Is hell a good place?

reply to post by Greatest I am

It would seem that God let himself be overcome by evil and responded with evil. Or evil must be good. God created the first division in his once united kingdom.
It appears that God does not follow his own good advise. Or does he? If God was following his WORD, then hell must be a good place somehow.
Strange but true.

Are their any theists who would like to show how this is not back sliding?
That is of course, a rhetorical question as back sliding cannot be denied.

Not from a christian perspective, but if you are interested in hearing.....
Hell, as a theological concept, is something an individual chooses for himself through his deeds and attitudes towards God.
Those who dismiss hell as pure fiction are allowed to do so, but in this life only.
When someone has been adviced several times to avoid hell, and he still does the things that he knows would land him in hell, he does not have much of an excuse.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You quote "Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" to make your case that God is not following his own advice.

Well, God does not need to "overcome" evil at all. ... but anyway, Ill play along and I'll try and help you answer your own question... "Is hell a good place or is God’s WORD worthless since he himself ignores it and breaks his own laws? "

First, imagine a person has brutally murdered a loved one.
Now if you define this act as evil....
Would you rather have...

God avenge you and your loved one, by sending the murderer to hell? (but will you still hold that God not following his own advice.)

or God overcome "evil" with good (like in that quote) and do a good thing to the murder, like say, place him in heaven or give him a happy life .... (but will you then think God is doing the right thing? )

So, Im curious to know...what do you choose?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


If the only reason for faith is fear of hell; then piety should be despised.

And i'm sure God would send you straight to hell because the only reason believed was for the sake of rescuing your eternal soul.

reply to post by NeverForget

If the only reason for faith is fear of hell; then piety should be despised.

Firstly, if this fear of hell causes a potential mass murderer/rapist/child molester/younameit to shape up, then I dont see any problem. Do you?

Secondly, fear of hell is not the only reason for faith as assumed by many non-theists.
Faith can also arise from understanding the universe through God... from knowing that our purpose here is not to just grow, reproduce and die like animals... and a multitude of other factors.

And i'm sure God would send you straight to hell because the only reason believed was for the sake of rescuing your eternal soul.

Well, thats your opinion.
I believe that to save oneself from hell is pretty much an unwritten instruction for people of faith to follow.
Also, there is no teaching that God would turn against people who sincerely did all they could to avoid hell.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


You wrote:

["Firstly, if this fear of hell causes a potential mass murderer/rapist/child molester/younameit to shape up, then I dont see any problem."]

Then the question is: DOES it? Or is it even possible, that the effect is the opposite, that 'hell'-religion creates insane individuals.

Maybe the treatment of potential asocial and/or criminal mindsets is better left to more safe procedures. E.g. in the case of child-molesting, christianity hasn't been very successful...to say the least. And the clergy involved should more than anyone had been aware of the theological consequences of their 'sins', so this argument isn't very convincing from a rational perspective.

reply to post by bogomil

Then the question is: DOES it?

Well, my statement about the fear of hell acting as a deterrent towards the violently inclined was the first part of response to someones statement "If the only reason for faith is fear of hell; then piety should be despised."
I also recall listing a number of other reasons for faith.

Or is it even possible, that the effect is the opposite, that 'hell'-religion creates insane individuals.

Well, religion and faith has created some "insane individuals".
And there are "insane individuals" who lack religious belief and faith.

So, an "insane individual" can also be someone who does not have a fear of hell. Speaking for myself, I really would not want to run into a axe-wielding maniac who does not have the fear of hell and believes he can kill and get away with it.

Maybe the treatment of potential asocial and/or criminal mindsets is better left to more safe procedures. E.g. in the case of child-molesting, christianity hasn't been very successful...to say the least. And the clergy involved should more than anyone had been aware of the theological consequences of their 'sins', so this argument isn't very convincing from a rational perspective.

"Maybe the treatment of potential asocial and/or criminal mindsets is better left to more safe procedures"

Well, that would be ideal...
...only if we could spot the potential 'troublemakers' who can seamlessly blend into a crowd of 'normal' people... BEFORE they hurt someone... so we could haul them for 'treatment'. Sadly, the psychos get into treatment AFTER they've hurt someone.

If hypothetically, if one of these potential 'troublemakers', personally pondered over the implications of evil and sincerely concluded that burning in hellfire is NOT worth worth the moments thrill of, say, killing someone.... there is a decent chance that he wont do it.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"You quote "Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" to make your case that God is not following his own advice.

Well, God does not need to "overcome" evil at all. ... but anyway, Ill play along and I'll try and help you answer your own question... "Is hell a good place or is God’s WORD worthless since he himself ignores it and breaks his own laws? "

First, imagine a person has brutally murdered a loved one.
Now if you define this act as evil....
Would you rather have...

God avenge you and your loved one, by sending the murderer to hell? (but will you still hold that God not following his own advice.)"

-------------------------------------------------

I would not want to send anyone to hell as I consider it an immral construct as punishing forever serves no purpose other than revenge and to assuage the hate in our hearts. So yes, God would not be following his advise.
That is hardly doing unto others.
Is it?

-----------------------------------------------
"or God overcome "evil" with good (like in that quote) and do a good thing to the murder, like say, place him in heaven or give him a happy life .... (but will you then think God is doing the right thing? )"

Yes. If God can ignore the souls wish for a good life and send him to hell, then he can just as easily ignore it's wishes and cure the defect that God himself put in him when he created him.

That would be the right thing to do.

------------------------------------------------

"So, Im curious to know...what do you choose?"

See above.

-----------------------------------------------

"Not from a christian perspective, but if you are interested in hearing.....
Hell, as a theological concept, is something an individual chooses for himself through his deeds and attitudes towards God.
Those who dismiss hell as pure fiction are allowed to do so, but in this life only.
When someone has been adviced several times to avoid hell, and he still does the things that he knows would land him in hell, he does not have much of an excuse."

He has a perfect excuse. He does not believe there is a hell as your absentee God is quite the trickster and hides away without ever confirming the hear say of a book that is unbelievable in a literal way as it begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monster. And in between, you have an immortal God who can somehow die.

If you do not realize that it is a work of fantasy with those, then there is nothing I can say further to show that it is a fairy tale for adults.

Regards
DL

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Secondly, fear of hell is not the only reason for faith as assumed by many non-theists.

Never said it was, I just higlighted if that was someone's only reason for faith, then that faith should be despised.

Peace.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


You wrote:

["Well, my statement about the fear of hell acting as a deterrent towards the violently inclined was the first part of response to someones statement "If the only reason for faith is fear of hell; then piety should be despised." I also recall listing a number of other reasons for faith."]

I'm aware of, that you made it part of a greater category, but this doesn't make this single aspect more valid. It stands on its own as an arguemnt, independent of parallel faith-related answers.

Quote: ["Well, religion and faith has created some "insane individuals". And there are "insane individuals" who lack religious belief and faith."]

For sure, no doubt about that. But that something equally dysfunctional exists only leads to the conclusions that there are several dysfunctional systems at play, one bad thing doesn't excuse or justify another.

Quote: [""Maybe the treatment of potential asocial and/or criminal mindsets is better left to more safe procedures"

Well, that would be ideal...
...only if we could spot the potential 'troublemakers' who can seamlessly blend into a crowd of 'normal' people... BEFORE they hurt someone... so we could haul them for 'treatment'. Sadly, the psychos get into treatment AFTER they've hurt someone."]

SOME churches were aware of the problem, and tried to hush it up. Obviously neither the competence nor the will to solve the problem was present. And some (not-directly involved) churches gave on principle lip-service support to the guilty churches. This not a question of 'before', it was a question of 'after'.

Quote: ["If hypothetically, if one of these potential 'troublemakers', personally pondered over the implications of evil and sincerely concluded that burning in hellfire is NOT worth worth the moments thrill of, say, killing someone.... there is a decent chance that he wont do it."]

Each to his taste. I prefer rational approach and pragamatic observation, instead of hypothetical IFs involving a great deal of mythological speculations. Theocracies have had their chances of demonstrating the last method's worth...with results hopefully showing never to repeat such social experiments.

reply to post by bogomil

Quote: ["If hypothetically, if one of these potential 'troublemakers', personally pondered over the implications of evil and sincerely concluded that burning in hellfire is NOT worth worth the moments thrill of, say, killing someone.... there is a decent chance that he wont do it."]

Each to his taste. I prefer rational approach and pragamatic observation, instead of hypothetical IFs involving a great deal of mythological speculations. Theocracies have had their chances of demonstrating the last method's worth...with results hopefully showing never to repeat such social experiments.

I will sincerely support ANY non-religious procedure that can be used to spot and apprehend a potential killer/rapist/molester before his crime has been committed. If said procedure can transform him to let go of his bloodthirst/lust, all the better. Im curious to know of any method involving "rational approach and pragmatic observation" that can achieve that result.
Sadly, crimes come to light AFTER they have been committed, and lives have been shattered. And crimes, as you know, affect the lives and families of both religious and non-religious people.

Apparently hell is full of proud atheist blasphemers like me, so at least if I go there, I'll be in good company. Clouds and harps seem like they'd get boring after a couple hours.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by bogomil

 

Quote: ["If hypothetically, if one of these potential 'troublemakers', personally pondered over the implications of evil and sincerely concluded that burning in hellfire is NOT worth worth the moments thrill of, say, killing someone.... there is a decent chance that he wont do it."]

Each to his taste. I prefer rational approach and pragamatic observation, instead of hypothetical IFs involving a great deal of mythological speculations. Theocracies have had their chances of demonstrating the last method's worth...with results hopefully showing never to repeat such social experiments.

I will sincerely support ANY non-religious procedure that can be used to spot and apprehend a potential killer/rapist/molester before his crime has been committed. If said procedure can transform him to let go of his bloodthirst/lust, all the better. Im curious to know of any method involving "rational approach and pragmatic observation" that can achieve that result.
Sadly, crimes come to light AFTER they have been committed, and lives have been shattered. And crimes, as you know, affect the lives and families of both religious and non-religious people.

I'm glad to hear that, but what has that to do with the price of tea (concerning your initial 'IF'-based claim)?

Originally posted by Molimo
Hell doesn't exist it's a mistranslation i think it was actually a burning rubbish tip

My understanding is its a state of mind.

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by Greatest I am

The moment God was questioned in any way, he responded with an evil punishment.
Evil as I class it in any case. He does not tolerate anyone doing their will, if it does not comply with his will. Obey or else. Not quite what scriptures say he should be doing.

First, can we agree that God is "that which there is no greater"? That God, if He exists (which I believe He does), must by definition be pure and perfect? OK, if we can agree on that then you have to measure everything you read or hear against that. If you read something that seems to conflict with the will of a pure and perfect God then you have to accept that either A) you have misinterpreted what you read, or B) what you read is faulty. Too many people try to find "loopholes" to "prove" that God doesn't exist, and they look for those loopholes in a Bible that they don't believe in to begin with. But the Bible isn't needed to believe in a pure and perfect God.

No, we cannot agree that God is "that which there is no greater". First, you have to tell me who created God, then you have to tell me who created the being that created the creator that created God, etc., etc. and so on until you get to "that which there is no greater."

One way you can tell that your God is NOT a pure and perfect God is to compare what you would have done in the same circumstance as God. If you are more moral than your God is, it either wasn't your God doing it, or your god isn't pure, or he doesn't exist. A trinity of choices. Go to any passage where Yahweh is actively participating and see what he did compared to what you would have done? Would you condone slavery like he did? Would you order the smashing of babies against rocks? Would you slaughter entire villages including children and animals? Would you allow your holiest man to give his daughters to a village for the purposes of rape and abuse?

If your answer is yes, you would do these things, then you deserve both your god and a nice cushy rubber room at the nearest insane asylum. If you would not have done these things then your god is either flawed, man-made, or doesn't exist. It's a pretty simple test, but it is both revealing and truthful.

I vote for man made.
Who but a man can put words to the will of God.
There is only man.

Regards
DL