(August 28, 2018 at 8:27 am)Aroura Wrote: It's very unequal. Some people are literally tortured in life, others are relatively safe and healthy, yet in the end must all pass the same emotional test of accepting love?

That is how I feel. I'm not psychopathic; rather, I feel things entirely too strongly. I'm very emotional. I cannot bottle in my feelings as others do, and others are usually confused as to why my emotion explodes out of me when I become overwhelmed. Perhaps there could be a pharmaceutical solution, but I would rather be me than support and be another statistic in a corrupt opioid fiasco.

(August 28, 2018 at 8:27 am)Aroura Wrote: Some people are born without the ability to feel remorse. How she's one account for that? We would call them sociopathic monsters, but it isn't a choice.

Do the mentally ill get a pass? 500 years ago we did not understand mental illness at all. Those people would have assumed the person schizophrenic person was simply chosing that, or maybe infested with demons. How do we know that all people who qualify for hell aren't damaged or suffering from mental illness?

This is one thing that makes no sense to me. It's very unequal. Some people are literally tortured in life, others are relatively safe and healthy, yet in the end must all pass the same emotional test of accepting love?

Also, those born into the "wrong" religion are statistically way more likely to fail the "test", even if they try to love God. They end up doing it the wrong way, or something.

If God tortures anyone, for any reason, then I think it's a disgusting monster. With supposedly unlimited power and resources, there should never be any need to do this, even as a means to an end. God supposedly knows I think it's a disgusting monster, using the brain it supposedly gave me. Does it want me to pretend to love it regardless? That makes it even worse. I'm not interested, especially since there's no guarantee it would ever keep to its word. Why would I trust a torturer?

Fuck the whole thing. I find it very troubling that anyone can find the idea of people being tortured acceptable. Religion has somehow normalized this. Of course none of it is true, but it tells us a lot about the psychology of the people who believe that it is.

So, let's say there is a child that is raped and tortured. That child develops the inability to trust. Even if they are lucky enough to get treatment and they recover enough to work and not be labeled "mentally ill", they still suffer through their entire life the effects of being heavily abused as a child.

Let's say that person grows up unable to accept love, because their idea of love was twisted so badly at a young age that they never recover.

Do they go to hell when they reject God? Do they get to suffer eternal separation? Can you not see how this is the worst kind of punishing a victim?

This is a real question(s), and I want answers from one of the theists in this thread.

Aurora, I really don't know. My best guess would be that perhaps since someone like that likely isn't actually an evil person (just a hurt person), that they would come around eventually.

---

.

(August 28, 2018 at 8:27 am)Aroura Wrote: Some people are born without the ability to feel remorse. How does one account for that? We would call them sociopathic monsters, but it isn't a choice.

Do the mentally ill get a pass? 500 years ago we did not understand mental illness at all. Those people would have assumed the person schizophrenic person was simply chosing that, or maybe infested with demons. How do we know that all people who qualify for hell aren't damaged or suffering from mental illness?

This is one thing that makes no sense to me. It's very unequal. Some people are literally tortured in life, others are relatively safe and healthy, yet in the end must all pass the same emotional test of accepting love?

Also an interesting question and I've thought about this before too. Again, I don't know. If you put a gun to my head and told me to take a guess, I'd say since sociopathy is a disorder and since only our souls are left after we die (not our bodies), any disorder or illness we have is no longer present. Perhaps the sociopath would then have the ability to experience remorse and empathy like a normal human. From there it would be up to them how they react.

(August 27, 2018 at 12:21 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Why does god feel compelled to eternally punish only those folks who don’t love him back?  Why is that sin the only unforgivable one, and why isn’t it forgivable?  I have heard of hell described by Christians as a “self-imposed exile.”  If I were to die tomorrow and realize I was wrong, and I begged god for forgiveness but he refused, how could my exile be considered self-imposed?  It’s not self-imposed if god is actively preventing me from being with him.  [1]

Does god love the folks in hell?  If he does, and they are in agony for being separated from him, what logical or moral reason is there for god to keep them ostracized?  That sounds like the opposite of a forgiving god. It sounds to me like someone who holds grudges. [2]

Christians, would you do this to your own children?  If your child ran away, and came back a month later, filthy and in tears, saying, “mommy/daddy I miss you so much. I’m so alone and afraid. I’m sorry I left; I just want to come home and cuddle with you on the couch,” would you tell them it’s ‘too late’, and shut the door in their face for good?  Why or why not? [3]

Why is being loved back the most important thing to god; even more important than how we treat each other during life?  Even more important than how his chosen priesthood treat their children?

Why is this doctrine constantly mischaracterized? Is it because if you phrase it the way you do it sound more incredulous/ridiculous? It makes the objection no more than a straw man. People do not go to hell because they failed to "love God back". They go to hell because their sins have not been atoned for. Period. 

1. Hell is not so much self-imposed as a consequence of your decision not to seek atonement (or do the best you can with the information God made available to you and respond to him in some way). 
2. No grudge. Just a state of existence that is now fully separated from God compared to your life where God's presence was all around you in some way.  It is quite possible (as Neo was discussing) that once a soul is really separated from God, it does not desire God nor anything resembling the Good (with a capital G). 
3. False analogy. God does not make decisions based on emotions. They are based on essential characteristics of love, justice, holiness, and mercy. As essential characteristics, one cannot be set aside when convenient. They all govern all the time. This is also the answer to whether God loves people in Hell. Yes, he loves all of his creation but it does not matter because there are other constraints in place. 

Now you might say what if the system was that when we all die, we are given another chance to respond to God and take the atonement offered? Wouldn't that be the logical equivalent of everyone getting into heaven no matter what their choices in life were--because really, who would refuse it standing before the eternal creator of the universe? Is that compatible with God's holiness and justice to have an automatic safety net (to say nothing of all the effort in the main theme/thread of the Bible that eventually leads to the cross and the NT Christian life)? I don't think that is consistent at all with what we know about God and his original purpose and desire for us.

Another thing, it seems that the mortal component of our existence is the window of opportunity to respond to God. To claim that was not enough time, not clear enough, or somehow unfair is not a logical argument--it is an emotional argument without any real justification when closely examined.

(August 28, 2018 at 11:04 am)SteveII Wrote: Another thing, it seems that the mortal component of our existence is the window of opportunity to respond to God. To claim that was not enough time, not clear enough, or somehow unfair is not a logical argument--it is an emotional argument without any real justification when closely examined.

Except that isn't the entire argument for god's existence based merely on emotion? One cannot "logically" argue him into existence.

Every argument for god's existence is based on the want for his existence, for his existence is truly not needed.

Morality has a reality, and if you hate the reality, which is the fact it is God's light and so if you hate's true form, you hate all that is good.

(August 28, 2018 at 10:13 am)Aroura Wrote: So, let's say there is a child that is raped and tortured. That child develops the inability to trust. Even if they are lucky enough to get treatment and they recover enough to work and not be labeled "mentally ill", they still suffer through their entire life the effects of being heavily abused as a child.

Let's say that person grows up unable to accept love, because their idea of love was twisted so badly at a young age that they never recover.

Do they go to hell when they reject God? Do they get to suffer eternal separation?  Can you not see how this is the worst kind of punishing a victim?

This is a real question(s), and I want answers from one of the theists in this thread.

Your question is predicated on a person being unable to respond to God's love. First, it is far from clear whether God's love could not reach such as person. I have to imagine that if there was any healing that can happen, it is in relationship with God--who can satisfy the emotional and spiritual needs of a person better than any other. Second, I have always held that God judges based on your response to the information he has revealed to you. If a person is indeed broken, it is entirely the case God will judge them on what responses were possible--with no one knowing what responses were possible except God.

(August 28, 2018 at 11:33 am)SteveII Wrote: Your question is predicated on a person being unable to respond to God's love. First, it is far from clear whether God's love could not reach such as person. I have to imagine that if there was any healing that can happen, it is in relationship with God--who can satisfy the emotional and spiritual needs of a person better than any other. Second, I have always held that God judges based on your response to the information he has revealed to you. If a person is indeed broken, it is entirely the case God will judge them on what responses were possible--with no one knowing what responses were possible except God.

Plenty can be done without god. The problem lies in thinking god is the be all to end all. Anything can be done without god. Theists just prefer to think otherwise for the sake of supporting the delusion.

(August 28, 2018 at 11:04 am)SteveII Wrote:

(August 27, 2018 at 12:21 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Why does god feel compelled to eternally punish only those folks who don’t love him back?  Why is that sin the only unforgivable one, and why isn’t it forgivable?  I have heard of hell described by Christians as a “self-imposed exile.”  If I were to die tomorrow and realize I was wrong, and I begged god for forgiveness but he refused, how could my exile be considered self-imposed?  It’s not self-imposed if god is actively preventing me from being with him.  [1]

Does god love the folks in hell?  If he does, and they are in agony for being separated from him, what logical or moral reason is there for god to keep them ostracized?  That sounds like the opposite of a forgiving god. It sounds to me like someone who holds grudges. [2]

Christians, would you do this to your own children?  If your child ran away, and came back a month later, filthy and in tears, saying, “mommy/daddy I miss you so much. I’m so alone and afraid. I’m sorry I left; I just want to come home and cuddle with you on the couch,” would you tell them it’s ‘too late’, and shut the door in their face for good?  Why or why not? [3]

Why is being loved back the most important thing to god; even more important than how we treat each other during life?  Even more important than how his chosen priesthood treat their children?

Why is this doctrine constantly mischaracterized? Is it because if you phrase it the way you do it sound more incredulous/ridiculous? It makes the objection no more than a straw man. People do not go to hell because they failed to "love God back". They go to hell because their sins have not been atoned for. Period. 

1. Hell is not so much self-imposed as a consequence of your decision not to seek atonement (or do the best you can with the information God made available to you and respond to him in some way). 
2. No grudge. Just a state of existence that is now fully separated from God compared to your life where God's presence was all around you in some way.  It is quite possible (as Neo was discussing) that once a soul is really separated from God, it does not desire God nor anything resembling the Good (with a capital G). 
3. False analogy. God does not make decisions based on emotions. They are based on essential characteristics of love, justice, holiness, and mercy. As essential characteristics, one cannot be set aside when convenient. They all govern all the time. This is also the answer to whether God loves people in Hell. Yes, he loves all of his creation but it does not matter because there are other constraints in place. 

Now you might say what if the system was that when we all die, we are given another chance to respond to God and take the atonement offered? Wouldn't that be the logical equivalent of everyone getting into heaven no matter what their choices in life were--because really, who would refuse it standing before the eternal creator of the universe? Is that compatible with God's holiness and justice to have an automatic safety net (to say nothing of all the effort in the main theme/thread of the Bible that eventually leads to the cross and the NT Christian life)? I don't think that is consistent at all with what we know about God and his original purpose and desire for us.

Another thing, it seems that the mortal component of our existence is the window of opportunity to respond to God. To claim that was not enough time, not clear enough, or somehow unfair is not a logical argument--it is an emotional argument without any real justification when closely examined.

Steve, though this is a different take than mine, you could very well be right about it. I admit my views on how it will all work and who goes to Heaven/Hell are guesses based on my understanding of God. Ultimately I know that it isn't my place to make conclusions about this, as I am not some sort of gatekeeper to the afterlife. I'm not trying to challenge you, just some genuine questions and comments about what you wrote above:

- Don't you think there are ways of following Christ without consciously knowing you are following Christ? For example, Ghandi. He wasn't Christian. But he still lived by the same principles that Jesus advocated. He strived to love others. He valued humility and charity. He strived to live a life of virtue and dignity. I'm sure he probably felt remorse for his wrong doings. He wasn't christian so I'm sure he didn't specifically pray saying "Jesus, I lost my patience with my friend today. Please forgive me Lord" ... but I imagine he felt remorse nonetheless. ...And I'm not talking about just him, but any other human who, for whatever reason, isn't technically a Christian, but by the way they live their lives, they follow Christ. Does that not count for anything? Does the person have to consciously say "I believe that Jesus is God?"

- I would also like to comment on your second to last paragraph. You said that if people were given a chance after dying to see God before them, they would all accept God, regardless of how they were like in life. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am inclined to not underestimate people's pride. Their sense of entitlement. Their refusal to admit wrongdoings. If someone was a complete POS in this life, I find it hard to believe that he would stand before goodness and love itself and genuinely humble himself before It.

Thoughts?