General Discussion

Apologetics and Theology

Read 11415 times

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2011, 05:54:22 am »
Put it this way Hell is a place where nothing of God's goodness is manifested.

As I have already said, being that God is omnipresent, is this even possible ?

Hell is not a place of torture even though it is a place of suffering

You do not think that an eternal existence in a place where you can experience nothing good, ever, and have no way out, not even suicide, is torture ?

1

Paul Kelly

  • **
  • 240 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2011, 06:09:52 am »
I've gotten the impression that you are pretty young


Right, I'm 16...

 have grown up in a very Christian environment.


Not so much.  I live in a liberal northern town where even my high school teachers throw subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) attacks against Christianity. I remember one class where my English teacher read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jon Edwards and she ranted the entire class about how silly these sorts of beliefs are. My science teacher freshman year often went on "science vs religion" rants. My fellow students often joke and poke fun at religion as well.  I don't know any professing Christians at my school and my only Christian friends are from the local church.  My parents haven't forced me to go to church nor were they upset when I told them I was an agnostic atheist two years ago (however, they were glad when I came back to Christianity).  

So, I don't think my upbringing so far has been particularly Christian.

Why not think that your view of human nature is biased towards fitting your biblically inspired worldview?


Of course my view of human nature will be in unison with other strongly held beliefs in my noetic structure. Not much else would be expected.  In any case, the objectors to the doctrine of hell are making a claim about the internal consistency of Christian belief and according to transworld depravity the people who end up in hell truly despise God.  It seems to make perfect sense that these people would only grow more angry with God the more they are in hell.  You are supposing a very deep knowledge of not only human nature in general, but a certain supernatural element of human nature of particular people.  You are the one pressing the hell objection, the burden of proof is on you.  

As I have said previously, this is all academic for me anyway because I tend to side with annihilationism.  

Btw,Wonderer, if you were ever in the position where hell were the only wall between you and Christianity, reject the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.  

Like I said, if you want to show that Hell refutes Christianity, you have your work cut out for you because you have to prove each one of those four routes are untenable.  

2
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2011, 08:07:24 am »
jbiemans wrote:
Put it this way Hell is a place where nothing of God's goodness is manifested.

As I have already said, being that God is omnipresent, is this even possible ?

Hell is not a place of torture even though it is a place of suffering

You do not think that an eternal existence in a place where you can experience nothing good, ever, and have no way out, not even suicide, is torture ?

I have been thinking about your first issue myself but I think it is possible. Yes God is omnipresent, but I think that he can manifest his presence in stronger or lesser degree. God is omnipresent in the world we have now but that does not mean that we all walk around constantly aware of his presence, in heaven on the other hand we will do that. God will make his presence so obvious that it will be like seeing him face to face. Secondly, God could be present at a place without administrating any of his gifts of joy, happiness life and so forth to that place, if people have decided that they do not want to have anything with him to do he is not forcing himself on them.

I would need to to some more thinking on your other question. I did not realize that was what you meant by torture. I thought you had the big grill party image in mind. Perhaps you are right that it can feel like torture in that sense, but then again you don't need to end up there. Those who go there do so because they reject God's saving grace. He is not intending for people to go there. But as I sad, I will need to do some more thinking.

3

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2011, 08:52:48 am »
I would need to to some more thinking on your other question. I did not realize that was what you meant by torture. I thought you had the big grill party image in mind. Perhaps you are right that it can feel like torture in that sense, but then again you don't need to end up there. Those who go there do so because they reject God's saving grace. He is not intending for people to go there. But as I sad, I will need to do some more thinking.

You are looking at it through a Christian lens, and I can understand that, but if you look at it from the outside you see something different.

Remember my example about being mugged.  Would you ever say that you only got shot becuase you rejected the muggers saving grace ?  (He offered you a way out all you had to do was meet the demands).

God is the one who created the punishment in the first place, to say that he is being mercifull or offering grace to keep you out of it is so backwards.

Forgive the example but its like a battered wife saying:

"My husband is such a great guy.  As soon as I started listening to him and doing as he says, he stopped beating me"

That is how I see God acting with the doctrine of hell.

if people have decided that they do not want to have anything with him to do he is not forcing himself on them.

You may be right, if I thought that God was real, I would honestly want nothing to do with him.  This does not however mean that I want to reject everything that is good.  I can embrace things like joy, happiness, life, etc, but still reject God.  

If God created me, and he created me to be a sentient being in possession of free will, then he forfited his rights to do with my life as he pleases.  He gave me a gift and it would be wrong to take it away on his whim.  Imagine if a parent said "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it", and we allowed society to operate like that. (Ie. it is ok to murder your own children.).  

Imagine an even worse scenario;  You create rules for your children, and expect them to follow them.  You never inforce the rules or punish them at the time they break them, but simply write down each time they do.  You allow them to grow up and on their 30th birthday you bring them together and review which rules they have broken.

If they have broken even one of the rules you made (maybe talking with your mouth full), you lock them in the basement for the rest of their lives depriving them of anything that would bring them happiness or joy.  There is one loophole however.  If they follow the loophole all is forgiven and they will be given everything they could ever want.

This system sounds horrible.(I know its not a perfect analogy, but close).  Would you say that the father is showing saving grace by offering a loophole to get out of the punishment that he set up ?

4

lancia

  • ****
  • 6245 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2011, 09:13:46 am »
forthelord wrote:
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).


5

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2011, 10:54:27 am »
Here is a though about hell.  Imagine that you are one of the young female children from Jericho.  The isrealities come and distroy your city, killing your whole family, and then take you captive and you must become a slave or a wife to an Isealite.  All this was done under the command of God.

1) Do you think you could ever love that God ?
2) Do you deserve to go to hell because you cannot ?

6

Cletus Nze

  • **
  • 490 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #36 on: January 18, 2011, 12:06:03 pm »
jbiemans wrote: Here is a though about hell.  Imagine that you are one of the young female children from Jericho.  The isrealities come and distroy your city, killing your whole family, and then take you captive and you must become a slave or a wife to an Isealite.  All this was done under the command of God.

1) Do you think you could ever love that God ?
2) Do you deserve to go to hell because you cannot ?


Don't be stupid! Just because it is claimed in a book  written by the Israelites that God sanctioned their colonisation of the lands of others it DOES NOT follow this was the case! It was just as wrong then as it was when Europeans went on their colonising missions to Africa, Asia, America, and Australasia, for instance. And the same is true for ALL other colonising missions carried out with brute force!

These were raids carried out by bandit states - and were NEVER Divinely sanctioned! Does it not strike you as odd that Moses who had prevailed against the mighty Egyptian Pharaoh and had safely led the Israelites for DECADES in the hostile desert exposed to the dangers of destructive raids by Hittites and Babylonians as well as others did not enter into their so-called "Promised Land" with them? Does this "Promised Land" look to you like it is flowing with milk and honey! Has it ever done so? And how small it is! Certainly, it straddled important ancient trade routes which brought great wealth to whoever controlled it; but is that really all one can expect of a Divine Gift from the Most High?

The true Promised Land is the Spiritual Kingdom on earth in which God's Laws are fully recognised by human beings and adhered to - which would then inevitably bring Paradise on earth - wherever it may be located physically! The Israelites, as happened MANY times under Moses' leadership, sought a quick and easy fulfilment in accordance with their own materialistic ideas, for which they had been MANY times censured by Moses! This led to increasing tension between them and Moses and eventually resulted in a parting of ways! It is not inconceivable that he was even murdered - and then stories made up to explain why this great hero had not led them into the "Promised Land" himself ! Surely, he who had power enough to lead them to safety away from Egypt and persecution under Pharaoh could have led them also far more easily and rapidly to the conquest of Canaan - had he wished to and had God commanded it! But it was not so!

However, the Canaanites were a corrupt people at the time themselves and what struck them from the Israelites was also the hand of Fate! A Fate they had prepared for themselves with their own volition. It is WRONG to blame ANY of it on God!
Pursue Truth - with rigour and vigour!

7

Cletus Nze

  • **
  • 490 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #37 on: January 18, 2011, 12:09:31 pm »
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).



Why do you think Jesus was referring to miracles (in the traditional sense) here - rather than the miracle of the Word of Truth coming to earth to dwell amongst the Israelites?
Pursue Truth - with rigour and vigour!

8

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #38 on: January 18, 2011, 01:08:49 pm »
Mwalimu you actually have me quite intrigued.  I do not know what your actual beliefs are any more ?  It appears on the surface that you are christian, but you reject so many things that are written in the bible.  You have even gone as far as to rebuke the bible in some cases and stating that you do not get your information about God from the bible.  I have to ask you where do you get your information about God ?  Personal revelation ?

9

lancia

  • ****
  • 6245 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #39 on: January 18, 2011, 01:26:12 pm »
mwalimu wrote:
Why do you think Jesus was referring to miracles (in the traditional sense) here - rather than the miracle of the Word of Truth coming to earth to dwell amongst the Israelites?

I think the word miracles was intended because the word miracles, not the word miracle, was used in the statement of Jesus to the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida.

Matthew 11:21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”

Luke 10:13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.”

In addition, even if Jesus meant the miracle of the Word of Truth coming to the earth, that miracle is still additional evidence that the people of Tyre and Sidon would have had, resulting in their repentance, according to Jesus.

So, I don’t think the nature of the miracle/miracles mentioned by Jesus affects my conclusion about transworld depravity.


10

Jason Clanton

  • **
  • 11 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2011, 04:45:12 pm »
This is my first post, so bear with me!
I think that one possible atheist objection to hell could be that because they don't like it, this can't be true. But God, who is infinitely just, must act in justice, because that is his nature. And sin is sin, there is no scale on what is a smaller sin and what is bigger. That is why God forgives ALL sins, including the child molesters who truly repent. The earthly consequences of sin may be different. I have also read the view that people continue to sin in hell, hence the continuation of the punishment. There is no place in the Bible (I could of course be wrong) that says we no longer have free will in hell, so someone who is in hell may curse God for creating such a place, hence continuing to sin.
And as a psychologist myself, the psychology profession in the bast decade has shown how important spiritual beliefs are in mental and physical health. I could go on, but I said enough for my first post and am happy to be a part of such exciting discussions!

Jason

11

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #41 on: January 18, 2011, 05:13:05 pm »
Welcome to the forum Jason !

I can understand your point about spiritual beliefs being helpful in come cases, but I am sure that you can agree that they can be harmful in others.  I can only imagine a young child traumatized by the thought of hell (I have heard many stories that speak of this)

Also, I don't object to hell simply because I don't like it, I object to it because I don't think it is just.  Just think about American's complaining about Guantanamo bay.

There are just punishments and unjust punishments, and there are just systems of justice and unjust systems of justice.

12

Snakeystew

  • ***
  • 4218 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #42 on: January 18, 2011, 06:04:02 pm »
so someone who is in hell may curse God for creating such a place, hence continuing to sin


I am somewhat unsure what to say to this. I would be inclined to complain and indeed express anger at the creation of a place specifically intended to torture my fellow humans, yes. How is that a 'sin'? Your god does not allow opinions or for anyone to have any moral issues with torture? I would be a 'sinner' by being against torture?

13

Triptych

  • **
  • 387 Posts
  • Christian Apologist
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #43 on: January 18, 2011, 10:45:38 pm »
jbiemans wrote:
The idea that everyone sends them selves to jail is backwards.  Imagine that I pointed a gun at you and said that if you do not give me your wallet I will shoot you.  You refuse to give me your wallet, and I shoot you.  Did you just choose to get shot?


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.
"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

14

Snakeystew

  • ***
  • 4218 Posts
    • View Profile
defense of hell -- fallacy
« Reply #44 on: January 18, 2011, 10:55:15 pm »
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?


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"?