Do I believe Atheists are going to hell?

[SteveII]

Implicit in your question is that there is another possible solution. Given our free will, our resulting condition of being unholy, God's necessarily perfect holiness/justice, there is not another solution except not to make any people with free will. It is easy to argue that it is, on average, a greater good for billions of people having lived a life than none at all--even if a only a portion respond to God. 

I don't see how that's an easy, or even correct conclusion, given that you're comparing an eternity of torture to a finite mortal existence.  It's the kind of statement that makes me question your morality in addition to your god's.

Except I have shown the logic behind it. Obviously there are eternal consequences when and eternal soul rejects an eternal God. Bringing up a "finite mortal existence" is a straw man. Your objection is an appeal to emotion and/or incredulity. 

Also, I've yet to encounter a cogent argument for why free will is so important to god, why he wants to spend eternity with lesser creatures, and why, instead, he couldn't directly populate heaven with the kind of creatures he wants rather than go through this test of faith.

I said this earlier in this thread: It [free will] is an ability that God created us with because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God. 

God did populate heaven with holy creatures. Angels. We are obviously created with a different purpose.

But, no, what I was actually trying to get you to think about is the ethical treatment of prisoners.  I mean, hell is essentially a prison, is it not?  Then how is it morally justified that time spent there is torturous?  Doesn't perfect morality demand that the souls in hell not be tortured (either directly or indirectly) by your god?

I also said this earlier: So, what is hell? It is my view that the immaterial soul is the thing going to hell--which would be an immaterial place/existence/experience. I believe that while it is a place of torment, one is not eternally tortured by some overlord doing things to you. We are talking about souls and NOT bodies. Flames and teeth are material and would have no effect on the immaterial so all the lake of fire/weeping and gnashing of teeth references seem to be metaphors. The pain is spiritual and stems from the complete separation from God--a condition that obviously has a profound effect on the immaterial soul. 

[KevinM1]

I am still finding I have no substantial disagreement with the official Catholic position on this subject: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...lic-church

If you were born a Muslim and never heard of Jesus, then you are "invincibly ignorant" and you will be judged on your response to what was revealed to you. I don't think this a low bar--you have to actually try. There is room for your "honest mistake" in this scenario only. 

If you were born a Muslim and heard of Jesus and the plan of salvation, now you have an obligation to respond to that specifically. 

This takes care of any objection based on not being fair, or unlucky as to place of birth.

What logical, rational reason would a person, born and raised into any specific relgion/religious doctrine, have to think that their religion is the wrong one, and someone else’s is the right one?  Clearly no Christians here have ever given that serious consideration, so why would a Muslim or a Jewish person do so?

Because the story of Christ is supposed to be so moving/powerful that those who have heard of him will be compelled to convert.

[Astreja]

I would say that God is the perfection of each of his attributes. Arguments can be made that holiness is better than wicked. Justice is better than injustice. Concepts of perfectly holy and perfectly just separately and together carry entailments such as can't abide the presence of sin nor the can allow it to go unaddressed.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow.  A perfect being should be capable of at least seeing an imperfect being's point of view and able to lead that party closer to an acceptable state.  Your argument just makes your god sound fragile and petty.

Please remember that the main doctrines of Christianity have been discussed and written about by learned people for 2 millennium. Billions of hours of thought have gone into these concepts. Christianity's main problem today is the inability of the typical believer to defend doctrine against a more organized and sophisticated objector. However, that does not mean the there are not very good answers to the objections.

I've been aware of Christianity for over fifty years.  If anything, it makes even less sense than when I was first exposed to it.

Those "2 millennium [sic]" and "billions of hours of thought" are no help at all, as Christian theology doesn't come even remotely close to lining up with the reality that I'm aware of.  I've probably heard the best apologetic arguments dozens of times in the last decade or so, and from my POV the lot of you are just whistling in a big, noisy graveyard of stillborn ideas and wishful thinking.

[LadyForCamus]

Sorry, not going down that rabbit trail.

Lol...
A circular trail does tend to be never-ending...

Oh, come on now, Poca.  It’s called ‘inductive reasoning’.  😝

[SteveII]

I am still finding I have no substantial disagreement with the official Catholic position on this subject: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...lic-church

If you were born a Muslim and never heard of Jesus, then you are "invincibly ignorant" and you will be judged on your response to what was revealed to you. I don't think this a low bar--you have to actually try. There is room for your "honest mistake" in this scenario only. 

If you were born a Muslim and heard of Jesus and the plan of salvation, now you have an obligation to respond to that specifically. 

This takes care of any objection based on not being fair, or unlucky as to place of birth.

What logical, rational reason would a person, born and raised into any specific relgion/religious doctrine, have to think that their religion is the wrong one, and someone else’s is the right one?  Clearly no Christians here have ever given that serious consideration, so why would a Muslim or a Jewish person do so?

Like I said in another post: I think everyone has an obligation to seek out truth about God. There is excellent evidence that this desire is built into us. I personally am aware of the basics of all the worlds main religions. I find Christianity to be the most evidenced, most internally consistent, and most closely aligned with reality. 

As part of that built in desire to seek out the truth about God, a Muslim would ask the same three things about Islam and he/she may find their native religions lacking (or maybe not). But the process requires you to at least ask the questions and to compare the religions. I think you are wrong that people do not question their religion (even Christians here). I think all people serious about whatever religion they follow ask hard questions.

[KevinM1]

I don't see how that's an easy, or even correct conclusion, given that you're comparing an eternity of torture to a finite mortal existence.  It's the kind of statement that makes me question your morality in addition to your god's.

Except I have shown the logic behind it. Obviously there are eternal consequences when and eternal soul rejects an eternal God. Bringing up a "finite mortal existence" is a straw man. Your objection is an appeal to emotion and/or incredulity. 

It matters because you're attempting to state that a finite mortal existence is somehow better than nonexistence for those who will suffer an eternity of torture once their mortal existence is over.  It's ridiculous in a logical sense, given that since something that doesn't exist cannot feel pain, and an eternity of non-awareness is better than an eternity - mortal lifetime of pain.

Also, I've yet to encounter a cogent argument for why free will is so important to god, why he wants to spend eternity with lesser creatures, and why, instead, he couldn't directly populate heaven with the kind of creatures he wants rather than go through this test of faith.

I said this earlier in this thread: It [free will] is an ability that God created us with because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God. 

God did populate heaven with holy creatures. Angels. We are obviously created with a different purpose.

And yet, that purpose is never articulated clearly.  Instead, it simply leads to more questions.  Chief among them - why is god so lonely?

But, no, what I was actually trying to get you to think about is the ethical treatment of prisoners.  I mean, hell is essentially a prison, is it not?  Then how is it morally justified that time spent there is torturous?  Doesn't perfect morality demand that the souls in hell not be tortured (either directly or indirectly) by your god?

I also said this earlier: So, what is hell? It is my view that the immaterial soul is the thing going to hell--which would be an immaterial place/existence/experience. I believe that while it is a place of torment, one is not eternally tortured by some overlord doing things to you. We are talking about souls and NOT bodies. Flames and teeth are material and would have no effect on the immaterial so all the lake of fire/weeping and gnashing of teeth references seem to be metaphors. The pain is spiritual and stems from the complete separation from God--a condition that obviously has a profound effect on the immaterial soul. 

Pain is pain.  Emotional pain can be just as crippling as physical pain.  Moreover, I don't see how the distinction even matters.  We're talking about a state (physical, mental, spiritual - doesn't matter) in which the individual is being tortured (or, perhaps more accurately, in such pain that it may as well be torture, even if it's not administered by an external force).  Is that the ethical treatment of a prisoner?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I would be remiss in my duties as a Student of Swedenborg if I did not mention New Church doctrines that I believe make explicit doctrines that are tacit in other denominations.

There seems to be concern about good people going to hell, either voluntarily or by compulsion. We need to ask ourselves if it is even possible for someone to be good. In truth, people are not in-and-of-themselves good.* Whatever good anyone has comes not from him- or herself but from God working in and through them. Thus the Christian makes no claims to virtue for him or her self. In contrast to this, the non-Christian, whether religious heathen or atheist, attributes their goodness to themselves, something they have attained by their own merits. This belief subverts God's moral authority and separates someone from God because he or she is looking to themselves as the highest moral authority and not God.

The question for me is not whether a heathen or nonbeliever has tacitly accepted some kind of Christ-Incognito; but rather, if, apart from Christian doctrine, he recognizes that he is not the source of his own virtue, acknowledges some moral authority higher than himself, allows Grace to work through him, and does not claim personal credit for the good that he has done.

*similar to Total Depravity

[LadyForCamus]

I don't see how that's an easy, or even correct conclusion, given that you're comparing an eternity of torture to a finite mortal existence.  It's the kind of statement that makes me question your morality in addition to your god's.

Except I have shown the logic behind it. Obviously there are eternal consequences when and eternal soul rejects an eternal God. Bringing up a "finite mortal existence" is a straw man. Your objection is an appeal to emotion and/or incredulity. 

Also, I've yet to encounter a cogent argument for why free will is so important to god, why he wants to spend eternity with lesser creatures, and why, instead, he couldn't directly populate heaven with the kind of creatures he wants rather than go through this test of faith.

I said this earlier in this thread: It [free will] is an ability that God created us with because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God.

Seems to who? To you?  To God?  How do you know that?  Why did god create anyone or anything at all?  Was he lonely?

I also said this earlier: So, what is hell? It is my view that the immaterial soul is the thing going to hell--which would be an immaterial place/existence/experience. I believe that while it is a place of torment, one is not eternally tortured by some overlord doing things to you. We are talking about souls and NOT bodies. Flames and teeth are material and would have no effect on the immaterial so all the lake of fire/weeping and gnashing of teeth references seem to be metaphors. The pain is spiritual and stems from the complete separation from God--a condition that obviously has a profound effect on the immaterial soul.

Well, as long as it’s just spiritual eternal torture, I guess that makes it just.  😏

[The Grand Nudger]

I would be remiss in my duties as a Student of Swedenborg if I did not mention New Church doctrines that I believe make explicit doctrines that are tacit in other denominations.

There seems to be concern about good people going to hell, either voluntarily or by compulsion. We need to ask ourselves if it is even possible for someone to be good.

Oh, I see, the solution to the implication that your lord and savior is a moral infant is to pull a tq on the entire human race?  Well, all evidence to the contrary - the simple act of questioning the morality of this imaginary prison owner is a strong indication that we're just a -tad- more well developed in that regard..... but..hey, if you can;t be right you'll settle for other people being at least as terrible as your "god"?  

Good luck with that, and good luck with that "god".

[SteveII]

I would say that God is the perfection of each of his attributes. Arguments can be made that holiness is better than wicked. Justice is better than injustice. Concepts of perfectly holy and perfectly just separately and together carry entailments such as can't abide the presence of sin nor the can allow it to go unaddressed.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow.  A perfect being should be capable of at least seeing an imperfect being's point of view and able to lead that party closer to an acceptable state.  Your argument just makes your god sound fragile and petty.

I don't know where you got that point, but my God went the extra mile and actually walked in our shoes for 33 years with exact intention (and more) that you asked for. 

Please remember that the main doctrines of Christianity have been discussed and written about by learned people for 2 millennium. Billions of hours of thought have gone into these concepts. Christianity's main problem today is the inability of the typical believer to defend doctrine against a more organized and sophisticated objector. However, that does not mean the there are not very good answers to the objections.

I've been aware of Christianity for over fifty years.  If anything, it makes even less sense than when I was first exposed to it.

Those "2 millennium [sic]" and "billions of hours of thought" are no help at all, as Christian theology doesn't come even remotely close to lining up with the reality that I'm aware of.  I've probably heard the best apologetic arguments dozens of times in the last decade or so, and from my POV the lot of you are just whistling in a big, noisy graveyard of stillborn ideas and wishful thinking.

Listen, I enjoy having a respectful conversation, so don't take this the wrong way. The points/concerns in your objections prove that you do not fully understand the doctrines that you are objecting to. That is my point. These are not one-liner type beliefs that can be dismissed with a sentence or two. Christianity is one of the most examined bodies of knowledge in the history of the world. There are thorough answers to every objection ever conceived. They might not all be convincing to all people, but they are not going to be dismantled in a sentence or two.