If Not Hell then what?

[downbeatplumb]

This has been suggested several times. To which I ask, what if the process of Annihilation was to be consumed by the 'fires of Hell?' Is annihilation still what you want?

So he can't just go poof and we disappear there is a process, probably with some forms and a factory.

As something without a body I wouldn't have pain receptors would I so no skin off my nose.

[Rev. Rye]

Annihilate their souls. Boom. They're out of His hair, and there's no conflict between the Justice of God and the Injustice inherent in sending someone to be tortured for eternity.

This has been suggested several times. To which I ask, what if the process of Annihilation was to be consumed by the 'fires of Hell?' Is annihilation still what you want?

That depends, how long would the suffering last? Because eternal punishment, It's infinite punishment for finite sin. Where's the justice in that?

[Whateverist]

We'll find out how omni-benevolent this god really is when He decides how to dispose of us. Will he look for a humane means of extermination? Will he just go for expedience or will he look to rub salt in the wounds. The whole idea of hell sounds more like the last alternative.

God never makes the claim that He is 'Omni-benevolent.' The Church leaders who came up with this 'doctrine' had to over look a whole heck of a lot of scripture to force this attribute onto God.

Well I was just playing along with the premise of course. "Benevolent", "faster than a speeding bullet" or even "bigger than a bread box" .. how should I know what something so ill defined as "God" would actually do in such a hypothetical and highly absurd sounding situation? More to the point, why should I care?

[The Reality Salesman01]

God never makes the claim that He is 'Omni-benevolent.' The Church leaders who came up with this 'doctrine' had to over look a whole heck of a lot of scripture to force this attribute onto God.

Listen dude. You can tailor any crap you want to fit your own scope of what seems like an acceptable claim, but you need to realize that ANY of these claims have logical contingencies. This is why God continues to fail. It's not your opinion that makes God a valid claim, it's how he holds up logically. Either his benevolence has no limits, or its limited. If he is limited, he's hardly a God of unlimited potential. If he's got limits of any kind, he fails as a God. So, when you tailor His abilities to fit your opinion, you present a version of God that logically fails. When you say that i've only shown that the God I expect fails, you are suggesting that the logic God is subject to is different than the logic everything else is. This is another uninformed argument, as the laws of logic are absolute. My opinion has nothing to do with the validity of anything. Faith is either...

1) Starring the logical uncertainty in the face, accepting that what you are presented is illogical and unreasonable, and choosing to continue it anyway

2) Not having the intellectual capacity or inclination to have ever considered having such logical justification, and just holding a belief based on opinion.

You seem to have a mix of the two.

[Drich]

So he can't just go poof and we disappear there is a process, probably with some forms and a factory.

Why would he 'poof' someone out of existance when there is a debt to be paid?

As something without a body I wouldn't have pain receptors would I so no skin off my nose.

All will be resurected, so to eternal life some to simply face judgement and then Hell.

---

That depends, how long would the suffering last? Because eternal punishment, It's infinite punishment for finite sin. Where's the justice in that?

The bible does not say. I think it to be on a sliding scale... I don't think any of us will be able to last indefinatly before our minds are consumed by the torment of Hell fire, although I do believe the Hitlers of this world will last longer in Hell than the guy who believes he is a good enough person to not need the attonement of Christ.

---

God never makes the claim that He is 'Omni-benevolent.' The Church leaders who came up with this 'doctrine' had to over look a whole heck of a lot of scripture to force this attribute onto God.

Well I was just playing along with the premise of course. "Benevolent", "faster than a speeding bullet" or even "bigger than a bread box" .. how should I know what something so ill defined as "God" would actually do in such a hypothetical and highly absurd sounding situation? More to the point, why should I care?

Why did you orginally reply?

[Drich]

Listen dude. You can tailor any crap you want to fit your own scope of what seems like an acceptable claim, but you need to realize that ANY of these claims have logical contingencies. This is why God continues to fail. It's not your opinion that makes God a valid claim, it's how he holds up logically. Either his benevolence has no limits, or its limited. If he is limited, he's hardly a God of unlimited potential. If he's got limits of any kind, he fails as a God.

In who version of God? Yours? what if you are wrong about who God is or what God should be? It doesn't mean God doesn't exist it just mean you do not understand the nature of God. Your definition of God (A boundless limitless being) is in of itself a paradox as God is limited by your understanding of how a boundless God should behave. Meaning God is not allowed to have a nature or a preference otherwise He does not fit the definition of "unlimited potential" you place on Him.

So, when you tailor His abilities to fit your opinion, you present a version of God that logically fails.

Unless you can show where I have actually done this, (where my representation of God is not consistant with how He is portrayed in the bible.) then know you are making things up.

When you say that i've only shown that the God I expect fails, you are suggesting that the logic God is subject to is different than the logic everything else is.

What are you talking about? You have created a version of God not consistant with How God is portrayed in Scripture.

This is another uninformed argument, as the laws of logic are absolute.

And so are the defining qualities of the God of the bible. If we are having a discussion of the God of the Bible then it is by the bible the we are bound, in order to define the God it describes.

1) Starring the logical uncertainty in the face, accepting that what you are presented is illogical and unreasonable, and choosing to continue it anyway

Did I miss a post? where have you been able to prove my argument as Illogical?

2) Not having the intellectual capacity or inclination to have ever considered having such logical justification, and just holding a belief based on opinion.

Opinion is simple personal belief. Facts are statements that can be proven or disproved. (facts don't have to be accepted inorder to be considered fact.) As proof of God is only limited by your desire to simply A/S/K. The 'facts' in the bible about God can indeed be considered facts because there is away to prove or disprove what is in the bible about God.

You seem to have a mix of the two.
[/quote]

[Cinjin]

Heaven?

What if God does not want to spend an eternity with those who raped and murdered His Children? Or those who spent their whole lives hating Him or those who follow him? Does He not have the right to separate those who love him from those who do not?

Out of this whole thread, this is the only interesting post you've made, and despite my better judgement, I will address a few points.

What if God does not want to spend an eternity with those who raped and murdered His Children?

Well, that is a conundrum, considering that your god ordered the Israelite army to do the EXACT same thing over and over again. What happened to all the souls of the people that HIS army murdered and raped?? Do the Philistine women, who's only crime was being born into a tribe that taught them to worship a different god, do they get to spend an eternity with god? They were raped, their children and husbands murdered, their lands and possessions stolen, their daughters made to be enslaved brides .... How is their pitiful crime of non-belief any worse than the savage dictate of your god?

When your god ordered the babies cut from the bellies of the women of Amelek and Samaria did both mother and child get a pass into heaven or is that only reserved for the people who do the cutting?

Your answer is given in the question: Your god has literally SURROUNDED himself with murderers and rapists since his debut with the Hebrew. If anything, opening the doors of Heaven to all the atheists would provide a lot more non-killing, non-bigoted, forgiving type of souls in Heaven. Sure, you'd get the occasional horrible atheist, but on average, allowing non-believers in would actually CLEAN UP the joint.

Or those who spent their whole lives hating Him or those who follow him?

Most atheists feel that you can't hate something you don't believe in. Often christards try to label our hatred of your bigotry and your dirty religion as hatred of your god in order to make some non-point about the nonsense you believe, but it's just greasy sophistry.

Does He not have the right to separate those who love him from those who do not?

Absolutely ... or rather he would have, if he had bothered to reveal himself to the ENTIRE world. If it was so important to him to surround himself with people who fear and worship him, than he should've made it far FAR more clearer who he is and what he was planning. You know, PROVE his existence (and power) over the thousands of other gods -- many that have nearly identical attributes.




I know I know ... who am I to tell your god what to do ... blah blah, he doesn't have to act according to my simple human mind. We've heard this many times from you, and yet when we answer your stupid questions about non-existent places, this is inevitably your response.
The point is Drich, you will never EVER have a leg to stand on as long as you continue to use the Bible as your sole backing argument.

Fairytales are just silly, and those who tout them as fact are ... well, I'm sorry ... but they're just stupid.

[Sarcasm]

If you believe Hell to be immoral or just plain wrong, then what would you suggest God do with those who do not want to serve Him for eternity?

Eat them.

[Esquilax]

So he can't just go poof and we disappear there is a process, probably with some forms and a factory.

Why would he 'poof' someone out of existance when there is a debt to be paid?

Can you provide me with a single other scenario in which one can be forced into debt for something they never consented to in the first place? Am I in some smaller form of debt that I'm in to my parents because they had a hand in creating me?

[The Reality Salesman01]

ANY of these claims have logical contingencies. This is why God continues to fail. It's not your opinion that makes God a valid claim, it's how he holds up logically. Either his benevolence has no limits, or its limited. If he is limited, he's hardly a God of unlimited potential. If he's got limits of any kind, he fails as a God.

In who version of God? Yours? what if you are wrong about who God is or what God should be?

No. Again, my opinion is just as irrelevant as yours Drich. That's the point. If something is absolute, it IS and is NOT CONTINGENT on any subjective perspective. God either IS or IS NOT (blank). If He is (blank) the He is inherently NOT (opposite blank) at the same time.

Your definition of God (A boundless limitless being) is in of itself a paradox

Yes, but its not by definition. Its only what is inferred if such a thing is implied.

as God is limited by your understanding of how a boundless God should behave[/b].

Go is limited by logical absolutes which are apart from my understanding of anything at all. My understanding is only a way for me to recognize a claim that lacks validity. It is invalid apart from my understanding of it.

He does not fit the definition of "unlimited potential" you place on Him.

No. He is either unlimited or limited. Which is it? My definition of unlimited is not at all skewed by any opinion. Limit or No-Limit. It's not me that places this value to this entity you defend. It either is or isn't.

Unless you can show where I have actually done this, (where my representation of God is not consistant with how He is portrayed in the bible.) then know you are making things up.

Drich, your representation or the bible's...doesn't matter. They are still subject to certain logical contengencies. But in an attempt to not put words in your mouth, I would like to offer you the opportunity to make a specific claim about just 1 (so that we may have a manageable figure) of God's properties/attributes. Make it in a manner you believe consistent with The Bible's representation. I will not challenge the consistency. I am not concerned with it. I am interested in the claim. Where you get it only matters if its verifiable. If it is NOT, then it is only the claim that need be assessed according to its logical value. Not my opinion of value, its logical validity. There's a difference.

What are you talking about? You have created a version of God not consistant with How God is portrayed in Scripture.

The scripture is irrelevant. The claim is all that I'm concerned with. Tell me one thing about your God's properties that you think is consistent with scripture (if that is important to you) and lets discuss it. I do not wish to put words in your mouth. The floor is yours, and I will respond respectfully and cordially.

If we are having a discussion of the God of the Bible then it is by the bible the we are bound, in order to define the God it describes.

Fair enough. Give me an example.

Did I miss a post? where have you been able to prove my argument as Illogical?

Let us assume not, and for the sake of wasted argument, also accept that such a claim has never been made. I will concede that such a thing has not occurred in hopes that we may move forward with clear claim to engage. Water under the bridge. Clean slate. I await your claim with baited breath.

proof of God is only limited by your desire to simply A/S/K.

Claim 1! But, its not verifiable or falsifiable in any way shape or form. This is an invalid hypothesis because of its inability to be potentially confirmed by anyone but you. For the sake of logical discussion, could you perhaps make a claim that has substance similar to something that anyone that doesn't accept this on face value could possibly verify as actually existing? Maybe a claim about a property your God possesses? Just something of substance that can be analyzed.

The 'facts' in the bible about God can indeed be considered facts because there is away to prove or disprove what is in the bible about God.

Claim 2! I can see that the way your couched the word "facts" you already are aware that this claim has not rendered any merit. I will wait for you to present one of these "facts" so that we may determine if such things are indeed FACTS by having the potential to be either confirmed or falsified or "proved or disproved" as you've said.

The floor is yours Drich. I will use only statements from this post on to construct my rebuttals.

---

ANY of these claims have logical contingencies. This is why God continues to fail. It's not your opinion that makes God a valid claim, it's how he holds up logically. Either his benevolence has no limits, or its limited. If he is limited, he's hardly a God of unlimited potential. If he's got limits of any kind, he fails as a God.

In who version of God? Yours? what if you are wrong about who God is or what God should be?

No. Again, my opinion is just as irrelevant as yours Drich. That's the point. If something is absolute, it IS and is NOT CONTINGENT on any subjective perspective. God either IS or IS NOT (blank). If He is (blank) the He is inherently NOT (opposite blank) at the same time.

Your definition of God (A boundless limitless being) is in of itself a paradox

Yes, but its not by definition. Its only what is inferred if such a thing is implied.

as God is limited by your understanding of how a boundless God should behave[/b].

Go is limited by logical absolutes which are apart from my understanding of anything at all. My understanding is only a way for me to recognize a claim that lacks validity. It is invalid apart from my understanding of it.

He does not fit the definition of "unlimited potential" you place on Him.

No. He is either unlimited or limited. Which is it? My definition of unlimited is not at all skewed by any opinion. Limit or No-Limit. It's not me that places this value to this entity you defend. It either is or isn't.

Unless you can show where I have actually done this, (where my representation of God is not consistant with how He is portrayed in the bible.) then know you are making things up.

Drich, your representation or the bible's...doesn't matter. They are still subject to certain logical contengencies. But in an attempt to not put words in your mouth, I would like to offer you the opportunity to make a specific claim about just 1 (so that we may have a manageable figure) of God's properties/attributes. Make it in a manner you believe consistent with The Bible's representation. I will not challenge the consistency. I am not concerned with it. I am interested in the claim. Where you get it only matters if its verifiable. If it is NOT, then it is only the claim that need be assessed according to its logical value. Not my opinion of value, its logical validity. There's a difference.

What are you talking about? You have created a version of God not consistant with How God is portrayed in Scripture.

The scripture is irrelevant. The claim is all that I'm concerned with. Tell me one thing about your God's properties that you think is consistent with scripture (if that is important to you) and lets discuss it. I do not wish to put words in your mouth. The floor is yours, and I will respond respectfully and cordially.

If we are having a discussion of the God of the Bible then it is by the bible the we are bound, in order to define the God it describes.

Fair enough. Give me an example.

Did I miss a post? where have you been able to prove my argument as Illogical?

Let us assume not, and for the sake of wasted argument, also accept that such a claim has never been made. I will concede that such a thing has not occurred in hopes that we may move forward with clear claim to engage. Water under the bridge. Clean slate. I await your claim with baited breath.

proof of God is only limited by your desire to simply A/S/K.

Claim 1! But, its not verifiable or falsifiable in any way shape or form. This is an invalid hypothesis because of its inability to be potentially confirmed by anyone but you. For the sake of logical discussion, could you perhaps make a claim that has substance similar to something that anyone that doesn't accept this on face value could possibly verify as actually existing? Maybe a claim about a property your God possesses? Just something of substance that can be analyzed.

The 'facts' in the bible about God can indeed be considered facts because there is away to prove or disprove what is in the bible about God.

Claim 2! I can see that the way your couched the word "facts" you already are aware that this claim has not rendered any merit. I will wait for you to present one of these "facts" so that we may determine if such things are indeed FACTS by having the potential to be either confirmed or falsified or "proved or disproved" as you've said.

The floor is yours Drich. I will use only statements from this post on to construct my rebuttals.