Fair enough; but what I often see is atheists playing up apparently contradictory caricactures of Christian belief, rather than anything grounded in actual doctrine. I can’t speak for Catholics, but I rather doubt anyone on their side of the aisle seriously argued that “Hell is chock full of people who ate meat on Friday,” being damned for that reason alone. And on the Protestant side? Oh, yeah, I suppose all mainstream Protestants are exactly equivalent to Biblical literalists, as someone asserted upthread. :rolleyes:
In short, your brand of atheism is rather boring. Dio is more interesting, if he doesn’t mind my saying so, as he seems to be thoroughly familiar with Christian doctrine – and angry at it, and at God. Of course I can’t speak for him either, but that’s the way I hear (or mishear) what he’s saying.
Yes, because God created you in exactly the manner that would cause/allow you to make the particular decisions that would lead you to eternal damnation.
In other words, maybe I could have not committed adultery yesterday (hypothetically) but I did so because God didn’t give me enough self-control. I can’t see how the argument could be made that it is MY fault, when it is God who gave me the genetics, personality, temperment, and experiences that have led me to be who I am and the choices that I make. AND he knew all of these things beforehand!
Well, I suppose that’s why Jesus warned not to judge anyone but leave judgment to God; since God is the only one who can discern what part your own free will (rather than your glands) played in your action.
I think the misconception is that God is walking around with a rule book looking for excuses to throw people down into the fiery pit. That would be cruel, but that’s not the message I get from Christianity: rather, the rules are there to give you guidance on how to move closer (or away from) God.
It was the Jewish sects of the time, for example, that criticized Jesus for healing people on the Sabbath: but JC came back with, “the Sabbath was created for man, not vice versa, Holmes.” The rules don’t count if it gets in the way of what they were intended for, in other words. And the two big “what fors” are (1) love God with every ounce of your being, and (2) love the people around you as you do yourself. If someone is willfully defiant on these two big guidelines, then that’s a much bigger problem then eating meat on Friday or whacking off to Hustler cause otherwise you’re gonna explode, right?
IMHO, because those people/souls need that level of refinement to come to Jesus and is not eternal, though Hell itself, or the Lake of Fire may be eternal. The only aspect that may suffer eternally is aspects of God Himself, not creation. As Satan never created anything, everything comes from God, including all of Satan’s power. God may be refining Himself which is the exact pattern He puts us through.
Maybe people wonder how such a god can exist at all, since it doesn’t make any sense.
But here’s something that’s even more obviously a problem:
If there is a Biblical god who manages hell, why wasn’t it inspired into the texts of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy?
The Torah, or Pentateuch, simply is the Bible for Judaism. All the other books of the Tanakh are “other inspired writings” but don’t have the same force of authority.
Only by Christian reasoning is the Tanakh (“Old Testament”) now subject to the greater authority of the Gospels and Epistles of the Greek Testament. And it still wouldn’t make any sense. Why were warnings not issued to Adam, Eve, Cain, Ham, the Pharoah, various rebels, and so on?
I dunno. I’m perfectly willing to accept that the “concept” of Hell hadn’t yet taken its current form when the Old Testament books were written. I’m not even sure what Hell really is supposed to be now, except that it’s bad. To me, at the end of the day all such books are written by humans making their best guess (maybe with divine inspiration, maybe not) at something that’s ultimately unknowable in the absence of what God chooses to reveal about himself.
It’s an implicit admission that it’s all fantasy. That people believe not just in God, but that God acts a particular way and has a particular attitude because otherwise the fantasy isn’t satisfying, and what’s the point then? An unfair God is unbelievable because it doesn’t fit the fantasy. No matter how awful God’s supposed actions are, they have to be just; not because there’s any rational reason to think so, but because otherwise the fantasy isn’t satisfying.
The reason why is God does not impose additional rules/laws/curses until a former law is broken.
The very first and only IMHO rule in paradise is be ‘fruitful and multiply’, it is also the rule given to Noah and family once he steps out of the ark. It was a violation of this rule that allowed others to be imposed IMHO. Under this line, Eve did something to prevent a child from coming to life, the curses on Eve were basically reproductive and subordination to the man, both were guide rails that God imposed to hopefully correct her. The temptation that the serpent used on Eve was the same reason young women want to avoid pregnancy, to be attractive, stay in school, hold a career ( From Gen 3 - pleasing to the eye, desirable for gaining wisdom, good for food). Also A&E’s 1st child was a problem child (Cain), which is the outcome (fruit) of the (family) tree of knowledge of good and evil.
When people disobey God, things get harder for them, as more is imposed on them, this multiplies over time, eventually getting God’s people into slavery and the like, but God does raise up someone to bring them back time and time again.
I’m fairly certain that Hell does not exist. I’m entirely certain that a God willing to send his creations to an eternity of flame, torment, and being eaten by worms is a villain of the lowest order. I feel safe in saying this because if such a deity exists, I am already going to hell.
I think that many people who say that so-and-so is going to hell for all eternity really don’t think about what that means. Never-ending torments. Not just for a few centuries or millenia. One would think that after a few million years, even Hitler or Pol Pot would get the point.
It’s mind-boggling.
I know, the fact is, even Hitler doesn’t deserve *eternal *torment. A sane god might make him experience pain to balance off all the joy he stole from other people, but fuck, 900 trillion years from now he’s not even 1% done? Only a god who is a much worse monster than Hitler ever was would do such a thing.
And the fact that he’d be throwing around this ultimate punishment for banal trivialities, like not worshiping him enough. Bleah.
No he doesn’t love anyone in hell*. In fact, why would you want that sadistic monster’s love?
[ for the purposes of this thread assuming that God actually existed of course.]*
I brought up the eternal torment point on another board and someone responded that, while it didn’t make sense to them either, the flip side was eternal delight in heaven.
They didn’t actually respond to the hell point, however.
I never could understand that line of thought. If I make it to Heaven, how am I supposed to feel good about people I know who didn’t make the grade suffering in eternal torment? If I’m not the type of guy that could enjoy eating a triple scoop of Ben And Jerry’s Cherry Garcia while watching children starve to death in front of me, why would any religion assume I wouldn’t be bothered by the very thought of a Hell existing?
As I understand it, being able to watch the damned scream in agony forever was originally touted as one of the pleasures of heaven.
Do keep in mind that Christianity has historically been all about justifying self indulgence, aggression and ruthlessness. You were supposed to be the sort of person who could massacre a city of unbelievers, loot nations to the ground, rape every woman you could catch, grind the peasants underfoot and feel like you were a model human being for doing so. It was not supposed to encourage people to be nice. It was supposed to encourage and excuse barbarism and tyranny. Hell no doubt sounds a lot more just in the ears of people who have no problem at all torturing people on a regular basis.
But the opposite is just as scary, or at least unfair. If god is unlimited forgiveness, then Hitler’s in Heaven right now, composing *Bierlieder *on a golden lyre. I could see how new entrants to Heaven could be a bit… miffed… about such state of affairs.
In the end, when you start throwing “everlasting” and “ultimate” in the equation, there’s really no justice to be had. If there is a god, and he loves and cherishes everyone equally, then he’s an asshole. If he doesn’t, and damns some people, he’s an asshole too.
Well, I’d say torturing bad people for awhile (say, having the pain they caused inflicted upon them x2) then giving them oblivion would be reasonable.
Also, if Hitler suffered the pain to equal out the joy that every person he caused to die never had a chance to feel, I think I’d have not much of a problem with him showing up at harp class.
But yeah, it’s really silly no matter which way you slice it.
What’s a bad time, when there’s everlasting bliss after it ? Isn’t that the whole Christian shtick down here ? “Don’t worry, your life might suck from beginning to end, but it’s gonna be worth it because after that, you’ve got eternity”.
You can punish Hitler for a billion years, doesn’t really change the fact that he’d *still *have blissful eternity after that. Eternity minus a billion years is still eternity… which is the consolation prize given to people who got harmed by people like Hitler.
No, really. Worm food is not only more likely, it’s more comforting.
No. I think Fromm was onto something in his book ‘the art of loving’. In it he describes 4 traits necessary to have mature love.
Care
Responsibility
Respect
Understanding
You have to care about another person’s feelings or needs, have a feeling of obligation to them (to help them when they are down) aka responsibility, respect their individuality and to understand what makes them tick.
Fromm felt that w/o those 4 ingredients, you can’t have mature love.
If God sends people to hell, he violates 3 of those 4 rules.
He doesn’t care because he sends people to be tortured. If God cared, he’d avoid torturing them
He doesn’t have responsibility because he doesn’t try to get them out. If God had responsibility to those he loved, he wouldn’t feel ‘right’ allowing people to be tortured w/o trying to help them.
He doesn’t have respect because god treats people as objects designed to service him (who deserve to be punished for failing) rather than as individuals. If God had respect he’d let individuals live their own lives w/o possession or jealous control.
So no. I trust my psychobabble over god. I love being a liberal hipster. Who wants to play hackey sack.
On another note, it is sad that traits associated with domestic violence are held up as the ideal form of love. no wonder western civilization is so fucked up.
There is some room in the middle between “loves everyone equally” and “tortures for eternity”. Maybe in heaven Hitler ends up being the shoe shine boy while a better person lives in a 4,500 sq. foot home. I dunno…