Did God Create hell?

[Isak The Newt]

Er... does that make science a sorta gnostic religion?

EDIT: LOL oops, i just made my self sound Xtian, im just trying to relate current day events to this gnostic religion,

[-Demona-]

Here's another article on Gnosticism, for the curious:

 

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/An...n%20Antics.html

 

Trust me, there's plenty more where that came from. If you want more, PM me.

[Mike D]

Thanks for the links guys. Just curious though, when someone says they are a "gnostic Christian" (and I have run into a couple), is that the same as gnosticism or something else altogether? Maybe that's why I thought it was a denomination of Christianity...

[-Demona-]

"Gnosticism" is an umbrella term for a variety of beliefs. It stretches into a time well before the Christ cult started making headway. It was later co-opted by sects of Christians, and those Christians who took a Gnostic viewpoint were condemned as heretics.

 

Ironically, modern American Christianity is more like Gnostic Christianity (in terms of its doctrine) than most people realize.

[Checkmate]

Here's more on Gnostics, if you're interested in getting more informed.

[Ouroboros]

And since the Mandeans consider themself to have their roots in Gnostic, here's a Mandean info page:

http://i-cias.com/e.o/mandeans.htm

[simonpeter]

I realised that this approach to give God human nature, more fallible and unknowning, is a way to make the Christian God more acceptable to people that have the concerns we have.

 

What worries me is with this idea, people will easier get converted and with time, the Christian dogma can go back to the fundie version when everyone has been included.

 

What's wrong all along is to have one book that dictates the liturgy and orthodoxy. It's better to just believe in a higher power like in deism, and just leave it at that. Give God any attributes you want, but never require someone to become a follower of a pre-defined, restricted religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hans,

There is one other aspect of Openness Theism that I failed to mentioned. It suggests that God does not know every detail of the future becuase He chooses so. In other words, He has a precise crystal ball but may not look at it. The rationale is His ability to respond to requests (prayers).

t

[Vigile]

Hans,

There is one other aspect of Openness Theism that I failed to mentioned. It suggests that God does not know every detail of the future becuase He chooses so. In other words, He has a precise crystal ball but may not look at it. The rationale is His ability to respond to requests (prayers).

t

 

It just sounds to me like an apologist faced with improbabilities such as "why would an omniscient god require prayer" or "why is their such injustice in the world if god is omnipotent" is merely, now bear with me now, apologizing for god.

 

But that's just me. The simpler answer would be that something is rotten in Denmark.

[simonpeter]

It just sounds to me like an apologist faced with improbabilities such as "why would an omniscient god require prayer" or "why is their such injustice in the world if god is omnipotent" is merely, now bear with me now, apologizing for god.

 

But that's just me.  The simpler answer would be that something is rotten in Denmark.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm in no position to apologize for God and I believe Him big enough to do so if He so desires. He did so in sending the Great Flood. The Jews of B.C. and A.D. times did not have this omniscient view of God. They believed that prayers and sacrifices could influence God. First century Christians also believed that way. They understood that the scriptures of Old were not inerrant; that, they contained numerous contraditions, errors, were human interpretations of what they envisoned the nature of God to be like. They also view many of the stories (books) in the Bible to be historical but some of the details of the stories to be questionable.

 

For example, most believe the story of Job to be fiction and few -- if anyone -- believes that Job was even a real person.

 

Again, I'm not trying to sell a book. Just look up "Openness Theism" or John Sanders and you should be able to get a review or preview of his thoughts.

[simonpeter]

 

Doesn't the Bible say in OT "He will fulfill the prophesies", so by saying that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies then he fulfilled the prophesy to fulfill the prophesies!

 

Wow! It's proven!!!

 

Wait... I feel the spirit of prophesy coming over me... In the near future I will say something stupid...

Something Stupid.

WOW! I fulfilled the prophesy, and also I am a prophet. Cool. I can quit my job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Zoe and Hans,

Sorry for the delay. Been too busy to hack. Anyway, you have asked to prove and impossibility. Good grief, if I could prove that God or Jesus existed I wouldn't be hacking away on a computer eating twinkies.

 

I'm remain certain that we are not supposed to be able to prove His existance. To do so would to be able to put him in a box. To do so would prove He isn't God. Reminds me of a saying. "Only the wizards know there are none."

[John]

simonpeter, just as I predicted i.e. you would skirt the questions and comments since you had no answer.

[NotBlinded]

"Only the wizards know there are none."

hehe...we must be wizards!

[simonpeter]

simonpeter, just as I predicted i.e. you would skirt the questions and comments since you had no answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

John,

I believe I have provided my answers to similiar questions in the past. However, I don't take you questions seriously. What would be the purpose of responding to someone who doesn't believe God exists and yet accuses God of creating humans so they could fail? I think your mind is made up and what I would add would have little value.

[simonpeter]

You are picking and choosing and making up your very own version of Christianity.  I believe this, but not that, so I'm going to come up with my own version of the truth.  You're making excuses like "God is bigger than I."  You sound just like the Job story "Who am I to question Gods evil way?"  You are doing it because you are scared that you'll go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus and the bible, thats the only logical reason for you staying with a book that is so full of lies, contradictions, historical and other errors.  I feel sorry for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This may shock you but not all Christians have the same beliefs on the the Bible and interpretations. I'm not smart enough to make up my own version of Christianity nor do I have the desire to do so. The Christians with whom I associate question God on a number of topics and without fear. We know -- from the scriptures -- that He is big enough to handle our questions.

 

You have your experiences and I have mine. You have probably been burned by "Fundamentalists" and I certainly have. I have lived the secular life for half my life and in comparing the two, I've chosen to walk with Jesus. If at the end of my life I discover that Jesus was fiction it really won't matter to me. The struggle of living the life of Christ is far better than anything out there.

[Ouroboros]

Hey Zoe and Hans,

Sorry for the delay. Been too busy to hack. Anyway, you have asked to prove and impossibility. Good grief, if I could prove that God or Jesus existed I wouldn't be hacking away on a computer eating twinkies.

 

I'm remain certain that we are not supposed to be able to prove His existance. To do so would to be able to put him in a box. To do so would prove He isn't God. Reminds me of a saying. "Only the wizards know there are none."

That's why I'm an agnostic. My view is that we can't prove that God exists, and we can't prove that he doesn't. So I leave it at that. But my personal view currently is of the atheist. Currently my belief is that everything points to NoGod. But someday we might know for sure if G or NG.

 

It's like the P vs NP problem. The solution is unknown.

 

G vs NG, same thing.

[simonpeter]

But if you can't prove it, then you can believe it, but you can't say with certainty that it is true.  You can't "KNOW" you are right.  You can't condemn anyone who doesn't believe like you.  Because if one doesn't require any kindof proof, what one chooses to believe or disbelief is completely arbitrary and predicated only upon what they wish to be true.

 

Proof! I've already acknowledged that I can't prove there is a God or Jesus. Good grief: the Bible tells of David being the most powerful king on the planet and there's not one shred of evidence that he even existed.

 

In secular law, eyewitness accounts can be used as evidence in court. So, if I would take you to meet ten friends of mine and they told you how their life was dramatically changed to the good because of their faith, would that be enough? They wouldn't be perfect people. They would be a various levels on their spiritual journey but they would have a personal story. Probably not enough proof.

 

By the way, I don't condemn anyone who doesn't believe like me. You give me too much power. Jesus has inform mankind they are not the judge and we are not to judge which is a good thing. I do understand your complaint. Too many "professing Christians" have set themselves up as judges. This is wrong.

 

Perhaps most christians don't wish for hell to be true...but they wish for there to be a personal god who loves them and a personal afterlife because that god loves them.  Hell is part of the equation of that wish fulfillment.  They have to take the bad with the good once they've accepted biblegod.

 

Not sure I get this one but let me stab at it. I would think that most Christians would prefer Hell did not exist. I think there remains a confusion on the dynamics of Hell among us, but it is agreed that it is a place to avoid. The mortality rate on this planet remains to be 100%. The question is where one will spend eternity. Humans don't make the rules.

 

But without some sort of evidence of any kind...you could just as easily believe in Leprechauns, scientology's body thetans, or the gods of hinduism.  There is no real reason except that you "just believe" for you to accept the bible more readily than any other holy book.

 

If I had grown up in India chances are I would believe in Hinduism. Under such a scenerio I don't know what I would do if I were to be exposed to Christanity. Not everyone accepts it.

 

It comes down to "I believe simply because I believe" and that's not good enough for those of us who search for the actual factual truth in the matter.  So it's the height of arrogance for a Christian to act as if they have the one true truth, when it's clear all they have is wishful thinking.  Even if they turn out to be right, it won't be because they had some sortof reason to pick Christianity over any other path, but because of the luck of the draw.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think that Christianity is the only religion that claims to have the one truth. I think this is common among most religions.

[Guest bdp]

The struggle of living the life of Christ is far better than anything out there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No it isn't. I bore that badge for a long time myself and I'm here to say it's a crock. Self-determinism is better, not denying myself or refusing to partake of the array of sensory experiences out there in the name of 'purity' is far better. Living life is better.

 

bdp

[Vigile]

I'm in no position to apologize for God and I believe Him big enough to do so if He so desires. He did so in sending the Great Flood. The Jews of B.C. and A.D. times did not have this omniscient view of God. They believed that prayers and sacrifices could influence God. First century Christians also believed that way. They understood that the scriptures of Old were not inerrant; that, they contained numerous contraditions, errors, were human interpretations of what they envisoned the nature of God to be like. They also view many of the stories (books) in the Bible to be historical but some of the details of the stories to be questionable.

 

The point I was trying to make was that if there are these errors wouldn't the simpler most logical route to take be that the text is unreliable, therefore why believe any of it? How do you come to your conclusions that there is a god and that even if there is one it is biblegod if you admit that the book describing him is not inerrant? I understand the fundamental viewpoint here (though I don't agree with it) since they take it on faith that god exists and that scripture is inerrant. Where I'm confused is when you accept that scripture is not without error yet you still have faith in biblegod (though admittedly a different version with different attributes than the fundamentals). In other words, what method do you use to parse truth from fiction when you openly acknowledge that fiction does indeed exist; at least in places?

 

Again, I'm not trying to sell a book. Just look up "Openness Theism" or John Sanders and you should be able to get a review or preview of his thoughts.

 

Perhaps I didn't understand that you were not necessarily sharing your own personal beliefs, but were merely trying to relay a theory based on Openness Theism. I haven't read the entire thread so if I'm jumping in without all the facts I apologize.

[John]

John,

What would be the purpose of responding to someone who doesn't believe God exists and yet accuses God of creating humans so they could fail?

 

Uh, this has to be the most asinine argument I have ever heard, i.e., this is an ex-Christian forum. I have a reason as too why God creates humans, i.e., so they can fail, but you don’t have a counter argument, which is what I expected from you.

 

I can list many countries, which do not have any or few practitioners of the Christian faith. So, simonpeter, where do they go? Well, that is obvious i.e. hell. So, I still stand by my statement: “God deliberatly creates people, so they can fail”.

 

I think your mind is made up and what I would add would have little value.

 

Um, I believe what you’re adding to this thread is actually detrimental to Christianity, i.e., you contradict yourself and the Bible many times.

[shy1680]

I don't think that Christianity is the only religion that claims to have the one truth. I think this is common among most religions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So far I have discovered Christianity is the only religion that what's to monopolize God's truth. Most try to show people who all religions are a part of the big puzzle and that is why there are so many similarities in them all. Islam teaches God shared his truth with many other prophets of other religions and these truths are in various holy books but they believe it was corrupted through the many years, and that is were the Quran comes in, its supposed to correct the corrupted scriptures. Hindu's also are open-minded about other religions and most believe that all who believe in God are worshipping the same one God, just using different names for him according to their religion, and region. Sikh also dont hold claim to the one truth from God, they are all about unity of mankind and religions. Some religions allow you to practice other forms and believe in others ideas that dont match their teachings, example, Shinto. Taoism doesnt hold claim to the one truth either. Judaism is the only one Im not sure about, Im not very familiar with post bible Jewish theology. But I can say I have never met a Jew who told me I was going to be punished by God for not doing it their way, unlike Christians.

[Vixentrox]

This may shock you but not all Christians have the same beliefs on the the Bible and interpretations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pretty darn good evidence that there is no holy spirit/god guiding people when they can't even agree on the basics.

[simonpeter]

The point I was trying to make was that if there are these errors wouldn't the simpler most logical route to take be that the text is unreliable, therefore why believe any of it?  How do you come to your conclusions that there is a god and that even if there is one it is biblegod if you admit that the book describing him is not inerrant?  I understand the fundamental viewpoint here (though I don't agree with it) since they take it on faith that god exists and that scripture is inerrant.  Where I'm confused is when you accept that scripture is not without error yet you still have faith in biblegod (though admittedly a different version with different attributes than the fundamentals).  In other words, what method do you use to parse truth from fiction when you openly acknowledge that fiction does indeed exist; at least in places?

Perhaps I didn't understand that you were not necessarily sharing your own personal beliefs, but were merely trying to relay a theory based on Openness Theism.  I haven't read the entire thread so if I'm jumping in without all the facts I apologize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You make some good points. Let me see if I can clarify my belief of the bible. For example, we have the story of Noah and the Ark. We are provided exact measurements of the this ark. We are also told that Noah gathered two of each animal two by two, etc. The earth is flooded. The Science of geology clearly indicates way back when the earth was covered with water.

 

However, putting science to work on the ark it is clearly obvious to a first semister structural engineer that this ark made of wood, without the support of steel girders, would break in half instantly and couldn't possibly float. Also, science tells us that at the time of Noah there were about 30 million species of animals. For Noah and his family to load all these animals would have required at least a hundred more of these arks and if one pair was loaded every second, it would take twelve years.

 

So, does this information totally null this story? Maybe. Or, maybe something similar happened and when the information was written down (inspired by God) but with the human hand, mind and imagination, we have the story that we have. BTW, this story has been great fodder on this site to prove the wickedness of God.

 

Could it be possible, as far fetched as this story may, that God is revealing his nature to us? I have said that it may be possible that God may not know every detail of the future or may chose not to know. Let's look at the ugly side of this story: God drowning children. In the story line we are told that God surveyed his creation and saw only wickedness, save Noah and his family. Suppose God took a look into the future or by using current trends could see that these wicked people would only cause more death and destruction upon innocients. Rather than to see more suffering, he wipes out the wickeness and starts over.

 

I have three sons. If I discovered that one of my sons was about to kill the other two and the only way I could stop him was to kill him, what would be the right thing to do? Should I let "nature" take its course and let him kill or should I kill him? That may be what the story is about.

 

 

 

So, is the story completely discounted?

[Vixentrox]

Pretty feeble god that can't come up with something better than killing babies.

[crazy-tiger]

Other religions have "flood stories".  Do ya think that maybe men, of ancient religions, wrote them down and slapped a deity on it because they didn't know what the heck was going on? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No... because that would be reasonable and logical.

[simonpeter]

So far I have discovered Christianity is the only religion that what's to monopolize God's truth.  Most try to show people who all religions are a part of the big puzzle and that is why there are so many similarities in them all. 

Islam teaches God shared his truth with many other prophets of other religions and these truths are in various holy books but they believe it was corrupted through the many years, and that is were the Quran comes in, its supposed to correct the corrupted scriptures. 

 

Wow! Mohammed praised Jesus as being a great prophet and teacher. However, he developed Islam to correct some of the "errors" Jesus (in his opinion) made. He disagreed the equalization of women and worship. He disagreed with Jesus destroying the old laws and the simplification of salvation (righteousness before God). Does the use of the word infidels in the Quran have any indication that their way is right and all others wrong?

 

Hindu's also are open-minded about other religions and most believe that all who believe in God are worshipping the same one God, just using different names for him according to their religion, and region.  Sikh also dont hold claim to the one truth from God, they are all about unity of mankind and religions.

 

Their religions are regional and not universal. They remain tolerable of other religions but have countless number of hells.

 

Some religions allow you to practice other forms and believe in others ideas that dont match their teachings, example, Shinto.

 

Not quite right. No other than a Japanese can be a Shinto. Also, their story of creation (which is interesting) centers around the earth being created in Japan and the Japanese the first humans of their creators. All other "humans" on earth are not explained and viewed (originally) as sub-human.

 

Taoism doesnt hold claim to the one truth either.

 

Taoism doesn't hold claim to any diety.

 

 

Judaism is the only one Im not sure about, Im not very familiar with post bible Jewish theology. But I can say I have never met a Jew who told me I was going to be punished by God for not doing it their way, unlike Christians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know if one can find a general concenses on how the Jews view eternal life and death. They appear to be divided on this. BTW, there are many (I want to say "most") buddhist sects that believe in a hell, of eternal damnation. Buddhism can be divided into two major groups: Teravada and Mahayana. Teravada, commonly known as Orthodox Buddhism, believe in 6 levels of heaven and 7 or 8 levels of hell, hell described as beings in torment. Mahayana does not have a hell but believe that in the next life "you reap what you sow." In other words, if you do evil in this life evil will pursue you in the next one. Sokki Gakkai, a popular Japanese form, believes in eight levels or balls of fire. Tibetan Buddhism has a hell described is endless suffering.