On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

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.

I would characterize God as having the essential property of perfect love. It is 100% informed, 100% dependable, 100% sufficient (perhaps a couple of more adjectives preceded by 100%). "God is Love" is christian shorthand for saying this.

[Angrboda]

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? 

Evidence?

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. 

Are you arguing that the probabilities we assign to the question are purely subjective? I don't see how that helps you any.

[The Grand Nudger]

..............lol............... Then I'm also love, lower case l.  Though I don't know why you would go and wreck CLs comments like that - exposed as a rhetorical flourish.

[Amarok]

1. Why do you think the authorship was uncertain?

Why shouldn't we ?

 Certainly the people at the time knew who wrote the gospels.

Why we assume that?

Do you think they were left on a doorstep? 

They would not need to be to be suspect 

Was Paul (a well established author) certain that Jesus rose from the dead? 

It does not matter if he was 

2. Superstitious society?

It was 

 Isn't that question begging?

Nope

 Do you imagine that the people of the NT didn't know the difference between people who survived crucifixion and those that did not? 

Yes 

3. Political benefit? 100% the opposite. Most early church leaders had hard lives with bad endings. 

Pure mythology 

4. Different accounts by different authors is EXACTLY what you want. No evidence of growing over time.

No you don't and yes there is 

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. ]

There isn't evidence period it has nothing to do with me 

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. 

There is not any evidence 

Because in order to do so, you would have to prove it wrong--but that is simply not possible. 

No i would not one can say their isn't evidence for others to believe and remain suspension of belief 

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.

Nope no question begging simply your religions failure

---

 would characterize God as having the essential property of perfect love. It is 100% informed, 100% dependable, 100% sufficient (perhaps a couple of more adjectives preceded by 100%). "God is Love" is christian shorthand for saying this.

Yup and it's hyperbolic nonsense as Khem pointed out earlier simply putting adjectives on it changes nothing .

---

Steve loves throwing the term begging the question around 

[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.

I would characterize God as having the essential property of perfect love. It is 100% informed, 100% dependable, 100% sufficient (perhaps a couple of more adjectives preceded by 100%). "God is Love" is christian shorthand for saying this.

I understand all that, I just find the idea incoherent and likely demonstrably wrong. When we speak of love, we may have one of several things in mind. We may be referring to a feeling. We may be referring to an action or history of actions. We may also be referring to love as a project of some sort, as when we refer to a commitment to a friend or child. In none of these cases is love a thing or an object. And I don't think it matters whether it's immaterial or material. Neither the act or the project is relevant, even if in experiencing love in the ordinary sense we are simply partaking of God, because God is not our action nor our project. That leaves us with God as a feeling. If we are souls, and if we feel love by in some sense partaking in God (or exercising our God-like nature), then in some sense God may be love. But then, that seems to be rather similar to what I mentioned about the pantheist, in that you are simply redefining God to correspond to something familiar and tangible which in most people's experience is not God. Either way, there seems to be some question begging going on there. Regardless, I'm sure that scientists have demonstrated that some of the feelings of love are a result of chemicals in the brain and the body. If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that God is even a feeling.

Christianity in particular, and god based religions in general, simply ascribe everything good to their God, whether doing so makes sense or not. Even being as charitable as I can, it doesn't abet your ideas. If God is love in the sense of being a feeling, then all that my being in the presence of God means is a full and unrestricted imposition of a feeling upon me for no reason whatsoever. If that's what God being love means, then I have to agree with Khemikal in saying that I don't particularly care for it. I think the other explanations I've heard reduce to mere word play without any real meaning.

[Aroura]

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.

Although I see what you are trying to say, it just doesn't jive.  I'm going off a) what it says in the bible and b)the reality of life I see around me. It's not about my imagination.  I'm talking about the reality of life as we know it, and his behavior described in his own holy source.

This is going to sound like hyperbole, but it's like saying, you find out Jeffrey Dahmer isn't the evil monster you imagined him to be.  It's not imagination.  It's documented.  It's confessed.

And also, love really is a chemical reaction we experience that is beneficial to our survival.  Saying God is love is like saying a butterfly is happiness. It's a really nice metaphor, but it doesn't make any sense in concrete rational terms that you are trying to turn it into.

If you are asking would I accept the love of someone who had actually demonstrated they truly loved me, then yes, I would of course want that and accept that. But really, if you try and tack "god" onto that lable (or alter the definition of God so it fits in there), it just doesn't make sense to me.  I suppose that is partly because there are no sensical definitions of God (that I have ever heard), IMO. 

I can accept that God is a metaphor for our better natures (see below), anything more literal is just not something that makes any sense to me.  

[robvalue]

If god created this shit hole I live in, then he's a dick. If instead I lived in paradise, then sure, I may be able to love him if he showed up.

[Amarok]

If god created this shit hole I live in, then he's a dick. If instead I lived in paradise, then sure, I may be able to love him if he showed up.

You would go mad in paradise but indeed the shit world he created is awful as well .

[Catholic_Lady]

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)

---

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

Although I see what you are trying to say, it just doesn't jive.  I'm going off a) what it says in the bible and b)the reality of life I see around me. It's not about my imagination.  I'm talking about the reality of life as we know it, and his behavior described in his own holy source.

This is going to sound like hyperbole, but it's like saying, you find out Jeffrey Dahmer isn't the evil monster you imagined him to be.  It's not imagination.  It's documented.  It's confessed.

And also, love really is a chemical reaction we experience that is beneficial to our survival.  Saying God is love is like saying a butterfly is happiness. It's a really nice metaphor, but it doesn't make any sense in concrete rational terms that you are trying to turn it into.

If you are asking would I accept the love of someone who had actually demonstrated they truly loved me, then yes, I would of course want that and accept that. But really, if you try and tack "god" onto that lable (or alter the definition of God so it fits in there), it just doesn't make sense to me.  I suppose that is partly because there are no sensical definitions of God (that I have ever heard), IMO. 

I can accept that God is a metaphor for our better natures (see below), anything more literal is just not something that makes any sense to me.  

I understand this isn't what you believe. Again, it is a hypothetical. So many times I've had people ask "what if God wanted you to commit mass murder?", "what if you found out God was evil?" (And ironically they get upset when other theists don't answer directly lol)

Anyway, neither one of those 2 scenarios make any logical sense to me because the notion that the one who created us and created this universe is evil, doesn't align with the teachings of Jesus, doesnt align with my observations of the world/people, and neither does it align with Natural Law itself. But I still put that aside, focus on the hypothetical at hand, and answer the question for the person asking. I think that's kind of the point of a hypothetical.

[LadyForCamus]

Just wanted to pop in and say I have not abandoned my thread! I had a minor health issue and am currently in-patient, but I’m reading along and enjoying everyone’s contributions! Carry on. ❤️