If God sent your child to Hell.

[Drich]

---

I see the Lewis went over like a lead balloon.  Sorry for that and I will make sure to avoid it in the future.  (Though I was shocked by how many people go ad hominem right away.  I thought people would give more consideration to what people are saying regardless of who is saying it... Oh well.)

The question (which I am a fan of) seeks to point out two problems for many theist:

If it is held that the soul is to be in paradise and then further held that paradise is to be pleasing in every aspect then it must follow that a person who is deprived of the presence of anyone they love, or forced to endure the presence of anyone they hate would not be pleased in every aspect and is thus not in paradise.

Second, many theist are readily willing to accept numerous horrors under the argument that it is for the greater good so long as they end up better for it.  Few if any are willing to accept that they will be the sacrifice that benefits the rest.  Thus the greater good is subjective to what the soul in question determines is good.

---

As a general response to both scenarios I would say it is held by (since it cannot be known) theist that what comes with paradise is understanding.  Just as metaphysical suffering is alleviated with understanding so to is it held by theist that the condemnation of a loved one or the salvation of a detested one will be understood and subsequently perceived as right and good.  There will be no pity for those sent to hell nor disgust with those sent to heaven (regardless of relation) as it will be obvious and certain it is where they should be.

It seems a common scenario in the history of religion where the complications of simplistic overstatement lead, on further reflection when internal contradictions are discovered, to ad-hoc explanations which generally do not serve to resolve the conflict.

God is omnipotent. -> Can he make a rock so big He can't lift it? -> Sure, how is a mystery.

What if God does not use the doctrine of omnipotence to describe His power? What if He used the term "Alpha and Omega/The beginning and End of all things?" This would free Him up quite a bit don't you think? Meaning He would not be defined by a man made definition or doctrine with an inherent paradoxal flaw in the middle of it. No, If for some reason God Calls Himself Alpha and Omega, it would mean that ALL Things are subject to His will.
What does that mean for your cliche'-ed paradox? It means IF God wanted to make a rock so big he could not lift it, then He could. like wise if He didn't want to make a rock that big then He wouldn't. See as the Alpha and Omega ALL Things (Even douche-che'd paradoxes) Are subject to His will, and He is not subject to some narrowly defined principle or man made 'doctrine.'

God is omniscient. -> Does He know of the extent of his knowledge of the things he doesn't know?-> Sure, how is a mystery.

Again.. Alpha and Omega. If He wills it so then your answer is Yes if not then No.
Your problem with Omni-max based paradoxes, is that it only points to the fact that the words/Omni-Doctrines themselves are flawed. Since God never refers to Himself as an Omni-max God, you argument fails.

Paradise is perfect. -> Perfect peace includes knowledge of the suffering of others. -> You will understand. It's a mystery.

Next bit-o-failed reasoning.. God does not sell 'paradise' to us in the Bible. Although the word is used to describe an attribute of His abode (not ours, in the After life.) 'We' Will Live on a 'New Earth.' Not in Heaven according to Revelation/The bible.

God is omnibenevolent -> Wherefore evil? -> You will understand.  It's a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why people choose the complex explanation: God and mystery instead of the simple one: No God and the obvious.

This is an easy one. God in the bible never claims to be ' Omni-benevolent.' If fact the opposite is true. There are those in whom God Hates. The List is a short one, but even so God Can Not Be All Loving of There is a list of those God Hates. So then it can be said:"God loves those in whom He loves and will have mercy on those in whom He will have mercy."

---

I see the Lewis went over like a lead balloon.  Sorry for that and I will make sure to avoid it in the future.  (Though I was shocked by how many people go ad hominem right away.  I thought people would give more consideration to what people are saying regardless of who is saying it... Oh well.)

The question (which I am a fan of) seeks to point out two problems for many theist:

If it is held that the soul is to be in paradise and then further held that paradise is to be pleasing in every aspect then it must follow that a person who is deprived of the presence of anyone they love, or forced to endure the presence of anyone they hate would not be pleased in every aspect and is thus not in paradise.

Second, many theist are readily willing to accept numerous horrors under the argument that it is for the greater good so long as they end up better for it.  Few if any are willing to accept that they will be the sacrifice that benefits the rest.  Thus the greater good is subjective to what the soul in question determines is good.

As a general response to both scenarios I would say it is held by (since it cannot be known) theist that what comes with paradise is understanding.  Just as metaphysical suffering is alleviated with understanding so to is it held by theist that the condemnation of a loved one or the salvation of a detested one will be understood and subsequently perceived as right and good.  There will be no pity for those sent to hell nor disgust with those sent to heaven (regardless of relation) as it will be obvious and certain it is where they should be.

So really, this argument amounts to: a person in heaven would understand gods reason for sending their loved one to hell, so they would then just accept it as right and good.  Is this about right?  This sounds like an adjusted version of the Lobotomy.

I'm shocked that you don't see what an appalling argument that is.  So love is totally conditional, and god can take it away with...understanding of why that person needs to suffer torment for all eternity.  That...is...fucking...sick. 

And hey, with understanding does not come acceptance of other's suffering.  As humans become more advanced, we generally go the other way, and find that there is little reason for another's suffering.  Many people even defend the murderers, whores, and so forth (cough ~jesus~ cough). 

The more understanding we gain, the less judgemental we become.  Funny how the Christian notion of god and heaven is that we will become MORE judgmental and accepting of others suffering.  It's like you believe 2 completely different things at the same time!

Are you saying just because someone is loved by someone else say in this case a mother or father, that person is not deserving of Hell?

Have you been lobotomized?

Do you not think ISIS extremists are all hated by their parents? Was Hitler, Stallin, and the members of the Kim dynasty all hated by their parents as well?

I do not want to spend eternity with any of those monsters, even if one of them was your kid, or anyone elses just because a parent loved them.

It's like you guys can't look past your own intrests, to a greater sense of Good or righteousness.