General Discussion

Apologetics and Theology

Read 11414 times

Paul Kelly

  • **
  • 240 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2011, 02:25:59 am »
lancia wrote:
Quote from: forthelord

Well, not if you are a molinist and accept transworld depravity. If evidence is all they needed to be saved, then they would get that evidence to satisfy them. Intellectual honest nonbelievers who would pursue a relationship with God if they had enough evidence will be convinced before they die. People who go to hell, on this view, would never have accepted Christ. It seems perfectly plausible that these people would only grow in hatred the more they are punished.

Why would anyone accept transworld depravity, except to rationalize their belief that those in hell deserve to be there eternally? Jesus makes it very clear that the entire idea of transworld damnation is false, for he knew that some who died unrepentant would have repented had they witnessed the miracles, i.e., additional evidence (e.g., Matthew 11:21, Luke 10:13).

(this is just a copy of the same post I wrote in the other thread.)

I actually went on to facebook and asked Dr. Craig how he interprets Matt 11:21.  Dr. Craig said that he takes this verse to be a "religious hyperbole".  This sounds to me contrived but if we have overarching reasons to be molinists (and believe in transworld damnation), then we are within our rights in interpretting the verse in this way. Moreover, I think a good hermeneutical principle is that you shouldn't base a theology on one verse (technically two verses but they are repeating the same saying).


Also, Lancia, you have yet to show that the other escape routes I listed are untenable.  

1

Triptych

  • **
  • 387 Posts
  • Christian Apologist
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2011, 02:36:50 am »
Snakeystew wrote:
Flawed analogy. For it to remain consistent with christianity, the "warden" is completely invisible and the 'criminal' is completely unaware of the existence of the warden or jail or crimes. He then gets threatened by a non-warden without a gun demanding that he has committed crimes without any evidence to show that he has. He then gets tortured forever and ever and ever for not believing that this warden exists against the claims of an existing human who typically turns out to have spent a lifetime abusing children. Who came to this supposed criminal?

Can it get anymore "backwards"?


No, this would be a view consistent with your belief, I'm guessing as an Atheist.  If the criminal chooses to ignore the evidence that God as supply so that no men are without excuse, than again, that's the criminals fault.  There is plenty of evidence of crimes committed both on moral grounds, and by God's standards, so I have no idea what you're talking about here.  The rest of what you are talking about makes no sense.  I'm assuming it's your personal thoughts on Christianity.
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
-Plate
“Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it can not be conquered by it.”
-Ayn Rand
GodBls, L8

2

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2011, 06:03:38 am »
It's true that analogies really aren't very good as arguments.  This analogy doesn't seem to be the case at all, but it is in itself pretty backwards.
It seems the man pointing the gun=God
The person who is getting the gun pointed at them=People
And shooting them=Punishment

1) Yes, this person absolutely chose to get shot.  The person had an option, either i) get rid of my material possession, namely my wallet, and survive or, ii) Hold on to my money and get murdered.  So any person in this position certainly has a choice.
2) It isn't as if God is stealing something from this person in a way that is wronging them.  Rather, it's like saying, "Give me your wallet, and in return I'll give you everything you'll ever need.  Including eternal love and happiness"
3) The biggest assumption is that you assume that the person who's wallet is getting stolen is somehow innocent, when in fact, they aren't.  A better analogy would go like this:
A person who is guilty of enough crimes, is on death row and moments away from being put to death.  However, the warden comes to him and says "If you change your ways and believe in me, I'll free you from being put to death." The man considers this for a moment, and replies with a "No."
How is this backwards?  What more could the Warden do when such a pardon is rejected?

I see nothing backwards about this.

Really ???? I mean really ??? The person getting mugged is choosing to get shot ???  Just like the person who gets raped chose to get raped ?  I think you have a messed up sense of what it means to choose something.

"If you change your ways and believe in me, I'll free you from being put to death."

How is that justice ?  Simply say you are sorry and that you love me and I will forget every wrong thing you have done ? (paraphrased).  The warden was the one putting him to death in the first place for crimes that most people would not even consider crimes, especially not crimes worthy of the death penalty.

How is it backwards ??  This system of justice punishes those who are not compelled by the evidence and rewards those who can simply follow orders and do as they are told.

3

wonderer

  • *****
  • 15896 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2011, 06:28:07 am »
IceKnight366 wrote: It isn't as if God is stealing something from this person in a way that is wronging them.  Rather, it's like saying, "Give me your wallet, and in return I'll give you everything you'll ever need.  Including eternal love and happiness"

   

   You left off the part which goes, "However, this eternal love and happiness won't begin until after you are dead.  It will begin then though.  Trust me."
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger

4

Jason Clanton

  • **
  • 11 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2011, 10:21:39 am »

You'll have to bare with me, as I don't know how to include quotes from other posts (perhaps there is a section on the forum that addresses this?). I'll just comment on the comments () from my first post.

Jbiermas: Yes, there are religious beliefs that are harmful, such as scrupulosity (obsessive beliefs that interfere with daily life or are "more catholic than the pope). As far as traumatizing children about hell, I think this would be those who are legalists who are more concerned with rules than with relationship with God. At my church, our Sunday school program doesn't even address hell until high school (cannot speak for the parents, obviously). And just and unjust punishment is subjective, unless there is a perfectly moral and just being to decide proper punishment, which would be God. I would defer to a being with perfect moral and just attributes then flawed humanity's opinion of what is moral and just.

Snakeystew

Not sure where you are getting the "your God does not allow opinions for anyone to have any moral issues with torture." I think all Christians are against torture (or should be). And if you read the this thread, there are those who do not believe in hell being torture, but torment, two different things. I think you misunderstood my point. Those in hell continue to sin, therefore they continue to deserve punishment.

Just out of curiosity, what should God do to those who do not want to follow Him and disobey him? Just let them in heaven anyway (which is unjust) or just wipe them out of existence?


Jason

PS. Lee Strobel's book "the case for faith" has a chapter on hell that I think addresses most of the concerns on this thread.

5

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2011, 11:50:17 am »
To quote someone, you can simply copy and paste their comments into the window and then highlight it and click the little word bubble icon on top.

or you can highlight it on their post (before you start your reply) and click the little quote icon on the right (i think)

Jbiermas: Yes, there are religious beliefs that are harmful, such as scrupulosity (obsessive beliefs that interfere with daily life or are "more catholic than the pope). As far as traumatizing children about hell, I think this would be those who are legalists who are more concerned with rules than with relationship with God. At my church, our Sunday school program doesn't even address hell until high school (cannot speak for the parents, obviously). And just and unjust punishment is subjective, unless there is a perfectly moral and just being to decide proper punishment, which would be God. I would defer to a being with perfect moral and just attributes then flawed humanity's opinion of what is moral and just.

If that is the way that your church opperates, then I can somewhat appreciate that approach.  I still think its wrong to teach someone that they were born in sin and must do something to atone for it, but that is another topic.  As for morality.  I judge things to be just or unjust on my experiences and the moral and ethical framework that I have grown up with and have adapted and created to fit what I know about other people and reality.

If there is a god who is perfectly moral etc, it is not the God depicted in the Bible.  Also this makes you have to ask a new question.  How do you know that God is perfectly moral ?  By what standard do you seek to judge God's morality ?  If you do not judge God and just assume him to be moral, then shouldn't it be the case that we should all try to be exactly like God and mirror everything he does (or is said to have done) ?

Just out of curiosity, what should God do to those who do not want to follow Him and disobey him? Just let them in heaven anyway (which is unjust) or just wipe them out of existence?

If when we die, we go dormant and are simply waiting for the second coming, then why revive us only to send us to torment and suffering ??  Why not just leave us dead ?  (probably because death is not a good deterrent, and if you are trying to alter behavior through threat of punishment).

6

Triptych

  • **
  • 387 Posts
  • Christian Apologist
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2011, 01:39:19 pm »
@jbiemans: 1)A person getting rapped doesn't have a choice at all.  But in this scenario, the person who is about to get their wallet taken absolutely has a choice.  A crapy choice, either get screwed or get screwed, but a choice still.  So it's not at all on the same level as someone who gets rapped.

2) Not sure what you are saying here, it sounds like you agree.

@ Wonderer: Not at all Wonderer.  Any Christian on here can express how they have experienced God's love and the joy that this brings here and now.  What you wrote seems to insinuate that all persons will have crapy lives and that we wont start to experience love and happiness until we are dead.  If that were the case, than even if it were true that you had to wait until you died to  experience this love and happiness, what is 60 or so years (at this  point) compared to eternity?
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
-Plate
“Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it can not be conquered by it.”
-Ayn Rand
GodBls, L8

7

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2011, 01:58:14 pm »
@jbiemans: 1)A person getting rapped doesn't have a choice at all.  But in this scenario, the person who is about to get their wallet taken absolutely has a choice.  A crapy choice, either get screwed or get screwed, but a choice still.  So it's not at all on the same level as someone who gets rapped.

What if someone was given the choice A) Become my slave for eternity doing my will and worshiping me forever B) getting raped, beaten and murdered.

Perhaps technically they have a choice, but is it really a choice ?

Basically what is being said here is "Do as I want or you will be forcing me to do something bad to you"  (sounds more like a mafia boss offering protection to me I guess)

Pay me, and I will not have my guys bust up your store.

8

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2011, 01:59:37 pm »
If that were the case, than even if it were true that you had to wait until you died to experience this love and happiness, what is 60 or so years (at this point) compared to eternity?

If eternity were 100% guaranteed, then you may have a point, but as it is pure speculation at this time, then can you really factor it in ?

9

lancia

  • ****
  • 6245 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2011, 03:43:45 pm »
forthelord wrote:
I actually went on to facebook and asked Dr. Craig how he interprets Matt 11:21.  Dr. Craig said that he takes this verse to be a "religious hyperbole".  This sounds to me contrived but if we have overarching reasons to be molinists (and believe in transworld damnation), then we are within our rights in interpretting the verse in this way.

I agree with you that it sounds contrived. Hyperbole, as an exaggeration, must portray a kernel of truth. What would that kernel of truth be here, other than the fact that more evidence would have led to more repentance?

I find it quite ironic that a major part of molinism, middle knowledge, is based on a literal reading of this counterfactual statement in Matthew 11:21, e.g., references 1, 2, and 3. But when this statement is used to argue against transworld depravity, another part of molinism, then it is said to be only hyperbole. Very strange indeed!

Moreover, I think a good hermeneutical principle is that you shouldn't base a theology on one verse (technically two verses but they are repeating the same saying).

But as I have explained, middle knowledge relies on this verse. And where would molinism be without the pivotal concept of middle knowledge?


Also, Lancia, you have yet to show that the other escape routes I listed are untenable.

I have no argument with those.


10

Triptych

  • **
  • 387 Posts
  • Christian Apologist
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2011, 04:14:22 pm »
jbiemans wrote:
What if someone was given the choice A) Become my slave for eternity doing my will and worshiping me forever B) getting raped, beaten and murdered.

Perhaps technically they have a choice, but is it really a choice ?

Basically what is being said here is "Do as I want or you will be forcing me to do something bad to you"  (sounds more like a mafia boss offering protection to me I guess)

Pay me, and I will not have my guys bust up your store.


1) Now you are just conflating the whole discussion.  Your  mixing together the analogies of rape and murder that you used, with the true  proposition of Heaven.  The correct way to say this would be, "Either you spend eternity with me, or you spend eternity without me."  Not to mention that "slave" is just a emotionally loaded term.  So this doesn't really require much response.

2)Are you a moral relativist?  It's interesting because all in one foul swoop, you just eliminated the ability to judge.  You just said, "Do as I want or you will be forcing me to do something bad to you."  This means that you think someone being held accountable for their actions by judgment is a bad thing, i.e. evil thing (or we can stick with bad for now if you want).  This would mean that you think it's bad to have ANY moral accountability!  You are saying that we should just allow anyone to do any immoral act they want with complete indifference and accountability.  Do you really believe this?

3) If you don't think it's a bad thing, than God isn't saying "You will force me to do something bad to you."  What He is saying is, "You will force me to have to hold you accountable and judge you for your actions."

4)
jbiemans wrote: If  eternity were 100% guaranteed, then you may have a point, but as it is  pure speculation at this time, then can you really factor it in ?

This is getting into the PofE and how Christianity is really the last hope to solve this issue.  If you and Wonderer are right, and there isn't anything after this life, than some people just get the short end of the stick and have horrible lives; there is nothing to look forward to.  So if you can't factor this in, than the entire point that Wonderer made is dropped.  This would mean that there is no hope for any love or happiness and that everything just ends at the grave, so whats the point?  Some people are just screwed.
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
-Plate
“Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it can not be conquered by it.”
-Ayn Rand
GodBls, L8

11

Jason Clanton

  • **
  • 11 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2011, 04:52:36 pm »
Okay, I'm going to try to do the whole quote thing, kind of scared though! Although I'm not sure how to insert the "originally posted by -----" part.
jbiemans said

 I judge things to be just or unjust on my experiences and the moral and ethical framework that I have grown up with and have adapted and created to fit what I know about other people and reality.

If there is a god who is perfectly moral etc, it is not the God depicted in the Bible.  Also this makes you have to ask a new question.  How do you know that God is perfectly moral ?  By what standard do you seek to judge God's morality ?  If you do not judge God and just assume him to be moral, then shouldn't it be the case that we should all try to be exactly like God and mirror everything he does (or is said to have done) ?

So your morality is subjective or perhaps you are a moral relativist as iceknight366 implied. This is shaky morality at best.
The God of the bible isn't moral might be a reference to the Old Testament atrocities argument (at least I am assuming that is where the argument comes from). There are a lot of resources addressing this issue.
And yes, we should be like God, even though we cannot attain like God.  For God's attributes is goodness, just, love, etc. God is the good. Read Craig's discussion on eurhtyro (sp?) delimma. Also Lee Strobel's the case for faith also addresses the old testament atrocities.
Talk to you soon!

Jason

12

Snakeystew

  • ***
  • 4218 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2011, 05:46:32 pm »
If the criminal chooses to ignore the evidence that God as supply so that no men are without excuse, than again, that's the criminals fault.


Incorrect.

It is blatantly naive to assert that anyone is 'ignoring' but instead that what you perceive as being 'evidence' is not going to be the same for everyone else.

However, should someone ignore evidence, it hardly justifies statement that they're a "criminal" and deserve roasting.

---

Not sure where you are getting the "your God does not allow opinions for anyone to have any moral issues with torture."


The statement was that people being tortured in hell will be complaining about it, hence continuing to sin. As such, my statement argued that any complaints made by people being tortured are hardly "sin", (unless it is a sin to have opinions on moral issues regarding torture).

And if you read the this thread, there are those who do not believe in hell being torture, but torment, two different things.


1. You can use whatever of those words you like, it doesn't change anything. Torturing someone or tormenting someone are still not moral actions.

2. I cannot possibly cater for every little unsubstantiated offshoot of christian belief. I could do so on an individual basis but they'd first have to explain all their personal little beliefs to me - something they never do. It would of coure be vastly more helpful if christians could start being consistent in their beliefs.

Just out of curiosity, what should God do to those who do not want to follow Him and disobey him? Just let them in heaven anyway (which is unjust) or just wipe them out of existence?


How odd that you only provide two outcomes and think that not wanting to follow someone morally justifies torture or annihilation. What's wrong with being nice and happy, giving them kisses and hugs and letting them go off to explore the universe and do the things that they want to do? You don't necessarily have to invite them into your house, (although any genuinely loving individual would always make such invitation and keep it forever open), but that doesn't only leave torture and slaughter as options.

13

wonderer

  • *****
  • 15896 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #58 on: January 19, 2011, 05:47:25 pm »
IceKnight366 wrote: @ Wonderer: Not at all Wonderer.  Any Christian on here can express how they have experienced God's love and the joy that this brings here and now.

   

   Well, actually there have been people who have posted here saying they are Christians yet haven't had an experience of God's presence, so unless you are willing to say that such people are not Christians, it doesn't seem as if this claim holds up.  (I am certainly not willing to say that such people are not Christians.)

   

   Furthermore, if you are interested, I can track down a TIME magazine article which reveals that Mother Theresa was without the experience of God's love for most of her life, and admitted to feeling like a fraud.  So I'm curious as to how you interpret such information.  

   
What you wrote seems to insinuate that all persons will have crapy lives and that we wont start to experience love and happiness until we are dead.

   

   I didn't say anything remotely like that.  There are lots of generally happy atheists, who are loved and love others without a need to think that God has anything to do with the matter.  Myself included.

   

   What I said was:

   

   You left off the part which goes, "However, this eternal love and happiness won't begin until after you are dead. It will begin then though. Trust me."

   

   The word "eternal" was a key aspect of what I was saying.  It is quite clear that being a Christian doesn't result in eternal feelings of happiness, prior to death.  I can't say that I trust Christians know what they are talking about WRT experience after death,

   

   However the implausibility of experiencing eternal happiness after death has no bearing on the matter of people experiencing happiness while they are alive.  

   

   
If that were the case, than even if it were true that you had to wait until you died to  experience this love and happiness, what is 60 or so years (at this  point) compared to eternity?

   

   60 years is of course infinitely less than eternity.  However, that doesn't get around the problem of a dead brain being in an electochemical state which results in a subjective feeling of happiness.
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger

14

wonderer

  • *****
  • 15896 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2011, 06:06:25 pm »
If you and Wonderer are right, and there isn't anything after this life, than some people just get the short end of the stick and have horrible lives; there is nothing to look forward to.  So if you can't factor this in, than the entire point that Wonderer made is dropped.  This would mean that there is no hope for any love or happiness and that everything just ends at the grave, so whats the point?  Some people are just screwed.

   

   This is black or white (all or nothing) thinking.  

   

   Certainly as social primates, we are innately wired to have a strong concern for fairness.  It shows in how at a very early age children express there concerns (however unobjective those concerns might be( about what is fair,  We even see primates of different species starve themselves for days, in order to avoid a fellow primate being treated unfairly.  So it is perfectly understandable that you would have a strong aversion to life ultimately lacking fairness.  The thought of Hitler and Mother Teresa sharing the same end is something which I can understand you would find to be hard to adjust to if you have spent your whole life considering such to be inconceivable.  

   

   However, what we are talking about here is fundamentally a matter of an emotional reaction, which is generally conducive to social primates behaving in a way which is conducive to the social primates getting the benefit of social living.  Being an emotional reaction, it doesn't provide a sound basis for thinking that justice simply must be served after death.
"The world needed that of us, to maintain—by our example, by our very existence—a world that would keep learning and questioning, that would remain free in thought, inquiry, and word." - Alice Dreger