Should religious folks have a serious objection to hell?

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

Re: Justice's question last page:

I'd argue that God's reasons for sending people to heaven or hell must in fact be arbitrary. There are evil things that God does or has done. So, he must be either not omnibenevolent all the time or not omniscent all the time. Therefore, his assignments of people to heaven or hell must be either sometimes wrong or arbitrary, and thus people ought to have a strong objection to the idea of hell.

Divine Command Theory is the end result of deciding that God must be the final arbiter of morality. I only added it in for general education purposes for anyone who doesn't know of it, and to preempt anyone objecting on the basis of, "You violated God's command that action X is evil, therefore you must go to hell, no exceptions". Also, if I were to demonstrate that God has done evil things (thus proving my point above) the only logical objection would be to respond with the divine command theory: that is, morality is not independent of God, so action Z that God did was not evil.

edited 18th Feb '11 5:31:59 PM by darksidevoid

@Thorn 14 Fine, fine. I am in no mood to argue.

@Justice But that would be way too much work!

Could an omnipotent God change this? Could He make 1+1 equal 3? Certainly, He could make everyone believe that it was the case, He could twist reality so that somehow, it makes sense, but only through active, constant interference.

I don't see how that's necessary. If He could make that twist at all, He could just do it permanently.

I've been pretty vocal about my opinion of a religion that damns nonbelivers to hell before, so, I dont really feel like bringing that up again. Here's something I've been thinking about though,the emphasis of love when it comes to Christianity, even the people who've dissacociated themselves from the organized groups. What if you dont want to love anyone? Its something I've noticed increasingly about myself lately, I dont want to love these people I'm told I should love. I dont love God, I dont love my fellow man, the thought sickens me. No, not just sickens me, it infuriates me. Neither of these have given me anything but grief my whole life, why am I expected to love them?

Sure, humans beings suck sometimes. Love them anyway.

I'm not really sure how to answer the 'why' part though. It seems pretty self-evident to me.

Yes, but I DONT love them. In fact, Im pretty certain I dislike them. A lot. I cant just turn that on because I'm told its an ideal I should live up to.

@SS And you can't work on that?

Why would I? I have no interest in loving them, I actively despise most of them.

I cant just turn that on because I'm told its an ideal I should live up to.

Well, I'd suggest it because hating everything just makes you miserable, but that's rather off-topic  ^*

edited 18th Feb '11 6:08:52 PM by Tzetze

~thread-hoppi~

I would object, but it wouldn't be my place to interject either. God is like the government, and government is like landscape. If it's a fact of life, then I had best make the best of it and save as many as I can.

Personally though, I believe "fire and brimstone hell" is a complete load of garbage. A hell exists, I believe, but it isn't hell in the sense of the word as we know it.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

@SS Do you know how many people there are in the world?

Wierd as it sounds, you can despise them and love them at the same time. Just become a Knight in Sour Armour.

edited 18th Feb '11 6:11:36 PM by LoniJay

^^ Sure, but its impossible for me to get to know all of them, and from the reference pool I have encountered so far in my life, I've gotten little more than rejection and abuse. So forgive me if Im not willing to embrace the rest either.

^ ...Fairly certain thats not what love is. Atleast not as far as I understand it.

edited 18th Feb '11 6:12:09 PM by SilentStranger

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

I'm pretty sure I've heard a couple of talks on religion which claimed that the 'torture' of hell could be construed as either the absence of God or the absence of Heaven.

I don't know how widespread that view is, or how valid.

I'm pretty sure I've heard a couple of talks on religion which claimed that the 'torture' of hell could be construed as either the absence of God or the absence of Heaven.

That's actually the impression that I've gotten from the Bible.

The story of the Rich man and Lazarus is typically pointed to as evidence of a fire and brimstone hell, but a prudent theologian will notice heavy symbolism present.

It's not widespread enough.

edited 18th Feb '11 6:16:43 PM by KCK

I believe it's fairly widespread. Among religous people I know, at least.

& &

Well, that's very reassuring. I've always preferred that view simply because it makes an omni-benevolent God less "in name only".

I'd argue that God's reasons for sending people to heaven or hell must in fact be arbitrary. There are evil things that God does or has done. So, he must be either not omnibenevolent all the time or not omniscent all the time. Therefore, his assignments of people to heaven or hell must be either sometimes wrong or arbitrary, and thus people ought to have a strong objection to the idea of hell.

People actually do have a strong objective to the “classical” interpretation of Hell as we’ve discussed.

Though, I think the idea that “If you’re religious you should have a problem with God being arbiter of final rewards because he can’t be omnipotent,” doesn’t quite work because if you’re religious in the Christian sense then you’re fine with God’s judgment and accept any judgment.

Though it sounds to me you’re more discussing justifying punishment when foreknowledge is involved. In which case, you have Calvinism which is sort of reconciling with the idea that God chooses who to save beforehand. Or one can add free will into the discussion while being mindful of omnipotence.

And you can't work on that?

Given his experiences, why should he? It's rather futile and foolish to make a commandment out of a feeling.