"A good God wouldn't have a Hell"

I don't see how that makes sense, or what exactly you mean by that.


I'm trying to figure it out, but it strikes me as a very circular argument.
"To find out if a good god could have a hell, we need to determine if a god who has a hell can be good"

That seems so obvious, it really almost seems like just a different way of saying the same thing.

 

in order to talk about the topic of if a good god would have a hell, then we need to determine what a good god is, thus talk about what gods that have hells have been said to have done - are there any good gods that have a hell?

 

if you can't think of any good gods that have a hell, then the answer is probably "no, a good god would not have a hell"

name me one god that has not done evil things, that has a hell

 

That seems like an equivocation fallacy here. Yes, determining what a good god is is related to talking about if a good god would have a hell, but it is not related in the same sort of way to talking about whether a specific god is good.

I think you're still missing the overall connection between whether a specific god is good and whether a good god can have a hell.

 

That seems like a different argument. That seems like you are basically saying "It may be hypothetically possible for a good god to have a hell, but such a god does not actually exist".

Doesn't that fall outside of my argument in the opening post?

 

No, if I were a god I would not allow people to harm others, why would I allow atrocities, Im god!

 

I think that goes to a much deeper level than just what I brought up. You are raising the philosophical issue of how can a good God permit the existence of suffering, if he exists.

That is actually a much broader issue than the one I raised in the opening post.

If you want to discuss that in this thread, we would have to confine it to only why does God permit suffering in Hell.

 

EVERYONE! ANNOUNCEMENT! Here, on page 6-- where else?-- I have found Kazenatsu clearly stating the point of his thread: it would be possible for both a good God & Hell to exist, and the one does not preclude the other. So, basically what every Christian denomination maintains: that God is good; and that Hell exists.

I gotta be honest w/ you, Kaz-- it's kind of a let-down.

 

So in other words, if you were god, you wouldn't permit people to sin or do bad things?

 

No it is quite simple, if you were god you would have a hell because you would allow suffering, that is what you have alluded to, if I were god I would not allow suffering and therefore would not need hell. It is a difference in morals!

 

I thought that should have been obvious from the opening post and the title of this thread.

Why wasn't it?

Didn't you read the first line of the opening post?

 

Yes, and according to christian theology such a place exists, it is called heaven.

 

Well, that's not necessarily true. And that would be another discussion.

 

Yes, I am willing to agree with you. If God did not allow the existence of sin and suffering, then theoretically there would not be a Hell.

But I really wonder what life would actually be like if it was impossible to suffer. Wouldn't we all be a bunch of robots? What would "consciousness" actually look like?
What would motivating factors look like if any possibility of suffering were completely removed from the equation?

Take a baby who can feel nothing bad. How would you raise such a child?
If he keeps doing bad, or doesn't do something he should, how do you get them to do the right thing?

 

Revelation 21:4

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

What is revelation not true?

 

It would be heaven!

 

So you think this implies without a doubt that God would prevent anyone from being able to do anything bad in heaven?

 

I think what you are bringing up is a different issue. The theological issue of free will.
And the theological question of the existence of suffering.

I think those questions are much broader than the one I am bringing up in this thread.

And so I'm kind of going to consider them off-topic, in a way. Or at least, I definitely think they would be more appropriate to have their own separate thread.


But consider this:
If we are just going by your argument here alone, and we hypothetically added to that proof of God's existence, then it would follow that your argument would not imply there could be no Hell. Because your argument is that there could be no suffering if there was a good god, and obviously we see suffering in this world, so obviously then your argument would probably not really hold true about Hell either.

What I mean is that your argument isn't really an argument that Hell could not exist.

 

That and many other writings in the bible suggest there is no sin, no pain and no suffering in Heaven, are you denying that?

 

Of course you will, because that is how christian apologetics works, you wish to concentrate on the question of whether hell and a good god can coexist but not answer the question of why hell and a good god needs to exist!

 

No, I am happy to answer that question, but you do not seem to understand how that question is off-topic from what this thread is about.

Why can none of you stay on-topic? Why can't you realize all these other issues you are bringing up are not on topic?

 

It seemed that either you were saying 1) that wanting to punish sinners doesn't make God bad; we should judge God by the same standards as we judge ourselves (which is at least a more unconventional take; not even Catholics try to give a straight up justification of everything God does as, "Ahhh, you'd do the same thing, if you was God!"); or, especially after you're trying to tempt me to weigh-in on whether God's reserving, "vengeance," & punishment, only for Himself was contradictory, I thought you might 2) attempt to explain the useful purpose, or even the NECESSITY, of Hell, perhaps making the case that any God without a Hell was being like an overly-lax, & so bad, parent.

 

The two questions are linked, you cannot argue that a good god and hell can exist unless you show reason for that coexistence, heaven shows that god does not need hell.

 

Yes, that's basically what I was saying. That's pretty similar to, or implied by the title of this thread, I would think.

No, that's not what I said. I don't know what part of my statements you got that from.

I was however saying that it was not fair to judge God by standards you would not even hold to yourself.

Okay, that's true, but how is that bad argument?

Your argument, in that situation, would basically be "God is not good, but he's better than me"
Even if that were true, a lot of these same things would still be applicable, I think.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

(I'm not completely sure I understand what you are referring to by "that coexistence")


I thought that was what I was trying to do. You don't think I have been trying to explain how they can both exist?