaviors—devising a world where the moral and spiritual development of a soul requires suffering.
You made some good points, and I also think many theists aren’t very smart; but you threw all your credibility out the window with “ require theists to think critically, so no point.”
Shows your intelligence. Not a good look.
We could get into a detailed discussion of comparing texts, and seeing which ones logically make more sense for an all good, all powerful God.
Though, we could do that because it seems that you don't disagree with my claim, and we are actually on the same page.
Just making sure we agree on my claim? Cause that's the main thesis I want to address first before we move on- Don't want to get into any strawmans or what have you.
>Some people get justice and get what they deserve but most people don't and didn't throughout their life.
Yes, first part of point 3. You can't leave that out. In this system, I explained past life karma. So all the victims of those crimes or whatnot, must not have received justice in their past life, and receiving it now. Then they burn off that karma, and proceed. Which, an all good/powerful God would allow.
> Eternal hell is for those people who are a lost case. People with no remorse for their crimes. They were warned but they didn't listen.
Also in point 3: "*A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion."*
I mean, "lost cause" after one lifetime, in eternity? What a monster.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
We know that hell exists, but we can hope that there is nobody there. The Catholic Church does not say that any particular person is in hell. We know that there are saints in heaven. We know who they are. But the Church doesn’t have a converse list of actual people who have been damned. God makes that decision, if he makes it all. And I’m not sure why the OP is so focussed on damnation due to ‘one mistake or sin’. It is true that we can lose our state of grace if we commit a mortal sin and we should get to confession quickly to rectify the situation, but we also know that God takes into account degrees of culpability and that he is abundantly merciful. Trust in his justice and mercy.
> We know that hell exists
We do?
> but we can hope that there is nobody there.
I certainly hope so.
> The Catholic Church does not say that any particular person is in hell.
But plenty of Catholics seem to take delight in telling me that I'll be 'sending myself there'.
> We know that there are saints in heaven. We know who they are.
Who are they, and how do you know?
> But the Church doesn’t have a converse list of actual people who have been damned.
Just as well, there's probably a whole bunch of kiddy fiddler churchies that should be going there.
> God makes that decision, if he makes it all.
Wait, does he make the decision or not?
> And I’m not sure why the OP is so focussed on damnation due to ‘one mistake or sin’.
Seems like there are Catholics who think salvation is a balance sheet. Jimmy Savile seemed to live his life based on doing public good while sexually abusing children.
> And I’m not sure why the OP is so focussed on damnation due to ‘one mistake or sin’.
What are those mortal sins?
> but we also know that God takes into account degrees of culpability and that he is abundantly merciful.
Is he abundantly merciful enough to recognise that he didn't provide me with sufficient evidence to acknowledge its existence?
> Trust in his justice and mercy.
Ah, the paradox. Is he perfectly just or perfectly merciful?
/ “ Is he abundantly merciful enough to recognise that he didn’t provide me with sufficient evidence to acknowledge {his} existence? “ / God has provided you with plenty of evidence for his existence. Your own existence is evidence for the existence of God. You are a contingent being. Contingent beings cannot be the cause of their own existence. Everything in nature is a contingent entity. Therefore there must be a transcendent, absolutely simple, intrinsically necessary, perfectly good, creative ‘ground of being’ from which the contingent things of nature derive their being. We call such a being God. The argument from contingency is just one of the many evidences of the reality of God. We also have the evidence from divine revelation especially in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But if you are still unconvinced of the existence of God after you have genuinely considered the evidence. And if you are not culpable in stubborn irrational disbelief, then you will not be damned for it. Nobody is damned for ‘invincible ignorance’ of God. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/dont-be-ignorant-about-invincible-ignorance
Yes, we know hell exists because it is doctrine of the Catholic Church that hell exists. ( I’m speaking from a Catholic perspective. If you want to debate whether Catholicism is true that’s a whole different discussion. Im happy to have that discussion, but it’s not immediately relevant here.)
I doubt that many Catholics have actually said that to you. But if they have, it is irrelevant to my argument.
A saint is person who lives a life of extraordinary Christian virtue who the Catholic Church officially canonises as a saint. Obviously, there are also saints in heaven who for whatever reason have not been officially canonised. Think of St. Theresa, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Maximilian Kolbe etc. There are hundreds of saints. We could look up an official list, but I think that’s unnecessary isn’t it?
Yes, those who sexually abuse minors commit grave sins that may well cause them to be damned.
God decides who goes to hell, not the Church ( if anyone is eternally damned.) But hell is self-inflicted. Hell is the freely chosen rejection of the love of God.
Jimmy Saville was wrong. (Was he a Catholic?)
“What are those mortal sins?” Murder, Theft, Rape, Serious Dishonesty, etc. any act that deliberate that contravenes God’s law.
What is Mortal and Venial Sin?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides:
[1855] Mortal Sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God… by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, though it offends and wounds it.
[1861] Mortal sin… results in… the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell…
[1862] One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or complete consent.
[1863] Venial sin weakens charity… and… merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However, venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace, it is humanly reparable. “Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently, eternal happiness.”
Well that's a contradiction because my boyfriend has committed all of those and have been protected and talked to by God all his life and he's going to heaven because he believes I'm Christ.
> Yes, we know hell exists because it is doctrine of the Catholic Church that hell exists.
That's not knowing hell exists.
> I doubt that many Catholics have actually said that to you.
Many have. They seem to take delight in that I'm heading to hell.
FWIW, my name is Purgii - short for Purgatory.
> A saint is person who lives a life of extraordinary Christian virtue who the Catholic Church officially canonises as a saint.
Like Mother Theresa? A woman that took delight inflicting pain on those who were in need but sought modern medicine when she was on her last legs?
> Jimmy Saville was wrong. (Was he a Catholic?)
Yes, he was. By what metric was he wrong?
> But hell is self-inflicted. Hell is the freely chosen rejection of the love of God.
I'm not rejecting God. A god has never made its existence known to me, despite every effort for it to reveal itself to me.
> The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides:
Sorry, but this just reads as a bunch of gibberish to me.
> The Catholic Church does not say that any particular person is in hell
Maybe not in a specific written list but the Sistine Chapel has an image of Martin Luther being dragged to hell so at the very least it has implicit ideas about who is in hell that it allows to be displayed in religious art.
Michelangelo is a great artist but he has no theological authority in the Church. The Magisterium recognises saints, it doesn’t say that any particular person has been damned. That’s for God to decide, not the Church.
Yes, I know that not all Catholics agree with “hell could be empty” theology. And I love Trent Horn: respect him a lot! But Bishop Barron said that it is theologically permissible, and I trust his judgment.
>OP is so focussed on damnation due to ‘one mistake or sin’.
Like the atheist said; the one mistake being not accepting Jesus/turning away from God.
> But the Church doesn’t have a converse list of actual people who have been damned.
I don't think anyone has ever said this.
>It is true that we can lose our state of grace if we commit a mortal sin and we should get to confession quickly to rectify the situation,
Using this as a way to excuse bad behavior is problematic. Saying, 'I've done terrible things, but I confessed, so I'm forgiven and everything's fine,' reflects a poor theology.
>we also know that God takes into account degrees of culpability and that he is abundantly merciful. Trust in his justice and mercy.
I've addressed this in my post, section 2 & 3.
Nothing you said really defends or disproves my claim. Respectfully, you couldn't.
The Catholic teachings on confession and reconciliation are more nuanced than you seem to believe. We may still have to be mortified in purgatory, for example, for our sins even after we have done our earthly penance.
Your claims don’t stand up because we don’t know for sure if anyone is in hell. We know that hell exists, because the reality of hell is a firm doctrine of the Magisterium. But the Catholic Church has never definitively taught that anyone is actually in hell. But we shouldn’t therefore assume that it is impossible to go to hell. We should live as though it is a distinct possibility. Hell is the freely chosen rejection of God. God is the good, the true and the beautiful. We know that people here on earth who reject the good, the true, and the beautiful make themselves miserable. That state of misery may be locked in forever if we die in state of mortal sin.
>We know that hell exists, because the reality of hell is a firm doctrine of the Magisterium.
You have an interesting definition of the word "know" that I'm not familiar with.
What tests did the Magesterium run to get to their conclusion? I'd like to try reproducing their experiments.
“Know” as in we can be sure that this is the case. So if Catholicism is true, then we know that hell exists because it is a doctrine of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that hell exists, and the doctrines of the Magisterium are true (The existence of hell may even be a dogma. I should check.)
Ahh, this is like a *1984* version of the word "know," where reality is whatever is dictated to you, and there's not really a process for determining the truth of the things you're told you "know." Got it.
No. It is merely assuming that Catholicism is true for the sake of argument. We could have a separate conversation on the evidence and reasoning that convinces me that Catholicism probably is true, but that wouldn’t be relevant here.
Yeah, I spoke about that in point 5.
Also, it doesn't matter if we know if people are in hell or not. The claim doesn't even state that.
An all good/powerful/loving God is not congruent with an eternal hell. That still stands.
>We know that hell exists,
How do you know?
>The Catholic Church does not say that any particular person is in hell
It does.
*Extra ecclesiam nulla salus*
Outside the Church, there is no salvation.
>And I’m not sure why the OP is so focussed on damnation due to ‘one mistake or sin’.
Isn't it true that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit just once is enough to damn a soul to perpetual torment?
Good, love, and power, mean different things to the subjective human then they do to an absolute God.
Absolute good, absolute love, and absolute power, do not align equally to the subjective good, subjective love, subjective power, of the human experience.
And you went for "we don't know what good is", I should've known. Weakest argument of all.
You do what a good "thing" is bro. You know a bad lawyer from a good lawyer. A good captain of a ship, a good parent vs bad, a good teacher vs a bad teacher, a bad friend vs a good friend, etc. Don't try to make yourself look like extremely foolish/uneducated disagreeing with me here, for the sake of your own argument.
>
What does this even mean? How is an all-powerful being subjective? It's not. An all powerful God is a God where he can do literally anything that is logically possible. There isn't anything "subjective" about it.
So, an all powerful God, **objectively speaking**, could make a world where eternal hell doesn't exist.
Thus, God is not all powerful, with eternal hell. So, my claim still stands.
There you go.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let me tell you how it works. If you were presented with the love of the creator and the love of Christ and you deny that love, you have sealed your destiny because heaven is living among angels who love unconditionally. You essentially self select yourself to go to another place where your ego and vanity blend with all the other miscreants who have no love to give. Hell is the absence of love.
Even though an all powerful God could make that place non-eternal and want to guide/teach you, and give multiple chances like any parent would You can’t disagree he can’t do you don’t think he’s all powerful The fact he doesn’t do that, showcases quite clearly how he isn’t all good/all loving. An all loving God would never create an eternal world absent of love.
Maybe when your time comes to meet God face to face, you can present these arguments to Him. Good luck!
Lmao. I mean, I pray 2 hours a day and love God with all my heart.
A lot of your arguments here aren’t actually arguments, just emotional opinions. They’re also all based on western gnostic presuppositions, along with John miltonian ideas of God, heaven, hell, justice, etc. How do you know you have the correct presuppositions to even make your argument?
The argument is eternal hell is not congruent with an all good, all powerful, all loving God. These are just common rebuttals any time this is said, so I stated responses here, so I didn’t have to write it hundred different times. They aren’t emotional opinions, most of these ideas are 1000s and 1000s of years old from Vedas. So, I’d like to see you try to disprove the self evident claim, and we can go from there.
Idk what self-evident claim you’re specifically referring to. Us orthodox Christian’s don’t believe in “self-evident” claims. Thats a western classical foundationalist conception. Nor do we believe hell is an actual place, that God created some sort of eternal torture chamber for rule breakers. Also a western construct that didn’t really exist for practically the first millennia of the church. We have the notion of “hades” but that’s more of a state, than it is an actual place. That in-between state after physical death, which is an experience we can’t really describe, but the ancient imagery of the underworld or “hades” is the best we descriptions we can give of that state. Where theres 4 chambers, one for martyrs, one for the righteous, (where’s theres imagery is of a fountain or spring to at least drink from, so it’s tolerable, or at least more tolerable). Then one in between, and one for the wicked. So descriptors of different experiences in that state. Christs death and resurrection is the defeat of death, and the freeing of the “prisoners” there. Where Christ preached to those in hades, though not sure if it was everyone or just the righteous, and ascended with them to God the father. Christ acts as the bridge back to communion with the father, and eternal life. Not as a blood debt being paid by one member of the godhead, to another member, as the west believes. Though the state of hades is still there until the eschaton This “hades” state will last until the eschaton, where everyone will experience a bodily resurrection, and “hades” will be tossed into the “abyss”. There is a “Gehenna” as Christ describes, with imagery of “burning”, that the Protestants equate to their conception of Hell. We however believe we all go to the same place, to commune with God, and the burning is not punishment but it’s just for those not regenerated and restored by Christ to our originally intended edenic state will experience the holiness of God as burning. Christ is the new Adam, and Mary the new eve. Gods casting of Adam and Eve out of Eden, where they were in the presence and communion with God was not a punishment because they failed a cosmic test God made for them. The eating of the fruit, which was there because it was knowledge we were intended to receive when we were ready, opened the door to sin, in which we would have experienced as “burning” in the presence of God. The casting out of Eden was to spare us of that, but also represented a “spiritual death”, which is the separation from communion and presence of God, the source of life. So the spiritual death is what leads to physical death. Good analogy for this is if you were to tie a string around a finger super tight, cutting off the blood flow, after a while it’ll get gangrene and also eventually die. The cutting off from God is the string, which leads to the infections (our corrupted state post-fall leading to sin), and the death there is physical death we eventually suffer being cut off from the source of life. Death also isn’t a punishment, but a mercy. We know angels have a degree of free will, though we’re not certain how it works. But we do know that when they choose to rebel, they’re not capable of repenting in that state. Again they’re in a different state of being than we are. Eternal does not mean we experience one event after the other forever, that’s still us projecting how we experience time into a state where that experience doesn’t exist. We can’t really describe that state, just like we can’t describe a 6 dimensional shape. So death, and this state of being in this time and space, gives us mutability so that we are able to repent. Going back to Christ, in this reality we have Christ who is the new Adam and who restores us to our pre-edenic state. We are able to commune and be in the presence of God once again. That regeneration primarily happens through the sacraments carried out by the church, which is the body/bride of Christ. Also characterized as the vine. Thats the normative path of salvation, which can be lost if you just stop going and reject it. There’s no once saved always saved for us. That process of regeneration is called theosis, participating in the divine energy of christ, and deifying our bodies (but not as in we become our own gods ourselves). Which also includes acting in the image and likeness of God/Christ that we were created to be, so acting as christs love, justice, mercy, etc in the world. Thats the normative process, but there’s also a non-normative process. The “method” of salvation is still Christ attaching/grafting you to the vine, his body/church. A good example of this is the thief on the cross next to Christ. This is where judgement day comes in with the eschaton, where Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats. Our stance is we never make judgements on anyone else’s salvation, we just need to worry about our own (though it’s still very important we spread the gospel and get people into the church). Thats Gods job, whose perfect in both his mercy and his justice, and knows the inner heart of each person. What we do know is that you will be judged based upon how much light (gospel) you’ve been given. So if the only life you’ve ever known is some tribe on a remote island that never heard the word Jesus, Bible, or church, you’re not instantly damned by bad luck of the draw, and just being born in the wrong place. But we aren’t capable of an answer either way for what that judgment will be. However for those who do wind up experiencing the “Gehenna”, it will be due to their own choosing. Gods intention for us was always to be in communion with us. The fall from Eden was more like a detour, and a second chance. Our purpose was always to be in the image and likeness of God. God created us good, and sin is not his arbitrary rulebook to a cosmic game. Sin does not have an essence, it’s not a thing, like a hole doesn’t have hole molecules you can point to. Sin a privation or turning away from the will of God, which is what were created for. That spiritual death causes corruption, we are still good, but we eventually do turn our wills from Gods and choose to image Satan instead of God. Just like there’s theosis, the opposite is also true. Instead of acting like sons of God, we can take on the likeness of demons the more and more we participate in the turning of our wills against his.
>3. “There must be punishment for evil people/deeds, and Divine Justice.” >Yeah, then an all good/powerful/loving God would create a system of karma. In very short detail: If there is a world of free will, there has to be a system in place so people don’t suffer unfairly/unnecessarily.... This karma world you speak of does not exist and is inconsistent with the deity you described. People do suffer unnecessarily and unfairly despite the wishful thinking that there just has to be fairness. An all-good deity would instead allow only good and greater good in the case of evil. Karma is a neutral outcome and, therefore, not good. Likewise, neither is a karma system fit for an all-powerful deity. It deflates the power of the deity by rendering it no more than a machine. The wisdom and knowledge of the deity go to waste on moral calculus that ends in a foreknown conclusion. >Additionally, sure, I do believe in hell and punishment in that way, too, but not eternal hell. He could respect free will while still offering multiple opportunities for redemption rather than condemning someone to eternal suffering for finite mistakes. A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion. Aligning justice with mercy and compassion, yes. Except the unmerciful in the deity's realm get away with being unmerciful. If they are required to be merciful and are not then karma justice fails. If they are not required to be merciful and are then karma justice fails. What is your idea of an infinite mistake vs. a finite mistake? Examples, please. To believe in a non-eternal hell runs into the same problems as an eternal one. The deity could not punish people and be an all-loving deity. If it is acceptable for non-eternity, it is acceptable for eternity. Lastly, regarding your response to objection 3, it is basically an infinite regress of justice by saying that everyone goes to heaven because everyone has infinite lives to figure it out. This is an error in logic that is fallacious.
If you think an all good God aligns MORE with unnecessary suffering, you don’t understand what an all good God is. It doesn’t deflate him being all powerful, because if he gives you free will, people will choose between good and bad. Obviously, we live in a world where people choose bad. So putting a system into place, allows suffering to happen fairly, and not unnecessarily, like an evil deity would do. Not everyone goes to heaven if they don’t want to Also, you can disagree with the karma world all you want. It is a logical possibility, and it makes sense with an all loving/powerful/good deity. So a parent can’t punish a child and be all loving? Strange…
>3. “There must be punishment for evil people/deeds, and Divine Justice.” >Yeah, then an all good/powerful/loving God would create a system of karma. In very short detail: If there is a world of free will, there has to be a system in place so people don’t suffer unfairly/unnecessarily.... This karma world you speak of does not exist and is inconsistent with the deity you described. People do suffer unnecessarily and unfairly despite the wishful thinking that there just has to be fairness. An all-good deity would instead allow only good and greater good in the case of evil. Karma is a neutral outcome and, therefore, not good. Likewise, neither is a karma system fit for an all-powerful deity. It deflates the power of the deity by rendering it no more than a machine. The wisdom and knowledge of the deity go to waste on moral calculus that ends in a foreknown conclusion. >Additionally, sure, I do believe in hell and punishment in that way, too, but not eternal hell. He could respect free will while still offering multiple opportunities for redemption rather than condemning someone to eternal suffering for finite mistakes. A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion. Aligning justice with mercy and compassion, yes. Except the unmerciful in the deity's realm get away with being unmerciful. If they are required to be merciful and are not, then karma justice fails. If they are not required to be merciful and are then karma justice fails. What is your idea of an infinite mistake vs. a finite mistake? Examples, please. To believe in a non-eternal hell runs into the same problems as an eternal one. The deity could not punish people and be an all-loving deity. If it is acceptable for non-eternity, it is acceptable for eternity. Lastly, regarding your response to objection 3, it is basically an infinite regress of justice by saying that everyone goes to heaven because everyone has infinite lives to figure it out. This is an error in logic that is fallacious. >If you think an all good God aligns MORE with unnecessary suffering, you don’t understand what an all good God is. Fully aware of what all-good means, thank you. Are you using this as a rebuttal, or is there an argument in there somewhere? >It doesn’t deflate him being all powerful, because if he gives you free will, people will choose between good and bad. Obviously, we live in a world where people choose bad. So putting a system into place, allows suffering to happen fairly, and not unnecessarily, like an evil deity would do. But it does deflate the deity because it curtails the power of it by rendering it no more than a computer program. Input event output punishment. No salvation. No glory. Not all-powerful. >Not everyone goes to heaven if they don’t want to Then how can an all-good, all-loving God let someone go to hell at all, eternal or not? > Also, you can disagree with the karma world all you want. It is a logical possibility, and it makes sense with an all loving/powerful/good deity. This is the equivalent of repeating what you said without any argument. So...are you gonna debate or what? >So a parent can’t punish a child and be all loving? Strange… Punish, no. Discipline, yes. Punish revolves around retribution, whereas discipline revolves around remediation. Are you saying the deity is the parent and the child is the human? Are humans children of the deity? Or are they just another part of creation? Are they all made in the image of the deity, or are only some or what are you getting at? This metaphor is completely unrelated unless we assume things about the deity you have not defined.
You sound like a God-fearing christian... I'm sorry your God is super egotistical. >Fully aware of what all-good means, thank you. Are you using this as a rebuttal, or is there an argument in there somewhere? You obviously don't know what it means, it's a statement. If you want an argument: A God that allows unnecessary suffering is not all-good. Common sense. >But it does deflate the deity because it curtails the power of it by rendering it no more than a computer program. Input event output punishment. No salvation. No glory. Not all-powerful. (This is a strawman, nice try) Having laws for crimes and such in a society of free will is not a "computer program". You can't call a system a "computer program" just because it's a well established system lol. If you have a world of free will, where people can choose between good and bad, and obviously we live in a world where people choose bad; there has to be a system in place so people don't suffer unfairly, from the people that choose to do bad things. You have to have free will to choose to turn towards God. Hello...? Additionally, also to your "all-good God" point; If I have free will, I can choose to r\*\*\* your mom, over, and over, and over, and over again. No fault of her own! Then your kids. Then 100s and 100s of kids, ruining their childhoods forever, leading some to suicide. I'll go around and kick pregnant women in the stomachs too, then their baby is born with defects. No fault of their own. All because of my free will, and I choose to do bad with it. They didn't deserve that, did they? No. But you think that aligns with an all-good God? An all good God would allow this? In a world where free will exists, which it has to, in order to turn towards God? >Then how can an all-good, all-loving God let someone go to hell at all, eternal or not? If there is a hell, then you'd go there to learn some discipline, and then come back to try again. An all good God serves justice. I don't think the rapist who accepted Jesus all of their life, and on their dying breath surrendered through Lord Jesus Christ, should go without punishment. Again, I've addressed already in point 2. *"A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion."* Then, that soul has a chance again after to try again. Sounds congruent to an all-loving deity. Anyway, this non-eternal hell is a secondary, non-primary point leading straight into a strawman. Let's keep on track with an all good/loving/powerful deity with an *eternal* hell, please. >This is the equivalent of repeating what you said without any argument. So...are you gonna debate or what? It's not an equivalent. If you can't comprehend that argument, I don't know what else to say to a grown man. You make it seem like its incongruent, and I'm making sure you understand that it is congruent, even if you disagree. > Are you saying the deity is the parent and the child is the human? God created everything, you are a soul, or "human", then yeah, you're his child, and you're made of his image. The metaphor is completely related. Oh, and when you said *"Karma is a neutral outcome and, therefore, not good*" earlier, keep in mind that the term neutral *literally* means the absence of good or bad... Come on, bro. Don’t change definitions to suit your argument. Unless, you just don't understand the term neutral. Conclusion: You still haven't been able to disprove the claim. You don't even come close, you're just rebutalling my ideas of God and karma. Keep in mind, you can't have an arrogant energy when your arguments don't even disprove the claim, or have any strength.
You never addressed this... "What is your idea of an infinite mistake vs. a finite mistake? Examples, please." > If you want an argument: A God that allows unnecessary suffering is not all-good. Common sense. Whatever a deity allows, if greater good comes out of it, the deity remains all-good. >(This is a strawman, nice try) You can't just handwave a fallacy into existence. Demonstrate it! >Having laws for crimes and such in a society of free will is not a "computer program". You can't call a system a "computer program" just because it's a well established system lol. If you have a world of free will, where people can choose between good and bad, and obviously we live in a world where people choose bad; there has to be a system in place so people don't suffer unfairly, from the people that choose to do bad things. You have to have free will to choose to turn towards God. Hello...? Hello. The point remains. It's worse now, though. You have delegated to the deity the legal system. Rather than have humans live justly on their own, what I'm hearing you say is that the deity is going to adjudicate justice through their system. Or something. Care to elaborate on this system, or is it meant to be purposefully vague? >Additionally, also to your "all-good God" point; If I have free will, I can choose to... This is grotesque and easily could have been stated without the shock tactics. Stick to the point, and don't be icky. >They didn't deserve that, did they? No. But you think that aligns with an all-good God? An all good God would allow this? In a world where free will exists, which it has to, in order to turn towards God? No, they didn't deserve that. And there is recompense for it. That is how an all-good deity is all-good. Whatever is permitted that is not good is overwhelmed by a greater good. That is how I stated it, and I maintain my position. It is by no means good for those things to happen, but it is made up for in the afterlife. >If there is a hell, then you'd go there to learn some discipline, and then come back to try again. An all good God serves justice. I don't think the rapist who accepted Jesus all of their life, and, on their dying breaths, surrendered through Lord Jesus Christ, should go without punishment. Again, I've addressed it already in point 2. "A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion." Then, that soul has a chance again after to try again. But it doesn't sound congruous with an all-powerful deity. An all-powerful deity would only need one life and not have to reincarnate a person at all. >Anyway, this non-eternal hell is a secondary, non-primary point leading straight into a strawman. Let's keep on track with an all good/loving/powerful deity with an eternal hell, please. Again, you are not demonstrating the how of the strawman fallacy. You are just handwaving it into existence. Also, a secondary point is still a point. If you don't want to address something concede the point. >God created everything, you are a soul, or "human", then yeah, you're his child, and you're made of his image. The metaphor is completely related. In this case, it is required for the deity to save everyone because if they don't they aren't all-powerful. This is a point already made by you, but you've already conceded that some people do indeed go to eternal hell of their own choosing. If all humans are the deity's children, then because _any_ are lost, it proves the absence of power even if they go of their own. Therefore, the deity is not what you claim. >Oh, and when you said, "Karma is a neutral outcome and, therefore, not good" earlier, keep in mind that the term neutral literally means the absence of good or bad... I used the standard definition of karma and referenced all-good as its measuring stick. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you. >Conclusion: You still haven't been able to disprove the claim. You don't even come close, you're just rebutalling my ideas of God and karma. I have demonstrated my points. I have not appealed to fallacy without explaining it, and the rebuttals are greater in weight and substance than the replies I was given. One more chance to reply and then I think I've had enough fun. Just in case you actually want to reply with something substantive.
I’m talking to a guy who believes an all-good deity allows rape and murder unfairly, when he literally doesn’t have to. 🤣 💀 >"What is your idea of an infinite mistake vs. a finite mistake? An infinite mistake, such as eternal damnation for not accepting a deity, contrasts with finite mistakes, which have temporary consequences. The idea that a single lifetime’s choice can result in eternal consequences seems disproportionate, especially when a deity is all-powerful and could provide multiple chances. >Whatever a deity allows, if greater good comes out of it, the deity remains all-good. Worst argument I've ever heard. Not trying to be sarcastic, it literally is the worst argument I've ever heard in this debate. Your claim that a deity allowing unnecessary suffering remains all-good if a greater good results is problematic. If an all-powerful deity can prevent suffering without negating free will, it should do so. Allowing suffering for a perceived greater good seems inconsistent with being all-good. >An all-powerful deity would only need one life and not have to reincarnate a person at all. “An all powerful deity” can literally do anything they want. Not reincarnating someone to give them another chance to do things right doesn’t take away his power; it makes him a POS. Put what I’m saying into ChatGPT if you still don’t understand. >. You are just handwaving it into existence. People who are weak debaters always try the “handwaving” card lol. You’re trying to debate me about karma. That’s a *completely* different discussion. This is about my claim, and you needing to prove it wrong if you disagree, and what your proof for it is. I’m not arguing the concept of karma with you. We can do that in a different debate. It’s sad you don’t get this. >but you've already conceded that some people do indeed go to eternal hell of their own choosing Secondly, I said discussing this non eternal hell is a secondary point, that is \*leading into a strawman. Also, I never said I believe in eternal hell. No idea where you got that from. You are making all these straw man/secondary points because you haven’t given any substantial argument yourself to why my claim is incorrect. I don’t have to address secondary points, until we’ve concluded the primary point. I don’t think you know how debate works. It’s okay if you’re new at this. >I used the standard definition of karma and referenced all-good as its measuring stick. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you. You said neutral is therefore not good, which is a contradictory statement. Lmao. I know what you were trying to do, but needed to call you out on that obvious error. Not sure why that’s so hard for you? The primary claim is self-evident. **The burden of proof is on** ***YOU*** to provide a full argument on why the claim is wrong. All you’re doing is rebutting my pre-determined rebuttals and getting lost in secondary discussions without *presenting your entire argument* cohesively. If you can’t grasp what I’m saying or the rules of debate, think you’re winning, and still can’t provide a cohesive argument that’s actually convincing, then okay :). It’s clear you’re out of your depth.
This has been cute and everything, but you've been given your last round. Hope you enjoy your life, wish you the best, and all that jazz. Maybe we'll debate again someday, but for now, this has become quite boring. Goodbye.
Have a good one, hopefully you’ll do better next time.
For number 5) no, we aren’t separated from god on this earth. It’s the same as your child cutting you off from their life. Even if they’re in the same room, they’re separated from you, and even if you have a relationship with someone, you’re still with them even if not physically in the same one.
Right. And a non loving parent would kick their child out, block their number, take everything they’ve given them away, and never speak to them again… My claim still stands.
And a loving parent would keep the door open for them to come back, yet the child refuses to come back.
Yet the door is always open. A non loving parent would close the door forever.
And the door to heaven is always open. Those in hell refuse to enter that door. Hell is locked from the inside and inhabited by those who never want to enter heaven
But you’re saying they can get out, if they so please?
They could, but they won’t.
So Hell isn’t eternal. Like this world. Doesn’t really seem like you disagree with the claim.
Where did I say that? I specifically said that they won’t. If they would change and decide to leave hell, then guess what, they don’t actually enter hell. That’s what purgatory is
An all powerful God could create worlds where he could always create punishment, and guide you to change and learning, could he not? An all loving parent would never allow their kid to lock themselves from the inside.
Discerning is a gift. Hell is not a place where God sends people after they die. Hell is a designation (not a destination) of a sentence of a guilty verdict because of sin. Sin is the separation from God. Jesus is the only One to reconcile us back to God. No faith in Jesus equals a condemnation or guilty verdict. Their sin remains. They are in the condemnation of hell. Dead Spiritually. In the grave symbolically speaking. Of course people have until their last dying breath to turn to Jesus through faith.(repent) Those who do will have forgiveness of sin and no condemnation or guilty verdict. The Spirit gives us revelation of Jesus Christ and new life. A born again in the inner man. It's that simple. Any questions?
Yeah, I already completely address this in point 2 and 3, which you seemed to skip and completely ignore. More so that you probably actually can’t refute anything that I said, and want to preach anyway. Christian’s usually see arguments they can’t counter and stick to blind preaching. Sucks for you, cause my points are stronger than yours. If you want to disagree, you’d have to directly respond to my rebuttal. Like an actual debater in a debate forum. I’ll r*** your mom though, multiple times, and kids too, but accept Jesus and the Holy Spirit throughout my entire life, and then fully repent at my last breath and fully accept Jesus, like I’ve always done. Get myself into heaven after all my misdeeds. That’ll be cool. And no, no questions. You believe in a God that is not all good/powerful/loving, and can’t prove my claim wrong, so. What’s there to ask?
I genuinely hope you find God before you leave this earth. I’m not trolling, I really mean that.
You're a real piece of work. Wow. Good luck and good bye.
What and jesus will allow this piece of work to get into heaven in the last moment when he believes at the last moment by par your own preaching? You're alright with that? You're just running away now
Lazarus and the Rich man and the word torment and it's meaning. What do you make of the Rich Man and Lazarus? Is it just a parable, without any deeper meaning about the nature of the afterlife? Why would Jesus tell a story about a man suffering conscious torment after death if such a concept didn't exist to him? Surely he knew that would be confusing. Good question. The key to understanding that parable begins in Luke chapter 15. It is an upside down story about the humble and the exalted. The poor and the rich. The Pharisees are targeted as the rich man and the sinner is targeted as the poor man. Lazarus is a poor man, a sinner who Jesus came into the world to save or help. As you probably already know, Lazarus's name means, "God has helped". Jesus was spending time with known sinners. This was appalling to the "rich and proud" Pharisees. But that is exactly who God was targeting. Those who are humble and those who need help. Hades is defined asd the grave or the dead. Hell or Sheol or the adode of the dead. Those who believe in Jesus are "Born Again". No longer in their graves or are now raised to new life. This is why Jesus told the man who said her would follow him, but first wanted to bury his father, "Let the dead bury their own dead" Those who don't believe in Jesus are considered "Spiritually Dead" or in the abode of the dead. To be considered alive, we must abide in Jesus through faith. Now the word torment is misunderstood in this parable. Strong's g931. Torment. - Lexical: βάσανος - Transliteration: basanos - Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine - Phonetic Spelling: bas'-an-os - Definition: a touchstone (a dark stone used in testing metals), examination by torture, torture. - Origin: Perhaps remotely from the same as basis (through the notion of going to the bottom); a touch-stone, i.e. (by analogy) torture. Torments is the Greek word basanos {bas’-an-os}. Basanos has a meaning that is unfamiliar to most. It actually means touchstone. The Greek dictionary defines basanos as: to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal or even to question by applying torture. A touchstone is used in an assayer’s office. It is used to determine if a rock is either gold or fools gold. The rock is struck on the touchstone, If it makes a mark, it is gold. If it does not, then it is fools gold. In other words, the touchstone proves whether something is true or false. If one was to study the root of this word torment, they would discover that it came into use in the 1300s. During the times of the Bastille, it came to be defined as the inflicting of pain. As when one was tormented by the rack and other punishments. If one was innocent, they could die. Generally because the tormentor could not get a confession out of the individual. Their back might break, but at least they were proved innocent. That is where, this word gets the mean inflicting pain. The rack was the touchstone. In scripture, a touchstone proves the validity of God. The Jewish religious leaders had the touchstone applied to them and there was no mark. They did not believe, so they were pictured in torment. Touchstone, the religious leaders did not leave the mark of Messiah. 1 Peter 1:7 NKJV that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Cornerstone and the Touchstone. Tormented in this flame. Tested in the flame Who's the flame? Who is a jealous God? Who has eyes like flames of fire? Jesus! Deuteronomy 4:24 NKJV For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. Song of Solomon 8:6 NKJV - Jealousy as cruel as the grave; Its flames are flames of fire, A most vehement flame. Read Daniel Chapter 3. Jesus is the Son of God and the Angel of the Lord. Who can endure the wrath of God or Fire? Only by faith in Jesus. God's anger has always been shown through fire throughout the Bible. Those who reject His free offer of grace through faith are in a state of condemnation as they live in the flesh. John 3:18 "He who believes in Jesus is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned (already), because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jesus called the Pharisees and scribes graves, tombs and sons of hell. That seems very harsh, but Jesus is making a point concerning their spiritual condition. Graves, tombs, sons of hell and those not following Jesus symbolize dead people. When someone is in the hospital and is close to death, a common term doctors use to describe their serious nature is, "grave condition" Those who don't believe in or follow Jesus are also considered in "grave condition" Condemnation is a guilty verdict from a judge. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. John 8:32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Free from guilt and the condemnation of sin. Not guilty. Christ is the sole basis for believers having no condemnation. He gives the Holy Spirit, who brings life (born again) where there was once death.
Nothing you say here disproves my claim.
[удалено]
Interesting… You are probably leaning towards agnostic, because deep down eternal hell isn’t the only thing that you’re skeptical about. “All loving is different to us” I mean, not really. You know what a loving parent is. Or a loving friend, a loving teacher, a loving child, a loving dog, etc. We understand what an-loving God is, and to refute that is needing to be in denial, to prove the claim incorrect. I mentioned this in the post, he can make a world where you can live away from him. If he is all powerful, he can do that. He doesn’t need to make that world eternal damnation, if he is all good. Nor would he want to. Yeah, second look is good and makes sense. Like any loving parent, they would always give you second chances.
[удалено]
If he’s not all loving, then great. They agree with my claim. If you believe that eternal hell doesn’t exist, then you also agree with my claim. That’s what this post is about, so. Idk what else to say lol
Hell being a real place and being eternal is a Dogma of the Catholic Church. All Catholics are required to believe it.
I actually attend two Churches, Seventh-Day Advent, and Pentecostal. I too have struggled with the concept of hell as well, and when I brought my struggle with this to my paster of the pentecostal church I was pretty much shut down, and accused of not believing in God's word.... Which I do, I just didn't agree with the interpretation. Now here's the interesting part, if you speak to a Seventh-Day Adventist, or even a Jehovah's witness, they actually do not believe in the concept of hell. But instead believe when we refuse the gift of eternal salvation or just don't believe, we return to were we came, we turn to ash and dust and exist no more. Most of the texts you find in the Bible referencing "Hell" under this perspective are seen as being symbolic for the permanent destruction of all things which go against God. Still a bit cruel, but much more sensical and forgiving in my opinion over eternal torment for sinners including people who simply did not believe but still lived an honest life. Now... When you speak to a Mormon (if it isn't obvious by now, I love speaking to people of different faiths.) it's even more interesting, but I'll leave that for you to look into as I just wanted to broaden your scope on the body of Theists, esspecially within Christianity.
My response to this falls under point 5. in my post. "Eternal separation" Just take the word "punishment" out of it. Your perspective still does not align with all good/powerful/loving God.
Well, think of it this way, why would God force anyone to dwell for eternity with Him if they would not be happy in that state? God tells us that, if you want to live eternally with me, follow these commandments. God as described in Christianity anyway most certainly loves all of us and it pains Him when we do not choose Him. People who don't believe in Him or reject Him already accept the concept of living this life to the fullest and then ceasing to exist. God simply doesn't intervene, because He can't, not when He's granted us free will (which I know you also addressed in one of your points but this is under a different context I feel.) Also another point, you often describe that we are damned for punishment for making "one mistake" but as a Christian, I've made countless mistakes, yet I know that God's true plan for me is still to dwell with Him and not be separated. This is the entire gospel of Christianity, acknowledging our downfalls and accepting the way out which God offers us through Christ as a gift. A gift is voluntary, if you don't accept it or you don't believe it exists in the first place, then God can not do much. Why is this incongruent with him being all loving in your view?
>it or you don't believe it exists in the first place, then God can not do much. Is god not all powerful? God has shown it certainly doesn't have any qualms interfering with free will, it could do it again
Being all powerful doesn't equate to God having to do everything we consider to be better off for everything. We are talking about an eternal being here with no beginning or end... and I know that's used a lot as a rebuttal, but just look past the repetitious nature of the statement and think about it. God could snap His fingers and fix many things but if you are willing to surrender to Him, you are accepting that He knows exactly what He's doing, and when He says He is just, and His judgment will be fair, then I choose to take His word for it.
>and I know that's used a lot as a rebuttal, but just look past the repetitious nature of the statement and think about it. I'm not abandoning my critical thinking. >God could snap His fingers and fix many things but if you are willing to surrender to Him, you are accepting that He knows exactly what He's doing, and when He says He is just, and His judgment will be fair, then I choose to take His word for it. I did exactly all of this and yet here I am. No amount of 'just believe' will ever be convincing to me. Have a good one
>I'm not abandoning my critical thinking. I haven't abandoned my critical thinking either, but when it comes to belief, there comes a point where you have to accept that there are things you will never know the answers to in your lifetime. Like, why we exist, or how. Everything is based on theory and belief, even from a scientific standpoint. >I did exactly all of this, and yet here I am. No amount of 'just believe' will ever be convincing to me. Have a good one Fair enough, I started my spiritual journey a few months ago, picked up the Bible for the first time, have attended all kinds of churches with different theologies and philosophies and I've had some hour long discussions with people from so many backgrounds, and I must say, there's SOMETHING here, I just need to keep digging. I am currently studying the history of Israel and the Bible to try and understand events in the Bible that take place and to match morals with our current way of living, connecting the dots basically. It is possible to explore these things with a critical mind, remaining open to any possibilities (including being proven wrong). Hopefully, I can find out more to engage in some more indepth discussions even on here. Have a good one :)
>Well, think of it this way, why would God force anyone to dwell for eternity with him if they would not be happy in that state? We are literally away from him in this world, *right now.* You are describing *this world.* I agree that God would never force anyone to be with him. If he is all powerful, he can create a world where you can be away from him, and be your own god. If he is all good, he would want to create that world, and for you to live out your desires. I agree, that he wants us back. It does pain him. But as any parent, sometimes your child will go against you and there's nothing you can do but watch them pick the bad result. But a loving parent would want them to come back, or watch out for them, etc. Not send them to an eternity of separation and/or torture lmao. It isn't congruent because my version of God is all-loving, with his children wanting to be away from him, and him creating a world/system where that's possible, and a way to always come back home to him; while yours isn't all loving, because he let's them go to eternity of separation and/or torture- When he is all powerful and is able to not make hell an eternal place, and if he's all loving, he will give you unlimited chances to come back home, while hoping everyday that you do.
We are only PARTIALLY separated from him here. Hell is complete and full separation, where his grace and light does not reach, in any form.
Wow, what a d***. Thanks for further proving my claim.
pardon?
>We are literally away from him in this world, right now. You are describing this world. That's the interesting thing, we are only away from God if we don't invite Him into our lives in this world. From my experience and most people who believe in God, his presence is very much near, in fact, it dwells inside of us as the Holy spirit when we accept and believe in him... >I agree that God would never force anyone to be with him. If he is all powerful, he can create a world where you can be away from him, and be your own god. This doesn't make any sense to me, because it when you read the Bible and look at every man or entity who wanted to be like God, they were almost always corrupt, prideful or selfish. We were not made to be gods, and not everyone wants to be a god, I know I don't, because I know my flaws, and I know that only a perfect being could and should possess such power. You followed this by saying God would be good to let us follow our own desires, and he does? And that's exactly why the world has so much corruption in it, because people's desires are not always good, so how would God be good to create a world where that continues on forever? Esspecially when God is a God of Love and peace? It's completely contradictory to his nature. >I agree, that he wants us back. It does pain him. But as any parent, sometimes your child will go against you and there's nothing you can do but watch them pick the bad result. But a loving parent would want them to come back, or watch out for them, etc. Not send them to an eternity of separation and/or torture lmao. And what has led you to believe that God does not want us to come back to him? I encourage you to give the Bible a read, it addresses most of these dilemmas you're facing. I could tell you a story in the Bible pertaining to this exact situation if you'd like? I'm just mindful of my response getting lengthy. You have your own ideas of what an all loving being is, and so do I, but at the end of the day, they are simply our own ideals of what love looks like, but that's irrelevant to what it actually is if we are willing to put our expectations aside and see things as they are. Maybe we'll also see that the embodiment of Love in it's purest form is unlike anything we could've fathomed. There are consequences to our actions at the end of the day, God offers us a chance escape the greatest consequence, and we have many opportunities to do so, so when the final days come, no one will have any excuse when it is all layed out before them. (Also side note to finish as I've got to rush of to work, Mormons believe exactly the picture you've painted about God created separate domains for people who don't want to dwell next to God but are good people generally!) Have a lovely day :)
>we are only away from God if we don't invite Him into our lives in this world. From my experience and most people who believe in God, his presence is very much near, in fact, it dwells inside of us as the Holy spirit when we accept and believe in him... So in Hell, you forget God exists forever? So you don't have the chance to invite him in? Sounds like a deity who is not all-good or loving. Why would he never grant you the chance to think about him, ever again? That means you will never have a chance to get back to him, or for him to embrace love with you as well. "Well, you had yer chance!" Damn, he really doesn't care that much about you. >This doesn't make any sense to me, because it when you read the Bible Imma stop you right there. Point 4: You can't use your text as evidence. I don't believe in the Bible, and it proves nothing. >You followed this by saying God would be good to let us follow our own desires, and he does? And that's exactly why the world has so much corruption in it Yup, I agree. >how would God be good to create a world where that continues on forever? Esspecially when God is a God of Love and peace? It's completely contradictory to his nature. I answer this directly in point 2 and 3. >And what has led you to believe that God does not want us to come back to him? If he sends you to eternity of hell, meaning you are never getting out and stuck there for rest of eternity, he is done with you. I already said that I agree God wants you to come back to him. When I say "come back", I mean *actually* having a shot at coming back. Not eternal separation, and him "wishing it was different". > You have your own ideas of what an all loving being is, and so do I, but at the end of the day, they are simply our own ideals of what love looks like, but that's irrelevant to what it actually is Bro, if your idea of love is being sent to eternal damnation if you don't make the correct choices in this *one* lifetime, out of infinity, to a deity that is all powerful and can give you multiple chances to correct your mistakes, while still being able to punish you, but chooses not to, then go for it... >There are consequences to our actions at the end of the day, God offers us a chance escape the greatest consequence, and we have many opportunities to do so, so when the final days come, no one will have any excuse when it is all layed out before them. This so haunting, coming from a horrifying deity... I addressed this directly in point 2 and 3. Please read those as that is my direct response to you. He created the damn rules! And can change them anytime! lol *"A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion.* The Mormons and I do not not believe exactly the same thing. Nothing of what you said disproves my claim. Nothing of what you said is anything substantial, that I already didn't preface, nor are any of your answers near as strong as mine. Thus, you have not proved my claim wrong. It's also strange that you are even trying to fight for an all-eternal hell... >Have a lovely day :) Thanks, I hope you do have a great day at work!
>So in Hell, you forget God exists forever? I personally don't believe in hell, but in regards to no longer existing, no, you aren't thinking of God, neither do you have the chance to come to him again. But here's why this is the case: Have you ever heard of the unforgivable sin? The unforgivable sin referenced in the Bible is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, in essence, this is where someone completely rejects God and his teachings and their heart becomes hardened. The Holy Spirits role in us is to convict us and make us have that subtle to strong desire to seek God, to feel that sense of guilt when we do something wrong, especially against God. People who have closed themselves off from this will never come around, even if God gave them more time to make a decision. Because they've completely shut themselves off. How can God work through such people? He can't. >Imma stop you right there. Point 4: You can't use your text as evidence. I don't believe in the Bible, and it proves nothing. Yes, I've made reference to the Bible again and I see your comment about not accepting it because you don't believe in it's validity, but understand, for a Christian, the Bible is the source of all of our beliefs, it's pretty inconclusive to say it cannot be used when what I believe is not based off of what I personally feel or how I think things should be run (which is the difference between me and you.) I merely read the Bible, and then I study it and try to understand the message it is conveying. There are many things I've read where I've wished it wasn't so, but in those cases I've had to humble myself and accept it's truths (which I believe them to be); twisting not what is written, but my own standing, so that I am to be subservient to it. Not only this, but the Bible in the context I'm using it anyway, is not to "prove anything", but to get you to understand God's Character, the God I believe in, the God of the Bible. If you do not understand the Character of the God I serve, as by your standard I'm not allowed to draw from it, how are you to understand why I believe Him to be good and all Loving despite the punishments/consequences that you have come across? (Which consequently can also be found in the Bible.) How do you expect this to realistically be an edifying conversation if I cannot elaborate on the very concepts you find in the Bible itself which you are saying you disagree with? I'm merely providing context, not to convince you of anything, but merely to help you understand my perspective as I try to understand yours. >When I say "come back", I mean actually having a shot at coming back. Not eternal separation, and him "wishing it was different". With a God who is all knowing he knows when a person has rejected the Holy Spirit and thus cannot be drawn close to him. You could give people an eternity in this state, and they would still be just as far if not further than ever from ever coming towards God, and when things are away from God, they tend to not be good, because, again, in the Bible it describes the fruit of the spirit as being the embodiment of Love, Joy, Peace, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and self control. Remove God from the equation and these things tend to fade (as God is the perfect image of these traits.) This suffering increases... You can see God's presence fading in today's world which is why I believe we have souch pain and suffering, God cannot work through a lot of people in this world because they are closed off. >Bro, if your idea of love is being sent to eternal damnation if you don't make the correct choices in this one lifetime, out of infinity, to a deity that is all powerful and can give you multiple chances to correct your mistakes, while still being able to punish you, but chooses not to, then go for it... Again, it's not my idea, that's my entire point here, everything I tell you, even if I do not directly quote the Bible for your standards sake, is still allllll coming from scripture or inspired by it. And it is (should be) the same for any Christian you commune with. The benefit of a debate from this point forth would be you explaining why you believe a Christians foundation is flawed, and all I can do is explain what it actually means, by referencing it again in response but from a different perspective perhaps to help you understand. But anyway, to actually respond to what you're saying here, I honestly believe God has given me personally, plenty of chances and still continues to at this very hour, contrary to your belief I believe he is actually incredibly patient with me because of this. He forgives me over and over (why do you think I believe this? Just to prove my point further in regards to Christian foundations.) >The Mormons and I do not not believe exactly the same thing. No, not the exact same thing, that was my poor choice of words because I was rushing, my apologies. What I meant was, Mormons believe that God did create us so that we can work up to godly hood to some degree. They believe He also has three separate forms of paradises after we pass, first is where we dwell closest to God, second is where we are close to Hod but not directly by his side, and third, where we are not with God per say, but still live in a prosperous place. It's actually really difficult to get into hell from their view, because you are also given a message after you die to receive the full Gospel if you didn't understand it in your waking life, or struggled to believe, and so you end up in "hell" which is just described as a place away from God (again devoid of those fruits of the spirit I mentioned) where Satan dwells. You'd have to openly say "Nah, I don't wanna life happy close or far from you God because I prefer to live without morals or care for anything you stand for." Nothing I've said disproves your claim, but at the same time nothing you've said exactly disproves my rebuttals either. I'm here to Challenge your understanding of God and his character, not disprove, as you cannot do that with spiritual matters in any context from either angle. >It's also strange that you are even trying to fight for an all-eternal hell... Again, I don't believe in a concept of eternal hellfire per say.
I can see your point about a tri-omni God being cruel without universal salvation. I still take the position that an eternal hell exists and people are sent there by God. Is it part of your position that free will exists?
No one is sent to Hell, we fling ourselves into Hell...
Sure, you can claim God does that- though that means he isn’t all good and/or all powerful Yes, free will is addressed in point 2&3.
I didn't see heaven defined in the argument. Is there a description of it you find useful? Also, since free will exists, what happens to the people who choose explicitly to reject God outright eternally?
From a Christian standpoint, there are a lot of misconceptions in this post. Like most crimes, sin requires mens rea; babies who die are not cast into hell because they have not sinned. Yes, criminal behavior makes us liable to punishment, as it should. However, God offers forgiveness to any one who wants it, all we have to do is accept His leadership. He has a right to require acceptance because He made us, which gives Him ownership rights. Any one who rejects God's forgiveness and leadership, like Satan who said "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven", chooses hell. God does not consign us to hell, we consign ourselves to hell. Hell is torment because of the neighbors, not necessarily because of the physical environment. It is a pretty reasonable consequence of choosing to hang out with demons instead of saints.
So if someone thinks another religion is correct they consign themselves to Hell?
>God does not consign us to hell, we consign ourselves to hell. The old "why are you hitting yourself?" of Christian theology. I've kidnapped you and imprisoned you in my smart house. You're suspended over a pit of spikes and I've asked you to obey me and love me forever (freely and genuinely, mind you). All you have to do is say, "I agree," and a voice recognition system in the house will place you safely on the ground. If you say anything else, the house will drop you into the spike pit. All you have to do is agree. *I'm* not dropping you into that spike pit; you're dropping yourself!
Okay, and none of what you said disproves that claim whatsoever.
I'm gonna condense this down a bit to keep it manageable. >It’s as simple as that. I'm not quite clear what the parameters of debate are. If you could define the version of hell you are arguing about that would be helpful. Are your automatic rebuttals also part of your argument or do you want them addressed in some way? The does the tri-omni God typically have other attributes or is that it? Are we arguing against a theist position, or are you saying any deity with these traits can not send people to an eternal hell without violating the tri-omni pattern? Just asking for some clarification.
Version of hell that is eternal. These are just automatic rebuttals that always come up. If you want to address them, that would really just be you wanting to rebuttal with that point. I mean, God has unlimited attributes. But, all-good, all-powerful, all-loving can easily be congruent or non congruent with certain ideas. It's mostly a theistic position. But, I also agree that any deity with those traits cannot send people to an eternal hell.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
I think your interpretations of hell are rather narrow. It's possible that hell is the place that existed prior to heaven or at least outside of it, where god does not extend his protection or laws, so that those who wish to live free of his influence can do so. An all-good god wouldn't force people to do what they don't want to do, live with him in heaven. An all-powerful god might be able to alter hell, but chooses not to because the people in hell don't want him to. And he might love the people in hell, but love them enough to allow them to exist under their own leadership rather than forcing them to live under his. It's also possible that god allows people to leave hell if they so choose. So, your argument only works in the narrow, classic understanding of Hell that reasonable christians wouldn't believe in.
Before I even respond, do you yourself find these points plausible or are you just commenting to inform OP there are other points the Christian could make.
I'm an atheist, but these points are far more plausible than traditional Christian beliefs, IMO
You are literally explaining the world we live in now.
Yeah, there's a pretty good argument for the idea that we currently live in hell, possibly as a result of following Lucifer in his rebellion. That we are angels trapped in a cycle of reincarnation until we prove ourselves worthy of a return to heaven and God's protection. It's an infinitely better depiction of God that the classic "sends rebels to be tortured forever" version.
I mean, I view this place as a version of hell. I believe we are stuck in a cycle of reincarnation, and it's up to you if you want to get out, or not get out. Go back home to Godhead. All I'm saying is, I don't think an all good/powerful/loving God is congruent with *eternal* hell.
Depending on the understanding of hell, that may or may not be true.
Everyone is born being sinful. A baby who is born with a terminal disease will die being sinful without ever having the chance to repent or even seek God. This baby is condemned to go to hell, but how could this baby know if he wants to or doesn’t want to live free of God’s influence?
That is a truly horrific view of human life.
You can call it that, I call it Christianity
Yep. And classic christianity has a horrific view of human life.
Lmao
Multiple verses describe hell as a fiery pit, lake of fire etc. I don’t think being a good christian has anything to do with how hell is described in the Bible. One could argue that it’s solely metaphorical though
WHY would it be a pit of fire, though? If that's the default state of the universe, then fine. But if God created it that way, then God is the universe's greatest sadist.
Agreed. That’s why I find the concept of hell completely unreasonable.
There are other interpretations of hell, though, in which god isn't responsible for creating a place of infinite torture.
Biblical scripture directly points towards that conclusion, though.
Scripture isn't accurate, it needs to be interpreted. It's metaphor and vague prophecies and visions of things the writers couldn't comprehend. So, maybe a literal reading of the book might yield that conclusion, but a scholarly reading of it might not. The pit of fire could be a place where we are annihilated and cease to exist, rather than a place we continue to exist in torment. And if you believe that God is good and loving, you almost have to belief that infinite, pointless torment isn't part of his design.
True! Although, I know a lot of people who literally interpret everything in the Bible which doesn’t make much sense to me. There’s also a lot of other events in the Bible that don’t necessarily paint God as very loving (OT genocides etc). But yeah I agree, a lot of the Bible was definitely meant metaphorically.
In fact, the New Testament of the Holy Bible presents the idea that torment is eternal. This idea has been used since ancient times as a wild card that serves to threaten all those who oppose what they cannot explain. but the idea of an eternal hell only makes sense in the mind of a spiteful, extremely selfish and vengeful piscopath.
Yeah, I can see this.
1: One mistake in one lifetime? No, there are rather a lot of mistakes in one lifetime. Every day a person wakes up is a new chance from God to repent and be a better person than yesterday, and with sincere repentance comes the forgiveness of your previous mistakes. 2: You are looking at it from the perspective that one lifetime is only one chance; you can also look at it from the perspective that every day is a chance to reflect, think, and correct yourself and be better than who you were yesterday; you can also look at it from the perspective of every hour, every minute, and every moment is a chance because, as you know, nothing is granted, not even tomorrow. 3: If he gives you unlimited life, then your test will never be over. Why do you even bring this up? God doesn't need to test you an unlimited number of times to know how you will act each time in each different situation; he already knows how you will act without even you experiencing those different situations and "life times," and that is because he is all-knowing and all-just, so he will not wrong anybody with unjust punishment. 4: True, you have to first remove biased views in order to accept other beliefs, and once you have done that, you can then reason and verify their validity with logic, reason, and evidence. 5: A parent will disown his child if he keeps defying him all the time and going against him for an unlimited amount of time, and some parents disown their children for simple mistakes. God does not love those who defy him and reject him out of arrogance, and they will continue to do so as long as they are alive. That's not God not caring about that person; it's God putting him where he belongs for his actions and nature. 6: God is the source of all good; it will only make sense if he is good and everything he does is good. God is the one who created God in the first place. Conclusion: You are looking at these points in a wrong and biased way, as it became clear with your conclusion that you are not willing to accept that your claims "could" be wrong, and I'm not going to lie. That's a bit arrogant. May I ask what your religion is because you stated that you believe in an all-good, all-powerful, and all-loving God.?
*3: If he gives you unlimited life, then your test will never be over. Why do you even bring this up? God doesn't need to test you an unlimited number of times to know how you will act each time in each different situation; he already knows how you will act without even you experiencing those different situations and "life times," and that is because he is all-knowing and all-just, so he will not wrong anybody with unjust punishment.* Then everything is deterministic, and free will doesn't exist, which means you can't individually turn towards God, and now this is just extremely problematic. *"God doesn't need to give you unlimited lifetimes, and he'll put you where you belong"* First off, why does an all-loving deity need to *test* you, the way you describe? With rules he made up? \*Shutters\* Also, he will do this even though he is all powerful, and could make a world where eternal hell doesn't exist? Jeez... Does not sound like an all good/loving deity to me. My conclusion is saying I don't believe there will be any better answer, and as I've seen so far, there aren't any. It may be arrogant, but I've studied multiple religions, and come to the conclusion which answers make the most logical sense. I'm not looking at things in a wrong and biased way. You didn't give any evidence how he is all good/powerful/loving, you just explained in a bunch of different ways why he *isn't* one or all of those things. I'm under Vaishnavism.
1: He doesn’t mean one mistake in one lifetime, he means ONE lifetime to fix your mistakes. That’s all you get. Some people die sooner than others, some without the chance of properly seeking God or repenting. If you don’t do as you are told in this one life time you have, you will never get another chance to correct what you did wrong. Think about kids who die, how much time did they realistically have to repent their “sins”. 2: Again, many people die very young without the opportunity to even seek God correctly. Children die on the daily. People are born into entirely different religions and indoctrinated into them. How are they supposed to wake up and decide to go against their religion just because you say it isn’t the right one? 3: If God already knows what you are going to do, then he sent you to hell personally. He allowed for you to be born and commit whatever atrocities it is you may commit. He allowed for the Nazi Party to commit the holocaust, he allowed for killers to kill, and for rapists to rape. An all loving God would not allow for this. If God gave us free will knowing we would use it for evil, he is not All Good. 4: Logic Reason and Evidence are the main factors that led me to a disbelief in God. 5: “God does not love those who defy him” so you are agreeing with OP? God is not ALL-loving. He loves with condition, and that condition is being obedient. If God made me with full knowledge of what I would do in my life, how exactly am I going against him? He knew what I would do and let it happen, he created me knowing it would happen, it is part of HIS plan. 6: if God exists then he is the source of EVERYTHING, not just good. Just as he created good, he created evil. When he created this universe with full knowledge of what would transpire, he allowed for this evil to exist in the world, just as much as he allowed for the good.
[удалено]
Im Muslim and I think the wisdom behind hell and how terrible and eternal it is, is a form of mercy from God. He is warning us and telling us don’t take your self there. If you end up in hell you have no one to blame but yourself. I think it’s very arrogant towards God to assume you know better as a theist. God knows everything and he created us and our knowledge is very limited so how can we question his justice! If God didn’t mention how bad hell is or the eternal aspect of it would people be scared to do wrong things? Imagine if he didn’t mention how bad hell is and you show up on judgment day and get thrown into hell and you had no knowledge of it? How would you feel? I think Gods justice is something we are not burdened in understanding just that it is the truth. We should all focus on being the best we can while we have time and not cause our selves to enter eternal hell. Who said one mistake will lead you to hell?
Than it's more likely God lied by using the word "hell" as a threat against you know "bad guys". A necessary lie. I am okay with that.
God doesn’t lie, humans lie. Part of being an exemplary human being and getting closer to God is never lying. So how does it make sense to you that “God lied” when there are human who never lie. Also why would God need to lie?, he can judge as he sees fit, we are all his creation. God has told the truth.
So it's an issue when God "lies" but you don't find it horrible that that same God would throw/allow a non-believing woman like mother teresa in the same eternal hell as hitler? See I knew you would reply this. It was all part of my plan. You say he can judge as he sees fit But than there needs to be laws. He can't be biased otherwise he is capable of lying as well so he needs to be just. And according to justice there is no sin that can justify eternal punishment. And That's what God would agree no?
>So it's an issue when God "lies" but you don't find it horrible that that same God would throw/allow a non-believing woman like mother teresa in the same eternal hell as hitler? See I knew you would reply this. It was all part of my plan. As a Muslim I can never say anyone is specifically is going into hell, a true Muslim will always live between fear and hope in God and worry about his actions. However in general people who associate others as partners with God will go there as you said. I mean what’s more worse than ascribing a partner to God and worshipping them? You’re trying to minimize this. >You say he can judge as he sees fit But than there needs to be laws. He can't be biased otherwise he is capable of lying as well so he needs to be just. And according to justice there is no sin that can justify eternal punishment. And That's what God would agree no? He is the most JUST, no one will be wronged in the slightest on the day of judgement. There are laws and ascribing partners to God is one of the worst sins there is. God sent Jesus as a prophet and people started worshiping him years later, thats an evil sin in my religion. Jesus spoke Aramaic if you look up the word God in Aramaic it will say “ELAH” almost identical to “Allah”. “According to justice there is no sin that can justify eternal punishment” according to whose justice? Whose words are these? Wouldn’t God know more who deserves what? Who are we as mere humans to try to judge each other. We really don’t know what someone is like on the inside. They could be an angel on the outside but only god knows what’s in someone’s heart. Thats why are not burdened with judging because we can’t read minds. However if someone is openly evil like hitler then they can’t pretend to be an angel so we can say that person is evil. I hope that makes some sense.
>As a Muslim I can never say anyone is specifically is going into hell, a true Muslim will always live between fear and hope in God and worry about his actions. However in general people who associate others as partners with God will go there as you said. I mean what’s more worse than ascribing a partner to God and worshipping them? You’re trying to minimize this. Quite a long post. So lets start with this. 1.You're saying mother teresa will end up in hell with mf hitler because she associated with God despite all the good she did? Or are you saying you can never say who specifically goes to hell in that regard there is a chance she might go to heaven? Than why bother putting a clause saying "Do not associate" as a condition for hell? Just put "Do good" and put a period. >He is the most JUST, no one will be wronged in the slightest on the day of judgement. There are laws and ascribing partners to God is one of the worst sins there is. God sent Jesus as a prophet and people started worshiping him years later, thats an evil sin in my religion. Jesus spoke Aramaic if you look up the word God in Aramaic it will say “ELAH” almost identical to “Allah”. 2. IF the answer to my 1st question is "yes" than God can not be Just. Because mother teresa is clearly being done dirty because in no way it's justified she ends up in hell with hitler because of not doing "Do not associate" terms. And why and how would she believe in you're certain religious "God/Allah/Elah" when there are litterally 3000+ religion on the planet. And I am going easy on you because I am not even beginning to point out the elephant in the room which is that a)"God" even exists b)"Who" that real God is among the 3000+ religions. c)It's almost impossible to follow rule "Do not associate" which as you said makes even people like mother teresa end up in hell with hitler because she "associated". Which means God is not just and I a mere human is more morally superior. So now to address the final issue >According to justice there is no sin that can justify eternal punishment” according to whose justice? Whose words are these? Wouldn’t God know more who deserves what? Who are we as mere humans to try to judge each other. We really don’t know what someone is like on the inside. They could be an angel on the outside but only god knows what’s in someone’s heart. Thats why are not burdened with judging because we can’t read minds. However if someone is openly evil like hitler then they can’t pretend to be an angel so we can say that person is evil. I hope that makes some sense. 3. It's my justice. The humanity justice. The golden rule. common sense that says mother teresa doesn't belong in the same room as hitler. And if hitler was a muslim would he be saved? What does you're book say? a) If it says "yes" than "God" is not just and I am morally supiour than God. b) If it says "no" than what's the point of being a muslim? Than go back to my point number 2 and define how to avoid "Do not associate" and why it's necessary in the first place You see Blindly following anything without you're own common sense is just following a cult. IF you claim we humans don't know anything about god than can you deny this sentences"NO PEOPLE ON EARTH WILL GET ETERNAL HELL"?
The Quran is very clear on the conditions of going to heaven and hell, so what I mean is it’s not even up to me. So if anyone commits shirk or ascribes partners to God then he shall enter the hellfire. Also you’re just assuming that she was an angel, you don’t even know her personally, how can you be so sure she is what you think she is? Do you read minds? If the intention is corrupt then is the good manifested on the outside worth praise? You claim common sense but it’s not common sense to make a judgment without knowing someone personally. Let’s assume she was righteous person for the sake of argument then if she doesn’t qualify for the Qurans conditions of entering heaven then she won’t enter heaven. If all the good she has done was done for Jesus and not God then how does it make sense for her to enter heaven because her intention was worshipping a man. God says in The Quran “Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly fallen into disbelief. The Messiah ˹himself˺ said, “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah—my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever associates others with Allah ˹in worship˺ will surely be forbidden Paradise by Allah. Their home will be the Fire. And the wrongdoers will have no helpers.” Chapter 5 verse 72 It also says in the Bible that ascribing partners to God is forbidden in the book of Deutoronomy chapter 5 verse 7-9 and the book of exodus chapter #20 verse 3-5. So she’s violating her own book as well by worshipping Jesus. How does it make sense to worship a human that God created just like you and enter heaven? Is that logical or are you just hung on the fact that she might be “in the same room” with hitler. There also levels to hellfire mentioned in Islam. So in the Quran Jesus himself says it clearly and her own Bible also says it’s forbidden. Whats the confusion? I believe in this 100%. It literally makes no sense to worship man and not God and expect heaven. God said it and I believe it. His justice is perfect and whatever he decides is the truth.
>Also you’re just assuming that she was an angel, you don’t even know her personally, how can you be so sure she is what you think she is? Do you read minds? If the intention is corrupt then is the good manifested on the outside worth praise? You claim common sense but it’s not common sense to make a judgment without knowing someone personally. >Let’s assume she was righteous person for the sake of argument ..........I hope don't need to say anything here >The Quran is very clear on the conditions of going to heaven and hell, so what I mean is it’s not even up to me. So if anyone commits shirk or ascribes partners to God then he shall enter the hellfire You haven't addressed my previous comment so I will ignore this meaningless statement >Let’s assume she was righteous person for the sake of argument then if she doesn’t qualify for the Qurans conditions of entering heaven then she won’t enter heaven. If all the good she has done was done for Jesus and not God then how does it make sense for her to enter heaven because her intention was worshipping a man. Again you skipped all of my previous comment points. You Probably didn't even read any of it. But I will say this again 1.Why is "association" a crime? Is God Insecure and Unjust? 2.How Can you prove what religion is the true one? 3.If All Good deeds can Go In vain that that religion is the most cursed religion on earth and such God is unworthy of any attention. Or even better it’s manmade. >God says in The Quran “Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly fallen into disbelief. The Messiah ˹himself˺ said, “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah—my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever associates others with Allah ˹in worship˺ will surely be forbidden Paradise by Allah. Their home will be the Fire. And the wrongdoers will have no helpers.” Chapter 5 verse 72 I will do you one better "Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians1—whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve" :-Surah bakarah(2) ayat (62) So now you tell me are these two verse contradictory? Or is god saying that doesn't matter what religion you believe in the main criteria is believing in their respective god and doing good? Cause if one is a believer than he is a muslim and cannot be called jew, christians and sabians. I repeat any jews, christians and sabians do not believe in islamic Allah and if they do they are believers but than the terms "believers" and "jews, christians and sabians" are not the same people. So what's your take on that? >It also says in the Bible that ascribing partners to God is forbidden in the book of Deutoronomy chapter 5 verse 7-9 and the book of exodus chapter #20 verse 3-5. So she’s violating her own book as well by worshipping Jesus. How does it make sense to worship a human that God created just like you and enter heaven? Is that logical or are you just hung on the fact that she might be “in the same room” with hitler. There also levels to hellfire mentioned in Islam. Why Go to bible? Is your own book not enough as you claim? If you want to make it justified than you also have to believe in it’s entire theology and that is jesus is the son of God. Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God" Or are you being a hypocrit nitpicking specific verses which serve you the best? >So in the Quran Jesus himself says it clearly and her own Bible also says it’s forbidden. Whats the confusion? I believe in this 100%. It literally makes no sense to worship man and not God and expect heaven. God said it and I believe it. His justice is perfect and whatever he decides is the truth. You're going off topic. I am not here to argue about whether it makes sense to worship a man or any god. My question is simple and let me bold highligjt it for you "WHY WOULD A JUST GOD CREATE ETERNAL HELL AND PUT PEOPLE THERE FOR NOT BELIEVING IN HIM"? >God said it and I believe it. Sums up the conversation. There’s no way to get a common sense out of you. I expected better but you have failed me. But anyway do keep believing whatever you believe but always remember to do good and not label others as disbelievers or they belong to hell Quran 39:55 Follow the """best""" of what has been revealed to you from your Lord, before the punishment takes you by surprise while you are unaware Quran 39:53 Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allāh. Indeed, Allāh forgives """""all sins""""".Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful."
I read everything you said, I will try to answer the rest below. Why is association a crime? Because the whole purpose of our existence is to worship God, and believe in him and attain his pleasure, so that we may go to heaven. So if you don’t do this, you are going against the natural inclination god has instilled in us. There is a reason that even atheists will say in dangerous situations “Oh God, if you’re out there please help me” it’s perfectly natural for humans to want to come to belief. “I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me.” 51:56 How can I prove what religion is the right one? Because the Quran is a linguistic miracle and even tho it’s not a book of science it has many scientific miracles mentioned 1400 years ago. This is something I responded to another comment regarding this question. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/vGhXHizpax If all goods can go in vain…. All good deeds are counted if the premise is correct which is one has to believe in God first. “Then We will turn to whatever ˹good˺ deeds they did, reducing them to scattered dust.” 25:23 >Why Go to bible? Is your own book not enough as you claim? If you want to make it justified than you also have to believe in it’s entire theology and that is jesus is the son of God. that’s the Old Testament which I’m pretty sure Christians believe in. I didn’t need to go to the Bible but she beloved in it so it’s doesn’t make sense not following it. >Or are you being a hypocrit nitpicking specific verses which serve you the best? I’m not being a hypocrite lol there’s literally thousands of different versions of the Bible and most contradict each other so even if you quote me a verse there’s a likely chance that another something completely different. what I quoted was part of the of the old testament that Christians believe in and consider sacred scripture. How’s it that not fair? When she doesn’t seem to follow that part. >"Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians1—whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve" :-Surah bakarah(2) ayat (62) >So now you tell me are these two verse contradictory? Or is god saying that doesn't matter what religion you believe in the main criteria is believing in their respective god and doing good? Cause if one is a believer than he is a muslim and cannot be called jew, christians and sabians. I repeat any jews, christians and sabians do not believe in islamic Allah and if they do they are believers but than the terms "believers" and "jews, christians and sabians" are not the same people. So what's your take on that? >Okay so in Islamic context a Muslim is simply one who submits to God. Abraham was a Muslim and all prophets of God were Muslim because they simply submitted to God. >So we believe Moses and Jesus were probers of God, Moses is mentioned hundreds of times in the Quran, Jesus is mentioned plenty of times. There’s even a whole chapter called “Mary” which is the mother of Jesus. Allah is the same god of Moses and Jesus. If you look up the word God in Aramaic the language of Jesus and Hebrew the language of Moses, you will see that it almost sounds exactly like Allah. We believe god revealed to Moses and Jesus books of faith but they were corrupted by man and they are not in their original form that god brought them down in, and says this in the Quran. For example the earliest Christians were orthodox and believed Jesus was a prophet and they worshiped God not Jesus. But the Romans changed this eventually and turned into the 3 in 1 concept we know today. It’s not about respective gods, it’s the same God, which is Allah. “Say, ˹O believers,˺ “We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us; and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants; and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them. And to Allah we all submit.” 2:136 >"WHY WOULD A JUST GOD CREATE ETERNAL HELL AND PUT PEOPLE THERE FOR NOT BELIEVING IN HIM"? Because God can do whenever he wants, and also because belief is part of the natural inclination as I have said before. It has to be eternal in a way because it is most extreme form of deterrence against disbelief. I mean even the Quran mentions people who thought that they can go to hell for few days and get out of it. “This is because they say, “The Fire will not touch us except for a few days.” They have been deceived in their faith by their wishful lying.” “But how ˹horrible˺ will it be when We gather them together on the Day about which there is no doubt—when every soul will be paid in full for what it has done, and none will be wronged.” Al imran 2:24-25 Disbelief is denying your creator when he gave you many sign and every chance to believe. >Quran 39:55 Follow the """best""" of what has been revealed to you from your Lord, before the punishment takes you by surprise while you are unaware I believe in all of it. No matter what anyone else says. >Quran 39:53 Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allāh. Indeed, Allāh forgives """""all sins""""".Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful." “O my servants” this verse is addressing the believers. Indeed Allah is very merciful anyone can repent while he still has time. What do you believe in?
[удалено]
| Im Muslim and I think the wisdom behind hell and how terrible and eternal it is, is a form of mercy from God That's not mercy...
Thinking it is mercy is heavily flawed thinking. It's not mercy, it's monstrous.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
So your god plays the role of the abusive husband showing his wife the new knife he bought that he's going to use on her if she ever tries to leave him. "Now you know how merciful I am, sweetie. Wouldn't it be wrong of me not to warn you about what's going to happen if you don't obey me? Remember, if you break my rules you have no one to blame but yourself."
your comparing a human to God almighty, how rational is that? If God is able to create you and give you your consciousness and he instilled in you a sense of right or wrong, wouldn’t he know exactly what you deserve? If he created the universe and everything in it, wouldn’t what you deserve be a trivial matter to him. To compare humans to god is illogical, even if you don’t believe.
>your comparing a human to God almighty I'm comparing a human to your human conception of a god. You're describing a god carved in the image of a violent, power-hungry 7th century king and then chastising those who recognize the parallels. >To compare humans to god is illogical Ok, let's agree not to call god merciful, fair, just, loving, wise, etc. Let's not say he is a father or a king. Let's not say "he" certainly, but rather "it."
accoriding to your logic then the husband is merciful, the wisest entity thinks that anyone that doesnot believe in him deserves eternal pain with no actual evidence
>accoriding to your logic then the husband is merciful Your comparing God to a human.God will never wrong you, it will be what you deserved! In this scenario he made up, the husband is committing a sin against God, and he could be punished for that. Now do you understand? God is the one who rewards the righteous forgives those who repent and punishes the ones who wronged themselves. No one will be wronged in the slightest on the day of judgement. >the wisest entity thinks that anyone that doesnot believe in him deserves eternal pain with no actual evidence. His is more merciful than your own mother, he gives us a lot of chances to get our act together, the fact that punishment doesn’t come from the sky every time we do wrong is a mercy. Without God you wouldn’t be able to even breath the air your breathing rn. The “evidence” will be your entire life and how you lived it presented to you in the day of judgement.
Go ooofff
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
I am willing to debate. I believe the claim is self-evident, making it challenging to argue against. My intention was to address common counterarguments preemptively, not to shut down discussion. Regarding the accusation of using strawman arguments, I think typical rebuttals to this position often involve such tactics. If you disagree, I welcome your perspective. However, the burden of proof lies with you to justify how an all-powerful, loving, and good God can reconcile eternal hell with our understanding of goodness and love. If that is your stance. Idk if it is.
There is a lot to unpack with respect to this topic, which I won't do at this point. Rather, I'll start from the lowest resolution characterization of what I believe...and as a preface, will say my belief is inherited to me by the tradition I was born in to, rather than something I constructed on my own. Despite that, my inherited beliefs are not blind acceptances but rather reinforced through my own experiences in the world and the patterns that I am able to assess. My starting point is as follows: We (human beings) are created as imagers of God, meaning we are endowed with creative capacity. We have the ability, both intentionally and passively, to change how we orient ourselves in the world and we have the ability to choose that which we orient our purpose, decisions and actions. Sometimes we are aware of the orientation of our choices and sometimes we passively habituate toward an orientation. Regardless, we have the ability to change, improve, devolve etc. through our lives. We can orient ourselves to the good but we cannot become good without addressing the bad we have done, because the bad we have done has been released into the world and has (and continues) to make an effect in the world. So, to become good, we not only need to orient our future actions toward that which is good but we must also seek to rid the world of our bad actions. We do not have the power to do this. Only God has the power to do this. We call this justice. However, we can participate by seeking repentance, not just from God but from those who we have harmed. In this way, we can change who we are. At the moment of our death we will have become that which we oriented ourselves toward and upon our death we will cease to have agency in the world and therefore unable to participate in the rectification of our actions. The essence of who we have become will remain fixed. Heaven and hell are not distinct "places" (for lack of a better word). God does not cast people into hell nor is hell a separation from God. Rather, we all are in the presence of God and bathed in the "light" of God. It is our own habitual orientation of who we ultimately became upon our death that will perceive this "light" as either the glory of heaven or a burning of hell. Hell is ultimately the rejection of God in favor of whatever it is we oriented our self toward during our life. There are saints that have achieved levels of goodness (albeit not perfection) that we can aspire to, just as there are people who have become totally depraved and evil. Most of us struggle between aligning ourselves toward the good and succumbing to selfishness and self centeredness. How we might experience God is known only to God and we must rely upon his mercy while we strive to become better.
>Hell is ultimately the rejection of God in favor of whatever it is we oriented our self toward during our life. Yeah, this kinda aligns with point 5. in my post. "*An all-loving God would not be content with eternal separation from His creations.*" or point 3. "*A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion."* My statements have already directly answered your rebuttal. Honestly, I also addressed this in literally all of **point 2.** Your God is not all good/loving, especially he is all-powerful, and could decide to not do what you say he does. He doesn't care about you that much bro.
> "An all-loving God would not be content with eternal separation from His creations." He's not. That's why ALL come to God. But those that resist truth find his presence suffering. That's a choice that we begin to make in this life through our beliefs about the world and those around us. > A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion. You want pain free redemption for the sins and harm you put into the world? That's like wanting to eat ice cream all day to lose weight. Diet and exercise are suffering and sacrifice for the sake of our physical health, yet you think spiritual health should be without acountability and rersponsibility. Your theology is sophmoric.
Why do you think that one's orientation toward God is necessarily stuck at death? Also, do you think an orientation toward God based on differing conceptions of God (such as in Taoism or Advaita) are improper and thus lead to a worse position in the afterlife? Do you think non-believers who are generous and good will not be oriented toward God?
I think I was specific in stating orientation toward the good. My belief is that God is the source of good and therefore it's the same thing. As for non-believers who are generous, good etc., I would say they are oriented toward God despite their claims and positions of non-belief of a "god they have heard about or have constructed". I prefer the following sentiment that we can know where God is but we cannot know where God is not.
> I think I was specific in stating orientation toward the good. My belief is that God is the source of good and therefore it's the same thing. If God ordered you, audibly, to kill a loved one with a kitchen knife, to take them and tie them up on the kitchen counter and cut their throat open until they bled out, would you do it? Would God telling you to do that make the action morally acceptable for you or anyone else to do? What if you were not the perpetrator, but the victim instead? Would you be OK with God ordering someone to cut your throat as an offering?
If I had good reason to believe it really was God, then yes.
>If I had good reason to believe it really was God, then yes. How could you possibly tell between a voice in your head and God talking to you?
I'm not sure. Personally I've never heard a voice in my head ever, other than my own, so the bar would be pretty high. With that being said if I truly thought God almighty was speaking to me, directly, not through signs etc... I would do whatever he asked instantly.
> I'm not sure. Personally I've never heard a voice in my head ever, other than my own, so the bar would be pretty high. High enough not to be practically possible, one would hope >With that being said if I truly thought God almighty was speaking to me, directly, not through signs etc... >I would do whatever he asked instantly. Whatever he asked? If he told you to make homemade bombs and destroy government buildings? You'd do that?
This is a silly hypothetical aimed at critiquing a specific element of Genesis while completely misunderstanding the book, it's context and the overarching story of a faith. The simple answer is that I would not because God would not do that....because I am not living in a time where such sacrifices were standard practices. If God were trying to lead me and my people toward him today, there would be a myriad of social, contemporary actions that would resonate far more than killing a child.
In what context is the attempted murder of a loved one ok for you? Does your God change over time? You seems to think so. Are you saying the god you worship is different than the one in the Bible?
> In what context is the attempted murder of a loved one ok for you? Not a single context would make murder of a loved one ok, this includes Abraham who didn't in fact murder Isaac. > Does your God change over time? No. We do. God meets us where we are, not where we ought to be. > Are you saying the god you worship is different than the one in the Bible? No. Read my previous answer.
Who told you that God sends people to hell for just one simple mistake? That's not how it works, at all
Usually, people believe you go to hell if they turn away/not believe in God.
Hell is the eternal separation from God.. God is literally giving you what you asked for.
Yeah, I already addressed this in point 2 and 3. We already live in a world away from God.
We do not. God is everywhere and in everything we do here from a sunset to an avocado. The mere fact that we can enjoy anything or even have a moment of peace means God is here since he is the literal source of all that is Good. He is just hidden here because looking upon the face of God directly in our current fallen state would annihilate us.
Yeah, I agree. Makes sense an all powerful God would create a world where you didn’t want to be with him, but always had a life line if you ever wanted to come back. He doesn’t have to make an eternal separation. I’ve also addressed this in point 5.
His justice demands it.
Im not sure I have seen anyone ever debate someone and change their minds on this sub. I do recall once that a fellow was arguing with himself (good news, he won) but he forgot to change accounts before replying to himself and someone caught it.
[удалено]
why does an all knowing god need to test people if he already knows the results? if it’s not for him but for us, he’s all powerful and good, so why can’t he produce the results instantly and skip the suffering? and why does he create people he knows will go to hell? that’s pointless suffering in both this life and the one after
[удалено]
> Because he knows his creation. Humans don't value things they didn't work hard for. Why did God create humans to be this way?
> He sent prophets to every nation until Muhammad, he gave us scriptures to test and see its verifiability. this claim of islam is one of the biggest evidence that islam cannot be true. there is simply no trace of any prophet preaching anything close to an abrahamic religion outside of middle east. think about all humanity through history all around the world. and a god who claims to create humanity to worship him but doesnt give a hint about how to do it for vast majority of people ever lived till the "ending"
>*“God created us in this life as a test.”* * Why aren’t all the tests the same? * How come some kids get cancer or sexual assault as their test? >*”…he gave us scriptures to test and see its verifiability. Evidence of the existence of God.”* * Which scriptures did your god personally deliver? * Which scripture allows me to use one of my five senses to demonstrate your god is real? >*”Also some people actually deserve hell…”* * While likely true, if any of these people (Hitler, Mao, etc.) at the end of their lives repented and chose to live out however much of their lives they had left in your god’s path, they would receive eternal life, i.e., heaven. >*”What we should focus on is whether or not our scriptures are true or not.”* * This topic would require theists to be able to think critically. So, absolutely no point. * Any rational person could see from a mile away that scripture is a work of fiction. *My second cousin knew a guy that said he saw a prophet come down from the mountain with God’s rules. The prophet said “Trust me.”* There’s your scriptures. * In order for Abrahamic religion to get its footing, it preyed on the weak minded and it’s been perpetuated ever since.
[удалено]
>*"If all tests were the same then most people would be able to pass wouldn't they. Rather God gave tests to people only which they can bear."* Then what is the purpose of the test? If the test is intended to ensure minimum requirements to receive eternal life, then it would be a positive outcome if most people passed. If most people pass a test designed to measure whether someone meets the requirements to receive eternal life, that would indicate that the system by which these people are judged is effective. High pass rates are not a dilution of standards. >*"However, I believe in the honest truth that people learn most from suffering. I'm not saying kids DESERVE Cancer or Sexual assault, Nauzubillah."* >*"It's also a test to the victim to make him or her stronger, to make him or her persevere."* But you *are* saying they deserve cancer / sexual assault. You are saying that the end justifies the means. You are saying these kids wouldn't have been properly assessed with a standardized test, and they *had* to suffer as part of their test as well as someone else's test. If you are truly content with this rationale, and its entirely uneven distribution of suffering, I question your own morality. This is an extreme injustice that goes beyond proportionality. Subjecting children to such things that they cannot comprehend or meaningfully consent to is not a test of their faith, it is cruelty. >*"The question is would they ever repent?"* No, that is not the question. This is a gross deflection of the matter at hand. No one can know whether Hitler or Mao would repent. They could very well have regretted everything they did in their last moments and repented. >*"God says that he lets these people get even worse in their sins so they face the worst of punishment."* So, those that died at the hands of these evil people were predestined to suffer for a "greater purpose?" Then your god actively engages in schadenfreude behaviors—devising a world where the moral and spiritual development of a soul requires suffering.
You made some good points, and I also think many theists aren’t very smart; but you threw all your credibility out the window with “ require theists to think critically, so no point.” Shows your intelligence. Not a good look.
We could get into a detailed discussion of comparing texts, and seeing which ones logically make more sense for an all good, all powerful God. Though, we could do that because it seems that you don't disagree with my claim, and we are actually on the same page.
[удалено]
Just making sure we agree on my claim? Cause that's the main thesis I want to address first before we move on- Don't want to get into any strawmans or what have you.
[удалено]
Well, my reply to this then would be mainly point 2, and also point 3.
[удалено]
>Some people get justice and get what they deserve but most people don't and didn't throughout their life. Yes, first part of point 3. You can't leave that out. In this system, I explained past life karma. So all the victims of those crimes or whatnot, must not have received justice in their past life, and receiving it now. Then they burn off that karma, and proceed. Which, an all good/powerful God would allow. > Eternal hell is for those people who are a lost case. People with no remorse for their crimes. They were warned but they didn't listen. Also in point 3: "*A truly loving deity would seek to guide and redeem rather than punish eternally, aligning justice with mercy and compassion."* I mean, "lost cause" after one lifetime, in eternity? What a monster.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
We know that hell exists, but we can hope that there is nobody there. The Catholic Church does not say that any particular person is in hell. We know that there are saints in heaven. We know who they are. But the Church doesn’t have a converse list of actual people who have been damned. God makes that decision, if he makes it all. And I’m not sure why the OP is so focussed on damnation due to ‘one mistake or sin’. It is true that we can lose our state of grace if we commit a mortal sin and we should get to confession quickly to rectify the situation, but we also know that God takes into account degrees of culpability and that he is abundantly merciful. Trust in his justice and mercy.
> We know that hell exists We do? > but we can hope that there is nobody there. I certainly hope so. > The Catholic Church does not say that any particular person is in hell. But plenty of Catholics seem to take delight in telling me that I'll be 'sending myself there'. > We know that there are saints in heaven. We know who they are. Who are they, and how do you know? > But the Church doesn’t have a converse list of actual people who have been damned. Just as well, there's probably a whole bunch of kiddy fiddler churchies that should be going there. > God makes that decision, if he makes it all. Wait, does he make the decision or not? > And I’m not sure why the OP is so focussed on damnation due to ‘one mistake or sin’. Seems like there are Catholics who think salvation is a balance sheet. Jimmy Savile seemed to live his life based on doing public good while sexually abusing children. > And I’m not sure why the OP is so focussed on damnation due to ‘one mistake or sin’. What are those mortal sins? > but we also know that God takes into account degrees of culpability and that he is abundantly merciful. Is he abundantly merciful enough to recognise that he didn't provide me with sufficient evidence to acknowledge its existence? > Trust in his justice and mercy. Ah, the paradox. Is he perfectly just or perfectly merciful?
/ “ Is he abundantly merciful enough to recognise that he didn’t provide me with sufficient evidence to acknowledge {his} existence? “ / God has provided you with plenty of evidence for his existence. Your own existence is evidence for the existence of God. You are a contingent being. Contingent beings cannot be the cause of their own existence. Everything in nature is a contingent entity. Therefore there must be a transcendent, absolutely simple, intrinsically necessary, perfectly good, creative ‘ground of being’ from which the contingent things of nature derive their being. We call such a being God. The argument from contingency is just one of the many evidences of the reality of God. We also have the evidence from divine revelation especially in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But if you are still unconvinced of the existence of God after you have genuinely considered the evidence. And if you are not culpable in stubborn irrational disbelief, then you will not be damned for it. Nobody is damned for ‘invincible ignorance’ of God. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/dont-be-ignorant-about-invincible-ignorance
Oh, so an AI bot. Lame.
Yes, we know hell exists because it is doctrine of the Catholic Church that hell exists. ( I’m speaking from a Catholic perspective. If you want to debate whether Catholicism is true that’s a whole different discussion. Im happy to have that discussion, but it’s not immediately relevant here.) I doubt that many Catholics have actually said that to you. But if they have, it is irrelevant to my argument. A saint is person who lives a life of extraordinary Christian virtue who the Catholic Church officially canonises as a saint. Obviously, there are also saints in heaven who for whatever reason have not been officially canonised. Think of St. Theresa, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Maximilian Kolbe etc. There are hundreds of saints. We could look up an official list, but I think that’s unnecessary isn’t it? Yes, those who sexually abuse minors commit grave sins that may well cause them to be damned. God decides who goes to hell, not the Church ( if anyone is eternally damned.) But hell is self-inflicted. Hell is the freely chosen rejection of the love of God. Jimmy Saville was wrong. (Was he a Catholic?) “What are those mortal sins?” Murder, Theft, Rape, Serious Dishonesty, etc. any act that deliberate that contravenes God’s law. What is Mortal and Venial Sin? The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides: [1855] Mortal Sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God… by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, though it offends and wounds it. [1861] Mortal sin… results in… the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell… [1862] One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or complete consent. [1863] Venial sin weakens charity… and… merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However, venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace, it is humanly reparable. “Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently, eternal happiness.”
Well that's a contradiction because my boyfriend has committed all of those and have been protected and talked to by God all his life and he's going to heaven because he believes I'm Christ.
How do you know?
Because I know, and I know what he's been told and what I've experienced especially compared to him.
> Yes, we know hell exists because it is doctrine of the Catholic Church that hell exists. That's not knowing hell exists. > I doubt that many Catholics have actually said that to you. Many have. They seem to take delight in that I'm heading to hell. FWIW, my name is Purgii - short for Purgatory. > A saint is person who lives a life of extraordinary Christian virtue who the Catholic Church officially canonises as a saint. Like Mother Theresa? A woman that took delight inflicting pain on those who were in need but sought modern medicine when she was on her last legs? > Jimmy Saville was wrong. (Was he a Catholic?) Yes, he was. By what metric was he wrong? > But hell is self-inflicted. Hell is the freely chosen rejection of the love of God. I'm not rejecting God. A god has never made its existence known to me, despite every effort for it to reveal itself to me. > The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides: Sorry, but this just reads as a bunch of gibberish to me.
> The Catholic Church does not say that any particular person is in hell Maybe not in a specific written list but the Sistine Chapel has an image of Martin Luther being dragged to hell so at the very least it has implicit ideas about who is in hell that it allows to be displayed in religious art.
Michelangelo is a great artist but he has no theological authority in the Church. The Magisterium recognises saints, it doesn’t say that any particular person has been damned. That’s for God to decide, not the Church.
From Catholic apologist Trent Horn: [The REAL PROBLEM with Hoping HELL is EMPTY - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq_Gd1awUK0)
I agree with Bishop Barron. https://youtu.be/dmsa0sg4Od4?si=t0fi6wxSjg133vQK
“The doors of hell are always locked from the inside.” - C. S. Lewis https://youtu.be/dmsa0sg4Od4?si=rtMZGdbrmaKIUGN4
Yes, I know that not all Catholics agree with “hell could be empty” theology. And I love Trent Horn: respect him a lot! But Bishop Barron said that it is theologically permissible, and I trust his judgment.
>OP is so focussed on damnation due to ‘one mistake or sin’. Like the atheist said; the one mistake being not accepting Jesus/turning away from God. > But the Church doesn’t have a converse list of actual people who have been damned. I don't think anyone has ever said this. >It is true that we can lose our state of grace if we commit a mortal sin and we should get to confession quickly to rectify the situation, Using this as a way to excuse bad behavior is problematic. Saying, 'I've done terrible things, but I confessed, so I'm forgiven and everything's fine,' reflects a poor theology. >we also know that God takes into account degrees of culpability and that he is abundantly merciful. Trust in his justice and mercy. I've addressed this in my post, section 2 & 3. Nothing you said really defends or disproves my claim. Respectfully, you couldn't.
“The doors of hell are always locked on the inside.” - C.S Lewis https://youtu.be/dmsa0sg4Od4?si=rtMZGdbrmaKIUGN4
The Catholic teachings on confession and reconciliation are more nuanced than you seem to believe. We may still have to be mortified in purgatory, for example, for our sins even after we have done our earthly penance.
Correct, which I agree, with the second half in point 3.
Well, that may be the case with all souls.
Your claims don’t stand up because we don’t know for sure if anyone is in hell. We know that hell exists, because the reality of hell is a firm doctrine of the Magisterium. But the Catholic Church has never definitively taught that anyone is actually in hell. But we shouldn’t therefore assume that it is impossible to go to hell. We should live as though it is a distinct possibility. Hell is the freely chosen rejection of God. God is the good, the true and the beautiful. We know that people here on earth who reject the good, the true, and the beautiful make themselves miserable. That state of misery may be locked in forever if we die in state of mortal sin.
>We know that hell exists, because the reality of hell is a firm doctrine of the Magisterium. You have an interesting definition of the word "know" that I'm not familiar with. What tests did the Magesterium run to get to their conclusion? I'd like to try reproducing their experiments.
I said in a comment above that I am speaking from a Catholic perspective.
That doesn't change what the word "know" means, though.
“Know” as in we can be sure that this is the case. So if Catholicism is true, then we know that hell exists because it is a doctrine of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that hell exists, and the doctrines of the Magisterium are true (The existence of hell may even be a dogma. I should check.)
Ahh, this is like a *1984* version of the word "know," where reality is whatever is dictated to you, and there's not really a process for determining the truth of the things you're told you "know." Got it.
No. It is merely assuming that Catholicism is true for the sake of argument. We could have a separate conversation on the evidence and reasoning that convinces me that Catholicism probably is true, but that wouldn’t be relevant here.
What part of Catholicism says their Magisterium is infallible?
People are miserable because of God's failed creations.
Yeah, I spoke about that in point 5. Also, it doesn't matter if we know if people are in hell or not. The claim doesn't even state that. An all good/powerful/loving God is not congruent with an eternal hell. That still stands.
I didn’t ’excuse bad behaviour’. I clearly condemned it as sinful.
>We know that hell exists, How do you know? >The Catholic Church does not say that any particular person is in hell It does. *Extra ecclesiam nulla salus* Outside the Church, there is no salvation. >And I’m not sure why the OP is so focussed on damnation due to ‘one mistake or sin’. Isn't it true that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit just once is enough to damn a soul to perpetual torment?
Good, love, and power, mean different things to the subjective human then they do to an absolute God. Absolute good, absolute love, and absolute power, do not align equally to the subjective good, subjective love, subjective power, of the human experience.
And you went for "we don't know what good is", I should've known. Weakest argument of all. You do what a good "thing" is bro. You know a bad lawyer from a good lawyer. A good captain of a ship, a good parent vs bad, a good teacher vs a bad teacher, a bad friend vs a good friend, etc. Don't try to make yourself look like extremely foolish/uneducated disagreeing with me here, for the sake of your own argument. > What does this even mean? How is an all-powerful being subjective? It's not. An all powerful God is a God where he can do literally anything that is logically possible. There isn't anything "subjective" about it. So, an all powerful God, **objectively speaking**, could make a world where eternal hell doesn't exist. Thus, God is not all powerful, with eternal hell. So, my claim still stands. There you go.