It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does God allow the existance of people who go to hell?

page: 25
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Ignore Post

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Leonardo01]




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
Why does God allow the existance of people who go to hell


the wheat must grow amongst the tares to produce a better crop of wheat



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
I've always questioned why God, who is omni-present, allows the existence of people who will never make the decision to become "saved", and will go to hell.. According to the Bible, we all make our own decisions, and we are responsible for those decisions. But, if God KNOWS our decisions will place us in hell, then why would he allow us to come into existence? How can God "love us all" if God knows we are destined for hell?
What about the people who are born in total seclusion, and never have the chance to even hear about the Bible? Why would they be equally responsible compared to the ones who willfully ignore the Bible?
It all doesn't make sense to me...


Of course it doesn´t make sense! I don´t understand why people even believe this stuff. Try to prove "God" exists.. Ok now try to prove that there is no "God".. Come on people.. seriously..



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by adjensen
If I apply my limited knowledge of astronomy, think about it, fill in the holes in my knowledge with what seems right to me, I should come up with a pretty accurate picture of the nature of the Universe, right?

Right.

That is, in fact, precisely what astronomers and cosmologists do.

The only difference is that they know more about the subject than you do. On the subject of God, no such difference obtains. God is a subject on which everyone is equally ignorant, or equally expert if you will.


Well, you're finally making sense. Astronomers draw conclusions of speculative fact by inferring from existing knowledge.

However, they are frequently wrong. Once that is determined, they go back to their original data and inferences and try to figure out what went wrong. If the data was correct, they know that their inference was wrong. In addition, you've ignored an important part of my supposition -- they don't have an accurate picture of the nature of the Universe, not yet, anyway.

Because good and evil are subjective, you are not drawing an objective conclusion, you are making a personal judgement, based on few (you'd say no) facts, and an awful lot of inference. In addition, short of dying, there's no way that we know of to determine if your judgement is right or wrong, so it is a "proof" that can't be proven right or wrong.

You are taking a small amount of knowledge, lumping everything else that you don't know into a bundle, calling it "inference" and claiming that you can make an accurate judgement on that basis. I again ask you if I can expect to find the true nature of the Universe by doing that, or if you would allow yourself to be put on trial under the same conditions, where the judge will take a minor fact, that you were nearby when a crime was committed, and infer everything else to determine whether you are guilty or not.

Distilled down, the whole of your argument is "There is no Christian God, because I say there isn't." There's nothing wrong with that statement, but it's a belief, not a proof, and no conclusion can be drawn from it aside from understanding that you don't believe a Christian God exists.

Pointing out that people of faith have struggled with this question demonstrates nothing other the obvious difficulty of the problem. Had St. Augustine struggled with it and rejected God on its basis, citing him would have some relevance, otherwise you're just showing something I already know and don't deny, that pain and suffering sucks.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I agree that when somebody is secluded, its impossible for them to know about god. I have no idea what would happen then. But if god is real, then it must have spread down from all the generations of the first two people and apparently somebody stopped telling the story. I hear that there are accounts of people who have passed down the story of noah and his family in the great flood. I'm not saying i believe in god. I also do think though that if god is real, why wouldnt somebody want to go to everlasting happiness? why would somebody choose hell over happiness? God chose to make people to try and win their hearts over. The bible never really says what hes doing in 'heaven' or what he was doing before hand. I cannot understand who made him or what his purpose in life is. I dont even understand why he'd make earth. He was the one who made 'evil' a possibility. He COULD have made everything perfect and everybody to be happy. Then we wouldnt have promiscuity, drugs, alcohol, diseases, famine, rape.... you get the point. Its ridiculous. He made the earth for us to live in and deal with when he didnt even have to make the earth! He could have made it so that we're all partying up in heaven right now. I dont know about you, but if this god is real, i have some questions for him.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuckyMe777
why would somebody choose hell over happiness?


"It would be better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."

I'm sure that there are plenty of people who, even at a point where they were face to face with God, wouldn't be able to rid themselves of the things that keep them apart from him.


I dont know about you, but if this god is real, i have some questions for him.


I have lots of questions as well! Having faith doesn't mean jettisoning your brain at the door, as some seem to think.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





I know this. But thanks for posting the obvious.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

You labour under a misapprehension. I am not trying to prove that God doesn't exist. This is not possible and I would be a fool to try. I am merely pointing out that if such a being exists, then it is evil, because it allows avoidable suffering.

Good and evil may be subjective to you, but according to the Christian doctrine you claim to espouse they are absolute categories. How could God judge human acts except by the use of absolute categories?

Even it it were not so, it would make no difference to my argument. It doesn't matter how good and evil are defined, so long as they are agreed to exist. As long as evil exists, and God, omnipotent and omniscient as He is, allows it, God is evil. End of argument.

I await a worthier opponent.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
I await a worthier opponent.


As do I, in that the whole of your argument boils down to nothing apart from "because I said so."



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


After taking a break from this thread, I came back to see things haven't changed all that much. But I have to say, you raised the quality of the discussion significantly, and I hope others saw as clearly as I did, that the opposition faltered pretty badly.

Actually, early in this thread, I had noted that adjensen seemed pretty well versed in the orthodox Christian positions. Certainly, compared to others, who may call themselves "christian", but know so little, to me adjensen seemed to be one that was paying attention in Sunday school.

But things have degenerated, to the point where even earthquakes are a thing people can avoid, and therefore it's their fault, their suffering is due to their lack of planning? Sheesh, I never would have thought things could get quite that low. Perhaps the poor retarded child in the earthquake zone, who suffers terribly before dying, well, they really should have figured out that they were asking for trouble!

I thought you brought out the idea of superfluous, or "gratuitous" evil quite well, stars to you for some well thought-out presentations, as well as a nice link. How can this elephant in the living room be ignored for so long? The stench of it's presence is literally something one could not miss.

Animals. Of course they should figure out earthquake zones too, but often fail to do so. As a result, many "suffer", and die. I often like to use an image, a popular image, of a small deer in the forest, call him "Bambi". Sounds silly, but it helps when explaining to kids anyway. But Bambi lives in a forest far away, thousands of years before people. There is lightning, and a fire, and terror in poor Bambi's face, and smoke in his nostrils. It takes a while, as Bambi desperately attempts to escape his fate, but he ultimately fails, and dies a gruesome death. No one was ever there to even know of what happened to Bambi. No one ever even stumbled upon his pathetic remains.

How could this be necessary? It could be said that since no human ever knew of this incident, there was not even an educational value to be gained. Yes some version of this is going on a million times a second in our world!

This is obviously "evil", in any conventional sense. If it wasn't, then perhaps cruelty to animals should be OK. But it's not, and the great thinkers of the past, as you pointed out, were well aware of this issue. In your recent link, Aquinas was mentioned, and the great thinker didn't just sweep the issue aside, rather, he recognized it as one of two serious impediments to believing in a good god.

Nothing has changed. The problem of evil is real, and it is serious. The religionist does himself no service in brushing it aside. And yet, many do seriously contemplate various theodicies, with good will I think, honestly attempting to somehow explain this enigma. But after all these centuries, the consensus seems to already be in. The problem is not solvable within their a priori paradigm.

In Eastern religion, the problem is no less troublesome. What do they do? In some ways, their tradition of reincarnation seems to address our real experience better than the Western version of the afterlife. Reincarnation basically means that this life is "hell" (or a karmic purgatory rather), and this at least squares with the common man's largely unpleasant experience of it. Of course, it is just another attempt to "explain" evil in the world, and even though the modern "new age" Eastern flavored religionist of today seems to mostly reject non-human reincarnation, the issue was traditionally there for a reason, and they toss it aside at their peril.

The Hindus long ago figured out that the best way to use reincarnation to explain away evil, was to posit that "justice" was actually being done everywhere, even if that wasn't how it appeared at first glance. If a bug died, then it "deserved" to die, in the greater Karmic sense. They were in fact wrestling with the issue of gratuitous evil, knowing that one of the implications of animal suffering, was to end up with injustice on a mind-boggling scale. Their solution at least tried to cover the bases, but today, many perhaps don't realize that these ancient formulations had very good reasons for ending up as they were. And often, they lose a whole lot as moderns attempt to "update" them, leading to contradictions that the ancients had already figured out.

Maybe we should take a step back, to get a better perspective on these issues, from the thousands of years of mankind's efforts addressing "evil", in their various ways, and humbly realizing that all attempts have essentially failed.

No, the Christian "hell" doesn't work. No, reincarnation, upon close inspection, becomes utterly absurd. A dualistic solution doesn't work either, having a "good" god, and a bad one (although the "devil" usually serves as a pretty close substitute for the bad god!).

After saying all this, the default isn't necessarily "materialism" either. That's never been that satisfying, and perhaps our hopes and desires are at least an indication of something beyond, else they wouldn't be there. But really, there is very, very little that we can honestly say that we do "know". What are these few things?

Here's what we know: We're here (we didn't ask to be). We live (and life can really suck sometimes). We die. (And no one really knows what happens then.)

Because human instinct seems to strongly desire survival (even after death), we have an automatic "bias" that would favor that scenario. Seeing as how no one can really "know" what happens, certain people stepped forward, claiming to have that answer. They had an incentive, and it may not have been the most pure. Obviously people wanted to "know", that which obviously they could not know, creating an opportunity for the less ethical among us, who took advantage of it. The ancients admit this, simply telling us religion was made up to help better govern the unruly masses.

Sadly, humanity as a whole seems OK with this prostitution of the mind that is religion. We "know" we can't know, and yet, we're so willing to accept information that fills in that annoying blank. A bit too eager I would say.

At a bare minimum, we should all be suspicious of these notions, that would ordinarily demand strong evidence, to be entertained seriously.

JR



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by adjensen
 

You labour under a misapprehension. I am not trying to prove that God doesn't exist. This is not possible and I would be a fool to try. I am merely pointing out that if such a being exists, then it is evil, because it allows avoidable suffering.

Good and evil may be subjective to you, but according to the Christian doctrine you claim to espouse they are absolute categories. How could God judge human acts except by the use of absolute categories?

Even it it were not so, it would make no difference to my argument. It doesn't matter how good and evil are defined, so long as they are agreed to exist. As long as evil exists, and God, omnipotent and omniscient as He is, allows it, God is evil. End of argument.

I await a worthier opponent.


You await a worthier opponent? One to battle your train of thought? No, my friend. There is no battle, there is only wisdom.

An old farmer had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.

You probably have no clue what this Zen parable has to do with GOD, but it's for you to find out and not for me to explain. God is great.

Peace be with you.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Sorry, but I don't understand why reincarnation is "absurd" on closer inspection? Please explain if you will.

Thanks!



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Sorry, but I don't understand why reincarnation is "absurd" on closer inspection? Please explain if you will.

Thanks!


because debunkers have to win....duh!



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by N.Tesla

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
I've always questioned why God, who is omni-present, allows the existence of people who will never make the decision to become "saved", and will go to hell.. According to the Bible, we all make our own decisions, and we are responsible for those decisions. But, if God KNOWS our decisions will place us in hell, then why would he allow us to come into existence? How can God "love us all" if God knows we are destined for hell?
What about the people who are born in total seclusion, and never have the chance to even hear about the Bible? Why would they be equally responsible compared to the ones who willfully ignore the Bible?
It all doesn't make sense to me...


Of course it doesn´t make sense! I don´t understand why people even believe this stuff. Try to prove "God" exists.. Ok now try to prove that there is no "God".. Come on people.. seriously..


It all actually makes perfect sense. Let me bring it down to earth for you to understand the concept. You have two twins. Both about 1 month old. One sleeps all night, eats, smiles and is effortless...the perfect angel. The other has colic, always crying, never sleeps through the night and is a nightmare. Your the adult (the all wise one - God) and are you going to condemn your "bad" infant to hell for eternity for being such a terrible nightmare? Of course not, you love both...unconditionally AND there is absolutely nothing bad that that infant can do that you would deem as insulting to you because that infant (mankind) doesn't have the capability to insult you. It's impossible. The infant knows not what it does. It's infantile to an adult, as a human is infantile to an omnipotent creator. Thereby.....there is NO HELL. There is no JUDGMENT when you die. The creator judging you when you die is no different than you judging your infant.

Now...who is God? That's a whole different forum. "He" is intelligent energy (called by some universal consciousness). Energy cannot be created or destroyed but only change molecular structure (Physics 101). Thereby....God...intelligent energy of which everything (all matter) is made from has always been, will always be....and is in all things. Same as the Biblical Bible tells you. There is nothing but God. Collectively everything in the universe is God, because all matter is made from energy.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by ptmckiou]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Sorry, but I don't understand why reincarnation is "absurd" on closer inspection? Please explain if you will.

Thanks!



OK. First, let me ask you...

If you believe in reincarnation (or were to believe in it), would you believe in the kind that says you might have to live as a "bug" (perhaps) in your "next life"? Or, would you be one who leans to reincarnation only happening to people? In other words, no matter how "bad" your karma was, you wouldn't reincarnate into an animal/bug whatever, rather, it would just be another human life, perhaps with a real rough road ahead, especially if you "earned" it...

Option A (animals OK), or Option B (better to keep it all human)? Let me know which you think makes more sense.

JR



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by Astyanax
 

But things have degenerated, to the point where even earthquakes are a thing people can avoid, and therefore it's their fault, their suffering is due to their lack of planning? Sheesh, I never would have thought things could get quite that low. Perhaps the poor retarded child in the earthquake zone, who suffers terribly before dying, well, they really should have figured out that they were asking for trouble!


As I said, I'm done with this discussion unless someone wishes to address my concerns regarding making assumptions to make concrete judgements in a sensible manner, the above quoted piece being the perfect example.

They have seismic events on the moon, called (colloquially, I'm sure there's a scientific name for it) moonquakes. As of right now, a moonquake cannot harm anyone and causes no suffering, because there is no one there. Ergo, moonquakes are not evil. Extended to Earth, earthquakes, when they take place where there are no people, are similarly not evil. The evil (suffering) exists because people are there to be injured.

Now, it is probably unrealistic, though feasible, to picture a world where no one lives near fault lines. Or hurricane zones, tsunami areas, and so on. It is not realistic to imagine a world where all earthquakes are repressed by God because someone happens to be nearby.

Why are there earthquakes? I have no idea, beyond that they are natural occurrences, a side effect of the process that created the Earth. You claim it is because God is evil, so he put them there, to cause suffering.

Finally, we have no way of discerning if God has, in fact, intervened to prevent pain and suffering, since by his intervention, it didn't happen. If, for example, an asteroid was supposed to slam into the planet 500 years ago, but God made it not happen, you'd have your intervention "proof", but you wouldn't know it.

I'm not saying that's the case, but I'm again pointing out that we lack sufficient information to make a concrete judgement. The fact that, as you note, so many have struggled with this problem for thousands of years should be a pretty clear indication that it's much more than an arbitrary five sentence declaration of guilt.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Sorry, but I don't understand why reincarnation is "absurd" on closer inspection? Please explain if you will.

Thanks!


Reincarnation only makes sense if you have accumulated knowledge, which you do not.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Sorry, but I don't understand why reincarnation is "absurd" on closer inspection? Please explain if you will.

Thanks!


Reincarnation only makes sense if you have accumulated knowledge, which you do not.



Who is to say the intuition and deja vu aren't bleed overs from a past life, which means you retain or at least can access your accumulated knowledge to some degree.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ptmckiou

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Sorry, but I don't understand why reincarnation is "absurd" on closer inspection? Please explain if you will.

Thanks!


Reincarnation only makes sense if you have accumulated knowledge, which you do not.



Who is to say the intuition and deja vu aren't bleed overs from a past life, which means you retain or at least can access your accumulated knowledge to some degree.


Well, I'd start by pointing out that deja vu is the sense that exactly what you are doing you have done before, so unless you view reincarnation as a circular reliving of your own life, I'd be one who is to say that it isn't a bleed over. I don't see how intuition is relevant.

Again, if the goal is to "always be moving toward perfection", you stand zero chance of doing that if you can't apply the things you've learned in past existences to the current one.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Rangersdad, You are and Evil, Evil man for phrasing that so it sounded like a "When did you stop beating your wife "Question.

Your superficial view an description of who God is and how we return to him after our life here on Earth, leads me to believe that you Have sided with the son of the morning. "you have lost your way"
God Forgive You. KMG



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join