On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[Astreja]

One more reply to make on some of this old material.

Why would I be glad?  I'm not interested in eternal life, and I have no intention of worshipping any god that would condemn sentient beings to eternal suffering.

If you'd been paying attention, you would've read my first post in this thread, where I made it perfectly clear that I hold the doctrine of eternal torment to be blasphemy. You're speaking of a god that is the bastard child of paganism and Christianity, birthed by the whore, Mystery Babylon.

I mention this only because I believe this doctrine to be a major hurdle for atheists. Clearly it's a wicked doctrine that does not at all align with the character of a merciful God. I suppose I can even understand the hatred you have for this supposed god, but you should be careful where you shoot that half-cocked gun in the future.

No, the nonexistence of your alleged god is a bigger hurdle by far.

But if you could put some serious effort into convincing other Christians that hell is a myth, maybe they'd stop frightening children with it.

[fredd bear]

One more reply to make on some of this old material.


If you'd been paying attention, you would've read my first post in this thread, where I made it perfectly clear that I hold the doctrine of eternal torment to be blasphemy. You're speaking of a god that is the bastard child of paganism and Christianity, birthed by the whore, Mystery Babylon.

I mention this only because I believe this doctrine to be a major hurdle for atheists. Clearly it's a wicked doctrine that does not at all align with the character of a merciful God. I suppose I can even understand the hatred you have for this supposed god, but you should be careful where you shoot that half-cocked gun in the future.

No, the nonexistence of your alleged god is a bigger hurdle by far.

But if you could put some serious effort into convincing other Christians that hell is a myth, maybe they'd stop frightening children with it.

Indeed.

I remain confused about the origins of an eternal hell. It simply does not exist in Judaism , the foundation on which Christianity and Islam are based..All three worship the same god, all trace their origins to the prophet Abraham. (hence the term  'The Abrahamic religions")***


As far as I can tell, it evolved, beginning with the Roman concept of an after life. The diverse claims about an after life,, from several faiths, are irrelevant to me. This leads back to why I find it impossible to have a rational discussion with a devour apologist of any religion; all of the arguments take the existence of god as a given.  That claim has not been proved, so I'm able to accept it as 'a given'.  I demand proof of the existence of whatever flavour of deity the apologist favours before proceeding an inch further.. 

The problem of evil and suffering is secondary, but also an important obstacle in arguing the existence of an infinitely compassionate god. Hindus and Buddhists make a reasonable  enough argument, if  the first hurdle [of the existence of god[ is overcome. 

Christianity has had 2000 years to come up with an answer to the problem of suffering and of evil, especially when related to the suffering of innocents; animals and children. No such answer has been provided.

Epicurus wrote his opinion about gods in general, but it fits the Abrahamic faiths perfectly:


       “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus   

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))


***     The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious communities of faith that claim descent from the Judaism of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, with the term deriving from the patriarch Abraham (a major biblical figure from The Old Testament, which is recognized by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others).[1]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

[MilesAbbott81]

No, the nonexistence of your alleged god is a bigger hurdle by far.

But if you could put some serious effort into convincing other Christians that hell is a myth, maybe they'd stop frightening children with it.

I never said hell didn't exist. It just doesn't exist in the way people tend to envision it.

Indeed.

I remain confused about the origins of an eternal hell. It simply does not exist in Judaism , the foundation on which Christianity and Islam are based..All three worship the same god, all trace their origins to the prophet Abraham. (hence the term  'The Abrahamic religions")***


As far as I can tell, it evolved, beginning with the Roman concept of an after life. The diverse claims about an after life,, from several faiths, are irrelevant to me. This leads back to why I find it impossible to have a rational discussion with a devour apologist of any religion; all of the arguments take the existence of god as a given.  That claim has not been proved, so I'm able to accept it as 'a given'.  I demand proof of the existence of whatever flavour of deity the apologist favours before proceeding an inch further.. 

The problem of evil and suffering is secondary, but also an important obstacle in arguing the existence of an infinitely compassionate god. Hindus and Buddhists make a reasonable  enough argument, if  the first hurdle [of the existence of god[ is overcome. 

Christianity has had 2000 years to come up with an answer to the problem of suffering and of evil, especially when related to the suffering of innocents; animals and children. No such answer has been provided.

Epicurus wrote his opinion about gods in general, but it fits the Abrahamic faiths perfectly:


       “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus   

I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, but I think the problem of evil and suffering is actually just as big an obstacle as accepting the evidence for the existence of God, because failure to solve the former results in a lack of motivation to do the latter. Not that that is any excuse, or even the reason why you can't accept the evidence.

Epicurus was a fool, because he failed to understand that there is another option. God is both able and willing to prevent evil. So whence cometh evil? From God:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

Does that make God evil? No. There's a difference between being evil and creating it. Being made in the image of God requires that we know good from evil. That's why this extremely important verse exists in Genesis:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..." (Genesis 3:22)

So we learn good from evil by doing evil things ourselves, and God brings evil upon us for committing evil deeds. That is why we suffer.

The reason why innocents suffer is difficult to accept, particularly from a carnal perspective. Here is one reason:

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me... (Deuteronomy 5:9)

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, either. Evil parents beget evil children. In some if not most cases, children are spared being raised by those parents and the consequences that go along with all of that. Yes, sometimes it's better for them to die than to live. Many times I've cursed the day I was born, and I know I'd have been better off had I died as a child, before the sins of my fathers had fallen on me.

The wrath of God is a terrible, terrible thing to behold. He does not tolerate wickedness.

You might ask what the point is in bringing wrath upon further generations. I will say this: many will be brought to repentance when they come to realize the devastation their sins have wrought. When parents realize what their wickedness has done to their children, when they come to know that they're the ones who brought evil upon themselves, they will know that all the suffering was not in vain. There's a point to it all. No one dies in vain, no one suffers pointlessly, no one suffers arbitrarily, because that isn't Who He is. He is perfectly just, perfectly righteous, perfectly wise. We, on the other hand, are wicked, myopic, and stupid.

Not that I expect you all to accept this. It's just the truth.

EDIT: Since animals were mentioned as part of this picture, I'll say that I don't see them playing a huge role. It's lamentable when they suffer needlessly at the hands of evil people, but they haven't been given minds like us, either, so it's not really the same. Nevertheless, their deaths are not in vain, either, because they help highlight our wickedness, something very necessary in the context of repentance. By the way, are you eating conventional beef or poultry? Any idea how much those animals suffer, and how you're contributing to their suffering by spending your dollars where they shouldn't be spent? Animals raised with organic farming practices are much better off, so perhaps you should consider buying organic meats (which are better for you anyway).

[possibletarian]

I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, but I think the problem of evil and suffering is actually just as big an obstacle as accepting the evidence for the existence of God, because failure to solve the former results in a lack of motivation to do the latter. Not that that is any excuse, or even the reason why you can't accept the evidence.

Firstly, which evidence would that be, give your reasons why you consider something evidence other than saying 'it's obvious'. If someone came to you with radical and fantastic claims then said you should simply accept it because 'it's obvious'. would you consider that evidence or proof ?
Atheists tend not to have a problem of evil at all, it's only a problem when you claim a loving god at the same time.

The so called problem of evil exists only because you are making the unproven claim of a god at the same time, therefore the existence of god needs to be proven first, before you can even have a problem of evil. Do you have any actual proof ?

Epicurus was a fool, because he failed to understand that there is another option. God is both able and willing to prevent evil. So whence cometh evil? From God:

There's another simpler one which fits the facts perfectly, god does not exist and that people who believe he does are fools.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

Again why do you trust words written by people who claimed to be inspired by a god, unless you can prove your god, what authority do they have ? They are just stuff people wrote.

Does that make God evil? No. There's a difference between being evil and creating it. Being made in the image of God requires that we know good from evil. That's why this extremely important verse exists in Genesis:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..." (Genesis 3:22)

Adam and Eve according to the myth, were made in the image of god, yet did not know what right or wrong was until after they had sinned. Otherwise how could they have 'become as one of us' ? But again to give this any authority at all, we would first have to establish a god.

So we learn good from evil by doing evil things ourselves, and God brings evil upon us for committing evil deeds. That is why we suffer.

Or a much simpler explanation, there is no god and when we do bad stuff there is no cosmic plan to return evil to us, that's just the way it is because bad stuff happens all the time, the process requires no god whatsoever.

The reason why innocents suffer is difficult to accept, particularly from a carnal perspective. Here is one reason:

The most obvious being of course that people do bad stuff and there is no god

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me... (Deuteronomy 5:9)

And again with man written mythology, which if you are to claim any authority at all for you would first have to show the existence of an authority giver. Otherwise why treat it as anything more than the utterances of men ? You seem very confused about this, you claim it's not really the scriptures themselves but some kind of revelation of the truth of scriptures, which has shown to you but have yet to show exist outside of your head.

Stop being so gullible as to believe religionists who believed there was a god and wrote about this stuff clumsily trying to explain it, i think it's incredible that people believe this is inspired in anyway when there are much more simple explanations, I suppose though if you already believe in a god you have to go to these lengths.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, either. Evil parents beget evil children.

That is the first thing that bears any resemblance to reality you have said, well done. And all explained much more easily if there is no god.

In some if not most cases, children are spared being raised by those parents and the consequences that go along with all of that.

And do you really believe that this is avoided in most cases ?

Yes, sometimes it's better for them to die than to live. Many times I've cursed the day I was born, and I know I'd have been better off had I died as a child, before the sins of my fathers had fallen on me.

I'm really sorry you felt that way, it's easy to see why in such circumstances you may seek some kind of religious consolation.

The wrath of God is a terrible, terrible thing to behold. He does not tolerate wickedness.

And yet we see it all around us, again the more elegant explanation is simply there is no god.

You might ask what the point is in bringing wrath upon further generations.

well none really.

I will say this: many will be brought to repentance when they come to realize the devastation their sins have wrought. When parents realize what their wickedness has done to their children, when they come to know that they're the ones who brought evil upon themselves, they will know that all the suffering was not in vain. There's a point to it all.

It is true we learn when things go really wrong, no god needed though. You don't need a god to realise you do things which are not considered good.

No one dies in vain, no one suffers pointlessly, no one suffers arbitrarily, because that isn't Who He is. He is perfectly just, perfectly righteous, perfectly wise.

There is absolutely no evidence that there is a reason for these things, to claim a reason demands evidence of a reason giver, again the better explanation being more simple, there is no god.

Not that I expect you all to accept this. It's just the truth.

And the cream on the cake.. simple assertion.

EDIT: Since animals were mentioned as part of this picture, I'll say that I don't see them playing a huge role. It's lamentable when they suffer needlessly at the hands of evil people, but they haven't been given minds like us, either, so it's not really the same. Nevertheless, their deaths are not in vain, either, because they help highlight our wickedness, something very necessary in the context of repentance. By the way, are you eating conventional beef or poultry? Any idea how much those animals suffer, and how you're contributing to their suffering by spending your dollars where they shouldn't be spent? Animals raised with organic farming practices are much better off, so perhaps you should consider buying organic meats (which are better for you anyway).

We eat animals because we eat animals, we are a species that as you have very well pointed out clearly does not mind doing so, we hide our morals on this matter or simply don't have any. But to claim a god as an excuse would of course demand proof of such a deity.
To believe even that a deity would be remotely interested in killing animals is silly beyond belief.

[fredd bear]

I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, but I think the problem of evil and suffering is actually just as big an obstacle as accepting the evidence for the existence of God, because failure to solve the former results in a lack of motivation to do the latter. Not that that is any excuse, or even the reason why you can't accept the evidence.

Firstly, which evidence would that be, give your reasons why you consider something evidence other than saying 'it's obvious'. If someone came to you with radical and fantastic claims then said you should simply accept it because 'it's obvious'. would you consider that evidence or proof ?
Atheists tend not to have a problem of evil at all, it's only a problem when you claim a loving god at the same time.

The so called  problem of evil exists only because you are making the unproven claim of a god at the same time, therefore the existence of god needs to be proven first, before you can even have a problem of evil.  Do you have any actual proof ?

Epicurus was a fool, because he failed to understand that there is another option. God is both able and willing to prevent evil. So whence cometh evil? From God:

There's another simpler one which fits the facts perfectly, god does not exist and that people who believe he does are fools.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

Again why do you trust words written by people who claimed to be inspired by a god, unless you can prove your god, what authority do they have ?  They are just stuff people wrote.

Does that make God evil? No. There's a difference between being evil and creating it. Being made in the image of God requires that we know good from evil. That's why this extremely important verse exists in Genesis:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..." (Genesis 3:22)

Adam and Eve according to the myth, were made in the image of god, yet did not know what right or wrong was until after they had sinned. Otherwise how could they have 'become as one of us' ?  But again to give this any authority at all, we would first have to establish a god.

So we learn good from evil by doing evil things ourselves, and God brings evil upon us for committing evil deeds. That is why we suffer.

Or a much simpler explanation, there is no god and when we do bad stuff there is no cosmic plan to return evil to us, that's just the way it is because bad stuff happens all the time, the process requires no god whatsoever.

The reason why innocents suffer is difficult to accept, particularly from a carnal perspective. Here is one reason:

The most obvious being of course that people do bad stuff and there is no god

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me... (Deuteronomy 5:9)

And again with man written mythology, which if you are to claim any authority at all for you would first have to show the existence of an authority giver. Otherwise why treat it as anything more than the utterances of men ?  You seem very confused about this, you claim it's not really the scriptures themselves but some kind of revelation of the truth of scriptures, which has shown to you but have yet to show exist outside of your head.

Stop being so gullible as to believe religionists who believed there was a god and wrote about this stuff clumsily trying to explain it, i think it's incredible that people believe this is inspired in anyway when there are much more simple explanations, I suppose though if you already believe in a god you have to go to these lengths.  

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, either. Evil parents beget evil children.

That is the first thing that bears any resemblance to reality you have said, well done. And all explained much more easily if there is no god.

In some if not most cases, children are spared being raised by those parents and the consequences that go along with all of that.

And do you really believe that this is avoided in most cases ?

Yes, sometimes it's better for them to die than to live. Many times I've cursed the day I was born, and I know I'd have been better off had I died as a child, before the sins of my fathers had fallen on me.

I'm really sorry you felt that way, it's easy to see why in such circumstances you may seek some kind of religious consolation.

The wrath of God is a terrible, terrible thing to behold. He does not tolerate wickedness.

And yet we see it all around us, again the more elegant explanation is simply there is no god.

You might ask what the point is in bringing wrath upon further generations.

well none really.

I will say this: many will be brought to repentance when they come to realize the devastation their sins have wrought. When parents realize what their wickedness has done to their children, when they come to know that they're the ones who brought evil upon themselves, they will know that all the suffering was not in vain. There's a point to it all.

It is true we learn when things go really wrong, no god needed though.  You don't need a god to realise you do things which are not considered good.

No one dies in vain, no one suffers pointlessly, no one suffers arbitrarily, because that isn't Who He is. He is perfectly just, perfectly righteous, perfectly wise.[/quote

There is absolutely no evidence that there is a reason for these things, to claim a reason demands evidence of a reason giver, again the better explanation being more simple, there is no god.

Not that I expect you all to accept this. It's just the truth.

And the cream on the cake.. simple assertion.

EDIT: Since animals were mentioned as part of this picture, I'll say that I don't see them playing a huge role. It's lamentable when they suffer needlessly at the hands of evil people, but they haven't been given minds like us, either, so it's not really the same. Nevertheless, their deaths are not in vain, either, because they help highlight our wickedness, something very necessary in the context of repentance. By the way, are you eating conventional beef or poultry? Any idea how much those animals suffer, and how you're contributing to their suffering by spending your dollars where they shouldn't be spent? Animals raised with organic farming practices are much better off, so perhaps you should consider buying organic meats (which are better for you anyway).

We eat animals because we eat animals, we are a species that as you have very well pointed out clearly does not mind doing so, we hide our morals on this matter or simply don't have any. But to claim a god as an excuse would of course demand proof of such a deity.
To believe even that a deity would be remotely interested in killing animals is silly beyond belief.

---
Excellent post. 

Christians have had  2000 years  to explain the existence of evil and of suffering. They have not done so. Then some fool on an internet forum thinks he has the answer because he can quote scripture--to an atheist. 


I've read that a definition of insanity is repeating an action over and over and expecting a change.


Is it naivete, arrogance or ignorance which compels Christians to come to an atheist forum and argue "god did it" to a bunch of atheists? 

Have you ever been to a Christian forum? I have, a couple. I lasted less an hour before being banned. Seems  to me Christians are treated far better on our sites than we are on theirs

 

[possibletarian]

Christians have had 2000 years to explain the existence of evil and of suffering. They have not done so. Then some fool on an internet forum thinks he has the answer because he can quote scripture--to an atheist.


I've read that a definition of insanity is repeating an action over and over and expecting a change.


Is it naivete, arrogance or ignorance which compels Christians to come to an atheist forum and argue "god did it" to a bunch of atheists?

Have you ever been to a Christian forum? I have, a couple. I lasted less an hour before being banned. Seems to me Christians are treated far better on our sites than we are on theirs

I'm not sure why they keep repeating the same thing and expecting a change?

One would have thought though that the minute they claim 'a god commanded it' or 'a god revealed this to me' or 'god inspired this scripture' or ramble on about a godly purpose to things that are more easily explained by there not being a god, that they would understand when people asked for evidence of that same god.

In fact I would have thought it crucial before claiming that god did or said anything, or even discussing the merits of what god said, personally i think it really is like a disease on society.

I have been on christian forums, and you seem to be right, atheists get very short leashes, one would have thought with such a mighty all truthful, all obviously apparent god that they would not need such protection, but there we go it's their 'safe space' from the provable reality of life.

[MilesAbbott81]

I suppose I have to wonder once again why you all bother having a "Christianity" section if you have no interest in discussing Christianity. If practically every argument you people engage in ends with "well why consider any of this without proof of God?" then there truly is no point in discussing any of this.

Maybe others will read what I've written and properly consider it. I would direct anyone who wishes to hear the Truth to http://www.thepathoftruth.com. I would specifically direct atheists to these two sections:

https://www.thepathoftruth.com/falsehood.../index.htm
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/falsehood.../index.htm (this one is particularly enlightening)

To be clear, practically everything I've written here I discovered for myself at this site. It's the only place I'm aware of that has true wisdom from God.

[possibletarian]

I suppose I have to wonder once again why you all bother having a "Christianity" section if you have no interest in discussing Christianity. If practically every argument you people engage in ends with "well why consider any of this without proof of God?" then there truly is no point in discussing any of this.

And there's our problem Mike, you cannot in any reasonable terms discuss christianty without establishing the validity of it's authority first, otherwise what differs it from all other religions, creeds and beliefs that you don't accept ?

You then go on to claim a special revelation about cancer cures, and claim a site (that you say ) is the only place (you are aware of) that has true wisdom from god which of course was written by men, who you also claim to be liars, unless they agree with you, or you them.

Here's your challenge, try discussing the merits or truth of the christian faith without resorting to a godly authority, you can use the bible or any logical argument, but as soon as it requires any special revelation, or claim to be inspired by a god, then clearly you need proof that the author of that authority exists.

EDIT: I had a peek at your so called 'true wisdom' site, I have never seen such a mishmash of simple assertions, i can clearly see where you were indoctrinated from now, and i recommend everyone here has a look.

[MilesAbbott81]

And there's our problem Mike, you cannot in any reasonable terms discuss christianty without establishing the validity of it's authority first, otherwise what differs it from all other religions, creeds and beliefs that you don't accept ?

For one, there is no other religion that claims God Himself came to us as a man, at least of which I'm aware. Second, everything about Christianity, when it isn't being interpreted through the carnal lenses of phonies, makes sense. Everything about the world can be rationally reconciled with the testimony of Jesus Christ, which is why I was interested in discussing actual Christianity and not simply the existence of God, because the "philosophy" of Christianity makes the truth about God even more readily apparent.

You then go on to claim a special revelation about cancer cures, and claim a site (that you say ) is the only place (you are aware of)  that has true wisdom from god which of course was written by men, who you also claim to be liars, unless they agree with you, or you them.

It's not revelation, I merely said the Lord gave me to stumble across these treatments (or that is what I meant, anyway). The evidence is out there that water fasting can cure all kinds of diseases (including MS and type 1 diabetes). The problem is people put too much faith in men, and prefer simple and easy "fixes" like swallowing pills (and are loath to change their habits, particularly those related to diet). Dandelion root powder is new to the cancer scene, but there is research about that out there as well. The heat treatments (hyperthermia) are widely used in Germany and probably many other places. I'd recommend the film "Cancer Can Be Killed" as one example (just Google it). Doctors are much more interested in making money, so they insist on conventional treatments that rake it in.

Here's your challenge, try discussing the merits or truth of the christian faith without resorting to a godly authority, you can use the bible or any logical argument, but as soon as it requires any special revelation, or claim to be inspired by a god, then clearly you need proof that the author of that authority exists.

Well, what's written in the Bible can only be understood if God gives the understanding. Understanding it on your own would be like an ant attempting to learn astrophysics. That said, the messages in the Bible are clearly spelled out, but to take credit for the understanding absent God's grace would be disingenuous.

And while we've been through this before, I'll state it one final time: proof exists. You just don't consider it to be proof because you're far more interested in disproving God than in proving Him.

[Astreja]

For one, there is no other religion that claims God Himself came to us as a man, at least of which I'm aware.

But is it anything more than a claim? I don't think so.

Second, everything about Christianity, when it isn't being interpreted through the carnal lenses of phonies, makes sense.

So now we're "phonies" because we think your religion is nonsense? My, my -- aren't you the precious one.

I think it would be appropriate for you to lose your faith and join the rest of us "phonies" in the real world.