FSTDT Forums

Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Skybison on September 07, 2018, 02:05:23 pm

Title: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Skybison on September 07, 2018, 02:05:23 pm
Heaven is supposed to be a prefect paradise where those who go there are in a state of perfect bliss.

But here's the thing, the strongest emotion most people feel is love for their children (there are exceptions of course and that's fine, but still the majority).  But what if a parent gets into heaven but his or her child goes to hell?  How could the parents possibly experience perfect bliss if their child was being tortured in hell?  Wouldn't this be a deeply horrible and traumatic life for the parents?  Same for other close relationships: Lovers, siblings, friends etc how could anyone be happy in heaven if someone they cared about was in hell?  I ask you Jacob, could you be happy in heaven if someone you cared about was in the lake of fire?
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 07, 2018, 02:10:29 pm
Heaven is supposed to be a prefect paradise where those who go there are in a state of perfect bliss.

But here's the thing, the strongest emotion most people feel is love for their children (there are exceptions of course and that's fine, but still the majority).  But what if a parent gets into heaven but his or her child goes to hell?  How could the parents possibly experience perfect bliss if their child was being tortured in hell?  Wouldn't this be a deeply horrible and traumatic life for the parents?  Same for other close relationships: Lovers, siblings, friends etc how could anyone be happy in heaven if someone they cared about was in hell?  I ask you Jacob, could you be happy in heaven if someone you cared about was in the lake of fire?

The bible says that God will wipe away every tear, which means that God will make the parents happy even though their children are damned.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Skybison on September 07, 2018, 02:33:24 pm
Would you want that to happen Jacob?  Let's say it's you and your daughter is sent to hell, would you want God to force you to be happy while she suffers?
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: dpareja on September 07, 2018, 02:48:53 pm
So basically, in Heaven, you're lobotomized.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 07, 2018, 03:10:11 pm
Would you want that to happen Jacob?  Let's say it's you and your daughter is sent to hell, would you want God to force you to be happy while she suffers?

Of course I wouldn’t want that to happen. I would want her to be in heaven too which is why I would strive to raise my daughter to be a good Christian to prevent that from happening.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Skybison on September 07, 2018, 03:18:26 pm
But what if you failed?  Would you want God to take away your love for her and force you to be happy with mind control, or whatever you think he's going to do?  Because I can't see many parents finding that idea good.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 07, 2018, 03:52:56 pm
But what if you failed?  Would you want God to take away your love for her and force you to be happy with mind control, or whatever you think he's going to do?  Because I can't see many parents finding that idea good.

Well she would suffer less in hell knowing that I am not suffering because of her suffering.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: dpareja on September 07, 2018, 04:41:43 pm
Or she would suffer more knowing that you can't even feel for her suffering.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 07, 2018, 06:20:07 pm
Heaven is supposed to be a prefect paradise where those who go there are in a state of perfect bliss.

But here's the thing, the strongest emotion most people feel is love for their children (there are exceptions of course and that's fine, but still the majority).  But what if a parent gets into heaven but his or her child goes to hell?  How could the parents possibly experience perfect bliss if their child was being tortured in hell?  Wouldn't this be a deeply horrible and traumatic life for the parents?  Same for other close relationships: Lovers, siblings, friends etc how could anyone be happy in heaven if someone they cared about was in hell?  I ask you Jacob, could you be happy in heaven if someone you cared about was in the lake of fire?

The bible says that God will wipe away every tear, which means that God will make the parents happy even though their children are damned.
So, God is this...

(http://cdn2us.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeekus/files/styles/main_wide/public/borg.jpg?itok=p3dkTNyq)

Join the perfect society but surrender control of your consciousness.

And does this...

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5d/10/04/5d1004e72b4c5c602d6c3fa69f6b4e10.jpg)

Billy used to cry all the time, now he can't cry at all!
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 07, 2018, 06:59:14 pm
Or she would suffer more knowing that you can't even feel for her suffering.

Ok so while I wouldn’t want to have my mind changed to not make me upset about her suffering, it is what God does in order to make heaven a happy place. I can’t go against it because God is God.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: dpareja on September 07, 2018, 07:13:32 pm
So you're fine with not being you in Heaven, got it.

As for God being God, your "God" is a monster who doesn't deserve your respect, never mind worship.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 07, 2018, 10:37:48 pm
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 08, 2018, 07:20:20 am
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.

But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 08, 2018, 09:01:27 am
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.
But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.
Even if that were true, God created Satan with the ability to create evil while knowing full well what the end result was going to be.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 08, 2018, 10:12:31 am
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.
But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.
Even if that were true, God created Satan with the ability to create evil while knowing full well what the end result was going to be.

Satan had the free will to chose whether to be good or evil. He chose evil.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 08, 2018, 10:21:37 am
Satan had the free will to chose whether to be good or evil. He chose evil.
Bullshit. God is omnipotent and omniscient. As with every single one of his other creations, he 100% knew every last "choice" Satan would make from the moment he was created.

Honestly, it's kind of amazing just how many Christian apologists' talking points are debunked by the simple fact that their creator of everything is all-knowing and all-powerful. You know your beliefs are a special kind of retarded when they basically disprove themselves.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: dpareja on September 08, 2018, 10:53:12 am
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.

But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.

HEATHEN!

Isaiah 45:7:

Quote
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 08, 2018, 11:00:48 am
Satan had the free will to chose whether to be good or evil. He chose evil.
Bullshit. God is omnipotent and omniscient. As with every single one of his other creations, he 100% knew every last "choice" Satan would make from the moment he was created.

Honestly, it's kind of amazing just how many Christian apologists' talking points are debunked by the simple fact that their creator of everything is all-knowing and all-powerful. You know your beliefs are a special kind of retarded when they basically disprove themselves.

You are promoting the heresy of Calvinism. People have the free will to determine their fate. God knows all the possibilities, but it isn’t until people make their choices that the wave function collapses.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 08, 2018, 11:01:39 am
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.

But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.

HEATHEN!

Isaiah 45:7:

Quote
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

According to Dhouy Rheims Bible Online

"Create evil": The evils of afflictions and punishments, but not the evil of sin.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: dpareja on September 08, 2018, 11:03:03 am
And since the only thing that "afflictions and punishments" are necessary for is... afflictions and punishments, your God is not omnipotent since whatever ends are otherwise served by such could be served without such.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 08, 2018, 11:05:20 am
You are promoting the heresy of Calvinism. People have the free will to determine their fate. God knows all the possibilities, but it isn’t until people make their choices that the wave function collapses.
So, are you saying there are certain things even God can't or doesn't know? If so, it is you who is the heretic (not that I can even be a heretic in the first place, as I am most definitely not a Christian).
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 08, 2018, 12:59:37 pm
And since the only thing that "afflictions and punishments" are necessary for is... afflictions and punishments, your God is not omnipotent since whatever ends are otherwise served by such could be served without such.

WHAT?! I’m confused. Ends served by what?
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 08, 2018, 01:02:50 pm
You are promoting the heresy of Calvinism. People have the free will to determine their fate. God knows all the possibilities, but it isn’t until people make their choices that the wave function collapses.
So, are you saying there are certain things even God can't or doesn't know? If so, it is you who is the heretic (not that I can even be a heretic in the first place, as I am most definitely not a Christian).

He is still omniscient by knowing all the possibilities. He knows everything however everything in existence, however the future contains things that haven’t happened in existence yet. Using your absurd logic, all the non Calvinists are heretics.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 08, 2018, 01:14:54 pm
He is still omniscient by knowing all the possibilities. He knows everything however everything in existence, however the future contains things that haven’t happened in existence yet. Using your absurd logic, all the non Calvinists are heretics.
That's not what omniscient means. Omniscient means knowing absolutely everything. If he doesn't know exactly what choice someone is going to make at any given time, then that is a thing he does not know. I.E, he is not actually omniscient. See why omniscience and free will contradict one another?
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: dpareja on September 08, 2018, 01:30:31 pm
And since the only thing that "afflictions and punishments" are necessary for is... afflictions and punishments, your God is not omnipotent since whatever ends are otherwise served by such could be served without such.

WHAT?! I’m confused. Ends served by what?

God either creates "afflictions and punishments" for some purpose (whether that purpose is afflictions and punishments or something else) or they are capricious and unnecessary.

If they are created for some purpose other than themselves, then either God could use some other means and chooses not to (in which case it is evil), or cannot use some other means, in which it is not omnipotent.

If they are created for their own purpose, then God is evil.

If they are capricious and unnecessary, then God is evil.

God is evil or not omnipotent.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 08, 2018, 01:59:36 pm
He is still omniscient by knowing all the possibilities. He knows everything however everything in existence, however the future contains things that haven’t happened in existence yet. Using your absurd logic, all the non Calvinists are heretics.
That's not what omniscient means. Omniscient means knowing absolutely everything. If he doesn't know exactly what choice someone is going to make at any given time, then that is a thing he does not know. I.E, he is not actually omniscient. See why omniscience and free will contradict one another?

It is true that omniscient means knowing everything, however the future of what choice someone makes is not knowable and doesn’t count as part of everything because it didn’t happen yet.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 08, 2018, 02:04:00 pm
And since the only thing that "afflictions and punishments" are necessary for is... afflictions and punishments, your God is not omnipotent since whatever ends are otherwise served by such could be served without such.

WHAT?! I’m confused. Ends served by what?

God either creates "afflictions and punishments" for some purpose (whether that purpose is afflictions and punishments or something else) or they are capricious and unnecessary.

If they are created for some purpose other than themselves, then either God could use some other means and chooses not to (in which case it is evil), or cannot use some other means, in which it is not omnipotent.

If they are created for their own purpose, then God is evil.

If they are capricious and unnecessary, then God is evil.

God is evil or not omnipotent.

I don’t see how afflictions and punishments created for their own purposes are evil. It is God punishing the wicked.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Skybison on September 08, 2018, 03:16:48 pm
But doesn't this post mean he is punishing you as well?

Or she would suffer more knowing that you can't even feel for her suffering.

Ok so while I wouldn’t want to have my mind changed to not make me upset about her suffering, it is what God does in order to make heaven a happy place. I can’t go against it because God is God.

If God did that to you against your will, doesn't that mean God is a bad person?
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 08, 2018, 03:21:31 pm
But doesn't this post mean he is punishing you as well?

Or she would suffer more knowing that you can't even feel for her suffering.

Ok so while I wouldn’t want to have my mind changed to not make me upset about her suffering, it is what God does in order to make heaven a happy place. I can’t go against it because God is God.

If God did that to you against your will, doesn't that mean God is a bad person?

But it would be for a just reason, which is to make heaven a happy place with no suffering.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 08, 2018, 09:26:30 pm
It is true that omniscient means knowing everything, however the future of what choice someone makes is not knowable and doesn’t count as part of everything because it didn’t happen yet.
No, not how it works. If he doesn't know a thing, any thing at all, he's not actually omniscient. Stop trying to bullshit your way out of it, you're not fooling anyone.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 09, 2018, 03:55:48 am
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.

But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.

Not according to the bible.

Quote
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things

Behold, this evil is of the Lord. 2 Kings 6:33

What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38

Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. Job 42:11
Your bullshit Catholic Douay-Rheims interpretation notwithstanding.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 09, 2018, 07:45:54 am
It is true that omniscient means knowing everything, however the future of what choice someone makes is not knowable and doesn’t count as part of everything because it didn’t happen yet.
No, not how it works. If he doesn't know a thing, any thing at all, he's not actually omniscient. Stop trying to bullshit your way out of it, you're not fooling anyone.

From the wikipedia

“Other means of reconciling God's omniscience with human free will have been proposed. Some have attempted to redefine or reconceptualize free will:

God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be understood only as freedom from coercion, and anything further is an illusion. This is the move made by compatibilistic philosophies.
The sovereignty (autonomy) of God, existing within a free agent, provides strong inner compulsions toward a course of action (calling), and the power of choice (election). The actions of a human are thus determined by a human acting on relatively strong or weak urges (both from God and the environment around them) and their own relative power to choose.[4]
A proposition first offered by Boethius[5] and later by Thomas Aquinas[note 2] and C. S. Lewis, suggests that God's perception of time is different, and that this is relevant to our understanding of our own free will. In his book Mere Christianity, Lewis argues that God is actually outside time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but rather simply observes them all at once. He explains:

But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today". All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.[6]”
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 09, 2018, 07:48:08 am
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.

But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.

Not according to the bible.

Quote
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things

Behold, this evil is of the Lord. 2 Kings 6:33

What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38

Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. Job 42:11
Your bullshit Catholic Douay-Rheims interpretation notwithstanding.

The evils of afflictions and punishments clearly refers to those things. The Douay-Rheims interpretation withstanding.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 09, 2018, 08:20:03 am
Alright, let's see what you've got.
Quote from: Wikipeds
God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be understood only as freedom from coercion, and anything further is an illusion. This is the move made by compatibilistic philosophies.
Basically, God is indeed omniscient and free will is non-existent. Especially so when you consider God is all powerful and the creator of everything. In other words, pretty much exactly what I've been saying from the start.
Quote from: Wikipeds
The sovereignty (autonomy) of God, existing within a free agent, provides strong inner compulsions toward a course of action (calling), and the power of choice (election). The actions of a human are thus determined by a human acting on relatively strong or weak urges (both from God and the environment around them) and their own relative power to choose.[4]
Once again, falls apart when you remember that God is omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of everything. Humans only have as much "power of choice" as God gave them, and the exact choices were known from the moment of creation. Once again, no actual free will.
Quote from: Wikipeds
A proposition first offered by Boethius[5] and later by Thomas Aquinas[note 2] and C. S. Lewis, suggests that God's perception of time is different, and that this is relevant to our understanding of our own free will. In his book Mere Christianity, Lewis argues that God is actually outside time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but rather simply observes them all at once. He explains:

But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today". All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.[6]”
Meaning the future is just as set in stone as the past, which kind of does the opposite of prove that free will and omniscience are compatible.

Never mind reality, Christians can't even reconcile their own lore with itself. To quote one of the truly greatest deities of all time, "that would be funny, if it weren't so sad".
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Askold on September 09, 2018, 09:46:29 am
We have had this debate before and I still don't think that someone or something knowing everything that is going happen removes free will.

I think the example I used was that if I use a time machine or spell or whatever to look at what you have for breakfast tomorrow and then come back, does it really matter? As long as I myself won't do anything that would change the future, the future will play out the way I saw it, but this does not mean that you won't make the choices out of your free will.

It does mean that I have knowledge of how things will work out unless I change anything before it happens and that gives me the power to attempt to change the future by doing something that wasn't in the original timeline.

This means that God being omniscient doesn't (at least in my understanding) remove free will from anyone but does mean God would have the necessary information to prevent tragedies and wrongdoings. (but that would interfere with free will which humans were promised to have depending on the methods used.)
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 09, 2018, 10:24:27 am
Personally, I would argue that such a scenario would prove that free will doesn't exist. Our choices are 100% predictable, if not outright predetermined, which is functionally the same. Which in my view makes perfect sense, since I would also argue that basic neurology already disproves free will. Our decision making is bog standard information processing, exactly the same principle as a computer, just with neurons instead of transistors. It's unfathomably complex, both in terms of the inputs and outputs as well as how they're processed, but no less governed by simple causality as literally anything else that exists. Unintuitive as it may seem, we're not exercising free will any more in our choices than a rock is choosing to roll down hill.

But that's a bit of a semi-related tangent at best. In the case of an all knowing and all powerful creator who designed humans and the rest of the universe down to every last insignificant detail, it's absolutely not possible. Everything that has happened and will ever happen was set in stone from the very beginning by design. You're no more capable of choosing something God didn't intend than rain is capable of falling up.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 09, 2018, 12:24:31 pm
Askold is right, traveling to the future and seeing what decisions are made, does not have an affect on the decisions made, because they get observed after a decision is made. You can travel into the future and see someone having donuts for breakfast, or you can see someone having pancakes. It does not affect that person’s decision whether to have donuts or pancakes.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 09, 2018, 12:28:32 pm
I'm quite sure I addressed everything you said in my reply to Askold.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 09, 2018, 12:41:38 pm
I'm quite sure I addressed everything you said in my reply to Askold.

And I explained how seeing what that person eats for breakfast in the future does not mean that it is predetermined because you see what that person choses to eat.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 09, 2018, 12:49:04 pm
You did not explain anything, you just repeated what Askold said.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 09, 2018, 01:22:17 pm
You did not explain anything, you just repeated what Askold said.

I was replying to your reply, saying that such a scenario does not disprove free will and explaining why.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 09, 2018, 01:36:59 pm
You made exactly the same argument as Askold. Just because you worded it slightly differently doesn't mean you've actually added anything to it.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 09, 2018, 01:53:30 pm
You made exactly the same argument as Askold. Just because you worded it slightly differently doesn't mean you've actually added anything to it.

I added the additional point that seeing someone eating breakfast in the future has no affect on that person making that decision. I don’t think Askold mentioned that.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Askold on September 09, 2018, 03:58:55 pm
Personally, I would argue that such a scenario would prove that free will doesn't exist. Our choices are 100% predictable, if not outright predetermined, which is functionally the same.

How does that work? Just because the result is known in advance by a separate entity that doesn't mean that the entity that is the subject in this scenario isn't making the choices out of their free will. They have their own motivations and aspirations. And this is the philosophical difference that we have. You argue that knowing the next step that a person does is the same as that person not having a choice to do anything else. I argue that the fundamental difference is that the person does that choice out of their free will because nothing is forcing them to make that choice. They could have done something different and the only thing changing in the scenario is that the omnipresent observer would have seen them doing that other thing.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 09, 2018, 04:09:25 pm
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.

But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.

Not according to the bible.

Quote
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things

Behold, this evil is of the Lord. 2 Kings 6:33

What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38

Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. Job 42:11
Your bullshit Catholic Douay-Rheims interpretation notwithstanding.

The evils of afflictions and punishments clearly refers to those things. The Douay-Rheims interpretation withstanding.
Special pleading bollocks. Also your habit of throwing in nonexistent psuedolegal clauses and loopholes doesn't alter the fact that they weren't there in the original text. It only shows that the Catholics, among others, intuitively understand that the bible is unethical so they're forced to make up reasons to make it reasonable from whole cloth because they sure as shit know they won't find the justification for their apologetics in the bible!
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 09, 2018, 05:20:01 pm
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.

But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.

Not according to the bible.

Quote
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things

Behold, this evil is of the Lord. 2 Kings 6:33

What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38

Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. Job 42:11
Your bullshit Catholic Douay-Rheims interpretation notwithstanding.

The evils of afflictions and punishments clearly refers to those things. The Douay-Rheims interpretation withstanding.
Special pleading bollocks. Also your habit of throwing in nonexistent psuedolegal clauses and loopholes doesn't alter the fact that they weren't there in the original text. It only shows that the Catholics, among others, intuitively understand that the bible is unethical so they're forced to make up reasons to make it reasonable from whole cloth because they sure as shit know they won't find the justification for their apologetics in the bible!

According to Catholic Answers, the Hebrew word Ra that was translated as evil can mean moral evil but also mean natural evil like it does in the verses you quoted. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-god-create-evil
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 09, 2018, 05:44:37 pm
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.

But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.

Not according to the bible.

Quote
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things

Behold, this evil is of the Lord. 2 Kings 6:33

What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38

Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. Job 42:11
Your bullshit Catholic Douay-Rheims interpretation notwithstanding.

The evils of afflictions and punishments clearly refers to those things. The Douay-Rheims interpretation withstanding.
Special pleading bollocks. Also your habit of throwing in nonexistent psuedolegal clauses and loopholes doesn't alter the fact that they weren't there in the original text. It only shows that the Catholics, among others, intuitively understand that the bible is unethical so they're forced to make up reasons to make it reasonable from whole cloth because they sure as shit know they won't find the justification for their apologetics in the bible!

According to Catholic Answers, the Hebrew word Ra that was translated as evil can mean moral evil but also mean natural evil like it does in the verses you quoted. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-god-create-evil
And that little factoid doesn't change the fact that you and the rest of the bible apologetics industry chooses to interpret words, phrases and passages by assuming information not explicitly contained in the words they cite or adding clauses out of thin air to make the most troubling content seem not so bad by giving them a context that was never there in the first place.

Just admit that iron age biblical morality is out of step with even medieval church morality because it's as arbitrary, inconsistent and savage as the world the Israelites lived in and stop trying to polish a turd.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 09, 2018, 07:43:38 pm
This is why if Christianity were actually real, Satan would be the good guy while God is the most unwiped anus of them all.

But Satan invented evil and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world.

Not according to the bible.

Quote
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things

Behold, this evil is of the Lord. 2 Kings 6:33

What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38

Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. Job 42:11
Your bullshit Catholic Douay-Rheims interpretation notwithstanding.

The evils of afflictions and punishments clearly refers to those things. The Douay-Rheims interpretation withstanding.
Special pleading bollocks. Also your habit of throwing in nonexistent psuedolegal clauses and loopholes doesn't alter the fact that they weren't there in the original text. It only shows that the Catholics, among others, intuitively understand that the bible is unethical so they're forced to make up reasons to make it reasonable from whole cloth because they sure as shit know they won't find the justification for their apologetics in the bible!

According to Catholic Answers, the Hebrew word Ra that was translated as evil can mean moral evil but also mean natural evil like it does in the verses you quoted. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-god-create-evil
And that little factoid doesn't change the fact that you and the rest of the bible apologetics industry chooses to interpret words, phrases and passages by assuming information not explicitly contained in the words they cite or adding clauses out of thin air to make the most troubling content seem not so bad by giving them a context that was never there in the first place.

Just admit that iron age biblical morality is out of step with even medieval church morality because it's as arbitrary, inconsistent and savage as the world the Israelites lived in and stop trying to polish a turd.

They are not assuming information, they studied what the Hebrew word Ra means. What is absurd is that you think that the writers of the Old Testament thought that the God they worship was evil and it contradicts the Old Testament verses that talk about how those who obey God are righteous and those who go against God are wicked.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 09, 2018, 09:36:48 pm
And you're assuming that your universal dictator was bound by the same expectations that his mortal followers were, they are extolled not to be wicked-the boss man can be as wicked as he likes!
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 09, 2018, 11:25:16 pm
I added the additional point that seeing someone eating breakfast in the future has no affect on that person making that decision. I don’t think Askold mentioned that.
That was exactly his point in the first place, Einstein. Jesus fucking Christ, you are so brain dead, it's nothing short of a miracle that you can even work a computer at all.
How does that work? Just because the result is known in advance by a separate entity that doesn't mean that the entity that is the subject in this scenario isn't making the choices out of their free will. They have their own motivations and aspirations. And this is the philosophical difference that we have. You argue that knowing the next step that a person does is the same as that person not having a choice to do anything else. I argue that the fundamental difference is that the person does that choice out of their free will because nothing is forcing them to make that choice. They could have done something different and the only thing changing in the scenario is that the omnipresent observer would have seen them doing that other thing.
Someone or something being able to know a choice in advance would prove that choices are completely predictable, which in turn would prove that our choices are just as much a result of simple causality, incredibly complex as the specific mechanics may be, as anything else. It's all ultimately just a matter of if x input, then y output. Though I've already said all this, so no need to repeat myself.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Askold on September 10, 2018, 07:54:27 am
I added the additional point that seeing someone eating breakfast in the future has no affect on that person making that decision. I don’t think Askold mentioned that.
That was exactly his point in the first place, Einstein. Jesus fucking Christ, you are so brain dead, it's nothing short of a miracle that you can even work a computer at all.
How does that work? Just because the result is known in advance by a separate entity that doesn't mean that the entity that is the subject in this scenario isn't making the choices out of their free will. They have their own motivations and aspirations. And this is the philosophical difference that we have. You argue that knowing the next step that a person does is the same as that person not having a choice to do anything else. I argue that the fundamental difference is that the person does that choice out of their free will because nothing is forcing them to make that choice. They could have done something different and the only thing changing in the scenario is that the omnipresent observer would have seen them doing that other thing.
Someone or something being able to know a choice in advance would prove that choices are completely predictable, which in turn would prove that our choices are just as much a result of simple causality, incredibly complex as the specific mechanics may be, as anything else. It's all ultimately just a matter of if x input, then y output. Though I've already said all this, so no need to repeat myself.

We are going through this again and again because I disagree with the entire philosophical argument.

Does free will demand that there be multiple paths? How can such a thing be proven true or false if it is required? And this is not a case of "no matter which button you push, the result is still the same" nor does this type of world view demand that people are controlled into making the actions they make. I just don't see how knowing the result beforehand means that the person acting did not act out of their free will.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 10, 2018, 08:21:20 am
Does free will demand that there be multiple paths? How can such a thing be proven true or false if it is required? And this is not a case of "no matter which button you push, the result is still the same" nor does this type of world view demand that people are controlled into making the actions they make. I just don't see how knowing the result beforehand means that the person acting did not act out of their free will.
I suppose genuine multiple possibilities are indeed necessary. That's really the key difference between actual free will and merely the illusion of free will, is it not? If there's only one actual possibility, then there's no real choice being made. Hell, what even is free will in the first place, particularly in terms of brain function? Because I really don't see how an incredibly complex but nonetheless perfectly knowable system of information processing has some sort of vague, almost supernatural power of self-determination.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 10, 2018, 01:59:57 pm
And you're assuming that your universal dictator was bound by the same expectations that his mortal followers were, they are extolled not to be wicked-the boss man can be as wicked as he likes!

But that doesn't make sense. Why would a wicked God forbid his followers from acting wicked. Wouldn't he want them too?
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: dpareja on September 10, 2018, 02:22:22 pm
Maybe because God is a massive hypocrite.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 10, 2018, 02:59:16 pm
And you're assuming that your universal dictator was bound by the same expectations that his mortal followers were, they are extolled not to be wicked-the boss man can be as wicked as he likes!

But that doesn't make sense. Why would a wicked God forbid his followers from acting wicked. Wouldn't he want them too?
Because that's his prerogative in biblical "morality," it's why in the story of Job God is portrayed as totally justified sending the Devil off to kill his family, break his property and ruin him in order to test his faith, because he's God and he gets a pass. He even tells Job as much when the poor son of a bitch has the gall to ask what he's done wromg.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 10, 2018, 08:19:57 pm
But that doesn't make sense. Why would a wicked God forbid his followers from acting wicked. Wouldn't he want them too?
Because the Bible is a very loose and inconsistent compilation of bronze age myths that nobody with more than two brains cells to rub together should ever think is literally true. Not only does it contradict reality, but it contradicts itself at almost every turn.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: KingOfRhye on September 10, 2018, 09:54:33 pm
Does free will demand that there be multiple paths?

There are two paths you can go by, but in the long run there's still time to change the road you're on.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Skybison on September 12, 2018, 12:21:07 am
But doesn't this post mean he is punishing you as well?

Or she would suffer more knowing that you can't even feel for her suffering.

Ok so while I wouldn’t want to have my mind changed to not make me upset about her suffering, it is what God does in order to make heaven a happy place. I can’t go against it because God is God.

If God did that to you against your will, doesn't that mean God is a bad person?

But it would be for a just reason, which is to make heaven a happy place with no suffering.

Why would that be just?  Forcing people to be happy a bad thing to do, because there is more to life then happiness.  That's why you would rather keep your love for the damned then lose it.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 12, 2018, 07:46:44 am
But doesn't this post mean he is punishing you as well?

Or she would suffer more knowing that you can't even feel for her suffering.

Ok so while I wouldn’t want to have my mind changed to not make me upset about her suffering, it is what God does in order to make heaven a happy place. I can’t go against it because God is God.

If God did that to you against your will, doesn't that mean God is a bad person?

But it would be for a just reason, which is to make heaven a happy place with no suffering.

Why would that be just?  Forcing people to be happy a bad thing to do, because there is more to life then happiness.  That's why you would rather keep your love for the damned then lose it.

But if God did not do so, then heaven would also be hell.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 12, 2018, 04:16:49 pm
A place run by a mad dictator would be hell all over, ya don't say?
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 12, 2018, 05:11:41 pm
A place run by a mad dictator would be hell all over, ya don't say?

What I mean is that, if someone in heaven was upset about a loved one being in hell, then they themselves would be experiencing hell because of their suffering. That is why in those situations, God has to make them happy so that heaven can be heaven.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 12, 2018, 05:37:30 pm
A place run by a mad dictator would be hell all over, ya don't say?

What I mean is that, if someone in heaven was upset about a loved one being in hell, then they themselves would be experiencing hell because of their suffering. That is why in those situations, God has to make them happy so that heaven can be heaven.
So the maintenance of the happy-palace trumps free will, love, freedom and empathy got it.

(https://i.imgflip.com/1qo1mo.jpg)
(http://bright-green.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Happiness_is_Mandatory_by_Joebles.jpg)

Nothing dystopian or terrifying about that, not at all.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Skybison on September 13, 2018, 01:07:28 am
A place run by a mad dictator would be hell all over, ya don't say?

What I mean is that, if someone in heaven was upset about a loved one being in hell, then they themselves would be experiencing hell because of their suffering. That is why in those situations, God has to make them happy so that heaven can be heaven.

Or he could just not send people to hell.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 13, 2018, 07:31:09 am
A place run by a mad dictator would be hell all over, ya don't say?

What I mean is that, if someone in heaven was upset about a loved one being in hell, then they themselves would be experiencing hell because of their suffering. That is why in those situations, God has to make them happy so that heaven can be heaven.

Or he could just not send people to hell.

But unrepentant sinners deserve to go to hell because of their sins. 
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 13, 2018, 09:53:51 am
A place run by a mad dictator would be hell all over, ya don't say?

What I mean is that, if someone in heaven was upset about a loved one being in hell, then they themselves would be experiencing hell because of their suffering. That is why in those situations, God has to make them happy so that heaven can be heaven.

Or he could just not send people to hell.

But unrepentant sinners deserve to go to hell because of their sins.
Infinite punishment for finite "sins" is just psychotic. Good thing it's all make-believe.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 13, 2018, 10:22:45 am
A place run by a mad dictator would be hell all over, ya don't say?

What I mean is that, if someone in heaven was upset about a loved one being in hell, then they themselves would be experiencing hell because of their suffering. That is why in those situations, God has to make them happy so that heaven can be heaven.

Or he could just not send people to hell.

But unrepentant sinners deserve to go to hell because of their sins.
Infinite punishment for finite "sins" is just psychotic. Good thing it's all make-believe.

But it is a sin against an infinite being so it is deserving of infinite punishment.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 13, 2018, 10:54:05 am
But it is a sin against an infinite being so it is deserving of infinite punishment.
Don't try to pretend there's anything objective about it. It's an arbitrary punishment for an arbitrary offence that's no less bullshit now than it would be in any other context. End of story.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 13, 2018, 11:22:04 am
But it is a sin against an infinite being so it is deserving of infinite punishment.
Don't try to pretend there's anything objective about it. It's an arbitrary punishment for an arbitrary offence that's no less bullshit now than it would be in any other context. End of story.

I explained how it is a proportional punishment to the infinite offense.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 13, 2018, 11:34:29 am
I explained how it is a proportional punishment to the infinite offense.
No, it isn't. Doesn't matter if it comes from the teacher of a class of preschoolers, the US federal government or your supposed Supreme Space Wizard of Everything, offences and punishments are entirely arbitrary no matter the arbiter.

To put it another way, eternal torture for not spending one hour per week singing songs about how great our Dear Leader is is not made any less disgusting by its source. It would be incredibly fucked up if, say, the US president did it. It's no less horrific if your imaginary sky daddy does it.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: dpareja on September 13, 2018, 11:50:05 am
Remember: North Koreans can die.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 13, 2018, 12:25:38 pm
I explained how it is a proportional punishment to the infinite offense.
No, it isn't. Doesn't matter if it comes from the teacher of a class of preschoolers, the US federal government or your supposed Supreme Space Wizard of Everything, offences and punishments are entirely arbitrary no matter the arbiter.

To put it another way, eternal torture for not spending one hour per week singing songs about how great our Dear Leader is is not made any less disgusting by its source. It would be incredibly fucked up if, say, the US president did it. It's no less horrific if your imaginary sky daddy does it.

Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Svata on September 13, 2018, 12:27:29 pm
A place run by a mad dictator would be hell all over, ya don't say?

What I mean is that, if someone in heaven was upset about a loved one being in hell, then they themselves would be experiencing hell because of their suffering. That is why in those situations, God has to make them happy so that heaven can be heaven.

Or he could just not send people to hell.

But unrepentant sinners deserve to go to hell because of their sins.
Infinite punishment for finite "sins" is just psychotic. Good thing it's all make-believe.

But it is a sin against an infinite being so it is deserving of infinite punishment.


Wrong. Nothing is deserving of a literal eternity of torture.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 13, 2018, 01:46:09 pm
A place run by a mad dictator would be hell all over, ya don't say?

What I mean is that, if someone in heaven was upset about a loved one being in hell, then they themselves would be experiencing hell because of their suffering. That is why in those situations, God has to make them happy so that heaven can be heaven.

Or he could just not send people to hell.

But unrepentant sinners deserve to go to hell because of their sins.
Infinite punishment for finite "sins" is just psychotic. Good thing it's all make-believe.

But it is a sin against an infinite being so it is deserving of infinite punishment.


Wrong. Nothing is deserving of a literal eternity of torture.

I explained in my previous comment on how the greater the person you commit a crime against, the more severe it is and the more severe punishment you get. Sinning against God is therefore the most severe crime you can commit and therefore deserves eternal punishment.

We are all sinners deserving of such a fate, but God is so merciful that he sent his son to die on the cross on our behalf, so that our sins can be forgiven. You just need to accept his sacrifice, and do good works and penance for your sins and you can avoid eternal punishment and have eternal reward.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Eiki-mun on September 13, 2018, 03:55:38 pm
I explained how it is a proportional punishment to the infinite offense.
No, it isn't. Doesn't matter if it comes from the teacher of a class of preschoolers, the US federal government or your supposed Supreme Space Wizard of Everything, offences and punishments are entirely arbitrary no matter the arbiter.

To put it another way, eternal torture for not spending one hour per week singing songs about how great our Dear Leader is is not made any less disgusting by its source. It would be incredibly fucked up if, say, the US president did it. It's no less horrific if your imaginary sky daddy does it.

Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.

A crime against a President is not more severe than a crime against a regular person. Presidents are not special and neither is any other authority figure, including divine authority figures.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 13, 2018, 04:34:47 pm
I explained how it is a proportional punishment to the infinite offense.
No, it isn't. Doesn't matter if it comes from the teacher of a class of preschoolers, the US federal government or your supposed Supreme Space Wizard of Everything, offences and punishments are entirely arbitrary no matter the arbiter.

To put it another way, eternal torture for not spending one hour per week singing songs about how great our Dear Leader is is not made any less disgusting by its source. It would be incredibly fucked up if, say, the US president did it. It's no less horrific if your imaginary sky daddy does it.

Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.

A crime against a President is not more severe than a crime against a regular person. Presidents are not special and neither is any other authority figure, including divine authority figures.

God is special because he is an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who is our creator and the creator of the entire universe.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 13, 2018, 04:43:22 pm
So you're a terrified authoritarian, no worries. Hey look, a religious conservative who admits it!
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Eiki-mun on September 13, 2018, 07:43:03 pm
I explained how it is a proportional punishment to the infinite offense.
No, it isn't. Doesn't matter if it comes from the teacher of a class of preschoolers, the US federal government or your supposed Supreme Space Wizard of Everything, offences and punishments are entirely arbitrary no matter the arbiter.

To put it another way, eternal torture for not spending one hour per week singing songs about how great our Dear Leader is is not made any less disgusting by its source. It would be incredibly fucked up if, say, the US president did it. It's no less horrific if your imaginary sky daddy does it.

Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.

A crime against a President is not more severe than a crime against a regular person. Presidents are not special and neither is any other authority figure, including divine authority figures.

God is special because he is an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who is our creator and the creator of the entire universe.

Even assuming that's true, that doesn't make crimes committed against them any more severe. Severity is based on the action done, not the recipient.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 13, 2018, 08:45:57 pm
I explained how it is a proportional punishment to the infinite offense.
No, it isn't. Doesn't matter if it comes from the teacher of a class of preschoolers, the US federal government or your supposed Supreme Space Wizard of Everything, offences and punishments are entirely arbitrary no matter the arbiter.

To put it another way, eternal torture for not spending one hour per week singing songs about how great our Dear Leader is is not made any less disgusting by its source. It would be incredibly fucked up if, say, the US president did it. It's no less horrific if your imaginary sky daddy does it.

Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.

A crime against a President is not more severe than a crime against a regular person. Presidents are not special and neither is any other authority figure, including divine authority figures.

God is special because he is an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who is our creator and the creator of the entire universe.

Even assuming that's true, that doesn't make crimes committed against them any more severe. Severity is based on the action done, not the recipient.

Well the punishment is based on the action done. It is likely that there are multiple degrees of punishment in hell based on the severity of the sin. The action of sinning against God is deserving of eternal separation from God which is the chief punishment of hell.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 13, 2018, 10:56:56 pm
Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.
No, it's not. Once again, you're trying to paint something entire subjective and unnecessary as some sort of absolute truth. Once again, it's not, and you're not fooling anyone.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 14, 2018, 08:15:23 am
Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.
No, it's not. Once again, you're trying to paint something entire subjective and unnecessary as some sort of absolute truth. Once again, it's not, and you're not fooling anyone.

I explained in my previous comment how the punishment fits the crime. Those who sin against God don’t deserve to be in the presence of God and thus they are punished with eternal separation from God, the chief punishment of hell.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 14, 2018, 09:13:27 am
I explained in my previous comment how the punishment fits the crime. Those who sin against God don’t deserve to be in the presence of God and thus they are punished with eternal separation from God, the chief punishment of hell.
I'm glad you think so, but bear in mind that is an entirely subjective view, and one most others would firmly disagree with. That goes for both in terms of whether sin warrants any punishment at all, much less eternal torture and whether or not the torture by fire is somehow worse than being far, far away from the lunatic who thought it was a sensible idea to put you there in the first place.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 14, 2018, 10:14:49 am
Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.
No, it's not. Once again, you're trying to paint something entire subjective and unnecessary as some sort of absolute truth. Once again, it's not, and you're not fooling anyone.

I explained in my previous comment how the punishment fits the crime. Those who sin against God don’t deserve to be in the presence of God and thus they are punished with eternal separation from God, the chief punishment of hell.
Any schema that considers it a crime not to kiss the arse of a given leader isn't moral, any moral system worthy of its name is consistent and applies to all. It's authoritarianism at its most hypocritical and cowardly-cosplaying morality in a self-righteous cowardly pantomime as authoritarians are want to do!

Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 14, 2018, 12:20:31 pm
Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.
No, it's not. Once again, you're trying to paint something entire subjective and unnecessary as some sort of absolute truth. Once again, it's not, and you're not fooling anyone.

I explained in my previous comment how the punishment fits the crime. Those who sin against God don’t deserve to be in the presence of God and thus they are punished with eternal separation from God, the chief punishment of hell.
Any schema that considers it a crime not to kiss the arse of a given leader isn't moral, any moral system worthy of its name is consistent and applies to all. It's authoritarianism at its most hypocritical and cowardly-cosplaying morality in a self-righteous cowardly pantomime as authoritarians are want to do!

But God is our creator so we owe him our worship and obedience.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Skybison on September 14, 2018, 01:30:47 pm
^Why?

Personally I would say that morality isn't about punishing bad people, it's about fixing problems and getting people to treat each other better.  Punishment is part of that, but hurting people is not the goal, it is a means to an end.  Eternal hell, or any gratuitous punishment that goes beyond what is needed to stop people from doing bad things is immoral.

If your asking "What amount of torture does this guy deserve?" you are asking the wrong question.  The right question is "What will make the world a better place?"  So please tell me, how does torturing people forever make the world a better place?
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 14, 2018, 01:40:39 pm
^Why?

Personally I would say that morality isn't about punishing bad people, it's about fixing problems and getting people to treat each other better.  Punishment is part of that, but hurting people is not the goal, it is a means to an end.  Eternal hell, or any gratuitous punishment that goes beyond what is needed to stop people from doing bad things is immoral.

If your asking "What amount of torture does this guy deserve?" you are asking the wrong question.  The right question is "What will make the world a better place?"  So please tell me, how does torturing people forever make the world a better place?

The justice system is about stopping people from doing bad deeds and punishing those who do. There are those who deserve certain punishments, such as vandals getting fines, thieves getting prison, and murderers getting the death penalty. Hell makes the world a better place because people who fear hell will be restrained from committing bad deeds. It helps when people think they won't get caught by the authorities, because they will know that God is watching them.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 14, 2018, 01:52:33 pm
I explained in my previous comment how the punishment fits the crime. Those who sin against God don’t deserve to be in the presence of God and thus they are punished with eternal separation from God, the chief punishment of hell.
I'm glad you think so, but bear in mind that is an entirely subjective view, and one most others would firmly disagree with. That goes for both in terms of whether sin warrants any punishment at all, much less eternal torture and whether or not the torture by fire is somehow worse than being far, far away from the lunatic who thought it was a sensible idea to put you there in the first place.

Well sin is a crime against God and in most societies, crime warrants punishment proportional to the crime committed, and eternal separation from God is proportional to the crime of sinning against God.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: dpareja on September 14, 2018, 03:35:10 pm
Jacob, you do realize that by not kissing Hank's ass, you're risking being kicked in the nuts, right?
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Svata on September 14, 2018, 05:35:42 pm
A place run by a mad dictator would be hell all over, ya don't say?

What I mean is that, if someone in heaven was upset about a loved one being in hell, then they themselves would be experiencing hell because of their suffering. That is why in those situations, God has to make them happy so that heaven can be heaven.

Or he could just not send people to hell.

But unrepentant sinners deserve to go to hell because of their sins.
Infinite punishment for finite "sins" is just psychotic. Good thing it's all make-believe.

But it is a sin against an infinite being so it is deserving of infinite punishment.


Wrong. Nothing is deserving of a literal eternity of torture.

I explained in my previous comment on how the greater the person you commit a crime against, the more severe it is and the more severe punishment you get. Sinning against God is therefore the most severe crime you can commit and therefore deserves eternal punishment.

We are all sinners deserving of such a fate, but God is so merciful that he sent his son to die on the cross on our behalf, so that our sins can be forgiven. You just need to accept his sacrifice, and do good works and penance for your sins and you can avoid eternal punishment and have eternal reward.


Hey guess what. Fuck your god. If they torture people for not kissing enough of their eternal ass, they are what is known as "evil" and therefore, not deserving of worship in the first place, even if they exist.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 14, 2018, 08:23:14 pm
Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.
No, it's not. Once again, you're trying to paint something entire subjective and unnecessary as some sort of absolute truth. Once again, it's not, and you're not fooling anyone.

I explained in my previous comment how the punishment fits the crime. Those who sin against God don’t deserve to be in the presence of God and thus they are punished with eternal separation from God, the chief punishment of hell.
Any schema that considers it a crime not to kiss the arse of a given leader isn't moral, any moral system worthy of its name is consistent and applies to all. It's authoritarianism at its most hypocritical and cowardly-cosplaying morality in a self-righteous cowardly pantomime as authoritarians are want to do!

But God is our creator so we owe him our worship and obedience.
No, you might owe your parents some reapect and obedience depending on how they treat you but even there most people have limits and parents don't have a blank slate to demand it no matter how they treat their offspring.

Respect is earned and lost through ongoing interactions, if someone responsible for my existence felt justified in wanting to torture me for not sucking up to them they'd lose mine right quick.

Maybe not you, but your levels of self respect are subterranean. I still remember the 'Oink' video!
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: Jacob Harrison on September 14, 2018, 08:53:25 pm
Think about it this way. A crime against a President is more serious and has more severe punishment than a crime against a regular person. So the greater the person, the greater the offense and the greater the punishment. And God is infinitely greater than anybody else, so it is an infinitely greater offense deserving of eternal punishment.
No, it's not. Once again, you're trying to paint something entire subjective and unnecessary as some sort of absolute truth. Once again, it's not, and you're not fooling anyone.

I explained in my previous comment how the punishment fits the crime. Those who sin against God don’t deserve to be in the presence of God and thus they are punished with eternal separation from God, the chief punishment of hell.
Any schema that considers it a crime not to kiss the arse of a given leader isn't moral, any moral system worthy of its name is consistent and applies to all. It's authoritarianism at its most hypocritical and cowardly-cosplaying morality in a self-righteous cowardly pantomime as authoritarians are want to do!

But God is our creator so we owe him our worship and obedience.
No, you might owe your parents some reapect and obedience depending on how they treat you but even there most people have limits and parents don't have a blank slate to demand it no matter how they treat their offspring.

Respect is earned and lost through ongoing interactions, if someone responsible for my existence felt justified in wanting to torture me for not sucking up to them they'd lose mine right quick.

Maybe not you, but your levels of self respect are subterranean. I still remember the 'Oink' video!

Owing your parents respect and obedience is exactly why you owe God worship and obedience. Your parents are responsible for your existence, and they took care of you. God created humans and watches over them as a good Shepard, and helps those who pray to him. Furthermore he sent his son to die for us.
Title: Re: A theological question about Heaven and Hell
Post by: rookie on September 23, 2018, 10:59:27 am
I realize I'm a little late to this party, but you bring up an interesting point, Jake. Earlier on this very page you say hell acts as a deterrent. People won't murder or rape or sleep in on Sunday for the fear of hell. So, based on that, you argue that actions alone would lead to damnation or salvation and not intent. Personally, I find that a very interesting[/] position to take when dealing with an omniscient deity.