POT: a challenge to Xians.

[Stephen T-B]

Not as succinct as the POE, the Problem of Torment is, nevertheless, a challenge which Christians are invited to answer.

It goes like this:
If it is true that God is merciful, loving, good and all mighty, and if it is true that he presides over a system in which billions upon billions of souls end up in permanent torment, then Christian doctrine is incoherent and invites dismissal.

[DougLDS]

Their god is a god of "tough-love" I guess.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Not as succinct as the POE, the Problem of Torment is, nevertheless, a challenge which Christians are invited to answer.

It goes like this:
If it is true that God is merciful, loving, good and all mighty, and if it is true that he presides over a system in which billions upon billions of souls end up in permanent torment, then Christian doctrine is incoherent and invites dismissal.
I think another key component in what you term the, PoT, would be if this god is omniscient. If he is all knowing, there never was a time in all eternity that this god did not know the suffering of eternal torment that he would inflict upon his creatures. Yet, given this knowledge, he created this universe in such a way that it would all come to pass.

I think it is also useful to ask, why? and... What does an omni-being need from this situation? We often hear about his requirement of something like "the free-will love of the creature." Okay, but in light of eternal torment and this god's omni-character doesn’t that make him supremely insecure, self centered, self consumptive... and... hypocritical?

[Stephen T-B]

Thank you.
I do agree.
I think it is integral to PoT (and I'd have included it, if I'd thought I could spell it).

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Yeah,
I guess it is sort of implied anyway.
I'm just a little pedantic. :D

[Stephen T-B]

From the absence of any Christian responses, I suppose the PoT can't be answered.

Or is deemed to be not worth answering?

In either case, it highlights incoherence at the heart of Christian doctrine.

[Sven]

The "usual" answer would be that the interpretation of hell being "torment" is wrong. Never heard about this fuzzy "separation from god" thing?

[Alethias]

It seems to me that most of the answers i run into fall into the category of "It's just one of the unexplainable mysteries of God".

At this juncture in the conversation I point out to them that I don't have any problems of unexplainability, because I accept the universe for what it is, and don't have to create a god to explain those things i don't understand.

Then they start repeating themselves, and I usually ask them about the weather or some banal thing like that. There is no point in the discussion when the Xtian of the moment never has an answer when I point out a major deficiency in their argument.

[Stephen T-B]

Liberal Christians talk of "separation" but I don't think it fits in much with traditional ideas of Hell.
That was a really really bad place to be, with lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Sven called the separation thing "fuzzy" and that's exactly the intent in using it. It is sort of a head burying maneuver when it is used... Sort of a "see no evil" apologetic.

The whole separation thing is transparently evasive, IMO.

[BadBadBad]

I think another key component in what you term the, PoT, would be if this god is omniscient. If he is all knowing, there never was a time in all eternity that this god did not know the suffering of eternal torment that he would inflict upon his creatures. Yet, given this knowledge, he created this universe in such a way that it would all come to pass.

This is all covered in Romans 9. I feel like I’m a broken record on this.

Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.

9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

I think it is also useful to ask, why?

9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

The why is glory and notoriety. It says it here and over and over again in Exodus 7-10. This is where we also hear why as God having to show us evil for us to understand goodness, ie God.

What does an omni-being need from this situation? We often hear about his requirement of something like "the free-will love of the creature." Okay, but in light of eternal torment and this god's omni-character doesn’t that make him supremely insecure, self centered, self consumptive... and... hypocritical?

That’s a good question, but doesn't it really boil down to why does God create or act at all?

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Hey BBB,
It really makes you wonder, with such clear deterministic statements in the bible, how do the "free-will" types maintain their belief? Their god in a number of places clearly identified that he has chosen some over and against others.

[BadBadBad]

They seem to be aware of that, but they always seem to miss the why.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

BBB,
As to the why... Clearly a sign that a rabble of goat herders desperately wanted to present their god as the biggest badass on the block.

[Stephen T-B]

I think this is the secret of the Jugment, Justice and Punishment thing.
The Jews (who were rather insignificant) got pushed around a bit by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, so they gave themselves the "biggest badass on the block" as their god.
He was modelled on what they'd expect of a powerful and ruthless king.
Powerful and ruthless kings do a lot of judging and punishing. It's what they're good at (and war, of course). But if you are at liberty to invent your own "governor", you can at least give him the quality (so lacking in human "governors") of being just.
So fear of god is combined with respect. He may be a baddas, but he's a fair baddas.

[Stumpjumper]

Not as succinct as the POE, the Problem of Torment is, nevertheless, a challenge which Christians are invited to answer.

It goes like this:
If it is true that God is merciful, loving, good and all mighty, and if it is true that he presides over a system in which billions upon billions of souls end up in permanent torment, then Christian doctrine is incoherent and invites dismissal.

Isn't this really just the argument from unjust punishment? Finite crimes can not equal infinite punishment. Fine, I agree. There is a Calvinistic statement called massa damnata (pretty sure that nut job Calvin wrote it) which states that the majority of souls are going to hell.

Catholic teaching however has never stated that anyone specifically is in hell. John Paul II wrote that "although we know hell exists we do not know if it is populated at all. We can not teach what we do not know." Hell can either be 1.) a state of mind 2.) total absence from God 3.) the total presence of God that some will find unbearable. (Imagine if you spent you whole life in a Cave and after 80 years emerged into the summer sun. God is light and it might not be pleasant. But maybe we'll all get used to the light. 4.) Hell is real and only scientologists don't end up there :rolling:

I vote for 3.

[jonesg]

Not as succinct as the POE, the Problem of Torment is, nevertheless, a challenge which Christians are invited to answer.

It goes like this:
If it is true that God is merciful, loving, good and all mighty, and if it is true that he presides over a system in which billions upon billions of souls end up in permanent torment, then Christian doctrine is incoherent and invites dismissal.


The suffering in your life is self imposed.

The solution to our most significant problems cannot be solved by the same thinking which caused it. Einstein.

No-one, no thing can keep you from God except your pride.
Its not about billions of souls, its about you.

Only intellectual Pride keeps someone from honestly considering and contemplating the existence of God. There is no other barrier.
If anyone cannot get around their own barriers then they are blocked off from God by virute of their own self will.

And a life which is run on self will can only lead to conflict and collision.
The choice is yours, good luck.

[steamer]

BBB,
As to the why... Clearly a sign that a rabble of goat herders desperately wanted to present their god as the biggest badass on the block.

Who has the biggest, baddest, meanest god on the block today? I still think the Christian fear-god holds the title. I wish I could get some Christian to answer how their god is better than their devil. I wonder if they love him for the same reasons? That they feel themselves to be small and powerless so their invisible magic badass god will get ya if you don't behave in the manner they describe?

[seebs]

Not as succinct as the POE, the Problem of Torment is, nevertheless, a challenge which Christians are invited to answer.

It goes like this:
If it is true that God is merciful, loving, good and all mighty, and if it is true that he presides over a system in which billions upon billions of souls end up in permanent torment, then Christian doctrine is incoherent and invites dismissal.

I think this depends a bit on what you mean by torment. Does torment imply a tormentor? Then I think I agree. Does it merely imply inability to be happy with things? Then I am not so sure.

[steamer]

The suffering in your life is self imposed.

Well sure, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself as king of infinite space. There is nothing either good nor bad but thinking makes it so.

I could be wrongly imprisoned and blame myself as well. Oh wait, this was just more meaningless prattle was it not?


The solution to our most significant problems cannot be solved by the same thinking which caused it. Einstein.

Certainly some sort of thinking must be applied. Expecting an invisible magic god to intervene doesn't seem to make more sense than expecting invisible magic monkeys to fly out of ones butt.


No-one, no thing can keep you from God except your pride.
Its not about billions of souls, its about you.

Why is your god so weak that he cannot overcome my pride in having the honesty to say I don't believe he exists?


Only intellectual Pride keeps someone from honestly considering and contemplating the existence of God. There is no other barrier.

I see many atheists here contemplating god. It is our honesty which keeps us from professing a false belief. It is our honesty which keeps us from asserting that things we do not know are indeed facts. I disbelieve that you know what keeps people from the god you imagine. I disbelieve that anyone else can get close to your god because he exists only in your head. This is the main reason why no one will ever know anything about your god, except for what you tell us. You are his spokeman, yet you call us prideful?


If anyone cannot get around their own barriers then they are blocked off from God by virute of their own self will.

I suspect the reason I am blocked from your god is that your skull is bewteen us. That is, the thing that keeps your god alive, is you. Your god will die when you do. My self will has nothing to do with why I cannot think your thoughts or imagine things to be true when I have very little real reason to do so.


And a life which is run on self will can only lead to conflict and collision.
The choice is yours, good luck.

I do not see that your life is any less conficted than anyone elses. Look at the conflict your previous post has generated. This choice you imagine existing is not even a choice that I can see. You will never do anything that you decide not to do. You will never not do anything you decide to do. Where was this imaginary choice again?

[Gooch's dad]

The suffering in your life is self imposed.

The solution to our most significant problems cannot be solved by the same thinking which caused it. Einstein.

No-one, no thing can keep you from God except your pride.
Its not about billions of souls, its about you.

Only intellectual Pride keeps someone from honestly considering and contemplating the existence of God. There is no other barrier.
If anyone cannot get around their own barriers then they are blocked off from God by virute of their own self will.

And a life which is run on self will can only lead to conflict and collision.
The choice is yours, good luck.

I fail to see how any of this addresses the problem stated in the OP. It's all non sequitur, really.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

The suffering in your life is self imposed.

The solution to our most significant problems cannot be solved by the same thinking which caused it. Einstein.

No-one, no thing can keep you from God except your pride.
Its not about billions of souls, its about you.

Only intellectual Pride keeps someone from honestly considering and contemplating the existence of God. There is no other barrier.
If anyone cannot get around their own barriers then they are blocked off from God by virute of their own self will.

And a life which is run on self will can only lead to conflict and collision.
The choice is yours, good luck.

The happy Jesus joy in your life is self deception.

The solution to our most significant problems cannot be solved by the same thinking which caused it. Einstein.

No-one, no thing can keep you from reality except your irrational death grip on an imaginary friend.
Its not about billions of apologetic arguments, it’s about reality.

Only sectarian Pride and/or irrational Fear keeps someone from honestly considering and contemplating the non-existence of god. There is no other barrier.
If anyone cannot get around their own barriers then they are blocked off from reality by virtue of their own sectarian Pride and/or irrational Fears.

And a life which is run on sectarian Pride and/or irrational Fears will only lead to conflict and collision.

The choice is yours, good luck.

[Stephen T-B]

A "Christian" who rejects the notion of of Divine Judgment, Justice and Punishment won't have to worm his way out of the inchoherence described in the OP.
But Divine Judgment, Justice and Punishment are as central to Christian doctrine as the Resurrected Lord who only is able to save us from the Punishment.
And the punishment is eternal.
If it's not the degree of punishment as has been traditionally described - hell fire, crying and the gnashing of teeth - then the "salvation" promised by Jesus is devalued.

Why do we need it?

Heavenly Bliss needs Hell's torture as a constrast, just as much as what is "good" on Earth needs "evil" on Earth to help us recognise it (an argument, I think used to ward of the PoE).

If damnation isn't really too bad, why bother to become a Christian?
People might say "for the love of God and the joy of knowing the love of God" but I think this is a modern heresy. It isn't the message which provided Christianity with its power to make converts among the heathen.
Christianity without torment is a bicycle without wheels.
And an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful god created a system which would result in countless souls experiencing torment for all of eternity.
That's the problem.

[seebs]

Here, I think, you misunderstand the essential nature of salvation as preached by many Christians throughout history.

I wrote about this:
http://www.seebs.net/log/archives/000188.html

Excerpt:

"A lot of people seem to have the idea that "salvation" is a process where you have no fun in your life, in the hopes of being rewarded with an afterlife which is also no fun, but at least you're not on fire."

The notion that Christ saves us from "punishment" is not central to Christian doctrine. Me, I think He saves us from ourselves.

But I think it's not a question of avoiding punishment, but of being helped to do those things which have the best possible consequences.

You are, I must admit, right in one thing: Proselytizing has often been rooted very much in the threat of hellfire. But I ask you, can you live in a modern industrialized nation and tell me with a straight face that advertising accurately describes the product?

[Stephen T-B]

I think people define "salvation" and "Hell" according to what fits their own personal ideas of what is sensible and acceptable.

I'm not surprised that Believers need to amend the Biiblical descriptions, which were drawn up at a time when barbaric cruelties, (which many of us regard as completely unacceptable) were perfectly normal.

I am surprised when Christians - who seem quite humane in other respects - seem actually to relish those harsh Biblical descriptions. It makes me wonder what it says about them.

[achristianbeliever]

If it is true that God is merciful, loving, good and all mighty, and if it is true that he presides over a system in which billions upon billions of souls end up in permanent torment, then Christian doctrine is incoherent and invites dismissal.


First off hello everyone, First time poster long time reader. Blah blah blah... nice to be here....blah..I've enjoyed reading the discussions. Ok introduction done.

Now you can probably tell by my posting name as to where I stand. So at any rate. Hello Stephen let me see if I understand your post. Basically because God is a loving God and yet sends people to Hell then that contradicts God as a loving being and thus we can dismiss Christian doctrine. That's what I get when I read your post if I'm getting it wrong then I apologize.

This is my premise: Whether or not you find God's actions just or unjust has no bearing on whether or not the concept of God and Hell can be dismisssed.

I have two reasons for this position:

1.Because how you find the concept of Hell has no bearing on truth.

Let me put it this way. I find the concept of just rotting in the grave disgusting, unhonorable and an unfair way to be. But this is exactly what the atheist promotes. I will say this right now I would rather go to Hell than be rotting in the grave when I die. The universe cannot be so badly designed that death is the end. And I find any atheist promoting this idea to be rediculous and as such easily dismissed.

Now what have I proven? Absolutely nothing. Because no matter how much I complain or don't like the concept of the grave has no bearing on whether or not that is what happens when I die. In the same way if Stephen finds the concept of Hell to be unfair of God then he has proven nothing more than to say he finds the concept of Hell unfair. It has nothing to do with whether or not people actually do go to Hell.

Now the atheist may argue, "But the universe is not a living being. God supposedly is. So there is nothing that can be done with the universe but if there is a God he could do something about it. So either he doesn't want to do something or the whole thing isn't true." But once again this argument is completely irrelevant because Stephen is merely saying what his personal views are on what a loving God is. Just like I'm stating what a badly designed
universe is. Both are just standards neither bearing on truth. The only difference is Stephen is saying because God doesn't measure up to his standards of what a loving God should be that should be reason enough to dismiss God. But this leads into reason number 2.

2. The atheist cannot assume their opinions on God are more valid than the Christian.

So what do I mean by this? Basically Stephen is saying that because God is loving he cannot send people down to Hell. Ok here is my opinion: I would rather God sent every single human to Hell than let everyone into Heaven. To me God letting everyone into Heaven would be the act of an evil, unjust and unholy God. Obviously we have different views on how a loving God should act. The question then is what makes Stephen's view of a loving God more valid than mine? According to the atheists that I've heard from what is
right and wrong is merely subjective. J. L. Mackie even says this,
From http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-tooley1.html
"If there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them."

As such J. L. Mackie denies that objective moral values exist and that morals are merely subjective. Again from the website:
" appreciate that when somebody says, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they, are referring above and beyond themselves, . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation, Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory"

So if Stephen is saying objective moral values exist then he disagrees with Mackie and according to Mackie objective moral values is evidence of God. But if Stephen is saying that moral values is subjective than what makes a loving God is merely an opinion of either Stephen or me.

Because of this the two of us have effectively cancelled each other out. His opinions of a loving God are his and my opinion of what is loving God is mine. Because of this any honest debate we have with each other must end on the concept of Hell as agnostic.

In conclusion based on reasons 1 and 2 we can conclude that the concept of Hell cannot be dismissed merely by a person's belief that a loving God cannot send someone down there. Whether or not God is a loving God is irrelevant as to whether or not such a concept can be dismissed. If it is truth then that is just how it is.

[Stephen T-B]

Hello achristianbeliever.
Thank you for that.

My OP is probably not as clear as it ought to be, so I'll try to explain where it comes from.

In recent discussions, it has become apparent to me that if Christians are correct in what they believe, by the time Creation comes to an end and the last human being is dead, the situation in terms of the balance between happiness / unhappiness will be very different from what it was before Creation began.
Let's assume that there existed God and the angels - and Satan and his cohorts, if you like. What was the balance then between happiness and unhappiness?
I'd say, pretty much in favour of happiness. If there was any unhappiness at all, it must have been minimal - and I say "minimal" on the assumption that Satan and Co. were unhappy. But that, of course, is idle speculation (as, indeed, is this entire "pre-Creation" scenario, though I think it can be deduced from Christian theology).

Compare this, then, with the post-Creation scenario. What is the balance now between happiness and unhappiness?

Since the vast bulk of human souls are judged by God not to be worthy of enjoying heavenly bliss, they must presumably not be enjoying the situation they find themselves in. (If they are enjoying it, what's the big deal about the reward God hands out to the Good and Faithful?)
If they aren't enjoying the situation they find themselves in, they can't be happy. And this state of "not being happy" - or of being "unhappy" - lasts for all of eternity.

The balance between happiness and unhappiness is now hugely in favour of "unhappiness."

But we are told that Creation is the work of a perfectly loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God.
As such, this God knew what the outcome would be of his Creation (ie, more unhappiness than happiness) before he emarked on it. So why did he, if he is all loving?

That's the problem.

This outcome is far more likely to have been determined by a god that is not all loving; which in fact has a very mean streak.
But if you thought your god had a mean streak, would you still want to worship and praise it?
I don't think so.
Thus you are obliged to accept a doctrine which, at its very heart, is incoherent. You worship and praise a "perfectly loving God" which is nevertheless responsible for having created a situation which contains vast amounts of unhappiness.

That's the argument I'm making.

[Gooch's dad]

achristianbeliever: your example of rotting in a grave isn't even relevant. Your response is an emotional response. There is nothing logically contradictory about "rotting in a grave" and anything else you mentioned.

You never actually address the logical contradiction that Stephen posted in his OP. As he just wrote, the contradiction between a supposedly omnibenevolent God, and an eternity of torture in hell for *anybody*, makes any Christian worldview that accepts both of those views into an incoherent worldview.

Please try dealing with the actual contradiction between an "all loving God" and the idea that anybody can be tortured for eternity in hell. THAT is the issue.

[steamer]

Now you can probably tell by my posting name as to where I stand. So at any rate. Hello Stephen let me see if I understand your post. Basically because God is a loving God and yet sends people to Hell then that contradicts God as a loving being and thus we can dismiss Christian doctrine. That's what I get when I read your post if I'm getting it wrong then I apologize.

This is not the only reason to dismiss the idea that the description of Yahweh as an all-loving god, but it is one good reason. Each act that an all-loving god being performs must be an act of love or that being is not all-loving. On top of that for the word love to have any meaning it must be assumed that our definition of love is not mangled to some meaningless form so you can claim your god has it. You must explain how an all-loving god can torment someone for eternity and have this act be a loving act towards that being that experiencing the torment. Good Luck.


I suspect that you will be doing quite a bit of special pleading shortly so I shall put on my wading boots so as not to

This is my premise: Whether or not you find God's actions just or unjust has no bearing on whether or not the concept of God and Hell can be dismisssed.

Maybe not, but you can most assuredly state that any being that created hell for the express purpose of tormenting ex-humans has committed an unloving act.


1.Because how you find the concept of Hell has no bearing on truth.

Let me put it this way. I find the concept of just rotting in the grave disgusting, unhonorable and an unfair way to be.

Your feelings in the matter have no bearing on what the truth is, although it may point out why you'd prefer to believe a falsehood than the truth. In addition since you will never experience any conscious or unconsious thought after you die you are projecting your fears into a place where you cannot experience them. I imagine death will be very similar to the non-existence you had before your birth. That wasn't so scary was it?


But this is exactly what the atheist promotes.

Mostly what atheists promote is rational thinking. That your body will rot is not in question at all. It will.


I will say this right now I would rather go to Hell than be rotting in the grave when I die.

I'd rather be a millionaire than have to work for a living, it's a pity that the reality hasn't made it so based on my preferences.


The universe cannot be so badly designed that death is the end. And I find any atheist promoting this idea to be rediculous and as such easily dismissed.

The universe seems not to have been designed at all. There is no evidence to suggest that it was. It appears that your preference not to rot in the grave is what you base "truth" on. I'm sure you must have noticed that your preference is not much of an indicator of the truths you see about you.


Now what have I proven? Absolutely nothing. Because no matter how much I complain or don't like the concept of the grave has no bearing on whether or not that is what happens when I die. In the same way if Stephen finds the concept of Hell to be unfair of God then he has proven nothing more than to say he finds the concept of Hell unfair. It has nothing to do with whether or not people actually do go to Hell.

Well actually it promotes a falsifiable claim that an all-loving god could do this to any one ex-human. If the god cannot commit acts that aren't loving then tormenting someone for eternity must be construed somehow as a loving act or it is false. Not many here believe that this hell-creating god of yours exists, but we do believe that love exists. We humans have defined the word love and now we want to see if it can be applied to a being that torments ex-humans seemingly without reason or purpose.


Now the atheist may argue, "But the universe is not a living being. God supposedly is. So there is nothing that can be done with the universe but if there is a God he could do something about it. So either he doesn't want to do something or the whole thing isn't true." But once again this argument is completely irrelevant because Stephen is merely saying what his personal views are on what a loving God is. Just like I'm stating what a badly designed
universe is. Both are just standards neither bearing on truth. The only difference is Stephen is saying because God doesn't measure up to his standards of what a loving God should be that should be reason enough to dismiss God. But this leads into reason number 2.

So far you haven't explained how a loving being can torment someone eternally without any purpose. We cannot disprove the existence of imaginary gods. We can however point out contradictions in definitions. You need to explain how it would be a loving act to eternally torment someone or your claim that god is all-loving is false.


2. The atheist cannot assume their opinions on God are more valid than the Christian.

So what do I mean by this? Basically Stephen is saying that because God is loving he cannot send people down to Hell. Ok here is my opinion: I would rather God sent every single human to Hell than let everyone into Heaven.

Of course you would. You are god's special little guy who doesn't want to rot in a grave and you only like "saved" murderers and rapists in heaven with you instead of heathens like Ghandi or Hawkins.


To me God letting everyone into Heaven would be the act of an evil, unjust and unholy God.

Yet sending most of the population that ever lived on this planet into eternal torment seems loving to you. I'm afraid your opinion being so skewed to the absurd will not carry much weight here.


Obviously we have different views on how a loving God should act. The question then is what makes Stephen's view of a loving God more valid than mine? According to the atheists that I've heard from what is right and wrong is merely subjective. J. L. Mackie even says this,
From http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-tooley1.html
"If there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them."

Well it depends on how you define love. If you decide it really means viscious hatred, then you can claim your god has it without much complaint from the rest of us. What makes Stephens view more reasonable is that we do not need to re-define the word love to mean viscious hatred when we mean love. The definition of a word is well within human capability to decide what fits and what doesn't. Language after all is merely an agreement on what sounds should mean.


As such J. L. Mackie denies that objective moral values exist and that morals are merely subjective. Again from the website:
" appreciate that when somebody says, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they, are referring above and beyond themselves, . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation, Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory"

Possibly but it is irrellevent to our discussion. Humans decide what words mean. If I say that god is a visously hateful all-loving being, then the word love has lost all meaning.


So if Stephen is saying objective moral values exist then he disagrees with Mackie and according to Mackie objective moral values is evidence of God. But if Stephen is saying that moral values is subjective than what makes a loving God is merely an opinion of either Stephen or me.

No you can say that an all-loving god cannot perform visciously hateful acts. Any single unloving act proves the god is not all-loving. Which is just pointing out that even imaginary things cannot have logically impossible and contradictory attributes and still be imagined.


Because of this the two of us have effectively cancelled each other out. His opinions of a loving God are his and my opinion of what is loving God is mine. Because of this any honest debate we have with each other must end on the concept of Hell as agnostic.

Not really, you need to defend your definition of love and hate. Apparently you think they are the same when your god mangles the concepts in his imaginary maws.


In conclusion based on reasons 1 and 2 we can conclude that the concept of Hell cannot be dismissed merely by a person's belief that a loving God cannot send someone down there.

Actually we can. Your god cannot be called loving by any reasonable definition of the term because of the acts that are attributed to it. If you can call eternal torment of an ex-human a loving act then it is you that does not know the meaning of the word love.

Whether or not God is a loving God is irrelevant as to whether or not such a concept can be dismissed. If it is truth then that is just how it is.

I quite agree that a vengeful and hateful god could create something like hell. Why would you want to worship it though and why wouldn't you just live your life as best you could, knowing that no matter what you do, a vengeful and hateful god will punish you for it. Your view seems to suggest that we should be even more hedonistic than most of us currently are.

[seebs]

I think people define "salvation" and "Hell" according to what fits their own personal ideas of what is sensible and acceptable.

I'm not surprised that Believers need to amend the Biiblical descriptions, which were drawn up at a time when barbaric cruelties, (which many of us regard as completely unacceptable) were perfectly normal.

I don't think they need to be amended, just understood in context. Gehenna was a trash dump on fire, where bodies were sometimes disposed of. The metaphor could refer to many things; it's not necessarily a depiction of being eternally on fire.

I am surprised when Christians - who seem quite humane in other respects - seem actually to relish those harsh Biblical descriptions. It makes me wonder what it says about them.

It says that, like all humans, we have a strong desire to see people who are unlike us suffering, because that means our tribe is getting all the food.

[achristianbeliever]

Before I begin I already mentioned how I may have misread the opening post. All I can say is I cannot respond to the question of can a loving God send someone to Hell. I believe it is a trick question because I find it irrelevant here which I'll speak more of in this post.


Please try dealing with the actual contradiction between an "all loving God" and the idea that anybody can be tortured for eternity in hell. THAT is the issue.

Hey Gooch's dad,
But I believe it is totally irrelevant to anyone who is not a believer in Hell. A non-believer cannot conclude on God's nature for Hell and still be a non-believer. Because as far as the non-believer is concerned what constitutes a loving act is subjective. So saying that torturing a person is contradictory to an all loving God assumes that right and wrong are objective. But if the Christian view of loving act is different than the atheist then any honest view on Hell must end with the postmodernist view of what is true for you is not true for me.

Hey steamer

You must explain how an all-loving god can torment someone for eternity and have this act be a loving act towards that being that experiencing the torment. Good Luck.


No I don't. Because love is subjective to the non-believer. I could just bring it back to you and ask you to explain how God tormenting someone in Hell for eternity is not a loving act without eliminating your view that right and wrong are subjective.


Maybe not, but you can most assuredly state that any being that created hell for the express purpose of tormenting ex-humans has committed an unloving act.


Why?


Your feelings in the matter have no bearing on what the truth is


I'm glad you agree with me. Considering I already made this point and its my whole point of my post.


I'd rather be a millionaire than have to work for a living, it's a pity that the reality hasn't made it so based on my preferences.


exactly


The universe seems not to have been designed at all. There is no evidence to suggest that it was.

I was being metaphorical in this part.


I'm sure you must have noticed that your preference is not much of an indicator of the truths you see about you.

yep


If the god cannot commit acts that aren't loving then tormenting someone for eternity must be construed somehow as a loving act or it is false.


What is a loving act? Does my viersion of loving act not matter if right and wrong are subjective?


We humans have defined the word love and now we want to see if it can be applied to a being that torments ex-humans seemingly without reason or purpose.


already answered


So far you haven't explained how a loving being can torment someone eternally without any purpose.


Because that has nothing to do with my premise.
My premise was:
"Whether or not you find God's actions just or unjust has no bearing on whether or not the concept of God and Hell can be dismisssed."


We can however point out contradictions in definitions. You need to explain how it would be a loving act to eternally torment someone or your claim that god is all-loving is false.


No I don't. not based on my premise.


You are god's special little guy who doesn't want to rot in a grave and you only like "saved" murderers and rapists in heaven with you instead of heathens like Ghandi or Hawkins.


Irrelevant. What if I said I prefer God sends me to Hell. That ruins this whole analogy. This has nothing to do with my premise.


Yet sending most of the population that ever lived on this planet into eternal torment seems loving to you. I'm afraid your opinion being so skewed to the absurd will not carry much weight here.


I don't care if it does hold much weight. My premise has nothing to do with whether or not it really is a loving act. That may be my belief but that isn't my premise because I believe it is irrelevant when speaking to a non-believer.


Well it depends on how you define love. If you decide it really means viscious hatred, then you can claim your god has it without much complaint from the rest of us.


I don't see anything here to disagree with.


What makes Stephens view more reasonable is that we do not need to re-define the word love to mean viscious hatred when we mean love.


Still don't really disagree. I just don't understand how an atheist can define
what a loving act is. Hitler probably thought he was being very loving to the Germans by getting rid of the Jews. My only question is how one defines harm as not loving someone. I don't think we can if right and wrong are subjective.


Possibly but it is irrellevent to our discussion. Humans decide what words mean. If I say that god is a visously hateful all-loving being, then the word love has lost all meaning.


And I believe this is the case if someone is to be an honest atheist. And I my premise is based on what I believe is an atheist worldview.


No you can say that an all-loving god cannot perform visciously hateful acts.


answered


Not really, you need to defend your definition of love and hate.


No I don't. not from an atheist perspective and not based on my premise.


Your god cannot be called loving by any reasonable definition of the term because of the acts that are attributed to it.


Not to the atheist


I quite agree that a vengeful and hateful god could create something like hell. Why would you want to worship it though and why wouldn't you just live your life as best you could, knowing that no matter what you do, a vengeful and hateful god will punish you for it. Your view seems to suggest that we should be even more hedonistic than most of us currently are.


Doesn't matter why I would want to worship it. You can live your life however you want I don't recall trying to stop you. I like his style so I'm going to live how he wants me to. Live your life however you want. I'm just trying to show that questioning why God does what he does is irrelevant. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my previous post for that I apologize. But I found the Opening post to be a trick question because the irrelevancy of the premise. Whether or not sending someone to Hell is a loving is just so irrelevant based on an atheistic worldview.

[orac]

Here's my favourite explanation, from another poster on this board who shall remain nameless right here:

God isn't tri-omni. He's quad-omni.

Infinitely loving. Infinitely powerful. Infinitely knowledgable. Infinitely thin skinned.

An insult that to you or me would be less than a papercut would still cause God infinite pain, and thus deserves infinite punishment.

I'm not entirely sure how infinitely powerful and infinitely weak go together, but I guess once you've got a handle on the whole three-in-one thing, strong-and-weak is child's play. ;)

(Note that god's self-professed True Spokespeople are usually convinced that questioning their revelations is a sin at least on the scale of murdering several trillion people, so being sent to hell is perfectly reasonable, although picking which one is right when they say that the others are False-Prophets-As-Predicted-See-The-Bible-is-True-Praise-Jebus is kinda tricky.)

[CowboyHeretic]

The Bible does not teach an eternal torment for humans who sin. It teaches a "Second Death". Meaning that the unrighteous as defined below will be annihilated by fire.:

Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. [U]

G-d is merciful even to the Adolf Hitlers of the world.

[Stephen T-B]

Seebs wrote: "It (Christians relishing harsh Biblical descriptions of God's punishment) says that, like all humans, we have a strong desire to see people who are unlike us suffering, because that means our tribe is getting all the food."
Quite right: Christianity does not impinge on our deeper natures. It makes us feel guilty about some of them, but the essence of what we are and why we are what we are remains untouched by it.


achristianbeliever wrote: "as far as the non-believer is concerned what constitutes a loving act is subjective. So saying that torturing a person is contradictory to an all loving God assumes that right and wrong are objective. But if the Christian view of loving act is different than the atheist then any honest view on Hell must end with the postmodernist view of what is true for you is not true for me."

I'm not talking about whether "torturing" a human being is right or wrong. I am saying that torturing a human being creates unhappiness. My argument is that a "perfectly loving" god would not set up a system which results in human souls being made unhappy. Just one soul being made unhappy is inconsistent with a perfectly loving God, but according to Christian doctrine, billions upon billions of souls are unhappy. Whichever way you cut it, the Christian God is shown to be less than perfectly loving.

To the remark: "...you can most assuredly state that any being that created hell for the express purpose of tormenting ex-humans has committed an unloving act" achristianbeliever replied: "Why?"


This response, I think, shows something strange going on. Suppose the remark had been: "...you can most assuredly state that anyone who builds a chamber for the express purpose of tormenting people has committed an unloving act", I doubt that achristianbeliever would have asked "Why?"
The introduction of God apparently changes everything. achristianbeliever does not judge his god in the same way he judges his fellow human beings. His definitions of "good" and "bad" cease to have any meaning. That is why he is able to accommodate the contradictions of a "perfectly loving" god doing something which is not perfectly loving.
He has proved my point that incoherence lies at the heart of Christian doctrine.


CowboyHeretic told us: "The Bible does not teach an eternal torment for humans who sin. It teaches a 'Second Death'. Meaning that the unrighteous as defined below (the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars) will be annihilated by fire. Indeed, according to the passage he quoted, they shall "have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Nice! Thank you. oh merciful God, for that!

So, this "lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death", how does that get into the picture, unless with God's say-so?

This thing exists because he allows it to. In allowing it to exist, he allows unhappiness (Surely CowboyHewretic isn't going to argue that those souls which end up in it are having a good time?) If it is a "second death" then it is a second death which is preceded by the most frightful torture. But as we've seen with achristianbeliever, when god sends souls to the most frightful torture, it's a "loving" act.

Well actually, no, it is not.

[Stephen T-B]

I suppose I ought to address the question of whether causing "unhappiness" is less than a perfectly loving thing to do.

It will no doubt be argued that a loving parent makes his child unhappy from time to time by restricting his freedom and occasionally punishing him - all for his own good.
Quite so. The idea of restricting freedom and inflicting punishment is to train the child so that it will grow into a decent adult, able to play a responsible and constructive part in society.

But the "unhappiness" caused by God's judgment does not have that coersive purpose. It is pure retribution. His purpose is not to "train" souls" so that they might learn the errors of their ways and become better. It's "you did wrong. Now you will pay for it. And YOU WILL NEVER be able to put it right."

And this from our "perfectly loving Father in Heaven.

What?

[CowboyHeretic]

I believe in two distinct ends for human beings. Salvation and eternal dwelling with G-d in the world to come free of pain, suffering, jealousy,or strife. OR Annihilation, an utter state of non-existence free of all of the above with no consciousness remaining. I don't consider that particularly cruel. I do consider a human's inability to acknowledge G-d to be driven by self pride.
If you picture Heaven as some place where people float around playing harps and Hell as some sort of Dante's Inferno then I would consider that believing in Fairy Tales.

[premjan]

two distinct ends for a human being: mouth and anus?

[Stephen T-B]

Annihilation certainly suits me. But I'm not sure it addresses the question of justice.
If god gives us free will, we not only have the freedom to decide to believe in god and obey it (god), but we have the freedom to decide to be decent human beings or really awful ones, like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung.
These people killed a lot of non-Christians who nevertheless went about their daily lives causing no harm to anyone, and possibly doing some good. Before killing them, the tyrants made the lives of many of them very terrible indeed, but because they weren't Christians, when they died, they were annihilated (according to your system).
When the tyrants died, they too were annihilated. So God's "justice" recognises no difference.
Instead of permitting a great deal of unhappiness to be experienced by billions upon billions of souls, he created a system which permits unhappiness to be experienced by millions upon millions of ordinary, decent people - with no ultimate reward to make up for it.

And this is the behaviour of a "perfectly loving" God?

[Sven]

I do consider a human's inability to acknowledge G-d to be driven by self pride.
Why don't you read up on some of the Atheist testimonials (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/index.shtml) before making stupid, insulting comments like this one?

[Stephen T-B]

(I'd certainly like to know where CowboyHeretic detects self pride in A Salvation Story http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72552)

[CowboyHeretic]

It seems to me that this person was indoctrinated into the Pauline Church at a yound age. When she experienced conflict between her desires and her teachings, she rejected the teachings.(A slef driven choice) Since, IMHO her faith was based more on the teachings of Paul than of Jesus, her faith crumbled because it lacked foundation.
The foundation must be the teachings of Jesus and G-d's Laws.
Thanks again for the name calling. It really helps drive home the point.

[Stephen T-B]

Wow - you read it so soon!

So whose fault was it that she was "indoctrinated" at a young age into the Pauline Church?
Hers?
Where did you see a conflict between her desires and her teachings? I got the strong impression that she put herself on the wrack in her efforts to align her thoughts with what she was taught.

But anyway - she'll be annihilated because of how she was brought up?

Why didn't an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god see her problem and send her a teacher who could put her right?

[Spanish_Inquisitor]

Thanks again for the name calling. It really helps drive home the point.
If you're refering to Sven's post, he didn't call you any names. You must have a thin skin. He said your comment was stupid and insulting, not you. In no way was that an ad hominem attack. It was an attack on your argument.

In the process of civil discourse (which this moderated forum is a good example of) it is possible to make scathing comments about someone's argument without getting personal in the slightest. The mark of a weak argument is when the arguer claims he is being attacked personally, when he is not. It's a bald attempt to deflect, rather than discuss, the merits of the comment.

SI

[Jedi Mind Trick]

All I can say is I cannot respond to the question of can a loving God send someone to Hell. I believe it is a trick question because I find it irrelevant here which I'll speak more of in this post.



I know where you are going with this but I will challenge you here on the notion that this is a trick question. My impression is that this is an uncomfortable question for you and that is why you really whish it to be irrelevant.

To set up my response to the remainder of your argumentation below, let me remind you that we are speaking of a belief system that Christians like yourself hold. We are therefore involving ourselves in your worldview and critiquing it according to its claims.

Of need to be said: I understand words and what they mean… I also understand what arguments follow logically from certain premises. If something claims to be true but is demonstrably self contradictory and contradictory to observable facts, then I am forced to accept irrational ideas if I am to believe it. This is something I am not willing to do any more for Christianity than for Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, Zoroastrianism or any other ism.



I believe it is totally irrelevant to anyone who is not a believer in Hell. A non-believer cannot conclude on God's nature for Hell and still be a non-believer.



This is completely false and I think demonstrative of your level of discomfort with the skeptical critique presented in the OP. Long time lurkers generally make first time posters when something touches a soft spot.

Here is why I think your statement is false.
I take it that you do not believe in the ancient god Molech?
If you are not familiar (You should be as he is mentioned in the bible) with Molech let me introduce you.
Molech was the fire deity of the Canaanites. Molech was thought to be appeased by the extreme demonstration of the ultimate sacrifice… the burning alive of one’s own child upon his altar. The Canaanites would do this by placing their child into the arms of a bronze image of the deity. Then by mechanical means the arms dropped the child into a furnace and consumed the child alive by fire.

Can you conclude something about the nature of this deity even though you do not believe he exists?
Can you conclude something about the nature of the beliefs that are behind the practice?
Can you conclude that Molech, if he claimed to be all-loving, was indeed not loving, but a frightful lie?




Because as far as the non-believer is concerned what constitutes a loving act is subjective.



Not true either…
As has already been pointed out to you, we invented the concept of love and romanticized and idealized it. Really, I think it is defined by our ages long development as social animals. As such, it has a near implicit definition to the human primate. I know what “loving� is because as a species these acts helped us survive. Love –minus the poetry— is simply those set of acts and attitudes that promote wellbeing and social coherence. It is not subjective, it is social… It is objective, yet not static; it is a dynamic.



So saying that torturing a person is contradictory to an all loving God assumes that right and wrong are objective.



Right and wrong are objective, in as much as we have experientially, as a species, determined what norms and standards have promoted our wellbeing and continued survival. But this is not static… At one time, we used to torture our disfavored “other� for one reason or another. Not coincidentally, this was during the same time in our history that the ideas of a god torturing his disfavored ones was also popular and considered right and good. However, and thankfully, we have socially grown since those times and have recognized that to inflict pain on others is not conducive to the type of social order we desire.

Now, if you propose an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving god concept the very relevant facts are such that:

Eternal torment is contradictory to what we, as a species, have come to determine as “love’s� function.
God is merely the Uber exemplar of what we have determined to be the right and wrong of things from our ages long experience as social beings. As an Uber exemplar it is expected that he should exceed our own sense and capacity in these matters. If the god concept does not exceed… then that concept has failed to be what it proposes and can be safely consigned to the realm of having no credibility. We atheists, working from within your particular theistic paradigm, have concluded this to be the case with the christian god.

To torture any being for an eternity serves no purpose but to inflict pain because there is no remedial function to it.

To torture the great majority of the human race is to maximize the amount of pain experienced by the creation.

To maximize this pain knowingly by actualizing a reality wherein such an outcome is sure, is immoral.

To defend such a proposition by stating that a skeptic, as a non-believer, has no objective ground whereon to stand when making a judgment based upon right and wrong is false.




But if the Christian view of loving act is different than the atheist then any honest view on Hell must end with the postmodernist view of what is true for you is not true for me.



I think this is incorrect…
Can you explain how an omniscient, omnipotent god can still be all-loving if he knowingly created a universe wherein the vast majority of his human creatures would suffer eternally?

And no, this is not a trick question… it is put to you honestly and in direct language. If you can’t answer it, a simple “I don’t know but I still believe� is not unwelcome.




Because love is subjective to the non-believer. I could just bring it back to you and ask you to explain how God tormenting someone in Hell for eternity is not a loving act without eliminating your view that right and wrong are subjective.



Apparently you think it’s clever to maintain that atheists have no objective sense of right and wrong… A common strawman used by Christians.



What is a loving act? Does my viersion of loving act not matter if right and wrong are subjective?



If you are comfortable with worshiping a Molech type of god (Which your eternal hell turns your “loving� god into) then you’re entitled… But just don’t think that you have convinced me that he loves me.




Doesn't matter why I would want to worship it. You can live your life however you want I don't recall trying to stop you. I like his style so I'm going to live how he wants me to. Live your life however you want.


Go right ahead and have at it, enjoy it, revel in it…. Just keep it away from me, my children and away from my right to my full human potential in society.



I'm just trying to show that questioning why God does what he does is irrelevant.



Maybe it is irrelevant to achristianbeliever who wants to continue believing in a Molech type of god. However, for the sake of a GRD discussion about the coherency of the concept, to atheists, it is quite relevant.



But I found the Opening post to be a trick question because the irrelevancy of the premise.



The OP was presented coherently and honestly therefore its irrelevancy to you appears to be a subjective matter. ;)



Whether or not sending someone to Hell is a loving is just so irrelevant based on an atheistic worldview.



I think you have a strawman concept of atheistic ethics and worldview.

[CowboyHeretic]

Wow - you read it so soon!

So whose fault was it that she was "indoctrinated" at a young age into the Pauline Church?
Hers?
Where did you see a conflict between her desires and her teachings? I got the strong impression that she put herself on the wrack in her efforts to align her thoughts with what she was taught.

But anyway - she'll be annihilated because of how she was brought up?

Why didn't an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god see her problem and send her a teacher who could put her right?

What does fault have to do with it?
The breakdown in her belief system began over the conflict with the Filipino boy. Id versus Superego. The Pauline churches teach a doctrine that IMHO (again) is not sound. (Jesus taught equality and acceptance) That is why it could not stand up to this conflict.
Annihilation? I can't say only G-d can decide.
If she's still breathing it ain't even over yet. Heck, even you could be saved. :D

[Stephen T-B]

Fault?

If she isn't to blame in some measure (and how can she be blamed if this was the doctrine she was taught?) why should her soul be denied the joy of everlasting life?

[CowboyHeretic]

Fault?

If she isn't to blame in some measure (and how can she be blamed if this was the doctrine she was taught?) why should her soul be denied the joy of everlasting life?
That friend is the best question I have been asked since posting here. I ain't going to pretend that I know the answer. This doesn't mean that G-d doesn't know the anwer however.
I SPECULATE that we get into culpability issues at this point.
If I told someone, adult or child, that we were going to play a trick on someone by making the brakes on thier car spongy to scare them and they went along would they be culpable if the victim got killed? Answers; yes if they had full capacity to understand the dangerousness of thier actions, no if they did not have the capacity to understand the serious consequences that could result. In the middle - much gray.

[Sven]

That friend is the best question I have been asked since posting here. I ain't going to pretend that I know the answer.
This doesn't mean that G-d doesn't know the anwer however.

There you have it, Stephen: Theists apparently simply can not answer your question - and are quite happy with nevertheless having faith in the omnibenevolence of god.

This is all it always boils down to in the end: I believe because I believe.

[Stephen T-B]

(But I bet Billy Graham is Cool would have offered some specious and incomprehensively-wordy answer).

[achristianbeliever]

This is completely false and I think demonstrative of your level of discomfort with the skeptical critique presented in the OP. Long time lurkers generally make first time posters when something touches a soft spot.


You want to believe this then I obviously can't stop you. My good word probably isn't going to change your mind. All I can tell you is that I was telling atheists my view on why God sending people to Hell is just. I did it on another forum. I used two analogy stories of George Wilson and a judge as my reasoning. Then he went on and on about how because he was a non-believer that God should have taken that into account. Blah blah blah. And so I brought this up with an atheist who I knew personally and he said to me, "How is that relevant? An atheist can't use how unjust it is as a reasoning to disbelieve because it is irrelevant to the atheist. An atheist would have to abandon his disbelief and believe in a Hell to do it." And I said to myself you know he's right. So when I saw this thread where someone said because a loving God is sending someone to Hell I can dismiss it I said to myself no you can't. But if you want to believe its because the question is uncomfortable to me be my guest.


Here is why I think your statement is false.
I take it that you do not believe in the ancient god Molech?


Actually I do believe that such a being existed and/or exists but let's pretend I don't.


Molech was the fire deity of the Canaanites. Molech was thought to be appeased by the extreme demonstration of the ultimate sacrifice… the burning alive of one’s own child upon his altar. The Canaanites would do this by placing their child into the arms of a bronze image of the deity. Then by mechanical means the arms dropped the child into a furnace and consumed the child alive by fire.

Can you conclude something about the nature of this deity even though you do not believe he exists?
Can you conclude something about the nature of the beliefs that are behind the practice?
Can you conclude that Molech, if he claimed to be all-loving, was indeed not loving, but a frightful lie?

nope.


As has already been pointed out to you, we invented the concept of love and romanticized and idealized it. Really, I think it is defined by our ages long development as social animals. As such, it has a near implicit definition to the human primate. I know what “loving� is because as a species these acts helped us survive. Love –minus the poetry— is simply those set of acts and attitudes that promote wellbeing and social coherence. It is not subjective, it is social… It is objective, yet not static; it is a dynamic.


If that were true then every single atheist on the entire planet would have, the exact same idea of what is right and what is wrong. But do you really believe that an atheist from America will definitively have the same ideas of right and wrong as an atheist from China? Again in an atheistic worldview right and wrong are subjective.


Right and wrong are objective, in as much as we have experientially, as a species, determined what norms and standards have promoted our wellbeing and continued survival.


Who is we? I disagree and have explained above.


At one time, we used to torture our disfavored “other� for one reason or another. Not coincidentally, this was during the same time in our history that the ideas of a god torturing his disfavored ones was also popular and considered right and good. However, and thankfully, we have socially grown since those times and have recognized that to inflict pain on others is not conducive to the type of social order we desire.


This just proves my point. In an atheist worldview right and wrong are subjective. Your basically saying that here in the 21st century above all other centuries our views of right and wrong are superior. Which would have to mean there is an ultimate objective morality. But I doubt you want to go there otherwise you fall into the problem of God that J. L. Mackie mentioned.


To torture any being for an eternity serves no purpose but to inflict pain because there is no remedial function to it.

To torture the great majority of the human race is to maximize the amount of pain experienced by the creation.

To maximize this pain knowingly by actualizing a reality wherein such an outcome is sure, is immoral.

To defend such a proposition by stating that a skeptic, as a non-believer, has no objective ground whereon to stand when making a judgment based upon right and wrong is false.


I don't agree and you've shown me nothing to say otherwise. Basically your saying "WE" (whoever that is) has decided what is most beneficial to society but that nothing to do with whether or not it is right or wrong.


I think this is incorrect…
Can you explain how an omniscient, omnipotent god can still be all-loving if he knowingly created a universe wherein the vast majority of his human creatures would suffer eternally?

And no, this is not a trick question… it is put to you honestly and in direct language. If you can’t answer it, a simple “I don’t know but I still believe� is not unwelcome.


I can answer but only to a person who believes in Hell. I even did it to an atheist because I believed he was asking sincerly. But I can't answer it to an atheist. I do have an answer and I've answered before. My question then would be do you have to agree with the answer for it to be acceptable? If I gave an answer that convinced me but didn't convince you would that be acceptable enough or does it also have to convince you in order to successfully answer the opening post? In any case it is a trick question and I'm not gonna let you trick me into it.


Apparently you think it’s clever to maintain that atheists have no objective sense of right and wrong… A common strawman used by Christians.


Because its true and I mentioned an atheist Mackie who would agree with me.


Go right ahead and have at it, enjoy it, revel in it…. Just keep it away from me, my children and away from my right to my full human potential in society.


Well that makes sense when your ASKING the Christian these things.


If you are comfortable with worshiping a Molech type of god (Which your eternal hell turns your “loving� god into) then you’re entitled… But just don’t think that you have convinced me that he loves me.


I challenge you to tell me where I ever said I was going to try and convince you. I dare you.


Maybe it is irrelevant to achristianbeliever who wants to continue believing in a Molech type of god. However, for the sake of a GRD discussion about the coherency of the concept, to atheists, it is quite relevant.


Not to the atheists I know personally. But maybe you think they aren't real atheists.


The OP was presented coherently and honestly therefore its irrelevancy to you appears to be a subjective matter.


Be my guest to believe that. But who says it was presented coherently and honestly? I don't recall saying that. Ohhhhh but youuuuu do. Well then that makes all the difference.


I think you have a strawman concept of atheistic ethics and worldview.


Well at least you admit that view of yours is subjective.

You used the Molech analogy. Here is my analogy. I don't believe in Pink Elephants. But wouldn't it be horrible if pink elephants started sitting on people? This idea of elephants sitting on people is reason enough for me to dismiss it. This is as rediculous as the opening post. The two are competely irrelevant. You may disagree with my comparison of elephants and OP but my view is the two are exactly the same.

[Stephen T-B]

I think there's a bit of confusion here (still) achristianbeliever.
I'll try to explain.

The OP's integrity (if that's the word) has nothing to do with the fact that I don't believe in heaven or hell.
It is addressed to people who do believe in them, because their belief, it seems to me, is incoherent if they also believe that their god is all loving.

Now, a god with a mean streak might well have set up a system which results in much misery - and Christian doctrine concerning heaven and hell is that in hell there is indeed much misery.

But does the Christian God have a mean streak?
He can't have because he is perfectly good and all loving.

If that be the case, why does he preside over a system which a god with a mean streak might have created?

Do you see? We have a compatability problem here: a perfectly loving, all-powerful god creating a system which generates misery.

It's like cog wheels not meeting.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I don’t have the patience to address the entirety of your previous reply to me, but I would like to focus on this.

I asked you:


Can you explain how an omniscient, omnipotent god can still be all-loving if he knowingly created a universe wherein the vast majority of his human creatures would suffer eternally?


You replied with a series of questions:


1. I can answer but only to a person who believes in Hell. 2. I even did it to an atheist because I believed he was asking sincerly. 3. But I can't answer it to an atheist. 4. I do have an answer and I've answered before. 5. My question then would be do you have to agree with the answer for it to be acceptable? 6. If I gave an answer that convinced me but didn't convince would that be acceptable enough or does it also have to convince you? 7. I suspect the latter. 8. In any case it is a trick question and I'm not gonna let you trick me into it.

1. Why is that? I have a brain and I used to believe in the concept of hell. In fact, I’d say I have a very good understanding of the doctrine. So why do I have to believe in it for you to answer my honest question? Are you saying I have to believe it in order to have a legitimate skeptical question?


2. Can you assume my sincerity in the question? Because whatever my motive, I really would like to see if you can answer it. Who knows, even though you say you aren’t here to convert me, maybe you can win me back for Jesus.

3. Why not?

4. Can you refresh my memory and repeat your answer or point me to the particular post? Or was your answer simply the mish mash of logic that asserted that I can’t have an objective sense of right and wrong unless I believe in your sky-daddy ideas therefore I can’t be a critic of your sky-daddy ideas?

5. The issue is not just that I disagree with your god ideas, but more importantly, they don’t agree. Your god could be real and be an unjust, hateful tyrant… But that’s not the problem. The problem is that that is not the god you or your co-religionists and certain select text from your inerrant infallible book usually try and paint. And why is that? Because only a person as sick as that god would honestly worship him even if he was real.

But above all, your question #5 to me doesn’t resolve the conflict inherent in the beliefs expressed in the OP.

6. Obviously, if you give me an answer that is not convincing to me then why should I accept it? You are free to it for all I care…

7. Ah, yeah… You should “suspect the latter� if I am unconvinced by your explanation. Again, should I accept something that I find unconvincing?

8. Then why did you answer the OP and engage in discussion in this thread if all you are going to do is cast aspersion upon the motives of the OP and deny atheists intellectual legitimacy about the questions raised?

Such a tactic is called “poisoning the well� and is bad form.

[seebs]

Seebs wrote: "It (Christians relishing harsh Biblical descriptions of God's punishment) says that, like all humans, we have a strong desire to see people who are unlike us suffering, because that means our tribe is getting all the food."
Quite right: Christianity does not impinge on our deeper natures. It makes us feel guilty about some of them, but the essence of what we are and why we are what we are remains untouched by it.

Of course not. My mass didn't change when I learned about gravity, either.

What can change this nature is God, not beliefs about God.

[seebs]

BTW, my belief is that the system as it stands (and I honestly don't know all the answers about this) allows human evil because there is no logically consistent alternative that still allows for human goodness.

In short, if there is indeed a Hell... You cannot have anyone go to Heaven without the possibility that they could go to Hell. Without real choice, you don't have actual entities, but non-entity puppets. If they are self-aware, but cannot choose, that is a greater horror than most people would ascribe to Hell.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

BTW, my belief is that the system as it stands (and I honestly don't know all the answers about this) allows human evil because there is no logically consistent alternative that still allows for human goodness.

In short, if there is indeed a Hell... You cannot have anyone go to Heaven without the possibility that they could go to Hell. Without real choice, you don't have actual entities, but non-entity puppets. If they are self-aware, but cannot choose, that is a greater horror than most people would ascribe to Hell.

Seebs,
what about divine goodness? If there is a necessary dualism then evil must have always existed within god or beside him.

[Spanish_Inquisitor]

You want to believe this then I obviously can't stop you. My good word probably isn't going to change your mind. All I can tell you is that I was telling atheists my view on why God sending people to Hell is just. I did it on another forum. I used two analogy stories of George Wilson and a judge as my reasoning. Then he went on and on about how because he was a non-believer that God should have taken that into account. Blah blah blah. And so I brought this up with an atheist who I knew personally and he said to me, "How is that relevant? An atheist can't use how unjust it is as a reasoning to disbelieve because it is irrelevant to the atheist. An atheist would have to abandon his disbelief and believe in a Hell to do it." And I said to myself you know he's right. So when I saw this thread where someone said because a loving God is sending someone to Hell I can dismiss it I said to myself no you can't. But if you want to believe its because the question is uncomfortable to me be my guest.
If I read this correctly, you're saying that unless you are a believer, you can not discuss or challenge the belief of another believer. If that's the case, what are you doing here?

Actually, that's patent nonsense. Ideas are capable of being understood, analyzed, debated and discussed by anyone with a brain. One doesn't have to give up their beliefs or non-beliefs in order to debate the merits of someone else's beliefs. If that were true, human knowledge would never advance. We'd be stuck back in the Dark Ages, just like we were back in the...Dark Ages, when religion burned non-believers.

SI

[Stephen T-B]

I don't think that really answers the OP, Seebs.
I deliberately did not bring in human evil because that is so problematical; in no time we'll start discussing if tsunamis are evil etc., and what is "evil" anyway and who are we to judge it?

Your second par does address the issue. Yes, there must be a hell if there is also to be a heaven.

But this raises a question as to god's intended outcome for his creation.
Before Creation, I think it fair to say that as far as Christian theology can tell us, the situation was neutral in terms of happiness / unhappiness.
At the of end Creation, when it is all over, what will the new situation be? How will the balance between happiness and unhappiness look?
Christian doctrine tells me that the unhappiness will out-weight the happiness many many many times. There will be billions upon bilions upon billions of souls not having a very good time, and perhaps a billion (or less) having a very good time.

So what does this tell us about the intention of the Creator God?
It tells us he intended there to be unhappiness.

Is that consistent with an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God?

Well, frankly, no.

This is the hitch.

[seebs]

Seebs,
what about divine goodness? If there is a necessary dualism then evil must have always existed within god or beside him.

A very interesting question. Here we get into a long and elaborate digression on the nature of choice. We can make decisions. We can also make meta-decisions; I can decide to make choices in a given pattern. For instance, Feynman once decided to always have chocolate ice cream for desert.

Now, what happens if you decide to choose contrary to that meta-choice? You can do so.

I have come to conclude that the ability to make a meta-choice which is not reversed is an additional freedom; if you can't do this, you have fewer options than someone whose meta-choices are always subject to being overridden.

So.

My theory is that, by our nature, we are not mostly able to make such permanent choices, and that we change our minds. I can choose not to hurt anyone, but if I lose my temper I will do so anyway. Oops.

God, in contrast, is able to stick with choices. I do not know whether God "chose" to be Good, but if He did, it would stick. But we're not God, and we're not perfect, so we waffle.

But I do agree that this suggests that perhaps even God had to choose whether to be good or evil.

[achristianbeliever]

1. Why is that? I have a brain and I used to believe in the concept of hell. In fact, I’d say I have a very good understanding of the doctrine. So why do I have to believe in it for you to answer my honest question? Are you saying I have to believe it in order to have a legitimate skeptical question?


In order to question whether or not a loving God can send someone down there and as a result can be dismissed then yes. Its like asking a Christian why is it better to live your life as an atheist? How can I possibly answer that question without abandoning my belief as a Christian? I can't. if you don't come up with a convincing reason why atheism is good way to live should I assume that means it can be easily dismissed? It makes no sense.


2. Can you assume my sincerity in the question? Because whatever my motive, I really would like to see if you can answer it. Who knows, even though you say you aren’t here to convert me, maybe you can win me back for Jesus.


If you are asking me ONLY, "why do you find it just for God to send someone to Hell because I don't believe it is just" then yes I can answer the question. But only if the next section of, "Because I find it unjust it can be dismissed" is eliminated. As long as that phrase is part of the premise then I cannot answer because if I showed that it was just that doesn't mean that it is true. You have to eliminate the idea of whether or not it can be dismissed as a result of whether or not it is just or unjust because I just don't see how that can work.


Why not?


As I said because whether or not it is just or unjust has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.


Can you refresh my memory and repeat your answer or point me to the particular post? Or was your answer simply the mish mash of logic that asserted that I can’t have an objective sense of right and wrong unless I believe in your sky-daddy ideas therefore I can’t be a critic of your sky-daddy ideas?


I meant about answering atheists in the past as I said here:

All I can tell you is that I was telling atheists my view on why God sending people to Hell is just. I did it on another forum.



The issue is not just that I disagree with your god ideas, but more importantly, they don’t agree. Your god could be real and be an unjust, hateful tyrant… But that’s not the problem. The problem is that that is not the god you or your co-religionists and certain select text from your inerrant infallible book usually try and paint. And why is that? Because only a person as sick as that god would honestly worship him even if he was real.


First off I'm not inerrant. So that doesn't work and I haven't been trying to show whether God's actions are just or unjust. That is irrelevant as to whether or not its true and that is what I've been saying.


6. Obviously, if you give me an answer that is not convincing to me then why should I accept it? You are free to it for all I care…


when did I ever say that I was trying to convince you of anything?


7. Ah, yeah… You should “suspect the latter� if I am unconvinced by your explanation. Again, should I accept something that I find unconvincing?


No I'm just trying to figure out the point if I'm not trying to convince you of anything.


Then why did you answer the OP and engage in discussion in this thread if all you are going to do is cast aspersion upon the motives of the OP and deny atheists intellectual legitimacy about the questions raised?


What do you mean I'm judging his motives? I have no conclusion as to why he is posting the question he is. I just find it to be a trick question. If I'm asked something and I consider it to be a trick question your saying I'm not allowed to say it is and why I believe so?

[seebs]

I don't think that really answers the OP, Seebs.
I deliberately did not bring in human evil because that is so problematical; in no time we'll start discussing if tsunamis are evil etc., and what is "evil" anyway and who are we to judge it?

But human evil is hell!

But this raises a question as to god's intended outcome for his creation.
Before Creation, I think it fair to say that as far as Christian theology can tell us, the situation was neutral in terms of happiness / unhappiness.
At the of end Creation, when it is all over, what will the new situation be? How will the balance between happiness and unhappiness look?
Christian doctrine tells me that the unhappiness will out-weight the happiness many many many times. There will be billions upon bilions upon billions of souls not having a very good time, and perhaps a billion (or less) having a very good time.

Where do you get these numbers?

I don't necessarily agree that a majority of people, at the end of time, will be "unsaved". I suspect that the number of successes will continue rising forever.

So what does this tell us about the intention of the Creator God?
It tells us he intended there to be unhappiness.

Is that consistent with an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God?

I think maybe.

Well, frankly, no.

This is the hitch.

I am not sure I agree. It may be that it is better to create some happiness than none, even at high cost.

It may also be that the situation is more complicated (different people experience different amounts of joy or misery) and that the net balance is positive even if only a few people attain perfect happiness.

It seems quite possible to me that the theoretical maximum amount of happiness one can experience is greater than the theoretical maximum amount of suffering one can experience, so that a smaller number of people in Heaven can still leave us with positive overall happiness.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

achristian,
My previous post was red-mark-itemized to your previous post and therefore has a context. Now, even though I may be a bit dim witted at times, I'm not sure how your responses have followed in that train. Nice chatting with you....

[achristianbeliever]

Take care of yourself Little John

[Mobiius]

Hello achristianbeliever.
Thank you for that.

My OP is probably not as clear as it ought to be, so I'll try to explain where it comes from.

In recent discussions, it has become apparent to me that if Christians are correct in what they believe, by the time Creation comes to an end and the last human being is dead, the situation in terms of the balance between happiness / unhappiness will be very different from what it was before Creation began.
Let's assume that there existed God and the angels - and Satan and his cohorts, if you like. What was the balance then between happiness and unhappiness?
I'd say, pretty much in favour of happiness. If there was any unhappiness at all, it must have been minimal - and I say "minimal" on the assumption that Satan and Co. were unhappy. But that, of course, is idle speculation (as, indeed, is this entire "pre-Creation" scenario, though I think it can be deduced from Christian theology).

Compare this, then, with the post-Creation scenario. What is the balance now between happiness and unhappiness?

Since the vast bulk of human souls are judged by God not to be worthy of enjoying heavenly bliss, they must presumably not be enjoying the situation they find themselves in. (If they are enjoying it, what's the big deal about the reward God hands out to the Good and Faithful?)
If they aren't enjoying the situation they find themselves in, they can't be happy. And this state of "not being happy" - or of being "unhappy" - lasts for all of eternity.

The balance between happiness and unhappiness is now hugely in favour of "unhappiness."

But we are told that Creation is the work of a perfectly loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God.
As such, this God knew what the outcome would be of his Creation (ie, more unhappiness than happiness) before he emarked on it. So why did he, if he is all loving?

That's the problem.

This outcome is far more likely to have been determined by a god that is not all loving; which in fact has a very mean streak.
But if you thought your god had a mean streak, would you still want to worship and praise it?
I don't think so.
Thus you are obliged to accept a doctrine which, at its very heart, is incoherent. You worship and praise a "perfectly loving God" which is nevertheless responsible for having created a situation which contains vast amounts of unhappiness.

That's the argument I'm making.

Nice point Stephen, I made a somewhat similar thread HERE (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133339) , check it out.

Anyway, back to your post, I may repeat some of what you said, so bear with me.

In our world there is evil. We see it everyday. Evil is mentioned in the bible, and those who do evil are sent to hell in everlasting torment.
God is omnimax, therefore he knew before creating us that we would do evil. In order for god to have "programmed" us with the capacity to do evil, he would have had to know what evil is. In order to truly know what evil is, I believe, you would have to experience evil. In order to truly experience evil, you have to have that capacity in your in order to do evil. If god knew evil and programmed us with this capacity, then god would have had to have evil in him. If he has evil in him then he is not "all loving", and "all compassionate". This is made evident by his very un-compassionate policy of sending his creations to everlasting torment in hell. Let's think about this for a moment. An average human life nowadays is what 70 years? In universal measurements that isn't even a blink of an eye. In one or two moments in a humans life, if they do an evil act, they earn a one way ticket to spend ALL ETERNITY being tortured. No second chances, no understanding, just instant condemnation. That doesn't sound very compassionate and loving to me.

God is Evil.

[Sven]

I usually don't argue with seebs, but I simply have to ask:

You cannot have anyone go to Heaven without the possibility that they could go to Hell. Without real choice, you don't have actual entities, but non-entity puppets. If they are self-aware, but cannot choose, that is a greater horror than most people would ascribe to Hell.
So god is a "non-entity puppet"? So god suffers from a greater horror than being in hell?

I eagerly await your special pleading.

[Stephen T-B]

I had said that when the game's over (words to that effect), "billions upon billions upon billions of souls not having a very good time, and perhaps a billion (or less) having a very good time. "

Seebs wondered where I got these figures from.
Would you believe The Final Analysis - a Divine Forecast (published by Heavenly Press)?
No?
OK. Let's consider what we know: until God revealed himself to the Jews, no souls were saved; for several thousand years after he'd made his presence known, only the souls of the Jews were saved - and not all of them, because some Jews probably neglected their sacrificial rituals, or had a bit of pork or ate a prawn; after Christ's life and death, only the souls of those who professed his name and lived according to his prescription were saved.
So who gets left out? About 99.9 per cent of Chinese, Japanese, Indians, central and near-East Asians, Indonesians etc etc. And that's the present day. Before the spread of Christianity, it was the vast bulk of humanity (the Jews, who alone were offered the delights of reclinging on Abraham's bosom, are a pretty small nation).

Seebs remarks: " I don't necessarily agree that a majority of people, at the end of time, will be 'unsaved'. I suspect that the number of successes will continue rising forever." He seems to overlook the fact that Christianity in some parts of the world is in serious decline, and that Islam is growing a lot faster. In fact, more and more souls are not being saved with every passing year.

He thinks that the unhappiness of all the unsaved souls is consistent with an all-loving God.
An all-loving God which doesn't, in fact, love all?

He concludes with an extraordinary statement: "It seems quite possible to me that the theoretical maximum amount of happiness one can experience is greater than the theoretical maximum amount of suffering one can experience, so that a smaller number of people in Heaven can still leave us with positive overall happiness."

Let's look at that. Ever suffered enduring pain? I've got osteo-arthritis in both hips, and if it were not for lots of pain killers, I would be in absolute agony. I started to experience it before I began taking the pills. And I can say absolutely categorically that nothing, but nothing can counter-balance the effect of enduring, tooth-grinding pain.
Then consider the unhappiness experienced by the bereaved. The broken-hearted. The profoundly unfulfilled. Unhappiness drives people to taking their own lives.

What we have is an "all-loving" god which clearly did not "love" the souls of the Ancient Peoples (or those of the people who happened to have spent their lives in regions of the world untouched by Chrstianity) sufficiently to give them the knowledge which might allow them to enjoy an eternity of heavenly bliss. Instead he sent their souls to Hell, to suffer eternal torment.

[Sven]

But I do agree that this suggests that perhaps even God had to choose whether to be good or evil.
So on what basis do you assume he indeed chose good?

[Stephen T-B]

achristianbeliever thinks the OP asks a "trick" question.
It doesn't ask a question at all. It states a proposition which might be translated as:
"According to Christian doctrine, 3+2=4."

[Stephen T-B]

Mobiius: "God is evil."

Or about as evil as your average tyrant.

[Mobiius]

So who gets left out? About 99.9 per cent of Chinese, Japanese, Indians, central and near-East Asians, Indonesians etc etc.

And let's not forget the Vikings, cavemen, the Myans, Egyptians, pigmies in the jungle, eskimos, any intelligent life on other planets at the far reaches of the universe (because if they're truly intelligent they won't be worshipping god...), and of course, bigfoot (bigfeets?).

That's alot of unhappy, unsaved souls.

I'd rather spend my eternal afterlife hanging with the vikings without god than spend eternity licking gods sneakers in heaven.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

A very interesting question. Here we get into a long and elaborate digression on the nature of choice. We can make decisions. We can also make meta-decisions; I can decide to make choices in a given pattern. For instance, Feynman once decided to always have chocolate ice cream for desert.

Now, what happens if you decide to choose contrary to that meta-choice? You can do so.

I have come to conclude that the ability to make a meta-choice which is not reversed is an additional freedom; if you can't do this, you have fewer options than someone whose meta-choices are always subject to being overridden.

So.
Okay, I follow you….


My theory is that, by our nature, we are not mostly able to make such permanent choices, and that we change our minds. I can choose not to hurt anyone, but if I lose my temper I will do so anyway. Oops.

God, in contrast, is able to stick with choices. I do not know whether God "chose" to be Good, but if He did, it would stick. But we're not God, and we're not perfect, so we waffle.
Still…. Why then were we not created with the same stick-to-it-ness as this god? It would seem, if your theory is true, that we have been short changed.

And still more…. If the dualism of good/evil is necessary why did this god not give us the same capacity to deal with it as he has within himself?


But I do agree that this suggests that perhaps even God had to choose whether to be good or evil.

Then good and evil are independent of god?
These principles transcend even him?
If he chose evil who would punish him?
If he chose evil would it then be good?

[Jedi Mind Trick]

I believe in two distinct ends for human beings. Salvation and eternal dwelling with G-d in the world to come free of pain, suffering, jealousy, or strife. OR Annihilation, an utter state of non-existence free of all of the above with no consciousness remaining. I don't consider that particularly cruel.
Yes, this is one way the tale is spun, isn’t it?
I used to believe in the whole annihilation doctrine for a while. I believed in the eternal torment thing much, much longer though. I also took some time reading the same verses in the bible, that the previous two views use, in a universalist light. Personally, I find the universalist interpretation to be much more philosophically coherent and satisfying, but alas… It is all just a matter of preference and interpretation.

You should talk to ManM who posts here… He assured that the bible, when correctly understood, and Eastern Orthodox church tradition, teaches that all people will be in the presence of god someday and all will experience his unreserved love. The catch is, though, that not everyone will enjoy the experience of god’s presence and love.

So you see, I hear what you say… but I also hear what all the others say that your true faith says.



I do consider a human's inability to acknowledge G-d to be driven by self pride.

I consider a human’s propensity to exalt himself over other humans (by considering himself “saved� and the others “damned�) because he believes that he has a special relationship with an powerful invisible friend to be the height of self pride.


If you picture Heaven as some place where people float around playing harps and Hell as some sort of Dante's Inferno then I would consider that believing in Fairy Tales.

Is this because you are to proud of your special relationship to believe Dante’s interpretation?

[Stephen T-B]

Little John: "You should talk to ManM who posts here… He assured that the bible, when correctly understood, and Eastern Orthodox church tradition, teaches that all people will be in the presence of god someday and all will experience his unreserved love."

That is a very generous doctrine, but one which, I think, few Christians in the Western churches would happily embrace.
My experience of them is that they cling to the idea that they are "special" and that they alone will enjoy Paradise.

Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, is a very exclusive religion.
And "exclusivity" apparently has wide appeal.

[seebs]

Little John: "You should talk to ManM who posts here… He assured that the bible, when correctly understood, and Eastern Orthodox church tradition, teaches that all people will be in the presence of god someday and all will experience his unreserved love."

That is a very generous doctrine, but one which, I think, few Christians in the Western churches would happily embrace.
My experience of them is that they cling to the idea that they are "special" and that they alone will enjoy Paradise.

This is mostly Calvinists. Many/most Catholics align with their Church teaching that at least some non-Christians will be in Heaven.

Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, is a very exclusive religion.
And "exclusivity" apparently has wide appeal.

Exclusivity is the thing humans most want most of the time. This is why we bring it to our belief systems. I do not believe the teachings of Christ support the kind of exclusivity one finds in His followers.

[Stephen T-B]

But God was an "exclusivist extraordinaire."
He chose the Jews, exclusively. The world at that time was full of other races, and he adopted a very, very small one.

Great to be a Jew. Not so great to be a Philistine.

And this is a our all-loving God?

[Stumpjumper]

OK. Let's consider what we know: until God revealed himself to the Jews, no souls were saved; for several thousand years after he'd made his presence known, only the souls of the Jews were saved - and not all of them, because some Jews probably neglected their sacrificial rituals, or had a bit of pork or ate a prawn; after Christ's life and death, only the souls of those who professed his name and lived according to his prescription were saved.

Stephen

I haven't heard about or read The Final Analysis but it sounds like an exposition of Revelation. The problem with determining some probablistic formula like how many experience "hell" or displeasure after they die from scripture is that it is such a completely misguided and inaccurate way to look at God and the world.

Revelation was a jewish apocalyptic text much like Daniel in the OT. Does any Jewish denomination view Daniel a a prediction of the future? No. Daniel was an allegory about Israel's captivity in Babylon and Revelation was written after the Romans destroyed to Jewish temple in 70 AD as an allegory of divine justice. So those who have their "names in the book of life" is not meant to be taken literally. Yes, I have seen televangelists say this crap on tv. Probably why I spend so much time with you infidels ;)

So who gets left out? About 99.9 per cent of Chinese, Japanese, Indians, central and near-East Asians, Indonesians etc etc. And that's the present day. Before the spread of Christianity, it was the vast bulk of humanity (the Jews, who alone were offered the delights of reclinging on Abraham's bosom, are a pretty small nation).

I would probably say that most Christians do not really believe that and I will also say that the NT does not make any definitive claim to exclusivity.

What we have is an "all-loving" god which clearly did not "love" the souls of the Ancient Peoples (or those of the people who happened to have spent their lives in regions of the world untouched by Chrstianity) sufficiently to give them the knowledge which might allow them to enjoy an eternity of heavenly bliss. Instead he sent their souls to Hell, to suffer eternal torment.

Christs message was moral and spiritual. You certainly do not have to be a christian to follow the moral message and the spiritual message is one of humility, charity, love and goodness. The message is that if you open yourself to God's love you will find peace of soul. I believe that some other religions teach this kind of humbleness of heart that is the core of christian spiritual teachings. Since God is all-loving his teachings show humanity how to walk humbly and accept God's love. That is salvation. My wife has this poem in the kitchen and the more I read it the more it makes sense to me. "The sacrifice most pleasing to God is a broken spirit. You'll not despise a humble heart. You will hold my heart and heal it. Come purify me and I will be clean. Wash away my shame. Oh let me find gladness and joy. Let my mouth sing your praise. Create in me a new heart after yours."

The spirtual teachings teach man how to find and accept salvation. Many who profess themselves as Christian have not understood the nature of salvation but The Final Analysis is probably not a very accurate guide either. I wouldn't worry about the Vikings, Jesus liked fisherman.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Little John: "You should talk to ManM who posts here… He assured that the bible, when correctly understood, and Eastern Orthodox church tradition, teaches that all people will be in the presence of god someday and all will experience his unreserved love."

That is a very generous doctrine, but one which, I think, few Christians in the Western churches would happily embrace.
I agree, it is just shy of universalism... But, after seeing so many ways the story is told or packaged, my ability to non-believe, or rather, to see xianity as purely man made, became easier. So I chuckle a little when I hear someone confidently says that “the bible says thus and so.�

[seebs]

But God was an "exclusivist extraordinaire."
He chose the Jews, exclusively. The world at that time was full of other races, and he adopted a very, very small one.

This is certainly how the Hebrews understand it.

The Calvinists explain that they are the elect, and other people not so much.

And this is a our all-loving God?

I suspect it is a less than fully accurate (perhaps "faithful" is a better word?) depiction.