On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

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.

It goes much deeper than that. We know love exists because of chemical reactions in the brain. So you are asking that I accept that these chemicals exist only because of some deity. But, more than that, you are asking me to accept that they only continue to exist because of the existence of this deity. And, further, that nothing that is good could possibly exist unless there is an intervention by this entity.

Do you see how this is such a stretch it is hard to imagine even believing this?

---

I don't know. Is God 'truth' as well as being 'love'? is there a difference (I think there is)?

Yes, He is truth.

Well, since truth and love are different things, that would show God is not love. And, this also fails to address how an entity can be the same as an abstract idea. Once again, the whole basis of the question is so far away from anything close to how I see reality that asking what I would do is difficult to answer.

It's like asking whether I would like pineapples  if the color red was larger than the number 6. The question itself makes no sense at all.

[Amarok]

Actually the redefinition is of the word love.

And a bastardization of the concept of freewill

[polymath257]

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.

Let's put it this way. Suppose that Satan showed up and convinced you that he was pure goodness and love and that the deity you have believed in is actually evil. Would you then follow Satan?

How about if the color yellow showed up and convinced you that it is pure love and goodness. Would you then follow the color yellow?

[Catholic_Lady]

Actually the redefinition is of the word love.

Oh, I'm sorry lol.

Ok, so to clarify, I'm not talking about love as in a warm fuzzy feeling and chemicals in our brains. I'm talking about love as a virtue. 

I think we can all agree that when it comes to actually loving someone like a spouse, a child, a family member, etc... it doesn't mean we feel warm fuzzies towards them all the time. It does mean that we try to sacrifice for them. We are committed to them and their well being. We try to treat them the way we want to be treated. We respect them. We try to treat them with mercy and charity.

[Amarok]

Ok, so to clarify, I'm not talking about love as in a warm fuzzy feeling and chemicals in our brains. I'm talking about love as a virtue. 

That what love is a chemical reaction 

I think we can all agree that when it comes to actually loving someone like a spouse, a child, a family member, etc... it doesn't mean we feel warm fuzzies towards them all the time. It does mean that we try to sacrifice for them. We are committed to them and their well being. We try to treat them the way we want to be treated. We respect them. We try to treat them with mercy and charity.

No that an interaction and is 100% caused by the "fuzzies"

[Drich]

Why does god feel compelled to eternally punish only those folks who don’t love him back?  Why is that sin the only unforgivable one, and why isn’t it forgivable?  I have heard of hell described by Christians as a “self-imposed exile.”  If I were to die tomorrow and realize I was wrong, and I begged god for forgiveness but he refused, how could my exile be considered self-imposed?  It’s not self-imposed if god is actively preventing me from being with him.  

Does god love the folks in hell?  If he does, and they are in agony for being separated from him, what logical or moral reason is there for god to keep them ostracized?  That sounds like the opposite of a forgiving god. It sounds to me like someone who holds grudges.

Christians, would you do this to your own children?  If your child ran away, and came back a month later, filthy and in tears, saying, “mommy/daddy I miss you so much. I’m so alone and afraid. I’m sorry I left; I just want to come home and cuddle with you on the couch,” would you tell them it’s ‘too late’, and shut the door in their face for good?  Why or why not?

Why is being loved back the most important thing to god; even more important than how we treat each other during life?  Even more important than how his chosen priesthood treat their children?

What if... 

You were wrong
Wrong about punishment in Hell
Wrng about the duration
Wrong about the unforgivable sin
wrong about self imposed exile
wrong about being wrong/you are right it is God imposed exile

Wrong about God loving people in Hell
Wrong about everyone being God's Children
Wrong about the priest their roll and wrng about the church?

Seriously nothing you said jives with the bible in any way shape or form. Granted it does jive with a religion or two, but again wo do you worship or seek to worship or even direct these questions to? the God of the bible or the god of man's religion?

1) the bible says hell burns forever. the torment is forever. it was created as a punishment for lucifer to be bound and punished forever. The rest of us are consumed or burned up like fuel for the fire of hell. (read my hell story it is much worse than fire) but it is not forever. everthing the bible says about hell and us= 2nd death

2) The unforgivable sin is blaspheming the Spirit Some say that is not heeding the call. that however was not the example shown by Christ. None of us has ever been in such a situation to have blasphemed the spirit. The pharisees witnessed a miracle of the Holy Spirit a legit working of God and they attributed the work of God to satan. what's more Christ said they knew it to be of God but gave the work to satan. 

3)hell is not self imposed it is God mandated. the wage of sin is death. self imposed crap is about free will. the bible says we are slaves and not have a will rather we have been given a singular choice. to serve God or serve satan/sin. You go to Hell because you master/satan was banished to hell.

4)John 3:16 makes it clear God does not love everyone. Granted his love would have been great enough to love the whole world but is reserved to those who believe and follow. everyone else follows their own master to his fate.



5) the whole point of Christian is to remove all obstacles/people between you and God. literally after acts 2:38 the holy Spirit of God/God is literally infused with the people so everyone has the potential of being a prophet level communicator with God. meaning you have a literal opportunity for a direct line. This is why I keep telling you b-holes to A/S/K.. If you do God Himself promises to come down and straighten out your BS if you are humble enough to work with him.

6) again while love is a common thread it is not the reason you go to Hell. Remember there was no ideas of 'free will till like the 6th century AD Jesus said and Paul said we are slaves, and as a slave we have been given the oppertunity to whom we serve. we serve sin or we can live in freedom and serve Christ.
You goto Hell because you die serving sin/satan and that is His fate.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the christer god treats others as it wishes to be treated, then christer god is a masochist.

[Amarok]

If the christer god treats others as it wishes to be treated, then christer god is a masochist.

Treating others as you want to be treated is the single most narcissistic philosophy ever thought up .

[SteveII]

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.

1. No no no. First, Luke wrote Luke and Acts. So, no mystery there. It is well understood that the actual apostles did not pen the gospels. The names came from which apostle's group of disciples produced the books. There is absolutely no reason to think that the provenance of the gospels were unknown at the time and every reason to believe that the first century church knew exactly where they came from (they held them in high regard). Your statement shows a real lack of knowledge of what you are talking about. 
2. You are repeating crap from an internet list. We are talking about 100% Jews. They had no "mystery religions". In fact, they had one of the most stable/thorough/written/studied/developed religions in the world at the time.
3. More internet nonsense. The books of the NT go back to the first century. Even Bart Erhman agrees that the text are pretty much as they were when they were written. Political motivation...please, that is fringe nonsense only repeated in atheist echo chambers.
4. Not so. Have you ever read the actual passage in Mark leading up to the shorter ending in Mark 16:8? Tell me where Mark did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead. It is good there are differences. If there were no differences, you would be claiming a conspiracy. Same basic result in every gospel. You can't come close to showing they did not have the same understanding of the events. You mentioned Thomas as a source--this shows you really don't know what you are talking about.  Growth of legend? Paul wrote to the churches that ALREADY believed the resurrection of Jesus starting in 50AD. How do you account for that? I'll say it again: we have firm proof that people throughout the Roman empire believed that Jesus rose from the dead in 50AD. 
5. No. At best you found scholars who agree with you. Scholars with BIAS (although some try harder than others). Because really, if you do not believe in God, what spin are you going to put on the Gospels? You actually look for reasons why the authors did not mean what they said. 

This is so typical. You know practically nothing about the NT or its provenance. But that does not stop you from very clearly affirming it cannot be even considered evidence for God. Well done.

[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.

It goes much deeper than that. We know love exists because of chemical reactions in the brain. So you are asking that I accept that these chemicals exist only because of some deity. But, more than that, you are asking me to accept that they only continue to exist because of the existence of this deity. And, further, that nothing that is good could possibly exist unless there is an intervention by this entity.

Do you see how this is such a stretch it is hard to imagine even believing this?

---

Yes, He is truth.

Well, since truth and love are different things, that would show God is not love. And, this also fails to address how an entity can be the same as an abstract idea. Once again, the whole basis of the question is so far away from anything close to how I see reality that asking what I would do is difficult to answer.

It's like asking whether I would like pineapples  if the color red was larger than the number 6. The question itself makes no sense at all.

We believe God is all goodness. That means love and truth. Lies aren't good or loving, afterall.

---

Ok. It's not a trick.

Let's put it this way. Suppose that Satan showed up and convinced you that he was pure goodness and love and that the deity you have believed in is actually evil. Would you then follow Satan?

How about if the color yellow showed up and convinced you that it is pure love and goodness. Would you then follow the color yellow?

First question: Yes. If that happened, it would mean that I was wrong about God and Satan.  

Second question: Yes. I desire love and goodness.

....Can you answer mine now please?