Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Andrewf20

lmaopml wrote: »

Yet we eat sausages, but give out about temple sacrifice? People ate the flesh of the lamb at passover too, it was not wasted, no. It was part and parcel of Passover to respect the lamb in doing so, and it's life giving properties.

I was thinking more about this last night and its a valid comment about how we "sacrifice" animals for a morning fry up. Its something I hadnt considered. However, I dont see how it as an efficient vehicle for cleansing a person of sin.

Perhaps a more logical idea would be for God to order you to apologise to whoever you may have sinned against, and offer up a suitable favour to make it up to the person you have offended.

This leads me onto another angle I thought about in relation to Leviticus: - that if say a priest has sinned and caused grave suffering to another person, where does Leviticus take into account the feelings of the offended? It seems to imply that when you sacrifice an animal you sin is nullified despite the pain you have imposed thru your sinful act. In other words the animal sacrifice does nothing to eleviate the hardships you have imposed to the afflicted person.

Adamas

lmaopml wrote: »

Sorry

The EO tradition is not so far off the Western understanding - Hell is not being with God. Hell is where God is not, it's a state of being that is so distant that goodness doesn't penetrate it. Everything about God is good and perfect, his judgement and indeed mercy too - however nobody can approach him without being Holy. Sin is not Holy - Jesus came to save man from himself, from sin. This was an act of mercy and love, an invitation to take his outstretched hand and let him guide the way.

But my question about this kind of thinking is, how can you ever be 'far from God', even in 'Hell' if God is 'everywhere'? Are you saying that 'Hell' either doesn't exist because God is not there, and if he is not there, then he can't be 'everywhere'. What does this mean?

lmaopml

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I was thinking more about this last night and its a valid comment about how we "sacrifice" animals for a morning fry up. Its something I hadnt considered. However, I dont see how it as an efficient vehicle for cleansing a person of sin.

Some really very good questions there Andrew.... In saying that, I am not a great theologian, just a lay person, so if I say anything it's my own understanding - and is open to correction.

Perhaps a more logical idea would be for God to order you to apologise to whoever you may have sinned against, and offer up a suitable favour to make it up to the person you have offended.

Well certainly - in Scripture we are told that we should forgive our brother or ask forgiveness, before approaching God for forgiveness. This is the idea or concept of eliminating the total effect of sin.

Matthew 6:15

But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Luke 6:37

ju“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Also, you must remember the Lords prayer too - The Our Father.

This leads me onto another angle I thought about in relation to Leviticus: - that if say a priest has sinned and caused grave suffering to another person, where does Leviticus take into account the feelings of the offended? It seems to imply that when you sacrifice an animal you sin is nullified despite the pain you have imposed thru your sinful act. In other words the animal sacrifice does nothing to eleviate the hardships you have imposed to the afflicted person.

Well Leviticus is part of a time and place in the OT, where the Isrealites were only learning about salvation as much as they could at that point in time - They had laws prescribed, very many weren't to do with 'salvation' in Leviticus, but were actually in relation to keeping order among what seems to be a pretty wild people..

As far as if a priest sinned and caused suffering in the OT, or indeed anybody has - the sin can be forgiven of course, but the lesson, the effect of that sin still remains on those who suffered it's effects.....indeed that's a very great truth. If the person didn't ask their forgiveness than how can they be forgiven?. This is something that speaking as a Catholic Christian they will be made to understand first, and it may be very hard to face up to the effect of our sin. They say nothing really good exists or nothing really valuable without enduring some pain to learn a lesson, I think this is very true. However, I'm not a theologian or somebody who speaks out of some authority, I'm just another person.

lmaopml

Adamas wrote: »

But my question about this kind of thinking is, how can you ever be 'far from God', even in 'Hell' if God is 'everywhere'? Are you saying that 'Hell' either doesn't exist because God is not there, and if he is not there, then he can't be 'everywhere'. What does this mean?

Well that's where both traditions meet Adamas. Without being pedantic, because God is; from a Christian perspective All Mighty - Is God 'in Satan' who represents rebellion and vanity too?

Another good question is how was Satan allowed to rebel? Is God the author of evil or in his infinite wisdom does he allow choice, because 'choice' is 'good'? Does God know the end to 'choice' - well yes!

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Again I have to fall back on the idea that the consequence are of your choosing as it your choices that lead to them. What the consequences are is a property of God not a decision.

That though doesn't make a lot of sense if God creates us and the universe. It would suggest that God had to create reality a particular way, which calls into question his omnipotence. It also leads to the question why is it this way and not another way.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Anyway why even consider hell, we were made for better things.

Hell I think is one of the most nonsensical concepts in Christian theology, that really shows its origin as a made up religion. And this is after all the Existence of God thread.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Seems that PDN and Phil have given you the answers you were looking for

Not even a little. Phil just keeps telling me the question I should be focusing on, rather than trying to answer the question I asked. And PDN just got to the point of getting annoyed and telling me he doesn't know, as if I was some how badgering him with questions rather than him coming into the discussion to answer my questions.

So, er, no. Things are from answered.

lmaopml wrote: »

I was describing salvation using imagery earlier when interested in what Tommy was saying, so I think you may have misunderstood, I wasn't speaking about actual conditions in Hell as such - I haven't been there myself.

Well lets try to stick to what hell is actually like.

lmaopml wrote: »

What Hell is described as in Scripture may not be completely comprehensible to us now, imagery is often used in Scripture I'm sure you are aware, and often times it has been depicted in Art etc. that possibly rouses notions which it is meant to do, but not as an actual 'fact' about a 'place' like we understand 'place' - what we do know is that God is Holy and nothing unholy can exist in his presence, his presence is described in Scripture as a consuming fire.

Is there reason to doubt that hell is a place of unending torture and suffering? Whether it is a physical "fire" or not (ie a chemical reaction between oxygen and fuel that burns human cells through a process of heat distribution) is not that important, though I guess there is no reason why God couldn't make an actual physical fire that actually physically burns some sort of body if he wished to. Though why he would wish to is another question.

lmaopml wrote: »

Hell is not being with God.

Why though would not being with God produce an experience akin to being thrown into a lake of fire for eternity? How would such a system come about?

Other of course simply being decided by God that this is how it will be? Which leads to the question why would God choose that being without him is akin to eternal suffering in fire when, if it is his decision, he could have decided it was like anything he wanted to (being licked by puppies is the example used so far, or the mild annoyance of having wet socks)

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Again I have to fall back on the idea that the consequence are of your choosing as it your choices that lead to them. What the consequences are is a property of God not a decision.
Best I can do for now.

That's a pretty good best Tommy. The notion of 'choice' is resounding.

I don't have a fully developed theology just some notions and pondering. I cant take all of the theology that I hear because it leads to too many contradictions.

Notions and pondering are more noble because the questions asked hinge on the concept of good and evil as a reality in the world - there is nothing wrong with pondering, in fact it's good to ponder, because mostly the effects are for the good, which is our purpose.

Anyway why even consider hell, we were made for better things.

Yes. Or 'Amen' is what we say as a Christian, 'Amen' means yes. It's the opposit to 'No' and in the sense of being made for better things, that there is a distinctive good way, I say 'Amen'

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Not even a little. Phil just keeps telling me the question I should be focusing on, rather than trying to answer the question I asked. And PDN just got to the point of getting annoyed and telling me he doesn't know, as if I was some how badgering him with questions rather than him coming into the discussion to answer my questions.

No, they did answer you, you just came in with a convinced point of view - and I doubt you are asking questions in order to understand and not to point out holes - which as a Christian I will freely admit to not knowing because I am not God.

So, er, no. Things are from answered.

Yep. Lol..

Well lets try to stick to what hell is actually like.

Okay.

Is there reason to doubt that hell is a place of unending torture and suffering? Whether it is a physical "fire" or not (ie a chemical reaction between oxygen and fuel that burns human cells through a process of heat distribution) is not that important, though I guess there is no reason why God couldn't make an actual physical fire that actually physically burns some sort of body if he wished to. Though why he would wish to is another question.

Um, I think you are trying to incapsulate God into the Universe - rather than see him as the author of it - There is a thing called 'abstract' thought - some humans have been gifted with being able to think in the abstract and it has propelled knowledge further....God must be a Mathematician. The Ultimate one.

Why though would not being with God produce an experience akin to being thrown into a lake of fire for eternity? How would such a system come about?

Because such a system is not a system on earth Zombrex. Such a system is where one approaches Holiness - Holiness doesn't do sin.

Other of course simply being decided by God that this is how it will be? Which leads to the question why would God choose that being without him is akin to eternal suffering in fire when, if it is his decision, he could have decided it was like anything he wanted to (being licked by puppies is the example used so far, or the mild annoyance of having wet socks)

God is infinite wisdom - giving freedom a choice to love is 'good' in his superior opinion - do you disagree?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

No, they did answer you, you just came in with a convinced point of view

If you can find an answer to my original question from either Phil or PDN please point it out to me, cause I've obviously missed it.

The question was -
Firstly why would being the presence of God for those who reject him feel like being in a lake of fire? Who decided that? Why does it not feel like being snuggled by a bath tube of puppies?

Unless you mean by answered you simply mean stating they don't know, which PDN did (eventually).

lmaopml wrote: »

Um, I think you are trying to incapsulate God into the Universe - rather than see him as the author of it

No. But it stands to reason that given that the universe is a creation of God that he could make other things, such as hell, in a similar manner.

Why would this universe be significantly different to hell in terms of its physical make up? All realities are made by God, are they not?

lmaopml wrote: »

Because such a system is not a system on earth Zombrex. Such a system is where one approaches Holiness - Holiness doesn't do sin.

I'm not following. What does not being on Earth have to do with anything? Earth is a realm created by God. So is hell.

Also saying holiness doesn't do sin doesn't explain why hell would be required to be an experience of unending torture and suffering.

lmaopml wrote: »

God is infinite wisdom - giving freedom a choice to love is 'good' in his superior opinion - do you disagree?

I don't understand the question. I also don't know what it has to do with my question.

Its ok to say you don't know the answer Imaopml. Like I said to PDN that would, at least, save some time.

philologos

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Then what are we arguing about? Belief vs non belief is the core of these discussions. As I said earlier, why then does the bible suggest I must believe to be saved?

We're arguing about repentance, and accepting the rightful authority of God. As far as Christianity is concerned, this is just an acknowledgement of reality rather than running from it.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

He may have taken away your sin but what about your responsibility? I cannot see why you feel you deserve to be condemned to hell. A Hitler type maybe.

My responsibility is to live in a manner according to His love and mercy and share that with others. That's my responsibility as a result of accepting Jesus.

Admittedly, I struggle from time to time as all Christians do, but ultimately I acknowledge that He is Lord and that He should be glorified irrespective of how life may or may not be going at any given time.

I deserve to go to hell, because I rejected God's authority, and I lived with contempt towards Him. God has every right to judge Creation as He deems fit, because He is Creator. His standards are simply what is best for us and they are simply in our own interest. I fail to see how that is dictatorial, any more than any form of legislation is dictatorial.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

What do you mean by separate from God? Is this a question of belief or is in relation to our actions?

Both. If one chooses to shun God from ones life, one is going to live in a way that is contrary to His standards.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Roughly 70% of the worlds population are not Christian according to wiki. If the evidence was clear and abundant, they why do you feel is it not endorsed world wide as the one true religion?

People suppress the truth on a regular basis. The truth isn't about majoritarianism. It's also estimated that roughly 1.6 billion people are yet to hear about Jesus which certainly does add to that figure. It's an obligation as a result that Christians go out and tell people about Him both at home and away.

Truth is truth irrespective of what a majority thinks. I could equally ask that question of atheism by the by. Why don't a majority acknowledge atheism if it is true? It's a poor argument.

[QUOTE=Andrewf20;77650112But again, back to a point I made earlier, is it fair for a moral and ethical person but who cannot bring themselves to believe in a higher power to be punished like a genocidal dictator? I know people who are great parents, who wouldn’t try to harm anybody, who would do anything to help others and do charitable work including organising events to help those less fortunate from time to time, yet they don’t have a religious side. To imply they are condemned to hell really disturbs me.[/quote]

What is good? - What is evil?

If morality is subjective as many atheists argue it is, then good and evil can be anything I want.

If morality is objective it is based on God's standards.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I think most atheists consider any possibility but eventually come to a certain conclusion as they see it, based on the information thats available to them. Any debate with Hitchens vs Turek types for example will clarify that even the people who have researched and picked thru this stuff with a fine tooth comb can come to completely opposing conclusions. Why do you think this is?

I don't believe that they have come to a conclusion based on what is available to them. But that's another argument in and of itself.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

The question was -
Firstly why would being the presence of God for those who reject him feel like being in a lake of fire? Who decided that? Why does it not feel like being snuggled by a bath tube of puppies?

Possibly because God in his infinite wisdom decided that being in his presence which is Holy, should not feel like being snuggled by a bath tub of puppies for those who hate him and reject him and have decided that they never needed to repent. You could always pray about it Zombrex and ask God for better understanding....:)

No. But it stands to reason that given that the universe is a creation of God that he could make other things, such as hell, in a similar manner...........................

................Why would this universe be significantly different to hell in terms of its physical make up? All realities are made by God, are they not?

Sure they are - You're still thinking 'physical' though Zombrex. I can appreciate that it's difficult not to.

I'm not following. What does not being on Earth have to do with anything? Earth is a realm created by God. So is hell.

Also saying holiness doesn't do sin doesn't explain why hell would be required to be an experience of unending torture and suffering.

Yep, you're still thinking in terms of 'realms', physical 'realms' - God's presense is beyond what you seem to be limiting it to in your puny understanding, and indeed my puny understanding... God is pure being, Spirit, Holy - We're told by Jesus in Scripture to repent of sin, this is for a good reason, it's why he came to save souls because sin kills the soul, leaves marks, is repulsive to infinite goodness, the opposit to it, it's a transgression against the moral law, only the pure of heart see God - maybe when Jesus said that one should become as a child is, it may indicate the type of purity we're speaking about...

I don't understand the question. I also don't know what it has to do with my question.

Its ok to say you don't know the answer Imaopml. Like I said to PDN that would, at least, save some time.

LOL, so much for people doing their best to talk with you Zombrex, I suppose your time is precious too, best not to waste it. Anyway, I hope it's helped - there are lots of really good books on the subject too, try amazon.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Possibly because God in his infinite wisdom decided that being in his presence which is Holy, should not feel like being snuggled by a bath tub of puppies for those who hate him and reject him and have decided that they never needed to repent.

Why though, what purpose would inflicting suffering on these people serve if it is not inevitable nor necessary? Given that it is eternal it is not repentance since they cannot repent or realize the error of their ways (though you would question how much of true repentance comes after a million years of torture).

It seems to be torture for the sake of torture. Is that something you agree with or support?

lmaopml wrote: »

You could always pray about it Zombrex and ask God for better understanding....:)

I think if that worked I would have been given the answer by one of you a good few pages ago. But by all means give it a try. Ask him what Fermat's last theorem was while you are at it

lmaopml wrote: »

Sure they are - You're still thinking 'physical' though Zombrex. I can appreciate that it's difficult not to.

Why would I not think physical? Doesn't God made physical things?

lmaopml wrote: »

Yep, you're still thinking in terms of 'realms', physical 'realms' - God's presense is beyond what you seem to be limiting it to in your puny understanding, and indeed my puny understanding... God is pure being, Spirit, Holy

Yes, and he makes physical things, after all he made this universe.

It would seem that making physical things is something God is quite comfortable with, wouldn't it?

lmaopml wrote: »

LOL, so much for people doing their best to talk with you Zombrex

I'm perfectly happy to answer the question Imaopml if you wish to explain it more and how it relates to the questions I'm asking. I cannot answer a question I do not understand. Nothing to do with precious time.

lmaopml wrote: »

Anyway, I hope it's helped - there are lots of really good books on the subject too, try amazon.

Umm, in my experience recommendations of books in this form haven't gone well, I buy a book being told it is offer fascinating insight into the subject to find it is nothing more than pleasantries and pseudo-philosophy.

While my time is probably precious, my money certainly is.

gimmebroadband

Here are two links that would give you an idea what the CC teaches on Hell.

First, Hell is where there is no love.

This is damnation: to be in a darkness where the Holy Spirit no longer touches souls with His love and where, as a consequence, there is only rejection, hatred and despair.

Second,
eternal punishment.

In speaking of judgment, those who have turned against God and are not in a state of grace at the time of death are condemned to hell. There can be no change of heart concerning God, for or against His will, after death. Hence hell and heaven must both be without end.

lmaopml

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Here are two links that would give you an idea what the CC teaches on Hell.

First, Hell is where there is no love.

Second,
eternal punishment.

Thanks Gimmebroadband - some very insightful articles here, excellent.

These may help you Zombrex to understand a little better. You know, I was actually suggesting that 'you' pray to be given better understanding, not that I should - I ask God to increase my understanding daily anyways, but I will certainly keep you in mine You never know, it can't hurt you to try....

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

That though doesn't make a lot of sense if God creates us and the universe. It would suggest that God had to create reality a particular way, which calls into question his omnipotence. It also leads to the question why is it this way and not another way.



Hell I think is one of the most nonsensical concepts in Christian theology, that really shows its origin as a made up religion. And this is after all the Existence of God thread.

No more so than the fact that He can't build a wall so high He can't jump over it.

Yes Hell is one of the most stupid ideas ever if you see it as the revenge of a wrathful God. One size fits all punishment, PolPot and Ghandi, thieves, active homosexuals, anyone who ever took an oath, all condemned to the same just reward/punishment. Which is why I reject that notion.

Zombrex

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Here are two links that would give you an idea what the CC teaches on Hell.

Thanks for the links, though neither seem to answer the question.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

You know, I was actually suggesting that 'you' pray to be given better understanding, not that I should - I ask God to increase my understanding daily anyways, but I will certainly keep you in mine You never know, it can't hurt you to try....

Surely it doesn't matter so long as an answer is forth coming, and since you seem to have a better relationship with God than me it seems to make sense that you would do it and then tell me the answer.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

No more so than the fact that He can't build a wall so high He can't jump over it.

Well that is a logical paradox. I'm not sure making it so that in the absence of God you feel nothing but mild annoyance, or feel a strange sensation in your foot, or feel like you are in a bath full of puppies licking you, is illogical.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes Hell is one of the most stupid ideas ever if you see it as the revenge of a wrathful God. One size fits all punishment, PolPot and Ghandi, thieves, active homosexuals, anyone who ever took an oath, all condemned to the same just reward/punishment. Which is why I reject that notion.

As do I. But isn't that a good reason to reject Christianity?

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

No, not if they are beyond my understanding. But I'm glad that I live in a universe where right and wrong exist as absolute concepts.

apparently he wants a list of things that are not on any list and an explaination of all the unknown things and usdiscovered things and in the universe as well as the things people dont know?
tall order.
Maybe he does have a concept of God?

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Well that is a logical paradox. I'm not sure making it so that in the absence of God you feel nothing but mild annoyance, or feel a strange sensation in your foot, or feel like you are in a bath full of puppies licking you, is illogical.



As do I. But isn't that a good reason to reject Christianity?

And the idea that could create something against His nature is just such a paradox.
At its heart the nature of hell is about the nature of God. It might well be mild annoyance or frustration or anger or hatred and it might not be permanent but it will depend on the sinner, not God in the sense of a sentence.

To answer your question, for me it's one of many reasons to reject various interpretations but not to reject the whole thing.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

No more so than the fact that He can't build a wall so high He can't jump over it.

Yes Hell is one of the most stupid ideas ever if you see it as the revenge of a wrathful God. One size fits all punishment, PolPot and Ghandi, thieves, active homosexuals, anyone who ever took an oath, all condemned to the same just reward/punishment. Which is why I reject that notion.

I'm not quite sure where you're getting the notion that hell would be equal for everyone. It certainly isn't a Christian, or a biblical, notion.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

I'm not quite sure where you're getting the notion that hell would be equal for everyone. It certainly isn't a Christian, or a biblical, notion.

Not my idea, I'm answering Zombrexs question about fiery lakes and eternal torment. We good catholicks know all about the nine circles of suffering and exactly who goes where

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not my idea, I'm answering Zombrexs question about fiery lakes and eternal torment. We good catholicks know all about the nine circles of suffering and exactly who goes where

Um, I don't know about em

Google is my friend.....

Edit: Ahh Dante again..lol...

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense. How do I determine what level of suffering I feel? I didn't think in Christian theology humans were considered powerful enough to determine or change the nature of reality.

I dont think christian theology says such a thing is impossible or immoral. for example of one could changed the gravitational constant theology does not say it should not be done no mare than nuclear reactions should not happen. It is the use to which things are put based on the judgment to use them that concerns theology.

Sounds like a cult leader trying to get his followers to see how it is important it is to follow him. Not an uncommon tactic for cults.

Not rteally The mainstream Christian concept of Hell today isnt a negative reenforcement. it is quit the opposite they essentuate the positive rather than threaten the negative.

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't my question. My question is why would being the presence of God and viewing your own sin cause a reaction where a person either does or simply feels like they are suffering in a lake of fire for eternity? Why would it cause that reaction rather than any other reaction .

So you are asking why should people feel guilty for doing wrong. I think the answer is self evident dont you?
Are you suggesting people should not feel guilt when they do wrong?

Saying because objective morality exists (not saying you are saying that) isn't an answer to that question.

As has been pointed out the question of whether objective morality exists is separate to the question of why people should feel guilt when they do wrong.
the second question actually assumes the answer to the first.

Obviously if you believe there is n such thing as right and wrong then feeling guilty for doing wrong makes no sense to you. so why ask that question?

That is what I would have thought, but when that was suggested it was some what rejected by some of your fellow Christians. People didn't seem to like the idea that God would decide that what would happen when you view your own sin was that you would feel like you were suffering torture in a lake of fire, as opposed to anything else.

The impression I got was that people preferred to view this as simply what happens, that it is an inevitable consequence of your actions, not something God just decides to do for the heck of it.

You got a correct impression then.

Caused through what process? How do we cause reality to change?

depends on what you call reality.
If you mean laws of the universe then we change reality by changing them.
If you mean social laws like capital punishment or slavery then we change them by changing perception.

Zombrex wrote: »

You eventually told me you didn't know PDN. And the amount you don't know seems to have increased as the discussion went on.

I dont think we can comment on the set of things we dont knpow bout getting bigger since we dont know what is in it. If we did get to know anything about it that thing would by definition not be in the set.

How can you ask am I interested in seriously discussing the topic when you enter into discussion and then just start saying you don't know to everything.

1. surely not to everything?
2. it is not necessarty to know the answer to anything in order to discuss it. In fact that is what theology or philosophy does.

Frankly if you don't know any of the answers to my questions I'm not sure why you were bothering entering this discussion in the first place.

So if you dont know the solution to the Riemann hypothesis there is not point in becoming a mathematician?

I wouldn't have bothered going this far if all I was eventually going to get out of you is a long series of I don't know responses... this increases my understanding of hell how exactly? :rolleyes:

Well we know that now but we didnt then. But in anyt case that is not ALL you got out of PDN. and id you are going to ask me about all the things you didnt get out of him then dont please ask me for obvious reasons.

Zombrex wrote: »

Well I don't view it as betting eternal life, but if I did doesn't that seem like the safest bet, given that there are a huge number of possible gods that could exist and most of them according to humans don't take kindly to you worshipping the wrong god. Better to worship no god it would seem, as while that might still displease the deity it seems not as much as worshipping another god would.

I dont thin the argument that:
If only one religion is true it is better to reject all religions on the grounds you might follow a false one.
is a runner.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

apparently he wants a list of things that are not on any list and an explaination of all the unknown things and usdiscovered things and in the universe as well as the things people dont know?
tall order.
Maybe he does have a concept of God?

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to the question. But if someone doesn't know why do they just say so, rather than finally admitting it 2 pages later, particularly when they entered the discussion acting as if they did know the answer.

The mind boggles...

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

And the idea that could create something against His nature is just such a paradox.
At its heart the nature of hell is about the nature of God.

So it is God's nature that those who reject him must suffering eternal torment? How does that work, seems some what arbitrary.

Could it have been that those who reject him must suffer a good rest on a fluffy pillows, that just wasn't the way it was?

tommy2bad wrote: »

It might well be mild annoyance or frustration or anger or hatred and it might not be permanent but it will depend on the sinner, not God in the sense of a sentence.

God made the sinner though, and thus one would think how the sinner experiences reality, be it here or in hell, is determined by the way God made him.

Using an example from this world, we experience pain due to fire in a particular manner. Other animals experience it differently, depending on how they were made.

It would seem reasonable to conclude that the same principle applies to everything else, including what it feels like to be in the absence of God.

tommy2bad wrote: »

To answer your question, for me it's one of many reasons to reject various interpretations but not to reject the whole thing.

Fair enough, agree to disagree I guess about that one :P

tommy2bad

Zombrex ;
God made the sinner though, and thus one would think how the sinner experiences reality, be it here or in hell, is determined by the way God made him.

Ahh heres where we differ, God made the man, man made himself a sinner, God forgives the sin, man accepts the forgiveness or rejects it. Free will again, rejecting the forgiveness in a sulk wont abate the pain of being wrong or the shame and guilt.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I dont think christian theology says such a thing is impossible or immoral. for example of one could changed the gravitational constant theology does not say it should not be done no mare than nuclear reactions should not happen. It is the use to which things are put based on the judgment to use them that concerns theology.

One would assume though if we change the gravitational constant it is because it is not an absolute creation of God, but rather a variable he has allowed to be changed.

ISAW wrote: »

Not rteally The mainstream Christian concept of Hell today isnt a negative reenforcement. it is quit the opposite they essentuate the positive rather than threaten the negative.

I think follow me or you will suffer for eternity could be considered pretty negative. I've had about 7 different people tell me so far that they hope I make this choice :pac:

ISAW wrote: »

So you are asking why should people feel guilty for doing wrong.

No, I'm asking why would not being the presence of God, or rejecting God, or God removing his grace or what ever people think "hell" is, feel to the sinner like an un-ending torture.

ISAW wrote: »

Are you suggesting people should not feel guilt when they do wrong?

No, we know people do feel guilty and we know why they feel guilty. This is a relatively well understood biological phenomena. Or to put it another way, we know why punching a baby in the face would make you feel strong negative emotions. There are biological and evolutionary reasons for this. There is a reason why it feels one way and not other. There is a reason why guilt produces feelings of distraction, negative emotion, irritability, and stomach pains, but doesn't manifest itself as a numb pain in your toe, nor the feeling of being incredibly thirsty.

So the question is why does the rejection of God manifest itself as a feeling of being burnt alive for all eternity.

ISAW wrote: »

Obviously if you believe there is n such thing as right and wrong then feeling guilty for doing wrong makes no sense to you. so why ask that question?

It makes perfect sense to me but you are discussing a different question. I'm not asking should you feel guilty for sinning (though I'm happy to have that discussion in another stream).

I'm asking why does rejection of God manifest itself in this particular way.

ISAW wrote: »

You got a correct impression then.

Ok, so what decided or determined that rejection of God would manifest itself in the form of the sensation of being in a lake of fire? Is this a arbitrary "just cause", like the existence of God himself (eg. why does God exist? he just does).

ISAW wrote: »

depends on what you call reality.
If you mean laws of the universe then we change reality by changing them.
If you mean social laws like capital punishment or slavery then we change them by changing perception.

In the context of this forum I mean the nature of God's creation. This assumes everything but God himself was created by God one way rather than another way.

ISAW wrote: »

I dont think we can comment on the set of things we dont knpow bout getting bigger since we dont know what is in it. If we did get to know anything about it that thing would by definition not be in the set.

I'm not commenting on the things we don't know, I'm commenting on the things PDN doesn't know. He started off giving the impression that he knew the answers to these questions and as the discussion progressed the content dried up to be replaced with general "I don't know" comments mixed in with mild annoyance I was asking the questions in the first place.

ISAW wrote: »

1. surely not to everything?

Everything I asked. I thought that was clear.

ISAW wrote: »

2. it is not necessarty to know the answer to anything in order to discuss it. In fact that is what theology or philosophy does.

It certainly isn't. But to enter into a discussion where the response is an answer to a question and where the impression given is that the answer is contained in the responses, does certainly cause some confusion. Particularly coupled with later annoyance at the questions. I don't think PDN has any interest in find out the answers to these questions, certainly not as part of this discussion. Which lead me to ponder what exactly was the purpose of his contributions.

ISAW wrote: »

I dont thin the argument that:
If only one religion is true it is better to reject all religions on the grounds you might follow a false one.
is a runner.

It is if you look at all religions, not just yours. After all yours is just one out of thousands. If one was to play purely the odds game it seems that a significant number religions hold worshipping the wrong god as a worse act that worshipping no god at all.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ahh heres where we differ, God made the man, man made himself a sinner

That is not what I meant. Feel free to replace "sinner" with "man" above, it is not relevant to the point.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

That is not what I meant. Feel free to replace "sinner" with "man" above, it is not relevant to the point.

OK so your saying that we are made to feel guilt but don't see why God would make us that way? Or just asking why burning as manifestation of that guilt?
I guess the blushing associated with guilt or embarrassment was used to exaggeration as the original metaphor. Coupled with burning as the destruction of rubbish it makes a good image.