Hell - Where is the idea of justice?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Those Christians who defend a literal hell as opposed to annihilationism or universalism, would say that they are comforted that there is ultimate justice as they see it.

However Yahweh's ideal of justice is very warped, because if you have murdered and eaten people you can still not go to hell. So long as your put your trust in Jesus Christ and genuinely repented of those sins along with others. But on the other hand if you have lived a morally upstanding life (whatever people see it), you still would go to hell. Because you never put your trust in Jesus Christ. It is literally a system which would allow Adolf Hitler into heaven if he had put his trust in Jesus Christ before he died.

Not to mention what actions and thoughts that Yahweh considers is a sin (literally infractions of his law) or not. Hence even I who admits he is pretty amoral and uncaring of other people is troubled a little by all of this.

I might have said before but I actually talked to a minister who confirmed exactly that.

[Justtristo]

Those Christians who defend a literal hell as opposed to annihilationism or universalism, would say that they are comforted that there is ultimate justice as they see it.

However Yahweh's ideal of justice is very warped, because if you have murdered and eaten people you can still not go to hell. So long as your put your trust in Jesus Christ and genuinely repented of those sins along with others. But on the other hand if you have lived a morally upstanding life (whatever people see it), you still would go to hell. Because you never put your trust in Jesus Christ. It is literally a system which would allow Adolf Hitler into heaven if he had put his trust in Jesus Christ before he died.

Not to mention what actions and thoughts that Yahweh considers is a sin (literally infractions of his law) or not. Hence even I who admits he is pretty amoral and uncaring of other people is troubled a little by all of this.

I might have said before but I actually talked to a minister who confirmed exactly that.

[Godscreated]

Reasoning encompasses examining the possibility that you might be wrong and I doubt that you have that ability.

The reason I know is because I do not doubt God's existence, I'm sorry that is a problem for you, I'm glad it's not a problem for me.

---

What you want is not what I want choice made, you probably can't see that I answered your entire question, but then that would mean you would have to use reason and I'm convinced you can not reason.

Not only can I use reason, but I can use grammar. 'What you want is not what I want choice made'? I've no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it doesn't make sense.

You ask me to make a choice and I did, it was not the one you proposed, it was the choice to choose differently than you wished I would.

[ElDinero]

Holy shit, you are HORRIBLE at constructing sentences. I think I now see what you're getting at. You're saying you refuse to choose to become an atheist for an hour. But you'd only be doing it to prove a point that you have control over your beliefs, then you could change right back. What's the problem?

If it's a problem, what about something more benign that wouldn't really have any ramifications? So if your favourite colour is green, I want you to choose to prefer pink. If your favourite colour is pink, change your belief so that you prefer green. Or choose to believe that you are two inches shorter than you actually are. Or choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese (you may already believe this, in which case choose to believe it's made of rubber).

Happily, I don't really need you to do any of those things, because a simpleton could see that you cannot do any of the above. You have zero control over your beliefs. They are a response to the input you receive on a daily basis. If you could control your beliefs, any of the above acts would be quite simple. You could change your sexual preference, your hobbies, your political views, whatever.

[Godscreated]

Holy shit, you are HORRIBLE at constructing sentences. I think I now see what you're getting at. You're saying you refuse to choose to become an atheist for an hour. But you'd only be doing it to prove a point that you have control over your beliefs, then you could change right back. What's the problem?

If it's a problem, what about something more benign that wouldn't really have any ramifications? So if your favourite colour is green, I want you to choose to prefer pink. If your favourite colour is pink, change your belief so that you prefer green. Or choose to believe that you are two inches shorter than you actually are. Or choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese (you may already believe this, in which case choose to believe it's made of rubber).

Happily, I don't really need you to do any of those things, because a simpleton could see that you cannot do any of the above. You have zero control over your beliefs. They are a response to the input you receive on a daily basis. If you could control your beliefs, any of the above acts would be quite simple. You could change your sexual preference, your hobbies, your political views, whatever.

I have changed hobbies several time, I have also changed my political views over the years and I have chosen not to change my sexual preference I like what I have with my wife. Again I'm making a choice not to choose green or pink because you ask me to, actually I have no favorite color. Why would I want to choose something that's not true such as my height or the moon, both ideas are ridiculous, I choose truth over stupidity.

[Erinome]

I choose truth over stupidity.

You should probably look up the definition of truth, before you start claiming that you choose it over stupidity.

[ElDinero]

I have changed hobbies several time, I have also changed my political views over the years and I have chosen not to change my sexual preference I like what I have with my wife. Again I'm making a choice not to choose green or pink because you ask me to, actually I have no favorite color. Why would I want to choose something that's not true such as my height or the moon, both ideas are ridiculous, I choose truth over stupidity.

To show that you can control your beliefs, which is the entire point of the exercise; I think this should be pretty simple stuff, and the fact that you don't get it is slightly embarrassing. You didn't just choose to change your political beliefs, you became aware of new information that informed them. You didn't get up one day and think 'I'm going to change my opinion on subject x to this', did you?

To recap: You're claiming that people can just choose to believe in a God. That is quite obviously an absurd notion, you absolute buffoon. I cannot help that I don't believe, because my non-belief is informed by the evidence I have been exposed to.

Tell you what, let's turn it around. Why don't you explain how I would go about using the control we supposedly have over our beliefs to CHOOSE to believe in God, without that belief being informed by evidence I haven't previously been exposed to (not that I know what that information would be, but hypothetically).

[Minimalist]

I choose truth over stupidity.

Then you fucked that one up, too. You're consistent.

Always wrong.

[reverendjeremiah]

GC - please give us an example.

Could you chose to believe in Zeus for a week.

If you think we can switch off our atheism and switch on Jesus then SURELY you could switch off jesus and switch on Zeus.

I await your flip flopped reply.

[ElDinero]

He's already refused that challenge, revjer. He can't get his head around this simple concept.