On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

It just shows what a poorly defined word "God" is. By giving it multiple unrelated meanings, the theist can fit it to different scenarios and objections.

Need to prove it exists? No problem, definition 1 states that God is a styrofoam cup. Are you saying you don't believe in styrofoam cups?

Need to show it's not evil? No problem, definition 3 states that God is good.

Need to know why it can do a load of magic stuff? No problem, definition 7 states that it's got like loads of powers.

Need to prove it exists again? No problem, definition 12a states that it exists, therefor it exists.

Indeed it's a neat trick 

---

"It's god that apples are red"  "To deny that apples are red is to deny god".

IDK, seems wonky.

Pretty much

[Catholic_Lady]

 

Poly, it is a hypothetical question.

You know how sometimes atheists on this site set up hypothetical scenarios asking us what we would do if God told us to kill people, or if we found out God was evil? And then they complain when theists say "well God wouldn't do that", rather than actually answering the hypothetical?

Well, I always try to answer. I would appreciate it if someone answered my own hypothetical in return.

(We can address you loving your wife later.)

I want to give this an honest try.

I also have difficulty answering your hypothetical because I'm having a hard time getting from where you begin to where you end.

The hypothetical just seems like nonsense. Unless God also changes, entirely, my current definition of love, then I don't know how he could convince me of that.  I'm honestly not trying to be snarky, but this is like someone asking me, what if a human person could show you that really, they are a raccoon?  They are the very definition of a raccoon.  Would I accept that?  I would say, a human person cannot be literal raccoon.  That's a nonsense question.  And this is even deeper and more nonsensical than that.

Here are a few things I would personally consider to be attributes of love: selflessness, caring about that other person/group and not yourself, putting that other persons needs before your own, not needing to be loved back, truly unconditional loving them no matter what, giving them support and kindness and understanding even when they make mistakes, validating their feeling and interior life even when it is not necessarily something I agree with.  That's not a complete list, but would certainly be a good starting point. 

I've also been in an abusive relationship, and the world we live in combined with the demands of god to love him from the bible seem far more similar to the relationship of a narcissist to their child or spouse.  Fish Love.  A narcissist loves how a person makes them feel, how they advance their goals, how they can show you off or use you.  If you embarrass them, criticise them, or fail them in any way, they will punish you. Oh, they can make you feel good.  They can make you feel as if you are the center of the universe, and so important to them.  But it is a lie, a facade.

I know you've heard this comparison before, god the abusive husband/boyfriend, and I'm sure you hate it or are tired of it, but it's just so spot on.

So I hope that answers your question.  A God that demands love in return and punishes you if they do not get it, one that gets so upset at the misbehavior of his offspring that he murders them, and tortures them to teach them lessons, is not the embodiment of any definition of love that I'm aware of, nor can it be unless the nature and definition is drastically altered.

It doesn't answer it lol.

You seem to still be going off the fact that you think God (if He exists) is bad.

And as I stated in the hypothetical, "you find out that God is not the evil monster and tyrant you imagined Him to be if He were to be real."

(Also, I agree with how you defined love)

---

A God that demands love in return and punishes you if they do not get it, one that gets so upset at the misbehavior of his offspring that he murders them, and tortures them to teach them lessons, is not the embodiment of any definition of love that I'm aware of, nor can it be unless the nature and definition is drastically altered.

For what it is worth, I don't think that is what God is like either.

[Silver]

It doesn't answer it lol.

You seem to still be going off the fact that you think God (if He exists) is bad.

And as I stated in the hypothetical, "you find out that God is not the evil monster and tyrant you imagined Him to be if He were to be real."

(Also, I agree with how you defined love)

This is the problem you seem to be missing:

You are making this hypothetical of a "good" god in light of the fact of this god not doing anything to end the suffering that we endure.

Even if the god considered himself "good", in light of the fact that he does not stop rape or murder automatically makes him bad.

It's not a difficult concept to understand. It's logic. Choosing such a god over this reasoning is purely illogical.

[Amarok]

 "you find out that God is not the evil monster and tyrant you imagined Him to be if He were to be real." 

How would one find out?

[Angrboda]

To have any rhetorical force, a hypothetical must have some reasonable connection to reality. An analogy loses effectiveness the more it departs from the thing being analogized for, and likewise, if the hypothetical is not even plausible in some measure, it becomes less meaningful. If God were love, then the hypothetical might make sense. However, that seems like little more than redefining the word love in the same sense as pantheists sometimes redefine God as simply being synonymous with the universe. If I were a fruit, would I be tasty? If anger were green, would it be curved? There comes a point at which your hypothetical is little more than a polemic tool you are using to try and force your idea of reality onto the person answering the hypothetical. Maybe that's of some use to you, I don't know. If God were love, and all the other nonsensical things Christians suppose, then yes, I would probably change my mind about the deity. And if I were a tasty fruit, I probably wouldn't care.

[Catholic_Lady]

In simple terms, it means love only exists because God exists. Being loving is inherent to God's very nature and core. And so the only reason love exists in the first place is because God exists and so it is through Him/because of Him that love exists at all. It also means there is nothing about God that is unloving. He is pure good.

I know you don't believe that, but that is why it is a hypothetical.

---

Yes, He is truth.

Well, then, I would accept truth.

I thought so. Thank you for answering.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty much a variation on the theme from earlier - but to many believers, people reject gods because they are mistaken about gods.  It doesn't occur to them that some of us would and do reject gods in the event of and precisely because of what they take to be true about gods, the articles of their faith.

There wouldn't be any clearing up of misconceptions in that case, only an affirmation of the basis of our rejection.

essentially what if a god sat us down and demonstrated;

"I really am what I say I am, and really did what I said I did - and here I am, I exist!"

- It is because of what you say you are and what you say you did that I reject you, I rejected the idea of you then on these grounds despite my personal disbelief, and I reject you, now regardless of your reality on those same grounds.

Now do whatever the fuck it is you're going to do and prove me right yet again.

[Amarok]

To have any rhetorical force, a hypothetical must have some reasonable connection to reality.  An analogy loses effectiveness the more it departs from the thing being analogized for, and likewise, if the hypothetical is not even plausible in some measure, it becomes less meaningful.  If God were love, then the hypothetical might make sense.  However, that seems like little more than redefining the word love in the same sense as pantheists sometimes redefine God as simply being synonymous with the universe.  If I were a fruit, would I be tasty?  If anger were green, would it be curved?  There comes a point at which your hypothetical is little more than a polemic tool you are using to try and force your idea of reality onto the person answering the hypothetical.  Maybe that's of some use to you, I don't know.  If God were love, and all the other nonsensical things Christians suppose, then yes, I would probably change my mind about the deity.  And if I were a tasty fruit, I probably wouldn't care.

Yup

[SteveII]

Hypothetically speaking, would God raising someone from the dead after, say, oh, I don't know, a public crucifixion qualify as a "piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction?" Asking for a friend.

Let's change this question slightly.


Would writings about such an event many decades after that event, of uncertain authorship[1], from a superstitious society[2], used for political benefit[3], with differing accounts by different authors with the story growing over time[4], be considered enough evidence to say such an event occurred?

If the event happened in public view, was recorded with modern equipment, where the individual in question canbe shown to be dead unquestionably, and then was alive later, then there would be enough evidence to say that we need to investigate this phenomenon further to understand what happened. Would it be evidence for a deity? No.

Well, if you want to move away from my hypothetical, fine.

1. Why do you think the authorship was uncertain? Certainly the people at the time knew who wrote the gospels. Do you think they were left on a doorstep? Was Paul (a well established author) certain that Jesus rose from the dead? 
2. Superstitious society? Isn't that question begging? Do you imagine that the people of the NT didn't know the difference between people who survived crucifixion and those that did not? 
3. Political benefit? 100% the opposite. Most early church leaders had hard lives with bad endings. 
4. Different accounts by different authors is EXACTLY what you want. No evidence of growing over time.

We can skip to the end--you can't win this argument. The most you can say is that there is not enough evidence for YOU to believe. Fine. I don't doubt that--however I do doubt you are even familiar with the contents. What you cannot say is that it is not evidence for other's belief in God. Because in order to do so, you would have to prove it wrong--but that is simply not possible. 

Your second paragraph just proves your question begging reasoning you employed from the beginning: miracles don't happen, the NT does not contain miracles so there is no evidence of miracles.

[The Grand Nudger]

The grand irony in all of this, is that christians have been set up in a catch 22 by their fractious religious tradition.  

If the articles of their faith are true than a rejection of god is justifiable. If god, understanding this, gives us a pass...then the religiously inflicted misery and day to day worries of those left behind here on earth become a sinister farce.