"A good God wouldn't have a Hell"

Doofenshmirtz · Nov 4, 2020

DEFinning said: ↑

While the first part of your post (which deals w/ the earthly, self-professed, representatives of Divinities) sounds like a reasonable perspective, the thing that there TRULY is no reasonable possibility of, is that you could know-- from amongst all things unknown &, to date, unproven/unprovable-- which ones are at all, "possible." Surely any rational thinker would have to admit this. Science discovers things, on a regular basis, which beforehand, nary a logical-minded believer in the conventional, "scientific," viewpoint would have considered credible.

Dark matter, for instance, is now believed to constitute 85% of the mass of the universe; yet until that idea was proposed (w/ supporting evidence) in 1933, none of our most brilliant scientific minds would have considered it credible that all of the, "empty space," of the cosmos was actually full of the preponderance of its matter-- and we still don't know what comprises it!

For a very long time, any logically-thinking adherent to the scientific status quo used to be certain that we understood the physics of nature, & the nature of physics, until Niels Bohr and the other quantum physics trailblazers came along to show that, beneath a certain scale, all the contemporary expectations of physics got turned on their head.

Humans' limited technical abilities, as well, have long restricted our ability to ascertain truths. Before electron microscopes, we had no, "proof," of the existence of atoms, the foundation of all matter. Interestingly, a couple of thousand years ago, the Greek Democritus speculated on just such a concept: that all things were made up of the same basic thing, only in different configurations. Mainstream science, however, went with Aristotle's theory of, "humors," which held sway for more than a millennium.

Likewise, when it was initially shown that microscopic, "germs," caused illness, the idea-- because they could not be seen-- was first dismissed, then, later derided. Even after European physicians had adopted hand-washing, before & after surgery, I have heard that the AMA forbade American doctors from following this protocol, since it would demonstrate that they gave credence to this idea of, "invisible bugs," spreading disease. Though I honestly haven't found it easy-- not surprisingly-- to yet find documentation verifying this AMA policy, I DO know, that long before this, a Hungarian Dr. Semmelweis had this same thought & proved the efficacy of hand-washing at preventing the spread of disease; his were the findings that were disregarded. This, however, is easy for anyone to verify; in fact, there is an accepted scientific principle known as The Semmelweis Reflex," meaning a knee-jerk reflex to reject new evidence
contradicting established norms.

So, Doofenshmirtz (I honestly love the name, by the way), that leaves you 2 choices. No one is asking you to support any unproven concept. But you can follow the lead of the majority of the scientific community which poo-pooed Democritus, fought Gallileo, dismissed Semmelweis, & on and on, in an unbroken tradition through today (including having little if any initial appreciation of the important discovery of fractal geometry), by stipulating that, although, in the past, science had ignored important truths, because of its attachment to erroneous beliefs, NOW, however, we finally know enough to make definitive statements about things of which no conclusive proof or disproof exists;
or you can actually embrace the true scientific principle of basing judgements solely on observable, reproducible, definitive/conclusive evidence, of which-- in the case of there being some (Dark or Light) unseen force in the universe, called by many, "God--" the data is insufficient for you to state (even if you are not aware of any compelling evidence to suggest its reality), factually, that it is, "impossible," that such a thing could turn out to be true.

Come on, would you categorically deny the possibility of the speculative, unproven/provable scientific theories about multiple universes, holographic realities, & so forth? Then what's the difference, other than your personal impression? And since when has that been an unbiased, scientific measure?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. "God", as described by man, does not exist. An entity may have started the biological culture and sent us adrift in the universe. Heaven and hell, as described by man does not exist.

An Taibhse · Nov 4, 2020

There is a discussion in another thread regarding free will. If the universe is deterministic, and if you believe God knows all, including the future and free will doesn’t exist, then there can be no sin and no Hell for punishment for anything related to that determinism.
So, is God so all powerful to have created a completely deterministic world, thus knowing all outcomes as many suggest, or one not so powerful as that? Sins and Hell, or fate?

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 13, 2020

kazenatsu said: ↑

Many of you here have made the argument "If there were a good God, there wouldn't be a Hell".
This sounds like a seemingly reasonable argument on the surface, but it's actually an incredibly ignorant argument.

If I were God, I would have a Hell. And so would most of you. You just are too naive to realize it.

And there are some of you who will not be intellectually honest with yourselves, because you are just looking for any ammunition you can find against the idea that there might be a Hell, since it's an uncomfortable idea to you.

The idea that there would be no Hell would have to imply that God is able and willing to forgive all those people.
That's not even something you can do!
I don't think you're being truly honest or knowledgeable about yourself if you think you could.

Why do you keep complaining about the way God does things when the way you would do it would end up no better? That's like demanding an impossible standard for God that you yourself are unwilling or unable to do, if you were put in that position. It's applying an unfair double standard and hypocritical.

Maybe you just haven't had the experience of a person severely wronging you before?
I can pretty much guarantee you, there is something that another individual could do to you that would make you want that other individual to burn in Hell and suffer for a long time.

And let's please throw out the idea for a moment that "God doesn't force anyone to go to Hell".
Some people deserve Hell. Many people deserve Hell. Probably much more than you think, and many more who are not that far away from it.

There are a bunch of naive idealists out there who believe "humanity is mostly good, humanity is inherently good". Well, that's really the root at which they go wrong.

If bad people were unpunished for what they did bad, and refused to change or be sorry, how could God be good?
Wouldn't we be saying God was not good, if that was the case?
(In fact there are plenty of atheists using the argument that there can't be a good God because bad people seem to go unpunished)
Click to expand...

God is Love but he is also just. https://www.gotquestions.org/witnessing-Muslims.html

Witnessing to Muslims - what is the key?

Question: "Witnessing to Muslims - what is the key?"

Answer: As a preface to this article, please see our article on “What is Islam, and what do Muslims believe?” Through the gospel of Jesus Christ, God offers—and true disciples of Jesus have received—that which everyone in the world, including every Muslim, needs and many long for: forgiveness for their sins, a loving heavenly Father with whom they can communicate personally, and assurance that eternal happiness awaits them beyond this life. The key to witnessing to a Muslim is getting him to understand that Islam does not offer these things and that Christianity most certainly does. In fact, Christianity is the only religion that does.

Muslims use much of the same terminology that appears in the Bible: sin, salvation, heaven, hell, one God, law, and punishment. What is missing from their lexicon is the word “savior.” The Muslim does not believe that he needs a savior because he believes he alone must atone for his sin by his works. Islam teaches that man is born sinless and, therefore, does not have a sin nature from which he needs to be saved. His sinlessness was corrupted by external influences and can, therefore, be ‘cleaned up’ by works and efforts that please Allah. The Qur’an tells the Muslim that his good deeds can cancel out his bad deeds (Sura 11:114), but no one knows how many good deeds are enough. Muslims believe they can ask Allah for forgiveness from sins, but Allah may or may not forgive them. There is, therefore (and this is the key), no assurance of salvation for Muslims.

Muslims believe one must be sorry for sin and repent of it, but the idea that payment for sin is required by a holy God is not part of Islam. It’s important to begin with the idea that being sorry for sin will not help the Muslim when he stands before a holy God on Judgment Day. Ask the Muslim if a murderer will be allowed to go free if he says he’s sorry in court. Most Muslims would agree that, if the judge is a good man, he must make sure justice is done. Being sorry won’t keep the murderer out of prison. Then ask the Muslim if he believes he will go to heaven. Muslims believe in the Law of Moses, so ask if he has kept each one of the commandments perfectly. Once he admits he has lied at some time in his life or lusted after a woman in his heart, ask him, if an earthly judge can’t pardon a murderer just because he is sorry, how can Allah forgive him when he has just admitted to being a liar or an adulterer in his heart? If he’s at all honest, he will admit this is impossible. At this point, you can say that God made it possible for him to go to heaven even though he can’t get there on his own. Preach Jesus Christ as our substitute for sin, our Savior from sins we cannot atone for ourselves. If you bring up the fact that Jesus is the Son of God or allude to the Trinity, be prepared for a broader discussion, as those ideas are anathema to Muslims.

Again, the key to witnessing to Muslims is their lack of assurance. Islam teaches that Allah was the source of both the Bible and the Qur’an, so they are willing to listen to passages from the Bible. Passages that speak to the wickedness of man’s heart (Psalm 14:1-3; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:9-18), the holiness of God (Exodus 15:11; 1 Samuel 2:2; Joshua 24:19; Psalm 93:5) and His hatred for sin (Deuteronomy 25:16; Proverbs 6:16-19) will drive home the need for a Savior. As long as the Muslim believes he can atone for sin himself, the message of the gospel will be foolishness to him. If he comes to understand that “no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law” (Romans 3:20), the door is open for the light of the gospel to shine in his heart.
Click to expand...

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 13, 2020

kazenatsu said: ↑

You're still going back to the widely perpetuated myth that the God in the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament.
Sometime I'm going to have to start a thread to debunk that idea.
Click to expand...

Jesus is the judge of the great white throne judgement. He isnt the hippie some people think he was.

kazenatsu · Nov 13, 2020

An Taibhse said: ↑

There is a discussion in another thread regarding free will. If the universe is deterministic, and if you believe God knows all, including the future and free will doesn’t exist, then there can be no sin and no Hell for punishment for anything related to that determinism.
Click to expand...

I've realized that any of these religious/philosophical arguments have near countless different sub-arguments, and it's practically impossible to be able to discuss them all in one single discussion thread, while still giving them all the attention they deserve.
In other words it's just very complicated, to be able to properly carry out an argument about this sort of topic.
I think we need better organization in these type of threads, where another sub-argument can be mentioned, but a link is given to a separate thread and that sub-argument stops there, as far as this thread is concerned.

I think we can all degree that the predeterminism philosophical argument is deserving of its own separate thread.

Log in or Sign up

"A good God wouldn't have a Hell"

Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

An Taibhse Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

"A good God wouldn't have a Hell"

Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

An Taibhse Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches