Is hell good or bad?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, end3 said:

So I would assume you would give your life for your family, but you think that would not be enough for them to decide they trust you?

I would certainly sacrifice both life and limb for Red neck Jr.  The difference between me and god, though, is that I'm not going to throw Jr. into eternal conscious torment if he doesn't appreciate my sacrifice.  And Jr. knows the sacrifices I Make carry neither strings not threats; so he can trust me completely without fear of consequence or retribution.

[mymistake]

10 hours ago, end3 said:

That's a pretty narrow and biased view MM...js.

 

Name one human being from whom God asked for trust without making any threats.  There must be neither "for in the day that you do you shall surly die" nor  "cast where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth".  Kind of hard to do when the Bible promises there is no way to be saved (from Hell) except through Jesus.

 

If you can't do it then my view is irrefutable.

[Guest end3]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I would certainly sacrifice both life and limb for Red neck Jr.  The difference between me and god, though, is that I'm not going to throw Jr. into eternal conscious torment if he doesn't appreciate my sacrifice.  And Jr. knows the sacrifices I Make carry neither strings not threats; so he can trust me completely without fear of consequence or retribution.

Right, and so if RN jr. was unconvinced, you are saying that's it, you're not bothering him any more. 

 

But, if you were an omniscient God that knew the consequences of not being convinced by you giving your life, wouldn't you then out of love give you children the pending consequences so they might ponder it more?  You on one hand say that A&E were not given credible warning, and now given credible warning, it makes no difference.

 

You have an answer for that?

 

[florduh]

14 hours ago, end3 said:

Trust is trust...

 

Edit:  To add, then many here adopt a affinity for science and logic as their trust that won't hurt them.

Trust comes in differing forms. It is reasonable to "trust" that your car will start today since it has started every day for the past couple of years. It is reasonable to "trust" the pilot of your plane will be able to get you to the next airport safely; he or she has training, certification and experience before you get on the aircraft. It is NOT reasonable to trust the guy selling magic beans because there is no evidence other than his word that magic exists, those beans really do work, and they are worth the price. You may choose to trust him anyway if you like, but it's a dumb thing to do.

[mymistake]

46 minutes ago, end3 said:

 

But, if you were an omniscient God that knew the consequences of not being convinced by you giving your life, wouldn't you then out of love give you children the pending consequences so they might ponder it more?  You on one hand say that A&E were not given credible warning, and now given credible warning, it makes no difference.

 

 

An omniscient God who chose the consequences . . . .

 

End you can't get around the fact that your loving God choose that eternal torture would be the consequences when he had the power to skip life on Earth and just create all the saints in heaven where everyone that exists would be perfectly happy for all eternity.

 

Your God is a monster.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, end3 said:

Right, and so if RN jr. was unconvinced, you are saying that's it, you're not bothering him any more. 

 

But, if you were an omniscient God that knew the consequences of not being convinced by you giving your life, wouldn't you then out of love give you children the pending consequences so they might ponder it more?  You on one hand say that A&E were not given credible warning, and now given credible warning, it makes no difference.

 

You have an answer for that?

 

Point to the part in my post where I said I wouldn't bother with Redneck Jr. anymore if he weren't convinced.  What I specifically said was that I wouldn't throw him into hell for it.  And that the absence of threat was the foundation upon which trust could be built.

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, end3 said:

Right, and so if RN jr. was unconvinced, you are saying that's it, you're not bothering him any more. 

 

But, if you were an omniscient God that knew the consequences of not being convinced by you giving your life, wouldn't you then out of love give you children the pending consequences so they might ponder it more?  You on one hand say that A&E were not given credible warning, and now given credible warning, it makes no difference.

 

You have an answer for that?

 

 

I think with this topic you are missing the point that its your omniscient god that created the consequences. I'm not sure if you grasp the problem of an all powerful all knowing god intentionally creating conditions wherein his creation must accept his 'sacrifice' on bad evidence (Not sure how an omniscient and all powerful being can make a sacrifice that he planned.... doesn't sound to sacrificial. What's he giving up?) or burn in hell forever.

 

And warnings for Adam and Eve are pointless under the conditions of an all knowing all powerful deity. What's happening is his will and its happening regardless. It can't be any other way. Now you might have an all powerful, but not all knowing god - that that he might be like us, just with uber powers. Then you might get away with some of your argument. But then a god that's not all knowing is not god - it's just another being... albeit very powerful.

 

When you break it down an omniscient omnipotent god is self contradictory. Its like a square circle - it simply cannot exist.

[quinntar]

4 hours ago, end3 said:

Right, and so if RN jr. was unconvinced, you are saying that's it, you're not bothering him any more. 

 

But, if you were an omniscient God that knew the consequences of not being convinced by you giving your life, wouldn't you then out of love give you children the pending consequences so they might ponder it more?  You on one hand say that A&E were not given credible warning, and now given credible warning, it makes no difference.

 

You have an answer for that?

 

Eve was never warned by the Bible God, she would have gotten second hand information from Adam.

 

Ponder for a moment. What really killed Adam & Eve, the tree of knowledge itself or the fact the snake was there to poison their knowledge?

 

The moral of the story is, don't accept knowledge from people who are snakes.

 

[quinntar]

 

[disillusioned]

13 hours ago, theanticrash said:

So the God of the Bible creates bad things too? Christians are not going to like that one little bit.

 

Doesn't the average Christian jump up and down when confronted by this exact dilemma, isn't it them who exclaim that God is a good God? That no evil (Darkness) can be found in him.

 

I don't see how you could possibly be a thinking Christian and not accept that God can create evil things. It's just not tenable.

[Guest end3]

I don't see the consequences mattering.

 

The argument is Adam and Eve were ignorant of the consequences........so God set them up and is evil.  But, Adam and Eve didn't trust and obey regardless.

Then God sends Jesus, who identifies and we may identify with.....dies and hands out Grace as half of a relationship and trust....and says hell awaits. 

 

But there are still those that won't trust regardless.

 

So are we saying that if hell was not in the picture, you would trust Christ?  Again, the point being, regardless if the consequences are given, there's a population that doesn't want to quell their pride/acknowledge their nature, and trust.

 

And reasonably sure the Bible also says there will be both populations.  So if we are describing "truth", isn't this pretty much an accurate account? 

 

Are you angry that you are incapable of going back?  Is this God's fault?  Were you going to be a part of this population from birth?  Or do we have the will to make a different choice.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest end3]

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I think with this topic you are missing the point that its your omniscient god that created the consequences. I'm not sure if you grasp the problem of an all powerful all knowing god intentionally creating conditions wherein his creation must accept his 'sacrifice' on bad evidence (Not sure how an omniscient and all powerful being can make a sacrifice that he planned.... doesn't sound to sacrificial. What's he giving up?) or burn in hell forever.

 

And warnings for Adam and Eve are pointless under the conditions of an all knowing all powerful deity. What's happening is his will and its happening regardless. It can't be any other way. Now you might have an all powerful, but not all knowing god - that that he might be like us, just with uber powers. Then you might get away with some of your argument. But then a god that's not all knowing is not god - it's just another being... albeit very powerful.

 

When you break it down an omniscient omnipotent god is self contradictory. Its like a square circle - it simply cannot exist.

Unless he has the power to create absolute free will....

[Guest end3]

7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Point to the part in my post where I said I wouldn't bother with Redneck Jr. anymore if he weren't convinced.  What I specifically said was that I wouldn't throw him into hell for it.  And that the absence of threat was the foundation upon which trust could be built.

No, without consequences trust wouldn't be trust.  A threat isn't the only consequence.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, theanticrash said:

So the God of the Bible creates bad things too? Christians are not going to like that one little bit.

 

Doesn't the average Christian jump up and down when confronted by this exact dilemma, isn't it them who exclaim that God is a good God? That no evil (Darkness) can be found in him.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Isiah 45:7 KJV.

 

I grew up in a fundamentalist church where it was recognized that God "created evil" in the sense that he punished and punishes those who choose not to follow him. Of course, there is no choice here though, the church wanted to have it both ways with free will and predestination, and they cannot. You can't argue that people hear God's call and choose not to follow it, and then argue that they have free will when at the same time you're saying they must first be called by God to be able to make a choice. If only I'd have grasped these issues and those others mentioned in this thread earlier, I'd have left the church long ago.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, end3 said:

 

So are we saying that if hell was not in the picture, you would trust Christ?  Again, the point being, regardless if the consequences are given, there's a population that doesn't want to quell their pride/acknowledge their nature, and trust.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh for goodness sake. There's a population that knows how to use thinking logic and rationale. Are you not aware that you're talking to people who for decades out of their lives trusted god in all things? This is one of the first thing christians jump at when presented with other perspectives, pride and trust, because it's too easy for them.

[quinntar]

4 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Isiah 45:7 KJV.

 

I grew up in a fundamentalist church where it was recognized that God "created evil" in the sense that he punished and punishes those who choose not to follow him. Of course, there is no choice here though, the church wanted to have it both ways with free will and predestination, and they cannot. You can't argue that people hear God's call and choose not to follow it, and then argue that they have free will when at the same time you're saying they must first be called by God to be able to make a choice. If only I'd have grasped these issues and those others mentioned in this thread earlier, I'd have left the church long ago.

Created thing's that have a potential to take evil actions, but he himself is not seen as the arbitrator of that evil. Any Christian who would honestly see this God as a creator who directly causes evil would have to give up on their good God, right?

[quinntar]

20 minutes ago, end3 said:

I don't see the consequences mattering.

 

The argument is Adam and Eve were ignorant of the consequences........so God set them up and is evil.  But, Adam and Eve didn't trust and obey regardless.

Then God sends Jesus, who identifies and we may identify with.....dies and hands out Grace as half of a relationship and trust....and says hell awaits. 

 

But there are still those that won't trust regardless.

 

So are we saying that if hell was not in the picture, you would trust Christ?  Again, the point being, regardless if the consequences are given, there's a population that doesn't want to quell their pride/acknowledge their nature, and trust.

 

And reasonably sure the Bible also says there will be both populations.  So if we are describing "truth", isn't this pretty much an accurate account? 

 

Are you angry that you are incapable of going back?  Is this God's fault?  Were you going to be a part of this population from birth?  Or do we have the will to make a different choice.

 

 

 

 

 

I can't go back end3, even if hell wasn't there as punishment Christianity would still fail in other area's.

[LogicalFallacy]

20 minutes ago, end3 said:

Unless he has the power to create absolute free will....

 

How do you have absolute free will at the same time as knowing everything, and having an ordained plan at the same time?

 

Free will implies there is choice in which you can alter your destiny. In order for that to happen God must be unaware of who's going where or what choices they will make. However the bible makes it clear that god knows all, even the sparrow that falls from the sky and the hairs on your head. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, theanticrash said:

Created thing's that have a potential to take evil actions, but he himself is not seen as the arbitrator of that evil. Any Christian who would honestly see this God as a creator who directly causes evil would have to give up on their good God, right?

Who created satan?

[quinntar]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Who created satan?

Jesus?

[mymistake]

2 hours ago, end3 said:

  

So are we saying that if hell was not in the picture, you would trust Christ? 

 

 

Oh gawdamit End, you are asking us to trust somebody who never visits, never calls, never lifts a finger for us.  If God can't bother to even send a text or give us a phone number then God isn't even as good as an ordinary human friend.

 

Don't give us shit about trusting somebody who is imaginary.  First have Christ show up.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, end3 said:

No, without consequences trust wouldn't be trust.  A threat isn't the only consequence.

I'm pretty sure that if an airline pilot came over the intercom and said, "if y'all don't trust me completely, I'll crash this bitch in the ocean," he'd find himself flying an empty plane.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, end3 said:

No, without consequences trust wouldn't be trust.  A threat isn't the only consequence.

Furthermore, when it comes to your god, a threat is, in fact, the only consequence.  Without the threat of sin, the cross is meaningless.  Without the threat of hell, eternal life in heaven has no merit.

 

If your god has nothing to offer than salvation from his own threats, then he is no better than a narcissistic wife-beater.

[Guest end3]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Furthermore, when it comes to your god, a threat is, in fact, the only consequence.  Without the threat of sin, the cross is meaningless.  Without the threat of hell, eternal life in heaven has no merit.

 

If your god has nothing to offer than salvation from his own threats, then he is no better than a narcissistic wife-beater.

When was sin a threat?  You said A & E were ignorant.  And now because temptation was allowed, God is evil?  Can we be subjected to temptation without us subscribing to evil?  Can God, even though he is the author?

 

 

 

[mymistake]

Come on End, you can't be this stupid.  Would you be okay with a parent who

 

-give their toddler a live hand grenade,

- shows them where the pin is

- carefully instructs the toddler on how to pull out the pin

- warns the child with "Don't do it or something bad will happen"

- then leaves the area saying "I hope my toddler makes the right choice"

- comes back after the explosion and brags about being a great parent?

 

 

 

Christians blame every bad thing in the whole universe on Eve's choice.  But the only thing A & E were told is that they would die on the day they ate the fruit and that statement was a lie.  Never mind that the whole thing is made up and never happened.  It doesn't even make sense as a story.