On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

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?

Because they are quite uncertain. Most of the writings were certainly NOT made by those claimed in the titles.

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

No, most people had no idea who wrote the texts they were reading.

Do you think they were left on a doorstep? Was Paul (a well established author) certain that Jesus rose from the dead?

Paul most certainly never met Jesus. So, no, he was not certain. In fact, his teaching directly contradict those of other writings.

2. Superstitious society? Isn't that question begging?

Not at all. Look at the prevalence of mystery religions during that time and region. it was *clearly* a very superstitious society. Christianity just falls into the general pattern.

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

I think they had no idea whether the events happened or not. Most of those reading had no connection to the authors or to the region.

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

According to legends, which are mostly fictional. The period when the texts were collected was long after the time of the described 'events' and the collection was done at the approval and instigation of the emperor.

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

The earliest texts of Mark have no resurrection. Matthew and Luke have one, but with differing details. Those three are clearly written with a common source (gospel of Thomas?) John has a complex theology. That is the growth of a legend, pure and simple.

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 vast majority of scholars who study this regard the texts as questionable at best. Except for *some* of the writings of Paul (who did not witness the teachings of Jesus or the resurrection), the authorship is uniformly in doubt.

Comparison with other superstitions at the time shows remarkable similarities (gnosticism, neo-platonism, Dionysian mysteries, etc). That adds to the overall skepticism that should be part of any textual analysis.

And, given the range of beliefs people have had over history, it is a good idea to take any stories of a supernatural with a large grain of salt. if the rest of the evidence is questionable (and it is in all cases), it can properly be rejected, just as we do claims that the God Pan directed Julius Caesar across the Rubicon.

[Amarok]

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. ❤️

I hope you get well 

[Aroura]

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 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.

I'm sorry I cannot answer what I view as a nonsense question, not just because it isn't what I believe, but because it is nonsense.

Hypothetical:  If the sky were made of cheese, and you preferred non dairy creamer, would you enjoy flying?  I mean, yours isn't this disconnected, but my point is a person can pose a question that another person cannot answer.  Not all hypotheticals are created equal.

I'm not being obstinate, I just don't see how to answer what you are asking.  Your question amounts to "if I redefine love to mean this other thing, then would you accept it and still call it love?"  

Either it's a trick, like you want people to say yes...but they aren't saying yes to what they think they are; or it makes no sense.

I'm sorry. 

[Catholic_Lady]

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 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.

I'm sorry I cannot answer what I view as a nonsense question, not just because it isn't what I believe, but because it is nonsense.

Hypothetical:  If the sky were made of cheese, and you preferred non dairy creamer, would you enjoy flying?  I mean, yours isn't this disconnected, but my point is a person can pose a question that another person cannot answer.  Not all hypotheticals are created equal.

I'm not being obstinate, I just don't see how to answer what you are asking.  Your question amounts to "if I redefine love to mean this other thing, then would you accept it and still call it love?"  

Either it's a trick, like you want people to say yes...but they aren't saying yes to what they think they are; or it makes no sense.

I'm sorry. 

Ok. It's not a trick.

[Aroura]

I'm sorry I cannot answer what I view as a nonsense question, not just because it isn't what I believe, but because it is nonsense.

Hypothetical:  If the sky were made of cheese, and you preferred non dairy creamer, would you enjoy flying?  I mean, yours isn't this disconnected, but my point is a person can pose a question that another person cannot answer.  Not all hypotheticals are created equal.

I'm not being obstinate, I just don't see how to answer what you are asking.  Your question amounts to "if I redefine love to mean this other thing, then would you accept it and still call it love?"  

Either it's a trick, like you want people to say yes...but they aren't saying yes to what they think they are; or it makes no sense.

I'm sorry. 

Ok. It's not a trick.

Oh, I didn't think you were actually trying to trick anyone.  It's just that your question contains a redefiniton inside of it.

But k anyway, I'll try.

Can you please rephrase the question one more time for me and I'll promise to give a serious yes or no answer.

[Catholic_Lady]

Hypothetical:  If the sky were made of cheese, and you preferred non dairy creamer, would you enjoy flying?  I mean, yours isn't this disconnected, but my point is a person can pose a question that another person cannot answer.  Not all hypotheticals are created equal.

I would still enjoy flying, so long as I wouldn't have to eat the cheese (which would make sense if I don't like cheese in the hypothetical).

[Amarok]

I would still enjoy flying, so long as I wouldn't have to eat the cheese (which would make sense if I don't like cheese in the hypothetical).

That answer does not cancel the absurdity of his hypothetical

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok. It's not a trick.

Oh, I didn't think you were actually trying to trick anyone.  It's just that your question contains a redefiniton inside of it.

But k anyway, I'll try.

Can you please rephrase the question one more time for me and I'll promise to give a serious yes or no answer.

Yes, you are correct that it is a redefinition in the sense that God isn't who you thought He was. As in, He isn't evil or a tyrant, as you imagined He would be. Just as the person who hypothetically asks me what I'd do if God was evil is redefining God from what I believe Him to be.  

So basically, at the moment of your death you find out you misunderstood God... perhaps some stuff in the Bible did not happen the way it was literally written like you would have imagined. Perhaps His motives and reasons for certain things make sense once you understand them. Bottom line is everything is made clear. And you can see that God is indeed completely good and all loving, at His very core and by His very nature. You understand at that point that the only reason love exists in the first place is because God exists. So in other words, love exists because of/through God's existence. Since love wouldn't exist otherwise, God and love are not independent of each other. (this is essentially what I mean when I say God is love)  

He wants to share His love with you, wants you to accept it and embrace it because it is good and it is the true source of joy and fulfillment... and He wants you to be joyful because He loves you. However, He gives you the option of rejecting it if you do not want it. Because He is good, He won't force you to accept something you don't want, and allows you to make your own decision. Just as the prodigal son's father wanted him to stay but allowed him to leave when he chose to. He wasn't going to keep his son prisoner, against his will.  

Choosing to accept God's love would mean complete fulfillment and joy. In accepting love, you would simultaneously be rejecting greed... as greed is the opposite of love. This means you would strive to leave behind any greed filled intentions or desires, in order to truly desire goodness and love going forward. Admitting past wrong doings and having remorse for them.   

Here is again how it was originally written: 

At the moment of your death God appears before you and you realize at that moment that you were wrong about Him. He isn't an evil monster, or a tyrant like you always thought He would be if He were real. Things that you misunderstood about Him would be made clear. You see that He is good and loving. And you see that not only is He good and loving, but that He is literally goodness and love itself. And you understand at that moment that choosing to accept His love would mean complete fulfillment. It wouldn't be boring or bad, like you thought. It would be the ultimate fulfillment - complete joy and love. 

Furthermore, choosing to "accepting His love" wouldn't be of any cost to you. All it means is that you reject greed (which is the opposite of love), admit/feel remorse for your wrongdoings and mistakes, and desire true goodness and love going forward. That is all accepting God's love would imply. (Think The Prodigal Son)

...Hopefully maybe my rephrasing helped clarify certain things.

---

I would still enjoy flying, so long as I wouldn't have to eat the cheese (which would make sense if I don't like cheese in the hypothetical).

That answer does not cancel the absurdity of his hypothetical

That is fine.

[Aroura]

Actually the redefinition is of the word love.

[Amarok]

Yes, you are correct that it is a redefinition in the sense that God isn't who you thought He was. As in, He isn't evil or a tyrant, as you imagined He would be. Just as the person who hypothetically asks me what I'd do if God was evil is redefining God from what I believe Him to be.  

So basically, at the moment of your death you find out you misunderstood God... perhaps some stuff in the Bible did not happen the way it was literally written like you would have imagined. Perhaps His motives and reasons for certain things make sense once you understand them. Bottom line is everything is made clear. And you can see that God is indeed completely good and all loving, at His very core and by His very nature. You understand at that point that the only reason love exists in the first place is because God exists. So in other words, love exists because of/through God's existence. Since love wouldn't exist otherwise, God and love are not independent of each other. (this is essentially what I mean when I say God is love)  

He wants to share His love with you, wants you to accept it and embrace it because it is good and it is the true source of joy and fulfillment... and He wants you to be joyful because He loves you. However, He gives you the option of rejecting it if you do not want it. Because He is good, He won't force you to accept something you don't want, and allows you to make your own decision. Just as the prodigal son's father wanted him to stay but allowed him to leave when he chose to. He wasn't going to keep his son prisoner, against his will.  

Choosing to accept God's love would mean complete fulfillment and joy. In accepting love, you would simultaneously be rejecting greed... as greed is the opposite of love. This means you would strive to leave behind any greed filled intentions or desires, in order to truly desire goodness and love going forward. Admitting past wrong doings and having remorse for them.   

Here is again how it was originally written: 

This does not help

---

That is fine.

It's really not