"A good God wouldn't have a Hell"

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by kazenatsu, Oct 15, 2020.

  1. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @kazenatsu. Re: PREBUTTAL

    As opposed to my, "wasting time," with my objection (post #349), I will point out that we are 14 pages & over 300 replies into your thread, & neither you nor anyone else has put up a single, Hell-leasing God, traditional or newly-minted, to test the question posed in your OP. If there are any complaints about the disorganized character of this thread, they must fall at the door of the one who suggested an appraising of the, "good," of any God (whose holdings included a certain designated-use property), without suggesting a metric by which to measure goodness!

    When I initially brought this up (in post #310), you felt it could be waved away under the banner of, "moral relativism," as if it was a given that we would all agree upon what passed for good in a deity. I responded to your objection in posts #318 & #320, suggesting some options but, like post #332, you've chosen to ignore them, in leiu of running with your own fast-&-loose rules.

    To be clear, in my self-quoted excerpt (#349), when I used the word, "objective," I'd been referring to the earlier ideas in the post from which the excerpt had come, so a more accurate description would be, "other than your own, personal judgement." You could suggest a DEFINITION (for good) that would be useful in settling disputes. Or you could use the moral code of the deity in question, though that would inevitably lead to the REAL question of this thread: is GOD entitled to be Hypocritical, or should It be expected to behave in the same manner as that which it prescribes for Its, "people?"

    Though, honestly, I've come to see this thread as your attempt-- for what reason I couldn't say-- to JUSTIFY the creation, not the concept, of Hell.
     
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you argue against the idea that God's system (assume it is hypothetical) of making those suffer who deserve to suffer, and trying to save others, is good?

    If I explain what the (hypothetical) system is, then try to argue against that being good, if you want.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Christians believe God sent himself (inasmuch as it were possible) to live a life as human in the form of Jesus. So to claim God is being hypocritical would seem to be asinine.

    Unless you are referring to God not being hypocritical in a way that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which would be another issue.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a rather difficult question to unravel, since God is (presumably) in a much superior position to humans. God can morally do many things that humans cannot.

    I'm not sure that is necessarily hypocritical.

    The one who gave life can justifiably take it. Not just gives life but sustains it.

    Now that's certainly something the majority of pro-choice abortion supporters argue, so I assume you will not argue with that.

    (And it would take another long explanation to explain why Christians would not see that same logic applying to the issue of abortion, but that is off-topic here)

    Then on top of that, God is presumably in a much superior moral and intellectual position to be able to know what should be done.

    And lastly, things can seem one way to us, but different to God. For example, if God kills, he really sees the soul as moving to another form.
    So from that perspective it is not killing. Humans cannot use that same justification, because for one thing they do not know with absolute certainty that there is life after death, so they would be guilty.

    I'm not sure how much of this is related to the topic though.
    I am trying to answer your questions you've raised only insofar as much as they relate to the original topic.

    What is it exactly about Hell that makes you feel God is being hypocritical?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  5. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not make a judgement of the presumably hypocritical concept of Hell. I must say PRESUMABLY because you have not, yet, offered up either a God (w/ Its Laws, if it is not a god with which we all should be familiar) nor a proposed Hell (even if you go w/ a, "standard," on this part, however, there are nothing but very general, Biblical descriptions, so I DO think you need to put forth some specifics for this-- is Hell utter destruction, or eternal burning, in a lake of fire?; is it merely being cast away from God, blinded, to wail & grind one's teeth in the infinite night?; or perhaps a Dante-esque, graded version?; maybe something more of the Inquisitional, torturing variety?; or a highly-individualized type of, "private hell?"). So the possibilities all, STILL, remain open.

    You could, for instance, propose a God who calls out to those who listen, that it is right to seek vengeance for any of one's grievances, & to use whatever measure in dispensing that justice one deems, "equitable," (or that balance, in one's response, is only for fools), in which case it is doubtful there would be any incongruities with respect to the operation of, "Hell."

    Nor is, for the unique purposes of this thread, the word hypocritical to be taken, necessarily, as a criticism. Perhaps you will be able to show a good reason for the seeming contradiction, an over-riding importance for Hell-- as I'd posted I had possibly been looking for from you, back when you were saying that you only intended to vouch for the Christian tenets that Hell exists & that God is good-- or that it is unreasonable to expect parity in divine vs. mortal behavior, but you cannot deny that there IS an apparent double-standard, in the ideas of the general Christian public, between what is OK for us versus what's OK for God.

    Again, I would be UNABLE to take a position, either way, as to how this impacts my impression of God's, "goodness," because we are all still waiting for you to postulate your first example. So, yes, by all means, do, "explain what the (hypothetical) system is!"
    It would be nice to finally get this thread started!
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought I made it clear enough. "Hell" was defined very generally (at least for the purpose of this thread) as a place of suffering.

    This thread was just a hypothetical that there could both be a good God and a Hell, it would not be logically inconsistent.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  7. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WHERE IN THE OP DID IT SAY THIS THREAD IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN GOD? I coulda swore this was about any hypothetical concept of, "God." If I was not mistaken, then it would be INFINITELY ASININE for the person who mis-stated his true intent, to go calling posters who went by what he'd written, "asinine--"
    unless that person was trying to outdo himself in ASININITY, by suggesting that only an ass would not be able to read his mind.

    Let me add that this is NOT THE FIRST TIME, you have leapt to throwing the word, "asinine," in my direction, w/o cause-- Mr., " but that would open the door to the validity of tribalism (sic)," gibberish-talker-- & F.Y.I., your unwarranted, insulting manner hardly recommends you as a source for wisdom on Divine nature, that even an ass should deem credible!
     
  8. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sin created Hell.. Sin is offensive to God.. he must keep it far away. God deniers are surprised when he consigns there immortal souls to a place far away? I think the "lake of fire" Hell would be a preference to the total sensory deprived existance (or lack of) imagine eternity with NO STimuli what so ever. Sensory deprivation tanks will drive humans nuts in a matter of days, if not hours.
     
  9. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That quote tells all of us, just how penetrating was the thought applied to this argument: the type of suffering, its intensity, its duration, its purpose, in this, "hypothetical Hell," are all irrelevant to its ultra-superficial contemplation of whether there, "could both be a good God & a Hell," w/o logical inconsistency. So it shouldn't be a factor, in the clouded analysis we are to consider, whether one is to pay for one's moral transgressions by having one's eyes & skin slowly peeled away, a layer at a time, or if one is instead forced to listen to the Spin Doctors-- as long as you consider it, "suffering."

    But to be fair, the indulgence of this argument's extravagant conceit does not even require kazenatsu's, "limited," description of Hell; if God is considered to be the Creator of the world-- &, spoiler alert, to those not in the know, the indeterminate God of the thread has, secretly, been limited also, to the One that sent Jesus to die on the cross-- and so could then be considered responsible for mankind & the world, which is KNOWN to be, "a place of suffering," then the whole concept of kaz's vaguely proposed Hell is moot.

    The clear-headed way one could have, instead, posed the question, is the way it often has been put, in the past: how can God be good if he allows so much suffering (for kaz: in the world; no Hell required)?
    For myself, I accept that suffering is part of life; I don't go so far as those who propose that it's all, "for our own benefit/growth, etc." Which, to clarify for those-- or rather, for the one particular, omnipresent person in this thread who has a history of leaping to preposterous conclusions-- who think that I am, "denying," that we can benefit from struggles, or that adversity is essential to life, I am not, & did not say so. I do not restrict my views to such a simplistic view. Sometimes, suffering has a purpose; other times, it serves no higher end (unless God is just a sadist, which wouldn't make me feel any better about my trials). Just look around at Nature, & the way things suffer in death. Is it conceivable that every paralyzed, but conscious, insect used for a larder for another insect's brood, that every drowned kitten or abused puppy, serves the greater, "good?" (Note: in this thread, the definition of that last word is, after numerous requests, still unavailable).

    Nevertheless, I do not have the expectation that, "God," should necessarily take care of me. But I do believe in a Universal Consciousness, which does qualify as, "God." So, with my current, limited knowledge of God's, "purpose," I do not see the mere existence of suffering-- 'cause after all the sound & fury, that's the only thing kazenatsu is talking about-- as being a disqualifying condition for the, "goodness (to keep to the primer terminology of the OP)" of God; which I am also not 100% sure of.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  10. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you name one god denier that you KNOW has had his immortal soul consigned anywhere, my guess is you are just making it up and have no evidence for any such thing.
     
  11. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In fairness the OP does use the term God as opposed to god which is the way normally used to denote the christian god. But he has flip flopped about which god he means when the questions have got difficult about christianity!
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  12. pitbull

    pitbull Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    6,149
    Likes Received:
    2,857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think Islam or Judaism is made for you, but not Christianty. Just give them a try.
    I guess you've already done that. :)
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  13. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only Christians capitalize, "God?" I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about that. It reminds me of Anthony Scalia, hearing a case related to religious symbols in government cemeteries, at the Supreme Court, saying that he believed that crosses were universal symbols of a gravesites. One of the presenting lawyers had to gingerly suggest, "not in a Jewish cemetery." Jews don't capitalize the word, "God," if they're writing for a gentile audience?

    I'm pretty sure an Amerindian believer in Great Spirit, capitalizes that term. Are you suggesting that if he was writing about a hypothetical, "God," for the purpose of a some kind of argument, but conceivably was thinking of, or at least including his own, he wouldn't capitalize, "God?" How many examples would you like me to give? If a Muslim were making kazenatsu's, "hypothetical," argument, he wouldn't use an upper-case, "G," to refer to a being that is defined to include Allah?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  14. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Was this thread limited to Christians; I must've missed that. In fact, since the OP never mentions either Christianity or Jesus, your claim that my citing the, "seeming hypocrisy," of a God telling Its followers to do as It says, not as It does (not as a criticism but as a statement of fact) "would seem to be asinine"--provided you understand the meaning of hypocrisy-- would seem to be simpletonistic.

    Below is the misleading OP, for anyone interested. Am I the only one who doesn't see that, for all hypothetical elements of it, it is clearly limiting itself to Christianity's God, the Father?
    If so, how does kazenatsu know that when those, "plenty of atheists using the argument that there can't be a good God because bad people seem to go unpunished," they're all referring specifically to the Christian God? I hadn't realized atheists played such favorites in criticizing, "God." Is that because they think all the other Gods are nonsense?




     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's about a God, in general. Any possible God that could fit the parameters. If a certain possible Christian God could be seen as fitting the parameters, then I think I have adequately proven my point.
    I don't think I even have to prove the Bible describes that it is such a God, I just have to show that there could hypothetically be a good God who has a Hell.

    If you view Christ as a hypothetical possibility, without having to prove it, then I think I can still use that in the argument. (i.e. God could have sent Christ, so he could be good)

    The argument is there could be a good God and a Hell, that a concept of both those elements existing together is not necessarily logically inconsistent. The argument here is not that there is a good God and a Hell.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
    ToddWB likes this.
  16. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting. The principle of Jesus' can be summed up as "love one another as God loves you" or, for the more secular version "love one another as you love yourself." Everything else just leads up to that, including unlimited forgiveness.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  17. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, that does happen.
     
  18. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's one perspective about that:

    Hell was not an invention of God. Rather, according to Pope John Paul II in a 1999 audience, “It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life.”

    Hell, in other words, proceeds from the very nature of mortal sin. God doesn’t send people to hell; it is something they choose for themselves.

    An analogy might help. Imagine you are on a ship that is searching for survivors from a sunken ocean liner. You see a passenger struggling in the waves behind you. You throw a lifeline to him, but he refuses to grab it. You beg him to take hold of the lifeline, but he ignores your plea. Eventually, he sinks below the waves and drowns. Does his drowning indicate that you were indifferent? When you begged him to grab the lifeline, were you displaying hate? Was his drowning your fault?

    The answer to all these questions is: no. The person in the water, for whatever reason, refused your help. His drowning was the consequence.

    It is similar to God’s love. He throws lifelines constantly to people who have fallen into serious sin. He had even sent his Son to teach them to take hold of the lifeline and to warn them what they risk if they don’t. To help people gain salvation, Jesus was even willing to die on a cross. Yet, he won’t force salvation on anyone. He respects their free will too much.​

    https://rcspirituality.org/ask_a_priest/ask-a-priest-if-god-loves-us-so-much-why-does-hell-exist/

    Keep in mind it is just one perspective and does not necessarily represent the views of all Christians.


    Here's another perspective:

    According to the Bible, God's nature is both perfect justice and perfect love. Both of these are equally powerful, and neither can be compromised.
    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/med...send-people-to-hell-the-craig-bradley-debate/
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
    ToddWB likes this.
  19. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If that were so, then why, when I said:
    You replied:
    MY POSTULATED THEORY is that you are clearly full of crap. Prove me wrong. You say your thread s about ANY God. I suggested that if you were to judge ANY Deity, by the moral code they dictate for their followers, there will SEEM to be an hypocrisy which (for people who understand English) is not the same as calling ANY specific God a Hypocrite.

    Yet you cite CHRISTIAN Beliefs, + a misrepresentation of what I said, to = my statement is, "asinine."

    So YOU start a thread, intended to JUDGE the, "goodness," of any God w/ a Hell; but if someone just mentions the discrepency between the rules for devotees vs. those for their Gods--
    rather than to confront the issue of seeming hypocrisy, which is obviously included in your thread's appraising of goodness--

    you hurl a pejorative term at the person trying to participate in your thread, because you take it to be insulting to Christians-- & THEN, claim that your thread is not specifically about the Christian Trinity!
    I defy you to come up with any reading of our exchange other than that the, so called, "arguments," you make must always be suspect of being nothing but B.S.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  20. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Excellent kazenatsu! Love the analogy.. I'm using it! (please) and I might add.. the definitive post of this thread.. as far as I am concerned, you have answered the question.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  21. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly when Christianity contradicts itself he says it is not about Christianity then uses non contradictory Christian teachings to back up what ever he wants.

    The point is Christians find it very hard to actually think about their religion.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so where do the good nonbelievers go

    I think if Christians stuck with only bad people go to hell, they would do better off

    saying those that believe different then they do will go to hell is more offensive
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2020
  23. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do. Causing people who have done bad things to suffer just for the sake of them suffering and with no benefit such as rehabilitation or work done for the community or as an example to dissuade others from doing the same behaviour, is wrong. It accomplishes nothing but to make yourself a bad person too.

    And when putting this is the religious context, what is “bad” according to bible god often isn’t bad at all. He usually punishes for disobedience to his claimed authority, not immorality.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2020
  24. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is it.. end of thread..
     
  25. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In that case, it seems to me that the, "thread," could have been concluded in a single post.

    No disrespect to Pope John Paul 2, I don't even think he gave a very good analogy (in immediately-preceding post). Imagine that your shipwreck victim is in a state of shock. Maybe they've been circled by sharks for the last quarter-hour. So if a member of the Coast Guard threw a line to someone who was too frozen in fear or shock to take hold of it, in the opinion of you, kazenatsu, & the Pope, that officer would have sufficiently done his duty? You don't think, in that case, the person sent to save them would, him/herself, jump into the water to save the person? And you think, in the Coast Guard Captain's report, if he said, "Were only able to save half of the boat's passengers, as the rest did not grab hold of floatation devices thrown w/in their reach; this left no other alternative for me & my crew but to watch them drown," that the Captain wouldn't be brought up on serious charges?
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2020

Share This Page