Is Hell Fair?

[Mythra]

Okay. I'll play.

 

But only for a second.

 

Does it seem fair?

 

Or, does it seem more on a par with chopping off your four-year-old's hand for sneaking a cookie?

 

Who could worship a deity who would do such a thing?

 

 

Nevermind. I did. For 25 years.

 

 

how sad.

[Legion]

If hell could be anything like forcing a woman to go on a date with Scott, then it cannot be fair in principle.

[J.S.]

Taylork, there are alot of ideas regarding Hell. My personal idea {Although I believe it is Scriptural also} of what Hell is like is having God's judgment on the soul forever. There may very well be fire involved. However, in Scripture, fire has to do with judgment alot of the time. While there is a very good chance of fire being involved, the #1 punishment of Hell is seperation from God's love and mercy. That will burn worse than fire and brimstone. I also believe Hell is a place of memory. The lost soul will remember all the times He has been convicted by God's Spirit and resisted; all the times God sent His servants to tell them the truth, yet refused to believe; up to the very last breath. Hell will be a place of complete darkness, lonliness, depression, despair. All hope is lost. There is no way for salvation, no way to get out of this place. The lost souls will gnash their teeth because of pain {whether it is spiritual or physical}. All hope is lost. Personally, it makes me depressed just thinking about it. Anyway, that's what I believe Hell is like. Whether it is literal fire or not, all those other emotional torments, I believe, will be far, far worse.

 

About the question I forgot to answer, yes. Agreed.

[Guest Jackson Queens]

Brought up earlier which in my testimony thread before Scott started to debate which is against the rules. Scott said one thing that really pissed me off. He said humans deserve Hell and the bargain is a fair

 

 

Considering that humans are creations with a temporarily granted autonomy with which they are expected to make the most they can, any failing that God deems worthy of hellfire is hardly something we can argue with. Everything is God's, including you and your dreams and plans, you brain and your love and your soul all belong to God. If you fail to use the miraculous gift in the way He has deemed that you should then why should you expect anything less than punishment? What in this world has so convinced you people that your actions should be free of eternal significance and consequences?

 

Paul said it best..

 

Rom 9:14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

 

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

 

Who are you to talk back to God? Seriously, I'm asking, who are you? You are nothing! I am nothing! We are here for a short while and then vanish. How in the word can we presume to question the divine?

 

As C.S. Lewis clearly presented in The Great Divorce we all choose our path. If we didn't want to live with God then we won't won't to be born again with Him. What's left for those who reject their own creator?

[KT45]

My personal idea {Although I believe it is Scriptural also} of what Hell is like is having God's judgment on the soul forever.

Before we get started just a few more questions. When you say the soul will be judged forever, Do you mean they will never get out of hell? Do you mean they will burn forever or that they will burn up and cease to exist? Is it a finite punishment or is it a infinite punishment? Again it can be your opinion.

[J.S.]

Taylork, I entertained the idea of just "burning up", but it's just not biblical. God's judgment in the afterlife is eternal. Those who reject Christ will spend forever in Hell.

[Guest Jackson Queens]

Taylork, I entertained the idea of just "burning up", but it's just not biblical. God's judgment in the afterlife is eternal. Those who reject Christ will spend forever in Hell.

 

 

Amen.

[J.S.]

Brought up earlier which in my testimony thread before Scott started to debate which is against the rules. Scott said one thing that really pissed me off. He said humans deserve Hell and the bargain is a fair

 

 

Considering that humans are creations with a temporarily granted autonomy with which they are expected to make the most they can, any failing that God deems worthy of hellfire is hardly something we can argue with. Everything is God's, including you and your dreams and plans, you brain and your love and your soul all belong to God. If you fail to use the miraculous gift in the way He has deemed that you should then why should you expect anything less than punishment? What in this world has so convinced you people that your actions should be free of eternal significance and consequences?

 

Paul said it best..

 

Rom 9:14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

 

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

 

Who are you to talk back to God? Seriously, I'm asking, who are you? You are nothing! I am nothing! We are here for a short while and then vanish. How in the word can we presume to question the divine?

 

As C.S. Lewis clearly presented in The Great Divorce we all choose our path. If we didn't want to live with God then we won't won't to be born again with Him. What's left for those who reject their own creator?

 

Well said!

[KT45]

From what I gather from you, the gift of Jesus' death is there to save us from hell and isn't an ultimatum. It's not accept me or I'll send you to hell, it's your in danger let me save you.

 

Also we can't enter heaven if we have sin on us so that is why god won't let us in heaven unless Jesus takes the sin away. Correct?

 

From this the best points to argue would be

1. Original Sin

2. Infinite Punishment for a finite crime

 

any preference on which to start with?

Also, J.S., should the goal be to prove to you that it is *possible* that hell is unfair, or do you want to prove to us that hell is fair? It's not a big deal but I feel the discussion will be better with a goal in mind. If there is simpler goal then please state one.

 

Jackson Queens, I won't address your post until you have read all 13 pages of this forum. Someone else can answer your questions if they desire. Not to offend I just do not wish to go on tangents.

 

Anyone can be free to jump into the conversation with me and J.S. as long as we can stay on topic.

 

Thank you

[Guest Jackson Queens]

Jackson Queens, I won't address your post until you have read all 13 pages of this forum. Someone else can answer your questions if they desire. Not to offend I just do not wish to go on tangents.

 

 

My post was a response to the OP, so regardless of whatever tangent you may be exploring, it's relevant and worthy of a response, no?

[KT45]

Jackson Queens, I won't address your post until you have read all 13 pages of this forum. Someone else can answer your questions if they desire. Not to offend I just do not wish to go on tangents.

 

 

My post was a response to the OP, so regardless of whatever tangent you may be exploring, it's relevant and worthy of a response, no?

No. It has already been addressed and your points have been brought up. If you don't wish to read the whole topic and you wish to continue to beat a dead horse then anything you say is not worthy of a response. Beside you still have a bunch of responses to address in the afghanstan topic, no? They brought up good points but you don't address them all. They to are worthy of a response, no?

[Guest Jackson Queens]

Jackson Queens, I won't address your post until you have read all 13 pages of this forum. Someone else can answer your questions if they desire. Not to offend I just do not wish to go on tangents.

 

 

My post was a response to the OP, so regardless of whatever tangent you may be exploring, it's relevant and worthy of a response, no?

No. It has already been addressed and your points have been brought up. If you don't wish to read the whole topic and you wish to continue to beat a dead horse then anything you say is not worthy of a response. Beside you still have a bunch of responses to address in the afghanstan topic, no? They brought up good points but you don't address them all. They to are worthy of a response, no?

 

 

I posted in the Afghanistan thread. Now will you not duck my statements?

[KT45]

I posted in the Afghanistan thread. Now will you not duck my statements?

As I said before you only addressed one person. That was Astreja. There were many other posters like bruce and chef you failed to address. Did you even listen to my post that said address everyone in that responded to you? And you have not read the topic. Again beating a dead horse. You show no respect for the topic or this forum so this is my last response to you.

[J.S.]

Taylork, you're exactly right. That's what I've been trying to say about Hell.

 

Anyway, I guess we could just state our opinions on why Hell is fair or unfair. It doesn't really matter to me, either way. I'm up for either.

[KT45]

Taylork, you're exactly right. That's what I've been trying to say about Hell.

 

Anyway, I guess we could just state our opinions on why Hell is fair or unfair. It doesn't really matter to me, either way. I'm up for either.

I just usually prefer a goal when I'm discussing something or as you have seen it leads to confusion that essentially leads to nowhere. I dont' think I could ever convince you that hell is immoral because you will most likely state that we are only human and can't compare him to the morals of men. For the sake of debate can we turn god into a man and see if he is then fair or unfair? Do you think this will be possible?

[Guest Jackson Queens]

I posted in the Afghanistan thread. Now will you not duck my statements?

As I said before you only addressed one person. That was Astreja. There were many other posters like bruce and chef you failed to address. Did you even listen to my post that said address everyone in that responded to you? And you have not read the topic. Again beating a dead horse. You show no respect for the topic or this forum so this is my last response to you.

 

 

They were all saying the same thing. I responded to them all whether they know it or not. Whenever I'm the underdog on a forum I get alot of that " you gotta respond to every post" stuff. It isn't realistic. I'm one dude, and in addressing this body of unbelievers, I'm addressing essentially one person. Forgive the necessary economy of it all. Perhaps someday when I've employed a staff I'll be able to address every last post to me, no matter how redundant the sentiments.

 

Does this seem unreasonable? I wonder why.

[KT45]

I posted in the Afghanistan thread. Now will you not duck my statements?

As I said before you only addressed one person. That was Astreja. There were many other posters like bruce and chef you failed to address. Did you even listen to my post that said address everyone in that responded to you? And you have not read the topic. Again beating a dead horse. You show no respect for the topic or this forum so this is my last response to you.

 

 

They were all saying the same thing. I responded to them all whether they know it or not. Whenever I'm the underdog on a forum I get alot of that " you gotta respond to every post" stuff. It isn't realistic. I'm one dude, and in addressing this body of unbelievers, I'm addressing essentially one person. Forgive the necessary economy of it all. Perhaps someday when I've employed a staff I'll be able to address every last post to me, no matter how redundant the sentiments.

 

Does this seem unreasonable? I wonder why.

Address Bruces' post please.

[J.S.]

Taylork, I'm not sure what you mean when you suggested that we turn God into a man. He became a man...

[Guest Jackson Queens]

I posted in the Afghanistan thread. Now will you not duck my statements?

As I said before you only addressed one person. That was Astreja. There were many other posters like bruce and chef you failed to address. Did you even listen to my post that said address everyone in that responded to you? And you have not read the topic. Again beating a dead horse. You show no respect for the topic or this forum so this is my last response to you.

 

 

They were all saying the same thing. I responded to them all whether they know it or not. Whenever I'm the underdog on a forum I get alot of that " you gotta respond to every post" stuff. It isn't realistic. I'm one dude, and in addressing this body of unbelievers, I'm addressing essentially one person. Forgive the necessary economy of it all. Perhaps someday when I've employed a staff I'll be able to address every last post to me, no matter how redundant the sentiments.

 

Does this seem unreasonable? I wonder why.

Address Bruces' post please.

 

I will when I get around to it and if I think it says something I haven't already covered, but that doesn't change what I wrote in this thread, and how you've fearfully avoided commenting on it. Is this your usual ploy? How does it work when your victim is new and hasn't posted in other threads? Do you then just resort to totally ignoring them or some other dodge? Helluva way to run a railroad if you ask me. I suppose you'd have me expect more from atheists? Strangely, I don't.

[dr_funkenstein]

I suppose you'd have me expect more from atheists? Strangely, I don't.

 

Shit or get off the pot already...

[KT45]

Taylork, I'm not sure what you mean when you suggested that we turn God into a man. He became a man...

I'm saying for the sake of discussion we say that god is not a deity but we put his personification in human form. Jesus is still considered a deity so this is not what I mean. I mean turn god into just a normal judge with a normal son that can save the world. The purpose of doing this is to eliminate the whole we can't understand his ways and eliminate his morals are greater than ours. By your definition of god we can't judge him anyway so even if I tried it would be a pointless discussion that will lead to nowhere. The only way we can judge your concept of god IS to judge him by human standards. We can't so I make him into a man, no different than someone like judge Judy.

 

If you dont' like this we can turn him into a creator like a scientist who made a new species similar to man but much much smaller. We can call him scientist and not god as to not confuse things. You can use scriptures if you want and we will say that either the judge or the scientist wrote the bible.

 

I know this is very blasphemous and can understand if you don't want to take this approach. But unless I can judge someone who you consider judgable then we can't get anywhere. Besides, you have to admit this might be interesting to say the least.

 

 

I will when I get around to it and if I think it says something I haven't already covered, but that doesn't change what I wrote in this thread, and how you've fearfully avoided commenting on it. Is this your usual ploy? How does it work when your victim is new and hasn't posted in other threads? Do you then just resort to totally ignoring them or some other dodge? Helluva way to run a railroad if you ask me. I suppose you'd have me expect more from atheists? Strangely, I don't.

It's amazing how easily your own logic applies to you as well.

[Guest Jackson Queens]

It's amazing how easily your own logic applies to you as well.

 

Not really, seeing as how I'm not demanding that someone go and respond to every post in every other thread before they're worthy of a response in the thread at hand. At this point I can only assume that you are afraid and have nothing to say in response to my post. What else should I think? Your dodge doesn't sound the least bit reasonable to me. I'm talking to you about hell, but I must respond to Bruce, who isn't even online, in another thread on another topic before you'll address my words. Are you sweating?

[Legion]

How does it work when your victim is new and hasn't posted in other threads?

 

 

That's kind of neat that the people who come here of their own free will are suddenly "victims".

[J.S.]

Alright Taylork. I guess we can say that God is a human judge. I'm assuming you have a point to make in doing this. It will be strange though, because if you say "Would a human do this", then I would say "God's not human", and so on and so forth; but alright. Let's try it.

[KT45]

It's amazing how easily your own logic applies to you as well.

 

Not really, seeing as how I'm not demanding that someone go and respond to every post in every other thread before they're worthy of a response in the thread at hand.

You haven't been faithful to other threads. I see no reason respect someone who won't even respect the questions of others.

At this point I can only assume that you are afraid and have nothing to say in response to my post. What else should I think? Your dodge doesn't sound the least bit reasonable to me. I'm talking to you about hell, but I must respond to Bruce, who isn't even online, in another thread on another topic before you'll address my words. Are you sweating?

Firstly your question was directed at the intital poster not me. I only responded cause I wished to carry on a conversation with J.S. and didn't want you to involved. Secondly, think about this Jackson. I've seen your other post. Your main tactic is to pressure people into posting by calling them scared, fearful, or degrading atheist and non-christians. Your goal is to push buttons to get an emotional response. Last time you did this you posted a few responses and didn't come back for days letting responses build up and leaving questions unanswered. You've shown no respect to anyone while you been here and you don't care that what you bring up has already been discussed. Because of this I have no reason to talk to you. I feel I am valid for not addressing your posts or your questions.

 

Alright Taylork. I guess we can say that God is a human judge. I'm assuming you have a point to make in doing this. It will be strange though, because if you say "Would a human do this", then I would say "God's not human", and so on and so forth; but alright. Let's try it.

Thank you, I will formulate my argument and present it tomorrow for you. If it is too far out there for you then we will discuss normally. Feel free to debate with others and I will get back with you.