Any religious want to respond: God is evilest thing that could exist

[Beerina]

We've discussed this before, but I'd like an actual response from a religious person.

Dawkins points out God is the worst fictional character to ever exist.

Why? The vast majority of people will be tortured for ever and ever. Not even just left dead. Resurrected and heaved into a lake of lava or some such.

Not just Hitler, but Mary down the street who helps the poor but who refuses to believe in Jesus.

Worse, people who are misled by the devil, a masterful deceiver, are held accountable and tortured, too.

And God only just misses being the worst theoretical being possible in that He's only going to torture for ever and ever the vast majority of whoever lived, not every single person.

How can the religious person reconcile that in their own mind?

[T'ai Chi]

Dawkins points out God is the worst fictional character to ever exist.


So? A Ph.D in Religion could go on about science, and it would be about as authoritative as Dawkins going on about religion.


The vast majority of people will be tortured for ever and ever. Not even just left dead. Resurrected and heaved into a lake of lava or some such.


That's your level of understanding. Others disagree.

[CFLarsen]

So? A Ph.D in Religion could go on about science, and it would be about as authoritative as Dawkins going on about religion.

Who is an authority on religion, then?

That's your level of understanding. Others disagree.

Would that be you?

[Seismosaurus]

Why? The vast majority of people will be tortured for ever and ever. Not even just left dead. Resurrected and heaved into a lake of lava or some such.

<fundymode>You've got it the wrong way around. God is good by definition. Whatever god does, that thing is good simply because it is god doing it. Therefore, casting 99% of humanity into eternal torture is a good thing, a thing to be celebrated, purely because god is the one doing the casting. Of course, if god chose not to do that then that would be equally good.</fundymode>

[senorpogo]

If God didn't want us to get hurt, why did he invent HMOs?

To answer your question (or rather, to provide what I assume will be the answer of the religious), faith. For believers, it's always going to come down to faith. No matter how many well-reasoned, logical arguments you may have, the believer will always be able to say that faith allows for such contradictory beliefs.

Or at least that's my stab at it.

[Nettles]

A harsh caricature of the Christian God is kind of cute and funny, especially because this is a crowd that doesn't really lose sleep over questions of eternal damnation. That's not the only version of God, though; and I suggest that fixating on a narrow bit of the Calvinist view of Christian eschatology is (with apologies to Beerina) a straw-man argument. Many Christian theologians, and certainly those very few Jewish or Muslim thinkers who busy themselves with questions of eschatology, would consider this view of God poorly focussed.

I agree with T'ai Chi that Dawkins talking out of his field (when, for instance, he talks about religion or the history of religion) is Dawkins talking out of ... well, talking through his hat.

And I actually quite like the idea of a God with a more twisted sense of humour than my own.

[Ryan O'Dine]

A harsh caricature of the Christian God is kind of cute and funny, especially because this is a crowd that doesn't really lose sleep over questions of eternal damnation. That's not the only version of God, though; and I suggest that fixating on a narrow bit of the Calvinist view of Christian eschatology is (with apologies to Beerina) a straw-man argument.
...
Nettles: could you decaricaturize Beerina’s caricture? Is there a non-harsh representation of God in which His benevolence and His hell don’t contradict each other? Or are you saying most Christians don't actually believe in hell at all?

Oh, and welcome to the Forum!

[l0rca]

That's your level of understanding. Others disagree.

I think an important desicion we should try to note when talking about religions, and especially the christians, is if we consider the constant revisions of their text to represent a wont of their deity, or an adjustment to us human's evolving sense of morality. Back in the day, that god did toss people into hell like nobody's business. These day's he's accepting gays in the back door.

I see no reason that if a god did exist he would keep up with the times of human ethics and decision making. If any religionist here thinks that the pope right now has a better idea of what god wanted than the first few popes did, I'd love to hear their reasoning.

So when I talk about religion, I talk about religion as it was established and last officially updated by their imaginary big cheese up there. For most of them, that's a pretty damn long time ago. Therefore yes, it is very reasonable to consider your gods to be a disgraceful moral entity in comparison to our present-day moral codas.

[Nettles]

Nettles: could you decaricaturize Beerina’s caricture? Is there a non-harsh representation of God in which His benevolence and His hell don’t contradict each other? Or are you saying most Christians don't actually believe in hell at all?

There certainly are churchmen who suggest that belief in Hell is not a core belief for Christians (the Bishop of Durham is one). I have not, however, seen research to suggest what "most" Christians believe about Hell.

As I suggested in my previous post, "benevolence" is, perhaps, overstated as an attribute of God. The Jewish Doxology, translating on the fly, reads, "God, God, merciful, compassionate, generous and full of kindness and truth, doing kindness to thousands, forgiving sin and transgression and other sorts of bad things (Hebrew has a rich vocabulary of guilt, but one runs out of words for sin in English), and cleanses." Does this mean that God is a big softie like Santa Claus, who never really gives children coal and switches? Not, I suggest, a sophisticated view of humans, much less of an unimaginably complex and powerful Being. The verse goes on, "But the Cleanser will not always cleanse: He puts responsibility for parents' sins on their children and on their children's children and on the third generation and on the fourth generation."

It's harsh, but it's not a lake of fire is it? And it's not eternal.

There are certainly monotheistic faiths for which there is no strong analogue to the Christian idea of Hell. Weak analogues like Eblis or Sheol may be more or less unpleasant versions of the classical Greek kingdom of the dead; but haven't the centrality of Hell in the Calvinist version of Christianity (or, indeed, in orthodox Roman Catholicism). Even those Jews, for instance, who accept the idea of punishment in the Afterlife tend first of all to put the concept far from the entre of their religious experience and second to have a very wide range of views which can include reincarnation with hard labour (as it were), a negative experience of a mystical World to Come, or even eternal oblivion.

The OT view of God is characterised by Christianity as vengeful and harsh, and the sorts of punishments God threatens can be pretty serious (crop failures really are the end of the world to a near-subsistence farmer), but the idea is that God offers an alternative; and until you get deep into the Prophets it's an alternative in this life not the next. The most serious punishment, according to traditional Judaism, is the Biblical sentence, "and that soul shall be cut off from the community of her nation". (The Hebrew word for "soul" is feminine. Aretha Franklin might provide an illustration of why.)

There is, also, a tradition of Christian eschatology which absolutely rejects the literal interpretation of John of Patmos's Revelation in favour of either unspecified or speculative alternatives. For instance, there is an idea that the Christian Hell is the same "place" as Heaven, but deprived of the delight in God: that is, those who accept God in life can appreciate God in the afterlife, but those who do not ... are like people who don't smoke dope sitting around having a miserable time watching other people get high. (I make no warranty about whether my local vicar would accept my dope-smoking metaphor.) This tradition might contend that John of Patmos was trying to explain how awful it would be if one were in Heaven and having a miserable time and that the lake of fire was just a colourful metaphor. (I'll have to have a chat with one of my vicar friends to check on that.)

These are visions of God in which an omniscient being knows that our eternity would be wonderful if we were prepared for it properly in life; but because She has given us free will, She is prepared to watch with regret as we ignore Her advice.

A literalist, "fundamentalist" Christian might well suggest that this version of Christian eschatology is less authentic or is a "watered-down" version of what the Bible has to say. This makes them eager accomplices to the straw-man argument. This does not, however, square with a broad view of monotheist thought which has a far wider range of characterisations of God.

Oh, and welcome to the Forum!

I've got to say, this is a lovely place.

[Ausmerican]

I have not, however, seen research to suggest what "most" Christians believe about Hell.
Does it matter what "most" christians believe about Hell? Last I heard Christian dogma wasn't a matter of democracy.

A large amount of christians, if not all monotheists are what could be termed chocolate box believers. They pick out the bits they like the taste of in their faith and discard the ones that leave a nasty taste in their mouth. In that respect "most" christians beliefs regarding hell are not important. The canon and dogma or their religion is what is looked at when deciding what their god comes off as.

You may like the idea of a God with a more twisted sense of humour than your own but that counts for little. I am sure each of us could come up with an idea for a god that would appeal to us personally, but that would certainly not be the god of the Buybull would it?

[Nettles]

The parameters of Ryan's question specified "most Christians": "... or do you believe most Christians don't believe in Hell at all?" As you (Ausmerican) go on to note, there is a democracy within Christian practice if not in dogma: people pick from the chocolate box, or they vote with their feet.

I quite like the chocolate box as a metaphor for choosing aspects of religion, and I agree that for many that is the best way for them to practise (and of course it hacks the "all-or-nothing" believer off something awful).

If some theologian or canon lawyer or preacher can convince people to believe in the Lake of Fire, fair enough; but if he can't, and other theologians, or preachers or the Body of the Kirk regard the concept as a colourful metaphor or as an anachronistic interpretation of one (barely-Canonical) book of the NT then it's a pretty marginal part of the religion if it's part at all.

You may like the idea of a God with a more twisted sense of humour than your own but that counts for little. I am sure each of us could come up with an idea for a god that would appeal to us personally, but that would certainly not be the god of the Buybull would it?

It counts for much: first of all, that's part of the chocolate box right alongside the white chocolate (which I don't much like), and second, I think it is an accurate interpretation of God as portrayed in the Jewish Bible.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Nettles: thank you for your response. Very interesting.


A literalist, "fundamentalist" Christian might well suggest that this version of Christian eschatology is less authentic or is a "watered-down" version of what the Bible has to say. This makes them eager accomplices to the straw-man argument. This does not, however, square with a broad view of monotheist thought which has a far wider range of characterisations of God.

I can’t speak to the “broad view of monotheist thought,” but I would agree that the Jewish version of eternal punishment (separation from God) is at least more self-consistent than the Christian (I should say Calvinsit?) view.

As for hell, I think the OT has a better shot at metaphor than the NT.

From the KJV
Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

2 Samuel 22:6 The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me;
As opposed to
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Perhaps this is a bit of data mining on my part, but the hell of the NT seems to extend well beyond Revelations. Just a colorful metaphor? OT: sure, why not. NT: a much harder sell.

But then, I’m no theologian (thank heavens ;)).

[Nettles]

Bishop Abbot is trying very hard to bring Hell into his OT translations there. The Jonah and Samuel references use the word sheol which can be translated as "the grave" or "the abode of the dead" far more easily than as "Hell". The Jonah reference is a prayer which juxtaposes "belly" ('cause he's in the belly of a fish) and sheol: a clear use of sheol to mean "grave". The Samuel reference is part of a poem which creates a direct parallel between "the pangs of sheol and the difficulties of death", which strike me as far more to do with the process of dying than with the horrors of the afterlife.

So I don't accept those as references to punishment in the afterlife for sin in life.

The NT references are to exactly this sort of punishment, but note that this is not the same as John of Patmos's vivid vision of a "second death" in a lake of fire. Matthew appears to promise oblivion (which can be found elsewhere, as in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and 1 Timothy 6:9), and Luke isn't even that clear.

The RC Baltimore Catechism certainly went with John of Patmos: George Carlin's summary of Hell according to the Baltimore Catechism was "imagine making a fire wit' a hundred Christmas trees and jumpin' right in the middle". And, yes, having that hamburger on Friday was enough to send you there. So it isn't only Calvinists who can preach the fire 'n' brimstone,

[UndercoverElephant]

We've discussed this before, but I'd like an actual response from a religious person.

Dawkins points out God is the worst fictional character to ever exist.

Why? The vast majority of people will be tortured for ever and ever. Not even just left dead. Resurrected and heaved into a lake of lava or some such.

Not just Hitler, but Mary down the street who helps the poor but who refuses to believe in Jesus.

Worse, people who are misled by the devil, a masterful deceiver, are held accountable and tortured, too.

And God only just misses being the worst theoretical being possible in that He's only going to torture for ever and ever the vast majority of whoever lived, not every single person.

How can the religious person reconcile that in their own mind?

You are talking specifically about Christianity here, yes?

[JamesDillon]

The question whether belief in hell can be justified by reference to the Bible is interesting, but it seems to me that it is irrelevant to the more interesting question posed by the opening post, in that the vast majority of practicing Christians do believe that God will punish sinners in hell for all eternity, regardless of whether that belief is well-founded in scripture. I think Dawkins is absolutely right that such a being could only be regarded as diabolically evil, even more so in light of the fact that it created humanity in the first place with full foreknowledge that it would end up throwing the vast majority of humans into a lake of fire. Christian apologists have to do some pretty implausible dancing around the idea that all those people who never heard of Jesus for almost 2,000 years really deserve to burn in hell for their... ummm.. sinful ignorance, to say nothing of the fact that eternal torment seems a rather disproportionate punishment for anything that one could do during a 70- or 80-year lifespan on Earth.

So? A Ph.D in Religion could go on about science, and it would be about as authoritative as Dawkins going on about religion.
As you're no doubt aware, that's a misleading ad hominem. Can you address the substance of the idea, rather than attacking the person to whom it's attributed? I don't have a Ph.D. in anything, but I still feel qualified to hold an opinion as to the moral status of an omnipotent entity who creates a race of sentient beings largely for the purpose of torturing them.

[Beerina]

You are talking specifically about Christianity here, yes?

Of course. "You must make a decision", to put it in the parlance of the preachers like Billy Graham, who holds the Bible as presidents are sworn in.

It is a real Hell, not just "cut off from God" (and we won't even get into the bizarreness of what it means to live a life God favors), where being with God is so gosh darned Awesome-o that not being with him might as well be in a lake of fire. Which, in any case, is just the flipside of the coin -- God as terrorist (lake of fire) vs. God as sugar daddy (awesome afterlife). Is either really a valid reason to obey? Or might these things be good to do just because, in which case god is not needed in the equation, technically. Nor, coincidentally, would be payments to his self-appointed spokespersons.

[Nettles]

The question whether belief in hell can be justified by reference to the Bible is interesting, but it seems to me that it is irrelevant to the more interesting question posed by the opening post, in that the vast majority of practicing Christians do believe that God will punish sinners in hell for all eternity, regardless of whether that belief is well-founded in scripture.

Vast majority -- wow.

Presumably the survey of the world's Christians was undertaken with a very big sample drawn from around the world.

Where can we find it published?

I started citing scripture because it supports those Christians (apparently a small minority according to the statistics not cited above) who do not accept the "lake of fire" version of Hell; based, as it is, not on the teachings of Jesus Christ but on a claimed epiphany by John of Patmos, a figure of uncertain identity.


I think Dawkins is absolutely right that such a being could only be regarded as diabolically evil, even more so in light of the fact that it created humanity in the first place with full foreknowledge that it would end up throwing the vast majority of humans into a lake of fire.

I like the irony of using the Christian god of evil (Diabolos) to characterise the Christian God while applying Christian notions of justice to Him.

It is interesting that Christians widely believed (without scriptural basis) that Jesus descended to Hell after His crucifixion but before His resurrection, and in the "harrowing of Hell", pretty much let everyone out. I say this was widely believed because it was an important part of liturgical drama, enacted in churches all over Europe at Easter and attested from at least the 13th Century.

So the same argument that says that the vast majority of Christians believe in Hell as depicted in the Book of Revelation can be applied to suggest that the vast majority of Western Christians believed for a very long time that those who were consigned to Hell before the advent of Christ were let off the hook.

And as to the notion that calling qualifications into question is an ad hominem attack in the case of moral philosophy or religious studies (but presumably not in the case of, for example, surgery?) is a demonstration that everybody thinks he understands the humanities. I am reminded of that great sage Professor Maximilian Arturo isolating penicillin from a piece of mouldy pizza and saving the population of a parallel Earth ravaged by a plague. Comments physicist Arturo, "I always knew biology was for people who couldn't handle real science."

I suggest that if Dawkins were reviewing a physics paper submitted by a non-physicist which relied on straw man argument and reductio ad absurdam with generalisations based on evidence not presented, he would give it short shrift.

[Belz...]

A harsh caricature of the Christian God is kind of cute and funny, especially because this is a crowd that doesn't really lose sleep over questions of eternal damnation.

They should. Every single person on Earth is going to hell, according to at least ONE other person.

[JamesDillon]

Vast majority -- wow.

Presumably the survey of the world's Christians was undertaken with a very big sample drawn from around the world.

Where can we find it published?
You will find it published in the above post; it is a conclusion drawn from an ongoing study of the Christian belief system that I have been personally conducting for several decades. If you care to challenge the conclusion that the vast majority of practicing Christians believe in the reality of hell, you'll need to explain away the fact that virtually every significant denomination subscribes to this view. Until then I will continue to rely on the validity of my lifetime of observation.

I started citing scripture because it supports those Christians (apparently a small minority according to the statistics not cited above) who do not accept the "lake of fire" version of Hell; based, as it is, not on the teachings of Jesus Christ but on a claimed epiphany by John of Patmos, a figure of uncertain identity.
Then I suppose those Christians are not subject to the objection stated in the above post. Who are they? They're not Catholics, or any mainstream Protestant denomination of which I'm aware. Sounds like a small minority to me.

I like the irony of using the Christian god of evil (Diabolos) to characterise the Christian God while applying Christian notions of justice to Him.
I'm not sure that the opening post was applying "Christian" notions of justice, since such a view would hold that anything the Christian god does is, ipso facto, morally just. It seems to me that the standard of morality being applied is the secularized, democratic one that arose during the Enlightenment, for example in the works of Thomas Paine.

It is interesting that Christians widely believed (without scriptural basis) that Jesus descended to Hell after His crucifixion but before His resurrection, and in the "harrowing of Hell", pretty much let everyone out. I say this was widely believed because it was an important part of liturgical drama, enacted in churches all over Europe at Easter and attested from at least the 13th Century.

So the same argument that says that the vast majority of Christians believe in Hell as depicted in the Book of Revelation can be applied to suggest that the vast majority of Western Christians believed for a very long time that those who were consigned to Hell before the advent of Christ were let off the hook.
I'm not sure what the significance of this is. Even if Christians do believe in the harrowing of hell (and I'm not sure that it's still a significant part of any denomination's dogma), God still 1) tormented countless innocents in hell for centuries before the coming of Christ, and 2) continues to do so for all but a tiny segment of the population born after Christ. I don't see how the harrowing of hell goes very far in mitigation of the Christian god's evil.

And as to the notion that calling qualifications into question is an ad hominem attack in the case of moral philosophy or religious studies (but presumably not in the case of, for example, surgery?) is a demonstration that everybody thinks he understands the humanities. ...
I suggest that if Dawkins were reviewing a physics paper submitted by a non-physicist which relied on straw man argument and reductio ad absurdam with generalisations based on evidence not presented, he would give it short shrift.
First of all, I doubt that Dawkins would consider himself qualified to review physics papers, since he isn't a physicist.

More importantly-- do you have a Ph.D. in moral philosophy? If not, then by your argument, your opinions on this matter are also entirely illegitimate. I would suggest that the validity of a viewpoint is to be determined by the merits of the argument rather than the letters following the name of its proponent.

P.S. As it happens, I do have an M.A. in philosophy, so does my opinion therefore trump yours?

[Nova Land]

We've discussed this before, but I'd like an actual response from a religious person....

How can the religious person reconcile that [the concept of a god who condemns people to hell] in their own mind?I'm religious. I agree that it's difficult for me to reconcile the concept of a god which would condemn people to hell (especially for minor things such as not believing in god, or for not expressing that belief properly) with the concept of a god of love (or even wisdom). I was not aware that all concepts of god included this idea of condemning people to hell. Mine certainly doesn't.

Why and how does Dawkins conclude this is inherent in all conceptions of god? (Or is this a misstatement of Dawkins beliefs? I haven't read the book in question, but that seems to be what you are claiming he says.)

I'm aware that some religious people do have that conception of god. (Likewise, I'm aware that some atheists believe in ghosts, flying saucers, homeopathy, and pyramid power.) Belief in a hell is not a prerequisite for believing in a god.

[JamesDillon]

Belief in a hell is not a prerequisite for believing in a god.

I've sort of addressed this above, but to do so again-- you're right, that it is possible to conceptualize a god who does not condemn people to hell, and a theist who holds such a belief is not subject to the objection that Dawkins states. However, belief in hell is a central tenet of the dogmas of all of the largest Christian denominations of which I'm aware, and in my observation, is a belief held by the vast majority of Christians. Therefore mainstream Christianity has some explaining to do, even if your personal beliefs aren't subject to this criticism.

[Nova Land]

...virtually every significant denomination subscribes to this view.I'm a Quaker. I'm not sure if you consider us significant (or Christian) but a belief in Hell has never been a requisite part of being a Quaker.

Individual Quakers are free to believe what they will about the existence or non-existence of hell. The overwhelming majority of Friends I know do not hold such a belief.

[JamesDillon]

I'm a Quaker. I'm not sure if you consider us significant (or Christian) but a belief in Hell has never been a requisite part of being a Quaker.

Individual Quakers are free to believe what they will about the existence or non-existence of hell. The overwhelming majority of Friends I know do not hold such a belief.
Tom Paine was brought up a Quaker too, and I have a lot more respect for Quaker beliefs, as I understand them, than for most mainstream Chrisitan views. But you have to admit there are a lot more Catholics and Baptists out there than Quakers these days, and belief in a god who sends people to hell is an integral part of those dogmas.

[Nettles]

You will find it published in the above post; it is a conclusion drawn from an ongoing study of the Christian belief system that I have been personally conducting for several decades. If you care to challenge the conclusion that the vast majority of practicing Christians believe in the reality of hell, you'll need to explain away the fact that virtually every significant denomination subscribes to this view. Until then I will continue to rely on the validity of my lifetime of observation.

Wow ... anecdote.

Big anecdote.

It's hard to argue with anecdote. It's just so anecdotal.

And a lifetime of anecdote? That's almost scientific.

Almost.

[JamesDillon]

Wow ... anecdote.

Big anecdote.

It's hard to argue with anecdote. It's just so anecdotal.

And a lifetime of anecdote? That's almost scientific.

Almost.
Is that the best you can come up with? Yes, my belief that the majority of Christians believe in hell is based on personal observation. My beliefs that the sky is usually blue and that leaves are usually green are also based on personal observation. If you want to persuade me otherwise, you'll need to do something more than point out that the basis of my belief is personal experience.

I would also add that the issue of whether the majority of practicing Christians believe in hell is tangential to the main issue raised in the opening post. Whatever segment of the Christian population that does believe that god sends people to hell is subject to Dawkins's criticism that any entity which would do such a thing must be abhorrently evil. You have provided no rebuttal to that argument.

[Nettles]

I wouldn't dream of trying.

[Belz...]

Wow ... anecdote.

Big anecdote.

It's hard to argue with anecdote. It's just so anecdotal.

And a lifetime of anecdote? That's almost scientific.

Almost.

Woah! I mean, you've completely demolished his post, man. Wow!

Name this mysterious majority of christians who DON'T believe in hell, mister.

[kurious_kathy]

We've discussed this before, but I'd like an actual response from a religious person.

Dawkins points out God is the worst fictional character to ever exist.

Why? The vast majority of people will be tortured for ever and ever. Not even just left dead. Resurrected and heaved into a lake of lava or some such.

Not just Hitler, but Mary down the street who helps the poor but who refuses to believe in Jesus.

Worse, people who are misled by the devil, a masterful deceiver, are held accountable and tortured, too.

And God only just misses being the worst theoretical being possible in that He's only going to torture for ever and ever the vast majority of whoever lived, not every single person.

How can the religious person reconcile that in their own mind?Beerina, I am still very much a baby christian but I will try to share a few insights from my understanding.
First of all when one receives Christ we are reconciled to God so it's a relationship, not a person trying to go through the motions of being religious.
We only make it into heaven by receiving what Jesus did on the cross to forgive us of our sins.
The only thing holding some of you back is that you haven't come to that place in your heart where you can admit to God that you are a sinner in need of forgiveness. I am humbled because of God's gift and have asked Jesus to forgive me of my sins.
And I don't myself agree with Calvinism. I see it as God is not willing that any should perish but all would come to repentance. I think we are all given an opportunity to accept the free gift of salvation, and if we don't then God is sad because you reject Him. Calvinism is focused on the wrong thing, no one is predestined to hell, but people do go there because they deny the truth.

[Huntster]

We've discussed this before, but I'd like an actual response from a religious person.

Dawkins points out God is the worst fictional character to ever exist....

If you believe God is fictional, and none of the "torture" is really going to happen, why are you even concerned with the question?

[Huntster]

....The canon and dogma or their religion is what is looked at when deciding what their god comes off as.....

According to the Roman Catholic Catechism:

Hell: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h)

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

Please note that there is no mention of fire, heat, temperature, lava, physical pain, etc.

Also, please note the terms "self-exclusion" and "by their own free choice".

God casts you no where. You choose.

[supercorgi]

I see it as God is not willing that any should perish but all would come to repentance. I think we are all given an opportunity to accept the free gift of salvation, and if we don't then God is sad because you reject Him.

Hmmm...according to your beliefs, god isn't just sad, he's Goddam Pissed Off! Why else would he condemn good people (who do good works but refuse to believe in this amorphous god concept) to an eternity of torture in Hell?

[Nova Land]

... you have to admit there are a lot more Catholics and Baptists out there than Quakers these days...
Yes, there are. However, I don't particularly care whether the number holding a certain view is larger than the number not holding it. I've never been a great admirer of majority rule as a way of settling matters.

On many matters -- scientific, social, political, and religious -- awareness of truth evolves over time. At one point in history almost everyone believes incorrectly; then a few upstarts and dissidents start to question and come up with new perspectives; and, if the upstarts are correct then over time (sometimes over a very long time) more people are able to see it and come to adopt the new way of looking at things.

The question I'm interested in here is whether there are (as I believe) a goodly number of theists who don't hold the view you seem to be claiming is virtually universal among theists. I'm not convinced that you are correct in your perception of near-universality. Perhaps we live in different universes, or at least in different corners of the universe, since my experience on this seems to be different from yours.

On the other hand, in my life I have encountered only a small fraction of the world's population, and I have not enquired of all the people I met what their views on hell and damnation were. My impression that there are many religious people who do not hold the view you ascribe to us may be wrong. (Or your perception that almost all of us do hold it may be wrong.)

From the part of your post which I quoted above, it appears we are in agreement that it is possible for theists not to hold a belief which the initial post seemed to incorrectly ascribe to all theists. We are not yet in agreement as to how large the number are who hold the belief in question and how large the number are who do not hold it. Let's explore this a bit more.

Picking up the quoted part of your post where I left off, you were saying about Catholics and Baptists that:
... belief in a god who sends people to hell is an integral part of those dogmas.
Ah! Yes, it may be an integral part of what they are supposed to believe. But is it an integral part of what they do believe? Catholics, for instance, are supposed to believe that abortion is murder and birth control is a sin, but many of them do not seem to believe that. Likewise, I believe many Catholics over the last century have held views on divorce and suicide and other matters that were at variance with the official dogma of their church. So the fact that church teachings say something does not mean that all members of that religion do in fact believe that. I would be curious to know what fraction of Catholics (and Baptists) do and do not hold the belief you are ascribing to them.

Can we agree there are some who do not? If so, the question becomes how large that some is. I don't know, and would like to hear from people who can speak to this question from personal experience rather than guesswork or prejudice.

Are there any Catholics or Baptists present who can speak to this? (Or does anyone present have close friends who are Catholics or Baptists whom they can consult to get an informed opinion on this matter?)

Next: Are there some Jews present who can address the question of whether all religious Jews hold the view of god described in the opening post? I'm not clear on why the question should be limited to Christians. It seems to me there are a goodly number of Jews in the world, and while there may be some who believe in a god who condemns people to hell in the way described in the opening post I was not aware this was a universal belief among Jews. Indeed, I will be surprised if it is even a common or predominant belief among US Jews. Again, either my experience may be limited to an unrepresentative sampling, or I may be misperceiving their views.

What about United Church of Christ? Anyone here from that denomination, or familiar with it? I have known people from UCC, enjoyed their company, attended services at a UCC church a couple of times some decades back, and was not aware this was a common or dominant belief among them. But it's not a thing I was particularly interested in so it likely never came up in conversation.

HOw about Metropolitan Community Church? A pastor of an MCC congregation picked part-time on our apple crew a couple of seasons back in the 1980s, and invited my wife and me to attend their service, and I didn't get the impression from her or from the service that she or her congregation held the view you are ascribing to them.

Are there any Seventh Day Adventists here who can talk about their beliefs? I had previously been under the impression that they were a denomination which held beliefs on god and hell such as you describe, but a few years ago a good friend became romantically involved with a Seventh Day Adventist and now attends their services regularly although she is not one. According to her, they do not believe that non-Seventh Day Adventists are going to hell, nor do they believe in a burning-lake-eternal-torment-hell. Since she is a very devout practicer of Vipassana (a kind of Buddhist meditation), and goes several times a year to a Vipassana center to take courses, and talks about this enthusiastically with those she meets (including the Seventh Day Adventists), and her personal experience is one of acceptance by them and of not being told she (or anyone else) is going to hell, I'm inclined to put more stock in her interpretation of their belief (at least for that particular congregation ) than in your blanket assertion. I'd like to hear from someone who can speak more knowledgeably about Seventh Day Adventists, and who can give us a better sense of whether my friend's experience is typical or an anomaly, before jumping to conclusions about what all or most of them believe.

Does anyone here know what Christian Scientists believe about hell? Again, I am not knowledgeable, but I am not clear that those ascribing this belief to virtually all religious people are necessarily any more knowledgeable than I am on this.

Lutherans? My mother-in-law was a Lutheran, and I attended services with her several times when visiting. I certainly was not under the impression she thought I (or other non-Lutherans) was going to hell. She's dead now, so I can't ask her to verify my impression. I do know there are some very different varieties of Lutheranism, some liberal and some very conservative. I think there may be a wider range of personal beliefs on this matter among some denominations than you are aware of.

Oh -- and what about Unitarians? While some Unitarians (and Unitarian congregations) seem to tend toward agnosticism, my understanding is that different congregations differ greatly and that some (individuals and congregations) are clearly Christian. My impression also is that most of them would not hold the views on hell you believe are near-universal among christians. Perhaps Upchurch or meadmaker or others could elucidate a bit on this.

If people knowledgeable about the beliefs of the members of those denominations agree with you that this is the predominant view of their membership, I will be somewhat surprised -- and also somewhat saddened. But I will reserve judgment until we have heard from people more knowledgeable about this than either you or I appear to be.

[cyborg]

The only thing holding some of you back is that you haven't come to that place in your heart where you can admit to God that you are a sinner in need of forgiveness.

No, it really isn't you silly, simple-minded robot.

[JamesDillon]

Nova,

I guess I just don't find the question of precisely how many, or what proportion, of practicing Christians believe that god will cast nonbelievers into eternal damnation (either of the lake of fire or eternal separation variety) to be a very interesting one. I hope we can agree that it is, at least, a large number. You suggest that I am not knowledgeable about this, but several years of my lifetime of observation was spent as an insider in a fundamentalist Baptist group, from which I can say that 100% of the members I came in contact with did profess belief in a literal lake-of-fire hell. Hunster's post above illustrates that belief in hell, of the eternal separation variety, is an article of Catholic faith as well. I hope we can agree, at the very least, that a large number of practicing Christians do hold that belief; I don't see how pinning the number down with greater precision than that is really helpful.

I think we're agreed that Dawkins's argument does not apply to theists who do not believe that god eternally punishes nonbelievers in the afterlife. Putting aside the (in my opinion) uninteresting question of exactly how many people do believe that, I don't see that anything you or anyone else has said in this thread rebuts the basic point that belief in hell and belief in the perfect moral goodness of god are fundamentally inconsistent with each other. The free will argument that has been rather lamely gestured at in a couple of posts doesn't work for a few reasons. First, it's far from clear that humans actually have anything like the traditional concept of free will. Second, even if humans do freely "choose" not to believe in god, the punishment for that choice is so far disproportionate to the "crime" that its infliction cannot reasonably be said to be morally just. Finally, the problem of god's foreknowledge: if an omniscient being creates a sentient race with free will, while knowing all along that the majority of that race will spend eternity in hell, then isn't that omniscient entity morally responsible for the suffering that is ultimately inflicted? I tend to think so.


Edit: I still think this line of discussion is a red herring, but if it matters to anyone, consider this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5529195/) from MSNBC:
For instance, 71 percent of the U.S. population believe in hell and the country boasts the world's highest per capita income, according to the 2003 United Nations Human Development Report and 1990-1993 World Values Survey.

Hopefully we can all agree that, since 71% can fairly be characterized as a "vast majority" of the U.S. population, and, since not all the U.S. population is Christian, the number must therefore be even higher among the Christian population in the U.S., it is fair to say that the vast majority of practicing Christians in the United States believe in hell?

[David Swidler]

Nova,


Edit: I still think this line of discussion is a red herring, but if it matters to anyone, consider this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5529195/) from MSNBC:


Hopefully we can all agree that, since 71% can fairly be characterized as a "vast majority" of the U.S. population, and, since not all the U.S. population is Christian, the number must therefore be even higher among the Christian population in the U.S., it is fair to say that the vast majority of practicing Christians in the United States believe in hell?

You're right that it's a red herring, in that the survey cited didn't define "Hell," nor did it say who's eligible for the trip. Both are important factors in the discussion.

Nova wondered what the Jewish view of hell is. So do many Jews. :) Judaism does posit a world-to-come in which the true reward/punishment takes place, but the exact nature of that world doesn't attract nearly as much inquiry as do questions of more immediate importance in this world. But I'll try to summarize some of the descriptions I've encountered.

Some have suggested that the "burning" commonly associated with the idea of hell is the burning shame one feels in reviewing one's less-than-glorious moments, without the lens of short term or selfish desires.

Other explanations center on the idea that there's no separation of heaven vs. hell, just different reactions to the same thing. Those who have worked on their relationships with others and with God are better equipped to "handle" the ultimate surrender of self that comes with death; those who pursued more selfish ends find themselves ill-equipped to "adjust" to the "new" reality, and their fate is therefore not unlike torture. I once heard it described as a Torah class: those who have cultivated their relationship with God through his word enjoy it immensely, while those who disdained it find it unbearable. The two views I've described are not incompatible, just different ways of understanding the same idea.

There are other Jewish views, but I'm not familiar enough with them to discuss them off the cuff.

[Nova Land]

... I just don't find the question of precisely how many, or what proportion, of practicing Christians believe that god will cast nonbelievers into eternal damnation ... to be a very interesting one.That's fine. But if you don't find it interesting enough to look into, I hope you will hold off on drawing conclusions based on your assumptions of what those numbers must be.

I hope we can agree that it is, at least, a large number.
Yes, I would agree with that. I do not know how large, but there certainly are some in the US who do hold that opinion, and given a total population in the neighborhood of 300,000,000 even a small fraction adds up to a large number. But I believe the fraction is shrinking.

I have in-laws in the Church of Christ, for example, who believed that way and, for a number of years, limited the contact my mother-in-law was permitted with her grandchildren (since she was Lutheran rather than Church of Christ). But at a certain point they outgrew that, and for the last decade of her life my mother-in-law was able to enjoy her grandchildren's company (and they, hers). And although the grandkids were raised in Church of Christ (and I believe are still members) they do not appear to me to subscribe to the view of god their parents raised them with.

So while it saddens me that anyone would take such a hurtful belief to heart and live their life by it, I don't see it as being nearly as widespread as you appear to believe, and I believe that it is ultimately a self-defeating belief which will lose its hold and fade away.

However, while there are people who believe in hell, and there are people who believe in a god that condemns non-believers to hell, the two beliefs are not the same. My impression is that the former -- people who believe in some form of hell -- is a fairly large number, probably a majority of Christians and possibly even a large majority. You cite a figure of 71% for this, and that may be correct. But that is not the same as saying that 71% believe non-believers go to hell.

One of my favorite poems from childhood is "Abou Ben Adhem (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Poetry/HuntAbouBenAdhem.htm)" by Leigh Hunt. Are you familiar with it? It's about the (Christian) god's deep love for a man who is not a Christian. It's a classic poem, well-known and widely available, so I know I am not the only one who finds it inspiring.

Which is one reason I believe there are a large number of people who believe in a god who does not send people to hell for non-belief.

You suggest that I am not knowledgeable about this, but several years of my lifetime of observation was spent as an insider in a fundamentalist Baptist group, from which I can say that 100% of the members I came in contact with did profess belief in a literal lake-of-fire hell.
Ah! So you were surrounded by people who held to that belief, and thus came to believe that it was widespread. And I have generally lived among people who believe in a god who does not damn people to hell for non-belief, and so think of that view as widespread. Like the blind men feeling the elephant, we are both right -- as far as our limited spheres of perception goes.

Both of us have a biased sample. But you appear to be willing to use your limited experience to generalize about all religious people. I am aware of the limits of my experience and would prefer to fill in the many gaps in my knowledge before reaching a judgment.

I don't know how many of the 300,000,000 people in the US you were able to talk to, or how openly you listened to what people you encountered told you. I do know that over the years I have greatly enjoyed getting to meet and learn from people whose beliefs are different from mine, and I am often amazed at how different they and their beliefs actually are from the impressions of their beliefs I had formed out of my ignorance.

I hope we can agree ... that a large number of practicing Christians do hold that belief...
Yes. And I hope we can also agree that a large number of practicing Christians do not hold that belief.

I don't see how pinning the number down with greater precision than that is really helpful.
I do. You seem stuck on the fact that there is a large number who hold a certain belief, and thus seem to be missing the fact that there is also a large number who do not hold that belief.

Which number is larger? Which number is shrinking, which is growing? If the existence of a certain conception of god alarms you and causes you concern, then I think it would be wise to have a clearer understanding of the situation than simply, Large! Scary!

I think we're agreed that Dawkins's argument does not apply to theists who do not believe that god eternally punishes nonbelievers in the afterlife.
Yes. Where we appear to differ is in our perception of how many theists that is. I believe your perception of the number may be unrealistically low.

... I don't see that anything you or anyone else has said in this thread rebuts the basic point that belief in hell and belief in the perfect moral goodness of god are fundamentally inconsistent with each other.
Hold on. A belief in hell is not the same as a belief that god sends non-believers to hell. The former is what you have indicated that 71% of people in the US believe. The latter is what Dawkins argues is in contradiction to the concept of a wise and loving god. The two are not interchangeable.

I personally don't believe in hell. Since I don't believe in hell, I obviously don't believe god sends non-believers to hell. But it is quite possible for other people to believe in hell without believing in a god who sends people there simply for non-belief. You appear to be thinking that everyone who believes in hell believes god sends non-believers to hell, and that clearly is not so.

Like you, I can see no way to reconcile the concept of a wise and loving god with the concept of a god who sends non-believers to hell. But while I personally disagree with the concept of a god who sends anyone to hell, and think the people who believe that are mistaken, I can see how a person with different beliefs from mine could reasonably hold such a view.

One of my key beliefs is that there is something good, something worthwhile, in every person. But I know many people who do not share that belief -- who believe that some people are basically good and others are not. They see people such as Adolf Hitler, or Charles Manson, or Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden, as somehow fundamentally different from the rest of us, and therefore deserving only of punishment, be it death in this life or hell ever after.

If one can divide the world into good people and evil people -- decent people and scum -- then the notion of a god who sends the evil people to hell is not necessarily inconsistent. It is a view I strongly disagree with -- but not one I would call other people crazy or contradictory for holding.

Something I disagree with" is not the same as "insane". There are many political and religious positions which I disagree with but which I can see are tenable positions for those who hold them.

I am more upset by surveys which put belief in the death penalty at 80% than in surveys which put belief in hell at 70%. Both beliefs can cause harm -- but the former belief has more potential to cause greater harm, both directly (the execution of captives) and indirectly (by spreading a belief that we are justified in killing those we have at our mercy, and that by doing so we will teach others not to do so).

But recent polls have begun to show a drop in support for the death penalty. If (as I believe) the death penalty is wrong, then I have faith that eventually society will move from a majority in favor to a rejection of the idea. Likewise, if the concept of a god who sends non-believers to hell is wrong, then I have faith that eventually society will move to a rejection of that idea as well. My faith is that reason is ultimately superior to unreason and truth is ultimately superior to untruth.

That's what makes science practical. What's real, works; what's unreal, doesn't. And most people prefer using things which work to things that don't. That's why, over time, we humans keep developing a better understanding of the world we live in, how it works, and how better to live in it.

Instead of being frustrated by the 70 % of the US population who believe in hell, be cheered by the 30% who don't. And instead of being frustrated by the unknown-to-you % of theists who believe in a god who condemns non-believers to hell, be cheered by the also-unknown-to-you % who do not.

[Nova Land]

... the survey cited didn't define "Hell," nor did it say who's eligible for the trip. Both are important factors in the discussion.
Ah! I see you beat me to this (and said it much more concisely than I did).

[Rufo]

Dawkins points out God is the worst fictional character to ever exist.
I think he's wrong, since Satan is worse. I also find it strange how someone could not notice that.

How can the religious person reconcile that in their own mind?
They consider the choice to be between Satan and God, obviously choosing the one who doesn't want everyone to burn forever.

[Nova Land]

Judaism does posit a world-to-come in which the true reward/punishment takes place, but the exact nature of that world doesn't attract nearly as much inquiry as do questions of more immediate importance in this world...

Some have suggested that the "burning" commonly associated with the idea of hell is the burning shame one feels in reviewing one's less-than-glorious moments, without the lens of short term or selfish desires.

Other explanations center on the idea that there's no separation of heaven vs. hell, just different reactions to the same thing. Those who have worked on their relationships with others and with God are better equipped to "handle" the ultimate surrender of self that comes with death; those who pursued more selfish ends find themselves ill-equipped to "adjust" to the "new" reality, and their fate is therefore not unlike torture.
Thank you. That's just the kind of summary I was looking for. (And concise, too! I wish I could get back to writing more concisely.)
I once heard it described as a Torah class: those who have cultivated their relationship with God through his word enjoy it immensely, while those who disdained it find it unbearable.
I love that example! What a great way of looking at the concept of hell.

[Nova Land]

I think [Dawkins is] wrong, since Satan is worse. I also find it strange how someone could not notice that.
There's a sequence in Neil Gaiman's Sandman series (sorry, I don't recall the issue numbers) where Lucifer gets fed up with being stuck with the job of running Hell and walks off the job. Since Hell can't be left unattended, God appoints a pair of angels to oversee the place. And Hell, as run by angels, is much much much worse for those condemned to be there than Hell run by a devil.

It's a good series, well worth reading (and readily available in trade paperback form at bookstores or on-line). So if you don't see how someone could think God could be worse than Satan, and if Dawkins is not to your taste, you might look the Sandman books up.

Or, if your taste runs to something less literate and more vulgar, Garth Ennis' Preacher series -- same publisher, and also readily available in trade paperback -- presents a different take on God as the ultimate bad guy.

Both of these, obviously, are works of fiction. Dawkins book is non-fiction. But both fiction and non-fiction are ways of exploring philosophical questions -- of taking a what if and trying to see where it leads.

You may dislike the point Dawkins is making, but it's not one which is unique to him. A number of people have pondered along these lines. I doubt that people such as Gaiman (or Dawkins) are unaware of the strangeness of agents of heaven being worse than agents of hell. On the contrary, that's what makes the speculation so intriguing.

[Huntster]

...Other explanations center on the idea that there's no separation of heaven vs. hell, just different reactions to the same thing....

I'm not sure about that:

..."There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores.

When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.'

Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.' He said, 'Then I beg you, father, send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.'

But Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.' He said, 'Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'" ....

Luke 16:19-31

....those who have cultivated their relationship with God through his word enjoy it immensely, while those who disdained it find it unbearable.....

That is very close to my understanding of the situation, very close to what I have experienced and seen, and very close to the RCC definition of hell that I linked to in my previous post.

[Beerina]

Some have suggested that the "burning" commonly associated with the idea of hell is the burning shame one feels in reviewing one's less-than-glorious moments, without the lens of short term or selfish desires.

Ahh, shame and embarassment. Another idiotic invention by "God", second only to pain in stupidity.

Well, pain and terror.

Well, pain, terror, and sorrow over the death of a loved one.

And injustice. Second only to pain, terror, sorrow, and injustice.

Well, pain, terror, and the queasiness of barfing. Second only to those.

Well, second only to pain, terror, the queasiness of barfing, and the uncomfortableness of having a scope up your ass.


But other than the emotions of death, sorrow, and pain, and fright over same, and shame and embarassment, well, good job on the universe, God! Until we die and are cast into Hell except for the 0.0000001% who followed you correctly, those of the New Southern East South Carolina Baptist Convention of 1867, revised 1963.

[Huntster]

......But other than the emotions of death, sorrow, and pain, and fright over same, and shame and embarassment, well, good job on the universe, God!....

Ummmm, are you just angry that God didn't create things as you think it should have been done?

Perhaps you attended a finer engineering school than He did?

[Beerina]

I think [Dawkins's] wrong, since Satan is worse. I also find it strange how someone could not notice that.

How is Satan worse? It could be argued he freed you from your ignorance by leading you to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

They consider the choice to be between Satan and God, obviously choosing the one who doesn't want everyone to burn forever.

Satan wants you to burn forever? If he hates God, wouldn't he not torture people for ever and ever, just to piss off God?

[strathmeyer]

Ummmm, are you just angry that God didn't create things as you think it should have been done?

Perhaps you attended a finer engineering school than He did?

You're saying that people have no concept of how to make the world a better place?

[David Swidler]

...Other explanations center on the idea that there's no separation of heaven vs. hell, just different reactions to the same thing....

I'm not sure about that:

..."There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores.

When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.'

Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.' He said, 'Then I beg you, father, send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.'

But Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.' He said, 'Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'" ....

Luke 16:19-31

A passage from the NT is hardly the source to use in arriving at a Jewish understanding of hell, which is what I was discussing...:).

[David Swidler]

Ahh, shame and embarassment. Another idiotic invention by "God", second only to pain in stupidity.

Well, pain and terror.

Well, pain, terror, and sorrow over the death of a loved one.

And injustice. Second only to pain, terror, sorrow, and injustice.

Well, pain, terror, and the queasiness of barfing. Second only to those.

Well, second only to pain, terror, the queasiness of barfing, and the uncomfortableness of having a scope up your ass.

How about the realization that you've irreparably damaged your relationship with a loved one? That's analogous to the shame to which the idea refers. I'm pretty sure most of us would opt for the scope option in that case.


But other than the emotions of death, sorrow, and pain, and fright over same, and shame and embarassment, well, good job on the universe, God! Until we die and are cast into Hell except for the 0.0000001% who followed you correctly, those of the New Southern East South Carolina Baptist Convention of 1867, revised 1963.

Except that you were responding to a description of the Jewish view of hell, which has nothing to do with following the right church or accepting a savior of any sort. "The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come" is the Talmud's way of putting it. Or as Hillel the Elder said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor; the rest is commentary. Go and learn." Hardly a prescription for everlasting torment, in Southern East South Carolina or anywhere else.

[Rufo]

How is Satan worse? It could be argued he freed you from your ignorance by leading you to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Sure, that's probably a favor. But being created in the first place is also a favor, which God did. It's fairly obvious they have both done good things (though the concept of 'good' is also a huge problem in this dilemma), and just because Satan happened to do one single good deed once doesn't make him better.

Satan wants you to burn forever? If he hates God, wouldn't he not torture people for ever and ever, just to piss off God?
Supposing we are talking about a mythological Satan here and not just some guy you made up who happens to be called 'Satan', it's as much his characteristic seeking to torture as many people as possible as it is his characteristic seeking to piss off God. It's like asking "Wouldn't God not send people to hell just to piss Satan off?" Of course, logically that would be the smartest thing for Him to do, but whoever said any of these things had to be logical or smart?

This is how I thought about it.
1. God creates world and sets up ridiculously complex rules about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.
2. God spends His time trying to make people follow these ridiculously complex rules and go to heaven.
3. Satan spends his time trying to make people brake these ridiculously complex rules and go to hell.

So while God's goal is to send almost everyone to hell, Satan's is to send everyone to hell. Now, tell me what I missed or how God is worse.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I think he's wrong, since Satan is worse. I also find it strange how someone could not notice that.
Seems to me that blaming Satan for all the evils of the world is a bit like Ken Lay blaming the fall of Enron on Andy Fastow.

"I accept full responsibility for everything that happened at Enron," Lay said in his first day on the stand. "Having said that, I can't take responsibility for illegal acts I had no knowledge of."source ( http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/enron/3816901.html)

[Rufo]

Seems to me that blaming Satan for all the evils of the world is a bit like Ken Lay blaming the fall of Enron on Andy Fastow.
I'm not blaming Satan for all the evils in the world. I'm saying he's a worse fictional character than God.

[cyborg]

Perhaps you attended a finer engineering school than He did?

Given examples of his work I'd say yes.

[cyborg]

I'm not blaming Satan for all the evils in the world. I'm saying he's a worse fictional character than God.

Unless one places Satan at the same level of being as the god in question then he is merely a curator for a place of this god's devising and one of his creations.

[Rufo]

Unless one places Satan at the same level of being as the god in question then he is merely a curator for a place of this god's devising and one of his creations.
And a curator cannot possibly be more evil than his creator/employer/arch-enemy (man, what a combination)?

[JamesDillon]

This is how I thought about it.
1. God creates world and sets up ridiculously complex rules about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.
2. God spends His time trying to make people follow these ridiculously complex rules and go to heaven.
3. Satan spends his time trying to make people brake these ridiculously complex rules and go to hell.

So while God's goal is to send almost everyone to hell, Satan's is to send everyone to hell. Now, tell me what I missed or how God is worse.

God is worse because he's the one who set up the rigged system in the first place, and he's also the one who does the actual judging and casting into hell. I've never understood why Satan is even necessary in this system. God sets up a world in which it's literally impossible for any human being to abide by the complex and self-contradictory set of rules necessary to avoid eternal torment. Then he goes to all the trouble of torturing and killing his own son (let's assume Christianity here for discussion purposes), arguably to create a loophole in the system he's created so that a few people can avoid the bad outcome. Then he decides to play hide & seek with the universe for the next 2,000 years, providing no direct evidence of his existence such that anyone who didn't directly witness the alleged death and resurrection of his son is left in the unfortunate position of having to believe an implausible story from an inconsistent book written centuries ago by people who didn't actually witness the events described, or go to hell. Sounds to me like he gets off on [rule8]ing with us, sort of like a kid in the schoolyard burning ants under a magnifying glass.

[cyborg]

And a curator cannot possibly be more evil than his creator/employer/arch-enemy (man, what a combination)?

I'm arguing that it is rather bizarre to lay the blame at the creation if the creator created it to accomplish a specific purpose.

It is one thing to create Satan by accident, another to create him on purpose.

[Rufo]

So the christian God did bad things? It does seem so. Now, tell me how someone who wants almost everyone to suffer is more evil than someone who wants everyone to suffer.

[cyborg]

Now, tell me how someone who wants almost everyone to suffer is more evil than someone who wants everyone to suffer.

The one who wants everyone to suffer doesn't get to make the choice who actually gets to suffer.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Ummmm, are you just angry that God didn't create things as you think it should have been done?

Perhaps you attended a finer engineering school than He did?
You're saying that people have no concept of how to make the world a better place?

As illustrated in this (and so many other) forums, people have more "concepts" than they know what to do with.

As illustrated in physical reality, it all amounts to squat. People are human, and can't make the world a whole lot better.

Besides, this is a physical world. Everything that lives will suffer and die. Period. Get over it, and consider what might be next.

I wrote the above because I see lots of anger directed toward God for the realities of physical life.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Perhaps you attended a finer engineering school than He did?
Given examples of his work I'd say yes.

Really?

I'm willing to be impressed.

This is a photo I took of a bull moose swimming across the Yukon River, with the Kokhrine Hills in the background. It's early fall, and the snow is working it's way down in elevation.

Create something physical that is as large, as beautiful, and with a creature that tastes as good as that moose did.

[cyborg]

People are human, and can't make the world a whole lot better.

I'd beg to disagree. I'd be middle aged a thousand years ago, probably lack any prospects for social advancement, likely to die of some horrible disease, eat bad food, drink poor water, work hard for little reward, have little to no education and generally live a pretty tough life.

Now you may like to argue that world isn't better today but then you might do well to consider you have the luxury of pondering such issues on an advanced communications device that allows you and I to converse over distances people would spend months to traverse rather than spending your time trying to eek out a subsistance livelihood.

Either way I don't see your god having a hand in transforming the world to what it is today.

Get over it, and consider what might be next.

To what end? What is the purpose in pondering unanwerable questions on whether or not we persist beyond our physical bodies via some undetectable mechanism? For the sake of a little emotional comfort?

I wrote the above because I see lots of anger directed toward God for the realities of physical life.

DAMN YOU ZEUS!

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Rufo :
I'm not blaming Satan for all the evils in the world. I'm saying he's a worse fictional character than God.
Unless one places Satan at the same level of being as the god in question then he is merely a curator for a place of this god's devising and one of his creations.

If Hell is "The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed , reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives", then is created by those who have self-excluded themselves.

[cyborg]

Create something physical that is as large, as beautiful, and with a creature that tastes as good as that moose did.

I can't do that, I'm not a geneticist.

I suppose I (or others) could start pointing out numerous examples of structures that, if designed, were poor choices due to the problems they create. For example the spine is really quite inadaquate for supporting bipedal beings such as ourselves, leading to back problems. Of course you'd probably argue that's some sort of punishment from your god for being bad humans.

ETA: I don't suppose it would ever occur to you to ask me to create something that is ugly, venomous and with poor nutritional value. No, let's just concentrate on those creatures humans find useful and sweep the rest under the carpet as if you can claim your god didn't create them as well or they're just put there because we're bad humans so that all makes sense too.

[cyborg]

If Hell is "The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed , reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives", then is created by those who have self-excluded themselves.

And if hell is a big firey place where god can throw people who aren't Jesus-bots so he and the bots can laugh at them?

[Huntster]

People are human, and can't make the world a whole lot better.

I'd beg to disagree. I'd be middle aged a thousand years ago, probably lack any prospects for social advancement, likely to die of some horrible disease, eat bad food, drink poor water, work hard for little reward, have little to no education and generally live a pretty tough life....

Sounds like you live a priviledged life, although if you eat fast food, and drink tap water, your statements regarding "bad food" and "bad water" are probably ignorant of the realities of today and yesteryear.

You don't work hard? That's a blessing?

You've never lived a tough life?

You're not going to die of a horrible disease, or worse?

Education is your salvation?

Good Luck.

...Now you may like to argue that world isn't better today but then you might do well to consider you have the luxury of pondering such issues on an advanced communications device that allows you and I to converse over distances people would spend months to traverse rather than spending your time trying to eek out a subsistance livelihood....

Technology is our salvation? This computer? Interacting with you?

You haven't seen how wonderful technology is when it's used to kill people, have you?

Helicopter gunships? Daisy cutter bombs? Napalm bombing runs?

The good comes with the bad (in fact, the good technology is usually a spin-off from wartime production).

....Either way I don't see your god having a hand in transforming the world to what it is today.....

Me, neither; at least after the initial plan was set in place. All the good and all the bad is pretty much us right now.

Get over it, and consider what might be next.

To what end?

The future is inevitable. We all die physically.

...What is the purpose in pondering unanwerable questions on whether or not we persist beyond our physical bodies via some undetectable mechanism?...

Pondering leads to discovery.

[kurious_kathy]

God is worse because he's the one who set up the rigged system in the first place, and he's also the one who does the actual judging and casting into hell. I've never understood why Satan is even necessary in this system. God sets up a world in which it's literally impossible for any human being to abide by the complex and self-contradictory set of rules necessary to avoid eternal torment. Then he goes to all the trouble of torturing and killing his own son (let's assume Christianity here for discussion purposes), arguably to create a loophole in the system he's created so that a few people can avoid the bad outcome. Then he decides to play hide & seek with the universe for the next 2,000 years, providing no direct evidence of his existence such that anyone who didn't directly witness the alleged death and resurrection of his son is left in the unfortunate position of having to believe an implausible story from an inconsistent book written centuries ago by people who didn't actually witness the events described, or go to hell. Sounds to me like he gets off on [rule8]ing with us, sort of like a kid in the schoolyard burning ants under a magnifying glass.

Perhaps you could just try to take a step back from your own mindset and see it in a different light. Satan perhaps was created to show us evil personified. God uses Satan to test us to see if we will see our own need for God's goodness in our life. Without God people become corrupted by their sin.

Are you gona let the devil win your soul? Yes since Adam and Eve sinned and it set us all up for the curse, but God gave us an alternative plan to be redeemed. We all need to go to the cross and receive the free gift of forgiveness that Christ has for us. It truely is the only way!

And when it comes to evidence of the resurrection, perhaps you just haven't dug deep enough yet? Here's another interesting article I came across today via CRI's website...http://www.equip.org/bam/frank_in_hawaii.htm
God is not hiding!All I know is when I asked God to show me the truth, He did.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Create something physical that is as large, as beautiful, and with a creature that tastes as good as that moose did.


I can't do that, I'm not a geneticist.

So, your engineering school didn't prepare you as fully as you thought?

....I suppose I (or others) could start pointing out numerous examples of structures that, if designed, were poor choices due to the problems they create. For example the spine is really quite inadaquate for supporting bipedal beings such as ourselves, leading to back problems. Of course you'd probably argue that's some sort of punishment from your god for being bad humans....

Nope. I'd say that my spine is doing just fine, thanks, and that's a problem you need to take up with an evolutionist.

...ETA: I don't suppose it would ever occur to you to ask me to create something that is ugly, venomous and with poor nutritional value....

I don't need to. Your posts are a good enough illustration that you can do that.

...No, let's just concentrate on those creatures humans find useful and sweep the rest under the carpet as if you can claim your god didn't create them as well or they're just put there because we're bad humans so that all makes sense too....

Huh?

You mean like eating a sculpin rather than a king crab?

I've eaten sculpin. It isn't the kind of cuisine that compares to king crab, or burbot, but I eat it. Seaweed, too. Lamb's quarter.

You take the rain with the sunshine.

[cyborg]

Sounds like you live a priviledged life,

I and millions of other people. You certainly could be included in that sphere unless you're one of those people who post on the Internet who's living on the edge of life but still find time to have an argument.

although if you eat fast food, and drink tap water, your statements regarding "bad food" and "bad water" are probably ignorant of the realities of today and yesteryear.

There's nothing wrong with the tap water where I live. If I choose to eat fast food then the health consequences are entirely mine. That doesn't stop the fact that I have the ability to choose from an utter abundance of food types.

You are the one who seems to be ignorant of the reality of the world. If you want to talk about the bad stuff you should be looking to the people who really live tough lives - strangely enough they are living the kind of life everyone did before new technologies improve things. Hell, even there we can still see how even more primitive technologies enable them to exist at all.

You don't work hard?

I don't work to near death.

That's a blessing?

Not dying at an early age due to intensively labourious work? Uh huh.

You're not going to die of a horrible disease, or worse?

The chances of it are significantly lower than it has ever been at any other point in history.

You've never lived a tough life?

Nope.

Education is your salvation?

Myths are yours?

Good Luck.

I won't require it.

Technology is our salvation?

Have you tried living without technology recently?

This computer? Interacting with you?

It's kept me fed so far.

The good comes with the bad (in fact, the good technology is usually a spin-off from wartime production).

So your point is that because people are still killing each other albeit in more efficient ways the fact that overall we enjoy a far better standard of living is utterly nullified?

Me, neither; at least after the initial plan was set in place. All the good and all the bad is pretty much us right now.

Your god is irrelevent. Then we are in agreement.

The future is inevitable. We all die physically.

Right, you demonstrate there's anything else to consider other than a physical death and I'll take your argument that we should spend a lot of time trying to figure out what deity's arbitary rules to appease seriously.

Pondering leads to discovery.

Mere pondering has failed to discover anything.

Investigation has led to discovery.

Of course I'm sure you have something to say about how science is rubbish. I'd like you to give me an example of some tangeable product of two people sitting around talking all day though.

[Nettles]

It's odd how we in the sceptical community clamour for evidence, apply harsh but fair standards, and reject anecdote with respect to pseudoscience, but when people make stuff up about religion, anti-religious anecdote and cheesy statistical guesswork is somehow considered appropriate.

James has said that he has made an in-depth study of Christian belief over years, but has published nothing. He has gone on to say that we must believe what he says about religion unless we can prove otherwise (which I've heard a lot of astrologers say too), and this proves the point that God is believed to be exceptionally cruel because pre-Christian souls are said to burn eternally in a lake of fire.

He is also very ready to dismiss the "Harrowing of Hell", widely documented as performed in European churches during the Middle Ages, as some sort of fringe belief.

Adds Belz:
Name this mysterious majority of christians who DON'T believe in hell, mister.

I have not argued that a majority of Christians do not believe in Hell, though I would not be surprised to see statistics showing this. I have argued that we have seen no evidence that (going back to the first post) God worship implies belief in the version of Hell put forth by John of Patmos in the Book of Revelation (e.g. lake of fire). So far this thread has discussed various varieties of theism which do not demand that their devotees believe that all those born before the advent of Christ are swimming in lava for all eternity.

As to mysterious un-American varieties of Christianity which avoid the fire-n-brimstone fixation?

There are about 37 million Christians in Britain. (Compare with just under .4 million Jedi knights.) 71% of the British population called themselves Christian in the 2001 census, Catholics and Protestants included.

32% of the British population believe in Hell.

(Both of these are from the statistics.gov.uk web site)

Even if every person in Britain who believes in Hell is a Christian, that's an underwhelming proportion. Note that this is just the proportion who believe in an afterlife of punishment for sinners, not necessarily believers in the whole guy-with-the-pitchfork South Park shtick.

I don't know comparable statistics for France, but I hypothesise they're about the same.

The proportion of Americans who believe in (any sort of) hell was reported in 1998 as 57% in a 1998 book by Alan Wolfe (What Middle-Class Americans Really Think About, citing a 1991 study by Andrew Greeley. Big shift in 15 years, or big margins of error? God knows.

[cyborg]

So, your engineering school didn't prepare you as fully as you thought?

Sigh. You can take an analogy too far. The argument is design, not implementation.

Nope. I'd say that my spine is doing just fine, thanks,

Yes, it does okay. It is hardly an example of what one would design if one wanted an optimal design.

and that's a problem you need to take up with an evolutionist.

No, you have the problem explaing this from an intelligent design. The spine is a perfect example of one structure being used for another purpose. In quadrapeds the spine is basically a connecting, not supporting, structure. The spine in humans is only adaquate for its purpose. Longer lives have reveal the numerous problems the spine can have. As far as evolution is concerned this is irrelevant: one only need live until one can reproduce.

I don't need to. Your posts are a good enough illustration that you can do that.

Huh? Was that a thinly veiled ad hominem? How very un-Christian of you! I hope you don't lose god-points for that!

I've eaten sculpin. It isn't the kind of cuisine that compares to king crab, or burbot, but I eat it. Seaweed, too. Lamb's quarter.

Are you trying to argue for creation based on how many things you can eat that are tasty to you? Or appealing?

My point is why not consider the opposite side of the spectrum.

You take the rain with the sunshine.

But you assume that both the rain and sunshine are concerned with you personally and not just getting on with their business irrelevant of your existence.

When it rains I use an umbrella and I don't thank a god for the opportunity to use it to keep my head dry.

[cyborg]

Oh, plus I do like the irony of you making great pains to point out everything that technology can do that is bad whilst avoiding any potential problems there might be with trying to live in nature without any.

Next you'll be arguing that the banana shows how much your god cares for us by providing the perfectly designed tasty fruit for us...

[JamesDillon]

Nettles,

Frankly, I don't really much care what portion of the population believes in hell, because it's irrelevant to the argument in the opening post that a god who sends people to hell would necessarily be morally evil. Rather than obsessing over this boring tangent, would you care to address the rest of my post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1610465&postcount=19) in which I argue that the harrowing of hell does not significantly mitigate god's evil nature, and that your suggestion that Dawkins is unqualified to make a moral judgment is an empty ad hominem that undermines your own credibility?

[Nettles]

My point has been that "god's evil nature" is based on a straw man argument: taking a view of God which some theists subscribe to but which many do not and attacking it as though it were a core belief in theism. Which it isn't.

A large number of theists believe in the whole "lake of fire" myth, but a large number do not. I did not bring the "most" point into the argument, but I certainly did bring in the point that you can't prove anything with anecdotes. And if the majority of British Christians do not even believe in Hell at all, then condemning their God as "evil" for misusing Hell is weak indeed.

The Harrowing of Hell mitigate's "god's evil nature" because the evidence of "god's evil nature" given above was that God eternally torments all the souls who died before the advent of Christe. If as part of "dying for the salvation of mankind", Jesus takes the trouble to let everyone out of Hell, then God is innocent of that charge. (Again, the Harrowing of Hell was a widespread popular belief with Western Church approval, but no basis in Christian doctrine.)

I don't suggest that Dawkins is unqualified to make a moral judgement. I suggest that he is talking out of his field (which is not physics ... I somehow confused the real Richard Dawkins with the fictional Maximilian Arturo for a moment). In seeing his recent television show on religion (Dawkins's, not Arturo's), I also saw the straw man argument again and again as he nominated "representatives" of religion who were uniformly nutty, unpleasant and often inarticulate. I'm not impressed.

The initial question has been answered by some thoughtful responses from theists of many religions, and I think that perhaps a word of thanks is in order.

[cyborg]

My point has been that "god's evil nature" is based on a straw man argument: taking a view of God which some theists subscribe to but which many do not and attacking it as though it were a core belief in theism. Which it isn't.

Well it's not because most of the time this argument is presented it is clear we are talking about a god that is powerful enough and interested enough in humanity for the discussion to have any meaning.

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't normally spend time trying to come up with objections to gods that people don't believe in. The three-O god view is widely held.

Your objections are noted but that argument is not a strawman - it is appropriate when we are talking about the right god. One could not construct an argument applicable to all the various proposed gods. In that sense it is you that is presenting a straw man here - you seem to think that we are not fully aware of the conditions here.

[JamesDillon]

My point has been that "god's evil nature" is based on a straw man argument: taking a view of God which some theists subscribe to but which many do not and attacking it as though it were a core belief in theism. Which it isn't.
I think everyone will agree that Dawkins's argument does not apply to theists who don't believe that god sends nonbelievers to hell. But it's hardly a straw man to state that the theists who do believe that, however many there are, appear to be worshiping an evil and sadistic being.

A large number of theists believe in the whole "lake of fire" myth, but a large number do not. I did not bring the "most" point into the argument, but I certainly did bring in the point that you can't prove anything with anecdotes.
I fear that we may further derail the thread by pursuing this, but that's just not true. You're suggesting that I can't justify general statements on the basis of personal observation, but that's wrong. For example, as I said above, I believe that leaves are usually green in the spring, because almost all of the leaves that I've ever seen have been green in the spring. I don't need to refer to an article published in Nature to justify this belief. Likewise, because the vast majority of Christians with whom I've had any contact, including through the media, have professed belief in hell, I'm justified in believing that the majority of Christians believe in hell.

You're confusing the fact that personal experience is weaker evidence than scientific analysis with the mistaken conclusion that personal experience is no evidence at all. That can't be right, because most of our beliefs are founded on personal experience. If you can produce reliable statistical evidence that most theists do not believe in hell, then that would rebut my conclusion based on personal observation that they do. But please don't do that, because I really don't care whether most theists believe in hell, and as I've said, it's really not relevant to the argument expressed in the opening post if we stipulate that theists who don't believe in hell are not vulnerable to Dawkins's argument.

The Harrowing of Hell mitigate's "god's evil nature" because the evidence of "god's evil nature" given above was that God eternally torments all the souls who died before the advent of Christe. If as part of "dying for the salvation of mankind", Jesus takes the trouble to let everyone out of Hell, then God is innocent of that charge. (Again, the Harrowing of Hell was a widespread popular belief with Western Church approval, but no basis in Christian doctrine.)
And as I said before, the fact that god 1) tormented those souls for centuries before Christ came along to free them, and 2) continues to torment the majority of souls who have lived after the time of Christ, suggest that the harrowing of hell does not mitigate god's evil nature by very much, if at all.

I don't suggest that Dawkins is unqualified to make a moral judgement. I suggest that he is talking out of his field (which is not physics ... I somehow confused the real Richard Dawkins with the fictional Maximilian Arturo for a moment).
Again, what kind of expertise is required to conclude that an omnipotent entity that creates a race of sentient beings for the purpose of eternally torturing a large number of them is morally evil? Does one really need a Ph.D. in moral philosophy to arrive at that conclusion?

[Rufo]

The one who wants everyone to suffer doesn't get to make the choice who actually gets to suffer.
What?

So God is more evil because He has the opportunity? Do you for a single second doubt that if the choice was Satan's, he would send everyone to hell? This is not about how dangerous these beings are - if that was the question God would win any day, good or bad, with that kind of power anyone is dangerous. But this is about who is more evil. And Satan doesn't get less evil because he has less opportunity to prove it.

Your objections are noted but that argument is not a strawman - it is appropriate when we are talking about the right god. One could not construct an argument applicable to all the various proposed gods. In that sense it is you that is presenting a straw man here - you seem to think that we are not fully aware of the conditions here.
Perhaps we should stop talking about this God as the "christian" God, if the majority of the christians do not believe in the God described in the OP.

[cyborg]

So God is more evil because He has the opportunity?

If I throw a person to a pit of attack dogs I reared to be vicious who does one consider more evil?

Do you for a single second doubt that if the choice was Satan's, he would send everyone to hell?

Sure I doubt it - since there are many ways to spin this fictional struggle.

One might propose Satan as a rebellious force who is fighting against a tyranical god who is quite insane in wanting to have everyone agree with him. Those who don't get lucky enough to spend their eternity with Satan. Hell is just the propaganda of a malevolent god.

But the point is if the god created Satan then can Satan really be a more evil being? Surely god is just doing his evil by proxy.

And Satan doesn't get less evil because he has less opportunity to prove it.

And god doesn't get any more good because he created a scapegoat for himself.

Perhaps we should stop talking about this God as the "christian" God, if the majority of the christians do not believe in the God described in the OP.

Sure, as James says as soon as we get some notion that this isn't the god that most Christians believe in.

Given that the largest sect is Catholic and the offical Catholic position would certainly include the three-Os I don't see this happening.

[Rufo]

One might propose Satan as a rebellious force who is fighting against a tyranical god who is quite insane in wanting to have everyone agree with him. Those who don't get lucky enough to spend their eternity with Satan. Hell is just the propaganda of a malevolent god.
So the parts the the mythology about this God throwing people into hell counts, but the part about about Satan wanting people to suffer is just "propaganda of a malevolent god"? Ignoring one part of the mythology and making own conclusions from another won't work very well, since we will end up with different mythologies - like if I said "Yes, Satan is an evil being who wants everyone to burn, but the part about God throwing people into hell is just propaganda Satan spreads." I can do that, of course, but it would make it difficult for us to argue about it if we were talking about two different situations.

But the point is if the god created Satan then can Satan really be a more evil being? Surely god is just doing his evil by proxy.
Another point is if the God created you then can you really be a more good being? Surely God is just doing his good by proxy.
If this is how you look at the question, nothing and no one is either more good or more evil than God.

[cyborg]

So the parts the the mythology about this God throwing people into hell counts, but the part about about Satan wanting people to suffer is just "propaganda of a malevolent god"?

Well then the futher conclusion one must reach is that the god doesn't throw people into hell. Satan and the god are in a struggle for souls for their respective camps. People who obey god go to his side, those who disobey go to Satan's. God uses the threat of torment and the promise of reward to trick people to his side. Satan tells people not to listen and does his best to make sure they aren't tricked inot believing this god.

Ignoring one part of the mythology and making own conclusions from another won't work very well, since we will end up with different mythologies

The great thing about this game is that since Christians get to do it I can to.

Another point is if the God created you then can you really be a more good being? Surely God is just doing his good by proxy. If this is how you look at the question, nothing and no one is either more good or more evil than God.

Indeed! Absolutely! What the hell does it mean for anything that was created by a three-O god to do anything for its own purpose and hence receive any credit? That is to say this issue reduces to free-will.

If one has free-will it is reasonable to hold one accountable.

If one does not it is unreasonable.

Hence the question becomes: does Satan have free-will?

[Nettles]

The last two chapters but one (chapters XXVII and XXVIII) of Robert Heinlein's Job have a wonderful take on the relationship between God and Satan.

[Huntster]

...That is to say this issue reduces to free-will.

If one has free-will it is reasonable to hold one accountable.

If one does not it is unreasonable.

Hence the question becomes: does Satan have free-will?

Back on topic, that is how I understand the Catholic doctrine.

And, yes, Satan and his allies have free will, just like people.

Thus, God, as the creator, is not evil unless you consider everything (or the majority) in creation evil.

[cyborg]

And, yes, Satan and his allies have free will, just like people.

What does and does not have free-will according to Catholic doctrine then?

Thus, God, as the creator, is not evil unless you consider everything (or the majority) in creation evil.

This works both ways:

Thus, God, as the creator, is not good unless you consider everything (or the majority) in creation good.

[strathmeyer]

Back on topic, that is how I understand the Catholic doctrine.

Yeah, after I've said a few things that I can't explain or back up I always love to steer things back on topic.

[Rufo]

The great thing about this game is that since Christians get to do it I can to.
And why do you enjoy imitating pointless behaviors of people you consider to workship the most evil fictional being ever?

Indeed! Absolutely! What the hell does it mean for anything that was created by a three-O god to do anything for its own purpose and hence receive any credit? That is to say this issue reduces to free-will.

If one has free-will it is reasonable to hold one accountable.

If one does not it is unreasonable.

Hence the question becomes: does Satan have free-will?
If Satan does have free will, he is responsible for his wish to send everyone to hell and we are back at the question of how someone who wants to send everyone to hell is less evil than someone who wants to sent almost everyone to hell.

If Satan does not have free will, God is responsible for Satan's wish to send everyone to hell, but does not want it fulfilled. Does this make Satan less evil? How?

[Humphreys]

How can the religious person reconcile that in their own mind?

Well, as has already been mentioned, the Christian does not see this as evil, because it is justice. God is just, and good. How do we know this? Because he says so. Not actually is God good, meaning he does good, he actually is the definition of good.

So the Christian replies:

1. Whatever God does is good.
2. God tortures unbelievers, therefore
3. Torturing unbelievers is good

However, there are lots of problems with this line of thought. Firstly, if no morality exists outside of God, and since God likes to change his mind on what's right and wrong almost daily, there actually is no morality in a meaningful sense. Good and bad becomes meaningless.

Secondly, Christians don't even believe what they're saying. I asked a Christian if he would rape a baby under God's orders, and the Christian said "No, under no circumstances". But going by their reasoning, this sickening act would be "good", because God ordered it. Yet no one seems to truly believe that. They're well aware that some things are wrong, whether God says so or not, and deep down, they're well aware that eternal torture falls into this category/

The true answer to your question is "They don't, really". The question makes them uncomfortable, and they ignore it, and refuse to really think about it.

[cyborg]

And why do you enjoy imitating pointless behaviors of people you consider to workship the most evil fictional being ever?

I'm merely pointing out that when one doesn't have to provide any evidence for one's position and can instead rely on ad hoc explanations for one's position one can arrive in such positions.

I am playing by the rules of the game so to speak.

If Satan does have free will, he is responsible for his wish to send everyone to hell and we are back at the question of how someone who wants to send everyone to hell is less evil than someone who wants to sent almost everyone to hell.

Perhaps but even here there is still the issue that a three-O god created Satan and allows him to exist in order that the people who don't want to lick-ass eternially can be tormented by him. It is still evil by proxy.

I guess in this instance it boils down to whether one is more concerned about moral intent or moral actions.

If Satan does not have free will, God is responsible for Satan's wish to send everyone to hell, but does not want it fulfilled. Does this make Satan less evil? How?

It makes Satan entirely a proxy for the god's evil. Refer to my dog analogy - could it be reasonably said that the dogs are moral agents? If they are not moral agents they cannot be evil. Ergo if Satan is merely doing what the god designed him to do and has no choice but to be what he was created to be can it reasonably be said that he is a moral agent?

It is for precisely this reason that most Christians will argue we have free-will even though there is pleanty in the Bible to suggest that nothing happens that the Bible god doesn't wish to happen. Without this concept it is a lot harder to argue that we are moral-agents and hence can be either good or evil.

[Rufo]

I'm merely pointing out that when one doesn't have to provide any evidence for one's position and can instead rely on ad hoc explanations for one's position one can arrive in such positions.

I am playing by the rules of the game so to speak.
What game? Am I doing that? I thought we were talking about the most evil fictional character ever, not how you personally perceive these characters. Do you deny there is a fictional character called Satan who is not a glorious rebel against a mad God but an evil being who likes to torment people? This version of Satan is as valid in this argument as the God described in the OP.

Perhaps but even here there is still the issue that a three-O god created Satan and allows him to exist in order that the people who don't want to lick-ass eternially can be tormented by him. It is still evil by proxy.

I guess in this instance it boils down to whether one is more concerned about moral intent or moral actions.

This is exactly what I meant by the question: "So God is more evil because He has the opportunity?" As far as I know, the word 'evil' refers to intention rather than actions - a person with a strong wish to do evil who does not have the opportunity to is not less evil than someone who does. It is not about what one is more "concerned" about - we are talking about evil here, not dangerous or harmful.

It makes Satan entirely a proxy for the god's evil. Refer to my dog analogy - could it be reasonably said that the dogs are moral agents? If they are not moral agents they cannot be evil. Ergo if Satan is merely doing what the god designed him to do and has no choice but to be what he was created to be can it reasonably be said that he is a moral agent?
You have a point. But what about God, then? Maybe He simple is who he is (when I think about it, He even said so Himself... :D) and can't help it, because that is the way He has always been. Is he still a moral agent? While your argument is good and I almost agree with you about it, it sort of repeals good and evil overall.

[Ralph]

I just finished reading one of these "prayers needed" threads on another forum (not a religious forum).

It's a request from a man for a co-worker who's just found out his 5 month old son has brain cancer. His choices are chemotherapy and the child might survive 18 months more at best.....or do nothing & it will all be over in a few weeks.

That's followed by three pages of "prayers sent" and "may God help this poor family out" and on & on.

Jesus Christ ............. nobody's bothered by the whole idea of "the more prayers the better".....like god's maybe busy and won't hear the requests unless you get a big crowd to make a lot of noise.

Most of all though....It just amazes me that people believe in this good & omnipotent being......and don't wonder why the lousy SOB inflicted this on the kid in the first place or won't cure it with the bother of a brief thought.

[Huntster]

And, yes, Satan and his allies have free will, just like people. What does and does not have free-will according to Catholic doctrine then?...

I couldn't find a specific statement that identifies "what does and does not have free-will according to Catholic doctrine". My understanding is that, among the physical beings on this Earth, only man has this spiritual entity.

...Thus, God, as the creator, is not evil unless you consider everything (or the majority) in creation evil.

This works both ways:

Thus, God, as the creator, is not good unless you consider everything (or the majority) in creation good....

I do consider everything in creation good.

You don't?

[Ausmerican]

So, cancer is good? AIDS is good?

[Huntster]

Well, as has already been mentioned, the Christian does not see this as evil, because it is justice. God is just, and good. How do we know this? Because he says so. Not actually is God good, meaning he does good, he actually is the definition of good.

So the Christian replies:

1. Whatever God does is good.
2. God tortures unbelievers, therefore
3. Torturing unbelievers is good...

Do you think the application of the word "torture" will work against God as it has worked on the American public after the Abu Graib scandal?

If one rejects God, and is sent to a place devoid of God, is that "torture", or is it what the spirit wants?

....God likes to change his mind on what's right and wrong almost daily...

Really?

Do you get a daily newsletter, or something?

....Secondly, Christians don't even believe what they're saying. I asked a Christian if he would rape a baby under God's orders, and the Christian said "No, under no circumstances". But going by their reasoning, this sickening act would be "good", because God ordered it....

Are you doing a backdoor Abraham/Issac analogy?

Do you know nothing about the "test of faith"?

...Yet no one seems to truly believe that. They're well aware that some things are wrong, whether God says so or not, and deep down, they're well aware that eternal torture falls into this category....

Again, the eternal torture thing is your own interpretation of the obvious.

....The true answer to your question is "They don't, really". The question makes them uncomfortable, and they ignore it, and refuse to really think about it.

I'm not uncomfortable, and I don't refuse to think about anything.

[Huntster]

So, cancer is good? AIDS is good?

Cancer and AIDS are great for cancer cells and HIV virus cells.

It's life and death in a physical world. It's neither good nor bad. It's the cycle of life and death.

As a scientist, do you study "good" and "evil"?

Is that "science"?

[cyborg]

I do consider everything in creation good.

No you don't.

You don't?

No. I don't consider things inherently good or evil. They just are.

Cancer and AIDS are great for cancer cells and HIV virus cells.

Viruses are not cells. They generally aren't even considered life forms.

Does your god care about destructive brain prions as well?

If one rejects God, and is sent to a place devoid of God, is that "torture", or is it what the spirit wants?

AND IF ONE IS SENT TO AN ACTUAL FIREY PLACE OF TORMENT?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I do consider everything in creation good.

No you don't.

Oh. A mind reader.

What am I thinking now?

If one rejects God, and is sent to a place devoid of God, is that "torture", or is it what the spirit wants?

AND IF ONE IS SENT TO AN ACTUAL FIREY PLACE OF TORMENT?

And just where is this "actual firey place"?

When the body is left behind, how is the heat felt?

[cyborg]

Oh. A mind reader.

What am I thinking now?

You're thinking you shouldn't have said everything in creation is good because now I will have to point out that includes anything you previously might have labeled evil.

Congratulations. You've rendered the word meaningless.

And just where is this "actual firey place"?

Where indeed!

When the body is left behind, how is the heat felt?

Tell me, when the body is left behind, how is anything done or felt?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Oh. A mind reader.

What am I thinking now?

You're thinking you shouldn't have said everything in creation is good because now I will have to point out that includes anything you previously might have labeled evil....

Not even close. You don't read minds well at all, do you?

And just where is this "actual firey place"?

Where indeed!

Apparently, it's in your imagination.


When the body is left behind, how is the heat felt?

Tell me, when the body is left behind, how is anything done or felt?

I haven't a clue. I've been led to believe that when the body dies, it is no longer capable of feeling from the sensory organs.

But, then, lots of folks around this forum seem to believe that Hell is a really warm place, and everybody knows that the folks participating in this forum are "purty smart fellers", right?

[cyborg]

Not even close. You don't read minds well at all, do you?

No.

Please eludicate.

Everything in creation is good...

Apparently, it's in your imagination.

It's not my imagination.

I haven't a clue.

Right. So why are you making this stuff up?

But, then, lots of folks around this forum seem to believe that Hell is a really warm place, and everybody knows that the folks participating in this forum are "purty smart fellers", right?

I seem to believe that it's all made up crap. I'm just trying to get across that your made up crap hasn't really progressed just because you personally can see how ludicrous the firey hell version is in various respects.

[Huntster]

....I'm just trying to get across that your made up crap hasn't really progressed just because you personally can see how ludicrous the firey hell version is in various respects....

Just as ludicrous as the people who use it to put down my religious beliefs.

Adios, Oh Intelligent One.

[cyborg]

Just as ludicrous as the people who use it to put down my religious beliefs.

So you consider it a put down? I'm just asking the questions. You don't believe in a firey place because clearly such a place would be silly. You believe however that the spirit gets separated from your god forever. Yet for some reason although you think it would be silly for a sprit to be burnt in a firey place forever because it doesn't make sense to you for a spirit to sense heat, but you find it perfectly acceptable that there's some heaven where the spirit will be really happy forever because it is with its god?

Could you explain why this is less silly?

[Huntster]

...Could you explain why this is less silly?

Why bother? For your entertainment?

[Giz]

Are you doing a backdoor Abraham/Issac analogy?

Do you know nothing about the "test of faith"?



I'm not uncomfortable, and I don't refuse to think about anything.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with a test of faith. Ignore Abraham and Isaac for a moment.

Either God might (in our thought experiment) order someone to rape a baby, or he wouldn't ever do that.

If he wouldn't ever do that, because he is a nice guy an' all, then there must be an external set of ethics that God refers to that lets him know it's bad.

If what he says/does is always good by definition, then he could order it (and it would be "good").

[scimystic]

We've discussed this before, but I'd like an actual response from a religious person.

Dawkins points out God is the worst fictional character to ever exist.

Why? The vast majority of people will be tortured for ever and ever. Not even just left dead. Resurrected and heaved into a lake of lava or some such.

Not just Hitler, but Mary down the street who helps the poor but who refuses to believe in Jesus.

Worse, people who are misled by the devil, a masterful deceiver, are held accountable and tortured, too.

And God only just misses being the worst theoretical being possible in that He's only going to torture for ever and ever the vast majority of whoever lived, not every single person.

How can the religious person reconcile that in their own mind?


Bravo Beerina,

If I may suggest some even heavier ammo for that nice weapon that you're carrying around: Your Dawkins statements constitute a briefer and weaker form of the argument by Raymond D Bradley, titled 'A Moral Argument for Atheism', that is No.12 in Martin and Monnier's book 'The Impossibility of God' [ISBN 1-59102-120-0]. Bradley's argument proposes 5 behaviors which, between them, pretty well summarize the most morally heinous things that could possibly be done to sentient beings. He then quotes the exact King James Bible references of God doing, or causing to be done, all of these things to us. I find it the most powerful argument in the book, but there are also a lot of other good ones.

Best regards, and good hunting,

Scimystic

[Just Me]

I think an important desicion we should try to note when talking about religions, and especially the christians, is if we consider the constant revisions of their text to represent a wont of their deity, or an adjustment to us human's evolving sense of morality. Back in the day, that god did toss people into hell like nobody's business. These day's he's accepting gays in the back door.


Can you pls repeat that last sentence for me again:D
Sorry if someone already got to it.

[Just Me]

Satan wants you to burn forever? If he hates God, wouldn't he not torture people for ever and ever, just to piss off God?

Technically speaking, Satan made his first appearance in the story of Job, where satan could do all the damage he wanted to do to Job. "Satan" came from "satan", a Hebrew word meaning, "an opposer or accuser". Satan did not become an entity until the New Testament.
The Jews seemed to have left the possiblity open for more satans/accusers.
Therefore there is no main bad guy who wants you to burn forever. Just God, who drinks a lot of beer.
Or God plus a few of his jerky poker buddies.

[cyborg]

Why bother? For your entertainment?

Yes.

[Just Me]

Do you think the application of the word "torture" will work against God as it has worked on the American public after the Abu Graib scandal?

If one rejects God, and is sent to a place devoid of God, is that "torture", or is it what the spirit wants?



Really?

Do you get a daily newsletter, or something?



Are you doing a backdoor Abraham/Issac analogy?

Do you know nothing about the "test of faith"?



Again, the eternal torture thing is your own interpretation of the obvious.



I'm not uncomfortable, and I don't refuse to think about anything.
Crap yes, God changes his mind. Read your bible.
Matt 11:28- God will releive us of our burdens.
Heb 12:6- God gives us burdens.

numbers 11:33-sickness is caused by god.
job 2:7 -sickness caused by satan

james 1:13-god does not tempt
james 1:2-temptation is joy
matt 6:13, deut 4:34, 8:2, judges 2:22-God tempts.

Any christian should be fully prepared to rape a child, if they fully read and beleive the bible.

2 Samuel 20:10- a man's bowels fall to the ground from a blade wound.
1 Chron 20:3 2 Sam 12:31-David cuts up his captives with a saw
Psalms 137:9-Happy shall be he that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Hos 13:16 Dashing of infants and ripping of pregnant women.
Genesis 19:30-38 Lot knocks up his 2 daughters.

Kind of makes one sick 'huh?

[Rufo]

Technically speaking, Satan made his first appearance in the story of Job, where satan could do all the damage he wanted to do to Job. "Satan" came from "satan", a Hebrew word meaning, "an opposer or accuser". Satan did not become an entity until the New Testament.
The Jews seemed to have left the possiblity open for more satans/accusers.
Therefore there is no main bad guy who wants you to burn forever. Just God, who drinks a lot of beer.
Or God plus a few of his jerky poker buddies.
Could you define 'is'? I thought this was a discussion about fictional characters, into which Satan qualifies just as much as the 'God' in the OP. And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how someone who wants to send everyone to hell and personally supervise their torture is less evil than someone who wants to send some people (no matter how many) to hell.

When I started to think about it, I also noticed that the statement
The vast majority of people will be tortured for ever and ever.
is not and can not be proven either - even if you assume that everyone who doesn't follow every petty commandment goes to hell and burns forever. Do you have any information about how many people will qualify for heaven, even by these ridiculous rules, in the future?

[Just Me]

Could you define 'is'? I thought this was a discussion about fictional characters, into which Satan qualifies just as much as the 'God' in the OP. And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how someone who wants to send everyone to hell and personally supervise their torture is less evil than someone who wants to send some people (no matter how many) to hell.

When I started to think about it, I also noticed that the statement

is not and can not be proven either - even if you assume that everyone who doesn't follow every petty commandment goes to hell and burns forever. Do you have any information about how many people will qualify for heaven, even by these ridiculous rules, in the future?
Definition
Is; something to do w/ Monica Lewinsky.;)

Religious culture teaches that if someone (A) has the ability to do good or to save a life of another (B), then the person (A) should. This is shown in the words of jesus--Matthew 29:39-40
39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

If God has the ability to save us all but doesn't, he wouldn't be following his own teachings and is a hypocrit.
God has the ability to save us all but doesn't, so he is a hypocrit.

I will searchthe bible today for a passage re Beerina's post. It won't be an exact number though, something along the lines of, "Only through Jesus are you saved". Since Christianity accts for about 33% of the world's population http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0904108.html it would seem 2/3 of the current world popualtion is going to the deep, dark pit.

[Huntster]

....Any christian should be fully prepared to rape a child, if they fully read and beleive the bible....
....Kind of makes one sick 'huh?

Yes. Statements like that are nauseating.

[AWPrime]

Yes, the bible is anything but divine.

[Just Me]

Yes. Statements like that are nauseating.

You may be misunderstanding me.
I believe anyone who reads these actions in a book, and still proclaims the book to be inspired by god, revolting.
If these actions I referenced from the bible offend you, it is the bible that offends you, not me.
Do not attack my statements concerning disgusting portions of the bible that Christians consistently gloss over.

Of course I may be misunderstanding you and you are not attacking me, but agreeing w/ me. If that is the case I apologize.
Considering all the other things God's people have done in the name of God, violating a child could easily become a possiblity.

edited to add 2 commas

[Huntster]

...Considering all the other things God's people have done in the name of God, violating a child could easily become a possiblity....

In your sick mind, clearly.

As a believer in God and as a Christian, I consider your statement an insult.

[Humphreys]

In your sick mind, clearly.

As a believer in God and as a Christian, I consider your statement an insult.

Well, eternal torture is a bit insulting to me, and the fact you worship that god even more so.

Why don't you refute the arguments made, instead of feigning disgust?

[Just Me]

In your sick mind, clearly.

As a believer in God and as a Christian, I consider your statement an insult.
1-you believe in God
2-you are a Christian

do you believe the bible to be the word of God?
If you do believe in the bible then YOU are the one who cannot reconcile the bible w/ itself.
You have done nothing recently in this thread but throw insults and call others names when shown evidence that you are wrong.
My references are from the bible. With that knowledge, consider who is the one truly insulting you, for it is not I.
I do not have a sick mind, I cleansed it from religion many years ago.

[Huntster]

Well, eternal torture is a bit insulting to me, and the fact you worship that god even more so....

That "eternal torture" is something of your own imagination. I have nothing to do with it, nor am I responsible for it.

...Why don't you refute the arguments made, instead of feigning disgust?

Refute his imaginative interpretation? Why?

[Huntster]

...I do not have a sick mind, I cleansed it from religion many years ago.

Now I'm going to cleanse my mind of you.

Adios.

*Click*

[Just Me]

Now I'm going to cleanse my mind of you.

Adios.

*Click*
Read your bible :p
So long, Templar Troll.

[Humphreys]

That "eternal torture" is something of your own imagination. I have nothing to do with it, nor am I responsible for it.

Refute his imaginative interpretation? Why?

I don't think you're taking your Bible very seriously.

God burns you folks for that, didn't you know.

[Huntster]

I don't think you're taking your Bible very seriously....

...God burns you folks for that, didn't you know.

No, I didn't.

Do you have some evidence of that claim?

[Humphreys]

No, I didn't.

Do you have some evidence of that claim?

No. Christianity is based on the Bible, and you don't take it seriously.

What could I possibly provide you?

[Huntster]

...What could I possibly provide you?

Obviously, absolutely nothing.

[Humphreys]

Obviously, absolutely nothing.

This thread and my comments are clearly about Christianity and the Bible, and you are clearly not a Christian, or a Bible believer.

We're arguing over nothing.

[Just Me]

No, I didn't.

Do you have some evidence of that claim?
I have evidence that
A) you do not take the bible seriously.
B) God will burn you forever.

a-read my above posts and your responses.
b-Revelation 20:15
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
King James Version

[Huntster]

This thread and my comments are clearly about Christianity and the Bible, and you are clearly not a Christian, or a Bible believer.

We're arguing over nothing.

So you and I have nothing further to discuss, correct?

[Humphreys]

So you and I have nothing further to discuss, correct?

Absolutely.

[Just Me]

Huntster, I could keep going

[Just Me]

Could you define 'is'? I thought this was a discussion about fictional characters, into which Satan qualifies just as much as the 'God' in the OP. And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how someone who wants to send everyone to hell and personally supervise their torture is less evil than someone who wants to send some people (no matter how many) to hell.

When I started to think about it, I also noticed that the statement

is not and can not be proven either - even if you assume that everyone who doesn't follow every petty commandment goes to hell and burns forever. Do you have any information about how many people will qualify for heaven, even by these ridiculous rules, in the future?

Rufo, sorry it took so long. Re
Originally Posted by Beerina :
The vast majority of people will be tortured for ever and ever.

Revelation 13:7-9--If you are not written in the book of life of the lamb you do not worship the lamb (JC).
We then look at Rev 20:15--If you're not in the book you are thrown into the lake of brimstone.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
So you and I have nothing further to discuss, correct?
Absolutely.

Thank you.

Goodbye.

[Humphreys]

Thank you.

Goodbye.

Yeah, cheers.

http://jameshumphreys.net/bonkers.gif

[Beerina]

Rufo, sorry it took so long. Re
Originally Posted by Beerina :
The vast majority of people will be tortured for ever and ever.

Revelation 13:7-9--If you are not written in the book of life of the lamb you do not worship the lamb (JC).
We then look at Rev 20:15--If you're not in the book you are thrown into the lake of brimstone.

I rest my case. If that is not the ultimate definition of the evilest thing that could be, I challenge you to come up with a worse one. Apologists try pretend that merely existing apart from god is your actual hell, but that doesn't jive with actual threats of physical torture.

[Huntster]

I rest my case....

....Apologists try pretend that merely existing apart from god is your actual hell, but that doesn't jive with actual threats of physical torture.

Ummmm.........your "case" is weak.

How can you undergo "physical torture" if your physical body is left behind?

Are you taking literally words that you condemn others for taking literally?

How does that work?

[jj]

Ummmm.........your "case" is weak.

How can you undergo "physical torture" if your physical body is left behind?

Are you taking literally words that you condemn others for taking literally?

How does that work?

Huntster, my good fellow, that is a very good question. How, then, do you account for the physical torment that is described for those who don't do 'x' in the bible?

Is the word of god inconsistant?

[Huntster]

Huntster, my good fellow, that is a very good question. How, then, do you account for the physical torment that is described for those who don't do 'x' in the bible?

Is the word of god inconsistant?

No, I believe the words written (translated) by humans in the Bible leave a lot to be interpreted, or visions (dreams) of the writers are seen literally.

[Just Me]

Ummmm.........your "case" is weak.

How can you undergo "physical torture" if your physical body is left behind?

Are you taking literally words that you condemn others for taking literally?

How does that work?
Ezekiel 37:13
And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
Apparently xtians should believe they will have bodies after death
We are only taking what you aleady profess to beleive and showing you the errors.

edited to add last sentence

[Just Me]

No, I believe the words written (translated) by humans in the Bible leave a lot to be interpreted, or visions (dreams) of the writers are seen literally.
Where do you interpret condoms to be bad from in the bible?

[Rufo]

I rest my case. If that is not the ultimate definition of the evilest thing that could be, I challenge you to come up with a worse one. Apologists try pretend that merely existing apart from god is your actual hell, but that doesn't jive with actual threats of physical torture.
You challenge someone to come up with a more evil character than the one you described in the OP?

To make this a actual challenge, I think I'll ask a five year old to come up with one. I'll be rather disappointed if he fails. And yes, I'm seriously going to do this. I'll post his response later.