I sometimes catch myself thinking "what if i'm wrong?" briefly before logic takes hold and I reassure myself that i'm not. The blogosphere spends alot of time picking apart the crazy cultists, the fundamentalists and extremists. But what about the average people who aren't loons? The people like my family and friends are casual Christians, church on holidays and a prayer at meals, sometimes. They believe in evolution and that dinosaurs roamed the earth hundreds of millions of years ago, yet they still believe in God, Jesus, Satan and Hell.

I think people like this aren't necessarily crazy or stupid, they are able to see some of the illogic and hypocrisy in religion, but eternal damnation is a pretty tough pill to swallow if they're wrong, so it's a much safer bet to have faith in God. I think without that fear religion would fall to pieces, I think it's the primary motivating factor in the vast majority of believers.

Comment by: Rob J | October 1, 2008, 10:25 am

Wow Quath, I like your post. Why can't more people approach these issues with the same reasoning. It's so simple and clear.

BTW, I was originally going to post this comic, it's quite funny.

Comment by: hb531 | October 1, 2008, 11:44 am

Hmmm, I guess posting images is not allowed. Here's the link.

Comment by: hb531 | October 1, 2008, 11:46 am

I was terrified of hell, but just as long as I believed in it. After I shed Christianity, I became terrified of death, probably because I had never been terrified of the unavoidability of death as a child.

Comment by: aethertrekker | October 1, 2008, 12:57 pm

I'm lucky, I don't fear Hell...except for a split second when I make obscene religious jokes.

Studying other mythologies' versions of the afterlife is an excellent idea.
I'd add that you could read "liberal" xian ideas of Hell. Some are watered-down and not all that scary. More like a lame party where no one interesting shows up and it's all awkward pauses in the conversations. The notion that Hell isn't permanent is also common. There is ample Biblical support for the notion that there is no Hell, if you cherry pick your scriptures correctly.

Sure, you don't believe it. But, some part of you still does, in a sense. Maybe if you can convince that part that Hell isn't that bad, anyway, you might get some relief.

Comment by: Polly | October 1, 2008, 1:16 pm

I remember being a child of 9 or 10 years old, sitting in the pew of my family's Southern Baptist church, and becoming consciously fearful of the fact that I was going to hell. I felt this way because I was never (and never have been) baptized. I thought it was a ridiculous ceremony that meant nothing except grandstanding in front of others. I had "church friends" who I watched go up to the front of the sanctuary and get baptized and I knew that baptism was a joke because these kids were so full of shit, it was hilarious. It's amazing what kids will do when they want to get on their parents' good side. My best friend growing up was a non-Christian, and he was (and still is) such a better person than my Christian friends, I remember thinking that it was a ridiculous thought that he would be doomed to hell. Even though I grew up going to church at least 3 times a week, I was never much into it. I now look back and regret all the football games I missed on those Sunday mornings. What a waste of time.

Comment by: Paul S | October 1, 2008, 2:29 pm

Polly,

She takes great delight in listening to those who have "been to Hell." She goes on about how awful it is and the details of the torture and the wretched, writhing demons that are there and the fire and all the sulphurous conditions that people report. Once, when I was over, I had to sit through this hour-long dramatization on TBN about one man's experience of dying and going to Hell and coming back followed by the usual repentance and changed life.
Here's the kicker. The stories from these different people DON'T MATCH UP! Another guy who went to hell 30 years ago had very different details about the place (did they remodel?!?). But, she doesn't seem to notice this. It's SO frustrating!

I heard those same tales as a kid - and they are never congruent: one guy thinks he's still alive after death, another is pulled straight into the abyss, another floats above her body, etc... Of course, I pretty much ignored those incongruities because a part of me actually *wanted* a hell to exist - as I was rather spiteful twards those like myself(at this point in my life), I could not imagine a more fitting punishment for not conforming to my own worldview.

In retrospect I see that it was just petty and that the idea only exists in the mind, but damn it can a tempting one..

Comment by: Christopher | October 1, 2008, 3:00 pm

As a Christian I also feel it is an excellent idea to check out other religous teachings on the subject of Hell. This serves as an excellent way to distinguish what the Bible teaches from everything else. (similar to comparisons of the Biblical Creation account to older stories such as the Enuma Elish, or the flood narrative to certain portions of the Epic of Gilgamesh)

I think there is a lot of false teaching about Hell. Certainly I believe it is a terrible place, but I don't view it as a punishment so much as God allowing people to choose. In Genesis God seperates things; light and dark, water and earth, day and night... God seperates a people unto Himself in the Biblical account... the idea of things being seperate is prevelant throughout scripture. How is this relevant?

If God is light and goodness and peace and security and love and all things 'good'... then to be 'seperate' from God would be to dwell in the absence of all of those things. (dark, evil, war, insecurity, etc.) When people reject God, they reject along with Him all the good He's intentioned for their lives. God doesn't punish people with Hell, He allows them to choose it.

Comment by: karatemack | October 1, 2008, 4:26 pm

Wow, thanks, Ebon for this wonderful post and to everyone for your excellent comments.

I can definitely relate to this question. I have been a happy atheist for many years now, but I am still subject to occasional bouts of irrational fear. As others have pointed out, the very idea of an omnimax god who would actually create hell and send people there is preposterous. But here's what I can't quite let go of. What if there IS a god...and he's an asshole? What if he's not only a capricious tyrant but he also finds it fun to hide from us, and then punish us for not believing?

Ridiculous, I know. And has little similarity to any god proposed by any religion ever in existence, except maybe Sarah Palin's. But it's the only one that can't really be logically disproven (well, except maybe the deist's god), and the thought of it does occasionally keep me up at night, I'm sorry to say.

But you know what? Same as with deism, if this is true then so what? It's not like anything I could do would make any difference, so I might as well carry on as though there is no such god or any other. Which is, of course, what I actually believe. So that works out well.

Comment by: Nurse Ingrid | October 1, 2008, 7:31 pm

This is something I wrote on another forum but I think it is very applicable here:

I find it very interesting that all fundamentalist descriptions of hell include things about pain on "your body" in the afterlife. So, a person dies and since they didn't believe the right stories their SOUL goes to hell, obviously, because we just put their body in the dirt. Now the description of hell automatically goes into torture, which requires a biological nervous system and hence body to feel.

They don't mention it because they are taking advantage of human beings natural cognitive shortcuts. We have no problem conceptualizing someone's theory of mind with which the word soul is used to describe. We also automatically associate a body, complete with pain receptors, to accompany that mind. The automatic intuitions we have are manipulated getting us (well some of us) into believing an otherwise incoherent dogma. They take it for granted that nobody will break it down and analyze it. When it comes to psychology, religion merely makes manipulative claims that certainly work on a superficial level, but is not even coherent when analyzed.

Comment by: InTheImageOfDNA | October 1, 2008, 8:08 pm

This has been an issue for me to some degree in the past, but no longer. As has been noted the existence of hell, and the conditions of being sent there, undermine the idea of the all loving god.

As Ebon said "The best way to conquer the phobia of Hell, as with any other phobia, is to induce extinction. Expose yourself to whatever idea or image triggers the fear - in small doses at first - and prove to yourself that no harmful consequences follow. Repeat this often enough, and the mental link between the stimulus and the fear is eventually broken. Of course, rationally speaking, this wouldn't disprove a punishment that's claimed to only arrive after death - but because we're dealing with an irrational fear and not a reasoned belief, I think it may be effective."

The idea that extinction is successful for phobias (and other disorders such as PTSD) certainly has empirical backing. Whether extinction can be successfully applied to "traumatic beliefs" or "phobic beliefs", that are indoctrinated via religion, is an interesting question. I am not aware of any research directly into this question, although it may exist. One line of thought, with some backing, that suggests how to deal with fearful and intrusive thoughts, proposes that a reappraisal or recasting of the thought (or in this case belief) is needed in additions to the reinstatement of the emotional response (in this case fear). The recasting of such a belief or fear of hell may be something along the lines of reminding oneself that there exists no prove for such a place as hell just as there is no prove for FILL IN THE BLANK. The human brain seems to have emotional regulatory systems (as well as memory regulatory systems) that may be crucial in changing the representation of memory in ways that effect the emotionality (or the emotion evoking qualities) of the memory (also possibly affecting the intrusiveness of the thought or memory as well). Hope this helps.

Andrew

Comment by: Andrew | October 1, 2008, 8:13 pm

"Heaven for the climate. Hell for the company." Mark Twain

Comment by: Jim Baerg | October 1, 2008, 9:34 pm

To Nurse Ingrid:

My intent was not necessarily to "prove" hell exists from a scientific point of view. My aim was only to give, what I feel, is a correct interpretation of the Bible's depiction of Hell.

Because my aim was to clarify what I feel the Bible teaches, my response as to how I came to this conclusion will be full of theological (not scientific) explanations.

Throughout the Bible there is talionic justice. Adam rebels against God and loses the blessing God gave him. Adam was created from dirt and given life, as a result of rebellion against God's law (and therefore rejecting God's blessing as well) Adam will eventually die and return to the dirt. Adam's rejection of God leaves Adam with what's left without God...

Adam was created to cultivate and keep the ground. Because of sin this task was no longer blessed, but now man would toil to do this work.

Eve was created to form a marriage union with Adam, which would ultimately serve as a relational example of God's love for us, but which would also serve as the basis for the family unit and would form the basic structure so vital to society as a whole. Because of sin this union was no longer simply a relationship, but was cursed and reflected the sinful lusts for power. Marriage would now be marked by authority and headship and strife instead of by relational bliss.

I won't address the need for choice, especially as if there is a creator God, it is His decision to make us robots or free will creatures. After all, if all creation was for His good pleasure, He could choose either way and still be 'good'.

What I will address is the need for punishment. Imagine you are in a grocery store. You observe a mother with two children who are not behaving at all. She attempts to control their behavior but they refuse to submit. Not wanting to be 'cruel' she simply leaves them to their disrespectful behavior, ignoring every obnoxious activity they engage in. Is she a good mother? How, then, could a God who is truly 'good' ignore our rejection of Him? If God is good, then He must not only be Love but must also be Just. Do we reject a mother as loving when she punishes her children? No, in fact we regard her as a good mother BECAUSE of her discipline.

But, one could argue, God's punishment is not a 'disciplanary action', it is a final and irreversable judgement. This is true, and seems quite harsh... unless you realize that God isn't FORCING anyone to choose Hell. He is allowing them to choose it for themselves.

What about those who have never heard about Jesus? This is an excellent question. One that I am quite confident God has an answer to. But it is a distraction to the point at hand. I do not need to possess all the knowledge of God in order to determine for myself (and those who ARE within my circle of influence) what is required for salvation. To be clear, I don't know that the Bible is specific about people who are ignorant, but frankly that doesn't matter as everyone I will ever speak with on this matter will not fall into that category. Perhaps that is why there seems to be silence regarding this, as no one reading the Bible falls into this category. Think of how redundant it would be for God to explain to us a condition which does not apply to us and will not have any practical application for us. Would it help us to understand God to know the answer to this? Well, perhaps better asked is if it would make us more comfortable with God. If you cannot trust, from the rest of scripture, that God is loving and just... then would a specific explanation of how God handles this situation help you any better accept Him as such? Are we without other examples of Who God is that this question somehow forms a void which leaves us without a true impression of Who God is at all?

References from the Bible which speak about hell-

2 Thessalonians 1 (entire chapter)

Mark 9:42-49

Each of these verses explain the severity of Hell... but they don't really give us a logical expression of how the punishment fits the crime. Isn't it really unfair that God punishes sinners for ALL eternity for rejecting Him in a span of 80 years or so? Good question. God's punishments should always fit the crime.

If you examine Deuteronomy chapter 28 (again, the entire chapter), you will see a mirror reflective in the text. If you compare the blessing (result of obedience) to the cursing (result of disobedience) you will see that while the cursing is severe, it mirrors the blessing which would have been obtained through obedience.

So, couldn't God simply (again) not curse the womb? Why could the condition not be, obey and I reward you, disobey and nothing happens at all. Here's a theological point. You can either obey or disobey. You do not remain neutral to the commands of God. Therefore you can either have blessing or cursing. There are no neutrals.

Think of it this way. I tell my child to turn on a light. I tell them if they turn on a light they will experience sight. If they obey, surely they will experience sight as the light fills the room. If they choose to disobey, they will surely experience blindness resulting from the dark condition. There is no neutral not-light but not-dark state for them to exist in. There are two possible conditions which have been serperated. I allow them to choose one or the other.

Comment by: karatemack | October 1, 2008, 10:25 pm

Sorry for the double post, but I have to address this comment.

Think of it this way. I tell my child to turn on a light. I tell them if they turn on a light they will experience sight. If they obey, surely they will experience sight as the light fills the room. If they choose to disobey, they will surely experience blindness resulting from the dark condition. There is no neutral not-light but not-dark state for them to exist in. There are two possible conditions which have been serperated. I allow them to choose one or the other.

kartemack, your god doesn't just tell us to turn on a light and let us experience the consequences. He tells us to turn on the light and then never lets us touch the switch again, ever. Additionally, He told us to do so when we were too young to understand that we were choosing between being forever in a darkened room or forever in a lit room and too young to understand what light, dark, and eternity are.

Comment by: Leum | October 1, 2008, 10:45 pm

karatemack,

I won't address the need for choice, especially as if there is a creator God, it is His decision to make us robots or free will creatures. After all, if all creation was for His good pleasure, He could choose either way and still be 'good'.

Might does not make right. Simply because god made us doesn't mean that he has free run to do what he wants with us. In fact, quite the opposite. Because god created us, he has a moral obligation to us.

But, one could argue, God's punishment is not a 'disciplanary action', it is a final and irreversable judgement. This is true, and seems quite harsh... unless you realize that God isn't FORCING anyone to choose Hell. He is allowing them to choose it for themselves.

I'm glad you note that this is true, because it completely undermines your argument and you have done nothing to dispell the objection.

Each of these verses explain the severity of Hell... but they don't really give us a logical expression of how the punishment fits the crime. Isn't it really unfair that God punishes sinners for ALL eternity for rejecting Him in a span of 80 years or so? Good question. God's punishments should always fit the crime.

Yes, punishments for actual crimes (disbelief is not a crime) should fit the actual crime. So, the fact that god's punishment does not fit the severity of the crime tells you what?

So, couldn't God simply (again) not curse the womb? Why could the condition not be, obey and I reward you, disobey and nothing happens at all. Here's a theological point. You can either obey or disobey. You do not remain neutral to the commands of God. Therefore you can either have blessing or cursing. There are no neutrals.

Why is your supposedly omnipotent god so impotent? Once again your "answer" the objection does nothing to dispell the objection.

There is no neutral not-light but not-dark state for them to exist in. There are two possible conditions which have been serperated. I allow them to choose one or the other.

And there's no reason why god has to set up black and white systems where we are either rewarded or tortured for eternity.

Comment by: OMGF | October 1, 2008, 11:55 pm

This whole discussion is interesting. Having grown up in (and still belong to) a mainline denomination, I've never really heard much about hell, and have never considered it a central part of Christian teaching. I read C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce in college, and Lewis' idea of hell is much like Polly describes above for "liberal" Christians,

More like a lame party where no one interesting shows up and it's all awkward pauses in the conversations.

I wonder to what extent teaching about hell, particularly the fear of hell, is a motivator for people to deconvert.

Comment by: BruceA | October 2, 2008, 1:04 am

In response to karatemack:

I don't see how Adam "rebelled" against God by breaking his rules. I fail to see how God's black-or-white reward-or-punishment all-or-nothing rules reflect any sort of reasoned compassion for us on God's part. In fact, it sounds like this serventile mindset on our part is exactly the same that children are brought up with in order to listen to their parents' fallible orders.

it is His decision to make us robots or free will creatures

The human mind is filled with sexual desires, nurtured dispositions, bad moods, angry emotions, brain disorders, cognitive biases, plain irrationality, unequal intelligence, unequal maturity, and constrained capacity for concentration. The negative aspects of these features in the human mind have been a cause for detriment to human lives, for sure. So, in what sense do we truly have free will? Will God punish us for the inevitable errors resulting from programmed fallibility?

Do we reject a mother as loving when she punishes her children?

No, but the majority of people will scorn a mother who rejects their child and then brutally, senselessly, inhumanly beats and slaughters the child, for the sake of utterly pointless, vacuous notions of "discipline" and "punishment."

it is a final and irreversable judgement ... He is allowing them to choose it for themselves.

It's not much of a choice: unconditionally submit your will to me or I will hurt you beyond imagining. And how is this a final and irreversable judgement? If people change their minds on Earth about God, I see no reason why they couldn't change their minds elsewhere. In fact (to point to the "distraction," which actually happens to be very significant theology here), it would be more likely for them to change their mind in an afterlife when they are given better information about God, his plan and his desires for people and what he offers, than on Earth where we are forced to trust the words of other humans about God. (Skeptics often invoke the idea of informed consent here.)

You are, in fact, required to possess a minimum amount of knowledge about God before you can be "quite confident" he has answers to questions you are avoiding answering. You cannot reasonably trust something while being left in the dark about it. You say "ignorant" people don't matter in theological discussion because you will never speak to them. By this you are hand-waving a very grave and serious issue about the conception of God and his relation to humans. God does have a responsibility to tell us his condition(s) for salvation very clearly, which has very plainly and obviously not been done in scripture. (Once again: informed consent.)

You do not remain neutral to the commands of God. Therefore you can either have blessing or cursing. There are no neutrals.

False premise, non sequitor, and false dichotomy. I have yet to see an explanation, theological or otherwise, for this presumptuous point. I ask sincerely: why can't God go in between and allow people to happily choose independence from him, without punishment? There is nothing intrinsically wrong about independence. Your light/dark dichotomy is too narrow to hold the true possibilities for God.

Comment by: Brad | October 2, 2008, 2:42 am

As a Christian I would suggest to these struggling believers to STUDY The Bible, especially in small groups. Study The Bible and realize it is NOT a history book - it is a SPIRITUAL book. In doing so they will discover that we are in Hell already, and yes that means God is in Hell.(Psalm 139:8)

Comment by: John | October 2, 2008, 9:24 am

John, any evidence that the conclusions one can draw from the Bible apply to the real world? Without that, it's a moot point.

Comment by: Valhar2000 | October 2, 2008, 12:10 pm

Nes,

I don't think you had a weird religious upbringing. I was also raised Lutheran, and I never remember much talk of hell either. I certainly was never given the impression that it was a place of eternal torment, at least not a specific enough vision that it ever instilled any fear in me. I was also never told that I was going to hell. Not being part of a 'born-again' religion, I guess it was always assumed that since I had been baptized that I was a Christian, and would remain so, and therefore had nothing to fear from hell. As a child, I remember believing that no one *really* went to hell, except maybe really, really evil people like Hitler, and it wasn't until I was almost a teenager that it was really impressed upon me that hell was a place where non-believers went. My impression of hell was changed around the time that I lost a very close friend who was not religious, and the thought of not being able to see friends and family members who weren't Christians after I died was what traumatized me, and was ultimately my first step towards atheism.

Comment by: Stargazer1323 | October 2, 2008, 1:09 pm

That things will be red around? Well, my room is orange, that's even a warmer colour... That I will be alone? I'm already alone, COMPLETELY, since over a year! I'm alone with my mind (and the Internet, but I mainly use it for things related to my thoughts). That I will cry and jump? Well, that gives you some relief; most self-consciousness, most awareness and "soul" is when there is a stimula, but no easy reaction (then, impulses circulate in your brain's associative centres, without reaching motor centres). - And finally, all ideas which are about "100% suffering" or "100% happiness" are naive: there is no will. Will needs a predecessor and a successor: it goes from suffering to relief. When one of the sides is missing, then there is no will. - Also: life is about what CHANGES. The constant part of a signal is removed, like with C in electric circuits. That's why "final failure" or "final victory" is naivity.

Comment by: Piotr | October 2, 2008, 5:38 pm

karetemack,

You revise the definition of love itself, based solely on the "authority" of a very clearly unloving god. If a friend told you, "I love children!", but then you let the friend babysit and she/he tortures and kills your child, for "discipline" and "punishment", you have absolutely no choice but to call that person unloving. God's supposed punishment is sadistically disproportionate and uncalled for, and you believe him when he says he's a loving god? In my opinion, that would be disgraceful to the concept of love.

And I think I may also be able to accuse you of bait-and-switching the meaning of "love":

If you cannot trust, from the rest of scripture, that God is loving and just... then would a specific explanation of how God handles this situation help you any better accept Him as such?

Also, you give us another analogy to tell us what "black-and-white" means, but you have provided exactly zero reason as to why God operates in such an absurdly-obvious unloving way. How are we supposed to believe you when you claim this analogy describes the truth? In your analogy, there is clearly an inevitable dichotomy in choice. But from God's perspective, he has much more option and room for compassion, love, understanding, and mercy. In fact, in a question you have yet to give an answer to, you even outline another of God's options:

Why could the condition not be, obey and I reward you, disobey and nothing happens at all[?]

Once again, your light/dark dichotomy is too narrow to hold the true possibilities for God. And once again, I ask, sincerely: why can't God go in between and allow people to happily choose independence from him, without "punishment"?

Comment by: Brad | October 2, 2008, 6:42 pm

The idea that God is love is true. But to understand what this means, you must define love the way the Bible does.
...
Can God be both loving and just? Yes. But in the true sense of those words.

There is no true sense of words. Language is a convention, and I think you realise it since you've stated languages are changing. If the word "love" doesn't translate well the supposed Hebrew or Greek biblical equivalent, just translate it differently. Or are you trying to persuade us that all translations of the Bible are flawed? It seems to me that you are rather trying to keep using the word "love" with its emotional content and associated persuasive power while redefining its meaning to fit your doctrine. It's a typical sort of intellectually dishonest argument.

Sure there are different degrees by which a student can pass or fail... and there are good jobs and bad jobs... my point is that sometimes it is very possible to define things in black and white terms.

No doubt there are questions with yes/no answers, which is, probably, what you are trying to say by the black-and-white analogy. This is a trivial fact and you still have to demonstrate how this relates to the existence of hell. At most, I am ready to admit that you have shown us that it is very possible for God to create hell - but you are arguing that it is necessary for him to do so, aren't you?

If you think that some consequences are not everlasting results of our actions, then I ask you to explain how virginity can (in a real sense) be regained. How can a lie be untold? How can a murder be uncomitted? Or are you at least willing to admit that sometimes actions do cause irreversable consequences?

Strictly speaking no deed is reversible. Anything you do cannot be taken back. You can do a lot of things to compensate some of the unlucky effects but you can never return the state of things to the exact original state. Does it mean that infinite punishment is all right? I think you have a bit strange perception of justice.

And all your arguments are non sequitur.

Comment by: prase | October 2, 2008, 6:55 pm

To answer the question which keeps coming up of 'how do you know your interpretation is correct'? Excellent question. Men have argued over the proper interpretation of LITERATURE (not just the Bible) for centuries. Personally I apply a historical-grammatical exegetical hermeneutic as it has proven the be the most reliable over all forms of literature. I won't lecture what this means as it would take far too long. But the method I use is the reason for my confidence in translation.

Use of words. I think I'm failing horribly to convey my meaning (obvious by your responses). I only mean to point out that you cannot say God has lied about Himself unless you properly understand what He has said about Himself.

I want to make sure I'm understanding the logic you state I'm missing.

1. The Bible states God is love.

2. A loving Being could not send people to an eternity in hell.

3. God sends people to hell.

4. Because God sends people to hell he cannot be loving.

If this is your logic, then I would suggest you are also holding to another logic.

1. Love is the primary concern when love is possessed.

2. Any being which puts any concern before love does not possess it.

Perhaps you're angry that God doesn't make love His primary concern. Certainly I believe God does love us, but I don't think that is God's primary concern. If it were, then I would (just as you) find it very hard to believe that anyone would go to hell.

Does this make God sadistic and self-absorbed? The question I mean to pose is not whether or not it is wrong to be self-absorbed but WHY is it wrong to be self-absorbed? God, being the ultimate being in the universe, is working out all things to His Glory. I believe that is God's primary concern. You will bring God glory despite any of your decisions (rejection or acceptance of Him). If God bringing glory to Himself is His primary concern and His love for you a secondary concern, then is God unfair to act in this way? I think not when you consider that God created us to worship (glorify) Him in the first place. He has allowed us to choose how we will glorify Him, either as He shows His infinate grace and forgiveness to us or as he justly judges and carries out punishment upon those who reject Him.

Comment by: karatemack | October 2, 2008, 11:14 pm

Another consideration...

The "love" you are suggesting requires dictatorship. If I really LOVE my kids, I will NEVER let anything bad happen to them because I love them. If God knows that humans will go to hell unless they accept Him, He MUST force them to choose Him or He isn't love. What if God's will for us to have the ability to choose Him (which would bring greater honor to Him than would 'forcing' beings to choose Him) was His primary concern? For if God forced us to love Him, then we could never experience fully love itself as love is a conscious choice. Perhaps God's will was that we would be able to experience and understand His love for us, which would require that He allow some of us to reject Him if we chose to...

Comment by: karatemack | October 2, 2008, 11:28 pm

Once again you are equivocating, karatemack, shifting the blame and the subject of discussion elsewhere. We are not talking about free will. We are not talking about allowing us to choose him or not. What we are talking about is God's own choices. Your premise seems to be this:

If God knows that humans will go to hell unless they accept Him, ...

Hello? Why does God decide to make hell in the first place! Why would a loving parent, in preparation for a baby, build a torture chamber room to use on their future child? You have spectacularly failed to answer this conundrum.

The reason is plain: hell is absurd! The more people that know this, the better.

Comment by: Brad | October 3, 2008, 12:05 am

Brilliant deductions! There are some deep theological ideas in these readings and comments. I am impressed how far you have gotten in your thinking. I would guess your around 18 years old and trying to piece life together quickly because you have been overwhelmed with the task of understanding the entire universe around you. Some of you have probably "perfected" your belief sysetems, reaching a later age than the one previously mentioned and have taken a more mature approach to atheism. I am guessing you all have been unsatified with the answers given by your churches or by over-zealous evangelicals. Pertaining to the subject at hand; however, it is saddening to hear that you were ever scared into Christianity. I mean, if you have been forced all your life to believe in an faith driven by "ignorance", then it is human nature to rebel from such oppression! However, I must state that the core of Christianity is entirely much more sophisticated than "God is the answer." It is true, some do follow Christianity in an ignorant state, but they are simply not as methodic in their understanding as many of you are. However, don't be deceived into thinking that Christianity is 1 dimensional. For example: (and I will leave you with this); many Christians don't even believe hell exists. As in, when you die you don't go to hell, you simply don't enter the kingdom of heaven. You are annihilated from existence. You are nothing. Just something for you to chew on. By the way...who ever said that Christians who converted to atheism go to hell? The Bible says that once your saved, your always saved. As in, your experience with atheism is just a trial helping you grow in your theology. If you gain anything from my inherent ramblings, know this. There is more to God than the Bible, rational thought, and Church.
Sub-lime-e-null

Comment by: whattheduece? | October 3, 2008, 1:06 am

Personally I apply a historical-grammatical exegetical hermeneutic as it has proven the be the most reliable over all forms of literature. I won't lecture what this means as it would take far too long. But the method I use is the reason for my confidence in translation.

And your arrogance is dizzying, too, karatemack. If you knew how many people on this site know just what you're talking about and could probably explain it better than you, you'd get a lot more humble real quick. We don't need your lecture. What you should take away from the above arguments isn't that we don't understand what you're selling, but that we do understand and just aren't buying it.

Comment by: mikespeir | October 3, 2008, 7:46 am

By the way...who ever said that Christians who converted to atheism go to hell? The Bible says that once your saved, your always saved.

Now that's truly frightening, moreso than any "fire and brimstone" evangelist's description of the torments of hell. Are you saying that, because we were subjected to indoctrination as children, even though we have gotten over it, you think we'll have to spend eternity in the company of smug bible-thumpers and their mindless followers? Ugh, I'd rather have the brimstone, please.

Comment by: Ubi Dubium | October 3, 2008, 9:25 am

karatemack,

What is dark? Is it not simply the absence of light? If it is something in and of itself then please send me a dark bulb.

In our context, is this to be understood that torture is simply the same thing as the absence of love?

Comment by: prase | October 3, 2008, 9:54 am

Your main problem is still to cry that God isn't fair.

Actually, no. We don't believe in a God who's fair or a God who's unfair. What we have is a sneaking suspicion that a god of the magnitude of the Christian God, if he existed, wouldn't feel he had to prove anything to anybody.

The only reason any being reacts violently is that it feels threatened. The reason people say God would react that way is only that they react that way and assume any being--including God--would. But an invulnerable being would never have the need.

Here's a thought experiment I tried. I asked myself: If I had some kind of super-advanced belt I could put around my waist that would make me invulnerable to any known power in the Cosmos and would make me as strong as Superman, how would I act? Would I become angry when some person threatened me? Would I retaliate, despite the fact I was never in any danger at all?

In fact, I probably would be angry. I hope I would exercise self-restraint in retaliating, but the temptation would probably be there. That bothered me. If I--who in a very real sense had become a god--would react that way, how could I then revolt against the notion of the God of the Bible doing the same?

Then it hit me. The reason I would react as a man despite having become a god was that I would still, at heart, be a man. I grew up human. More importantly, I'm the result of a long line of evolution that has instilled into me the "fight or flight" response instinct. You see, nature never suspected I would someday be a god. It equipped me like a frail, vulnerable creature that might have to defend itself to survive. Just becoming invulnerable and immensely powerful later on wouldn't change my basic nature. I would still react as a man.

But what about God, who, presumably, has always been a god; who has never had any need to develop these reactive instincts? Why would he respond like a man? Isn't the likeliest answer that he has been designed by men, who modeled him after themselves, to include both their virtues and vices amplified astronomically?

We're calling it like we see it, karatemack. We simply wouldn't expect God--any real god--to ever be so bothered by any human deed that he would impose limitless punishment in retaliation. What we see represented in the Bible is a man with an invincibility belt--somebody portrayed as all-powerful, but still subject to falling into all-too-human snits. No matter what kind of light you try to shine onto him, no matter what lens you hold up to our eyes, that's what we see. To us, this guy doesn't make a very convincing god.

Comment by: mikespeir | October 3, 2008, 10:25 am

Is self-inflicted pain torture?

No, it isn't. You haven't still answered any of the question you have been asked, so I would suggest you to try responding to few of them before asking your own ones.

Especially it is still not clear to me whether you really think that the only logically possible alternative to "personal relation with God" (whatever it means) is an infinitely long horrible pain. I am not at all concerned whether the pain can be interpreted as self-inflicted or not.

Comment by: prase | October 3, 2008, 11:08 am

To further the problems with the parent analogy, if a child asked to learn to swim and the parent had foreknowledge that the child would drown if the parent allowed it, should the parent allow the child to drown and die so that it will learn its lesson? Of course not. If god knew ahead of time that people would go to hell and suffer for eternity, should god have created those people? Of course not.

Comment by: OMGF | October 3, 2008, 11:19 am

whattheduece,

I would guess your around 18 years old and trying to piece life together quickly because you have been overwhelmed with the task of understanding the entire universe around you. Some of you have probably "perfected" your belief sysetems, reaching a later age than the one previously mentioned and have taken a more mature approach to atheism.

How very charitable you are in your condescension.

I am guessing you all have been unsatified with the answers given by your churches or by over-zealous evangelicals.

That and the logical impossibilities of the conceptions of god.

I mean, if you have been forced all your life to believe in an faith driven by "ignorance", then it is human nature to rebel from such oppression!

Considering that theistic belief in inherently irrational, I fail to see how anyone could not come to faith through ignorance.

However, I must state that the core of Christianity is entirely much more sophisticated than "God is the answer." It is true, some do follow Christianity in an ignorant state, but they are simply not as methodic in their understanding as many of you are. However, don't be deceived into thinking that Christianity is 1 dimensional. For example: (and I will leave you with this); many Christians don't even believe hell exists.

If it is not 1-dimensional, then please tell us how it isn't. And, most Xians do believe in hell, although some do not. Big deal.

By the way...who ever said that Christians who converted to atheism go to hell?

Why the Bible says so, it's the only blasphemy that can't be undone (i.e. denying the holy spirit).

As in, your experience with atheism is just a trial helping you grow in your theology.

Wishful thinking I presume.

If you gain anything from my inherent ramblings, know this. There is more to God than the Bible, rational thought, and Church.

Considering that rational thought is ruled out by faith, your sentence is mostly gibberish here, unless you are admitting that god is "beyond rational thought" as some Xians do (i.e. that you can't rationally believe in god). Either way, I certainly didn't gain anything from your ramblings.

Comment by: OMGF | October 3, 2008, 11:36 am

@whatthedeuce

I must state that the core of Christianity is entirely much more sophisticated than "God is the answer."

Every version of Christianity and Christian theology reduces to "God is the answer." That's as true for Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps as it is for Alvin Plantinga and John Shelby Spong.

You're welcome to substantively refute this. I'll cross my fingers but I won't hold my breath.

Comment by: heliobates | October 3, 2008, 12:12 pm

When I hear about a God who creates flawed creatures and then allows them to suffer for eternity because of their flaws, my logical inference is that he must be either malevolent or at best indifferent.

Eurythro Dilemma, meet karatemack. karatemack: put some ice on that and the mark will fade eventually.

Comment by: heliobates | October 3, 2008, 1:03 pm

karatemack,

It's not suprising you accuse me of not responding to you.

Once again you make straw of what I said. What I said was that you were not answering questions - I did not state they were mine. Since everyone else is also saying that you haven't answered some direct questions aimed at you, you might want to get the hint (and you kind of even admit that you aren't answering them).

It is a common defense in argument for people to state their opponent has 'dodged' a question or 'failed' to answer a question. In fact it is you who have failed to answer any of the points I've raised.

What points have I failed to answer?

You continue to raise straw men, then destroy the non-existant arguments which no one has raised other than yourself.

What strawmen have I raised? And, might I add that this is particularly ironic from someone who starts talking about the existence of black and white situations and claims that this somehow knocks down the argument against god needlessly creating such situations. The only straw I see flying about is coming from you.

The answer is that there is no good apart from God. You cannot seperate yourself from God and experience anything good.

The answer to what?

And, I fail to see how this would get god off the hook for anything. god has still set up a system where there is a black and white outcome of either heaven or hell - something you have yet to address. Also, god has a moral responsibility to us because he created us. He has the obligation to treat us in a moral fashion. Putting two doors in front of us and saying, "Choose," and letting those who choose erroneously to suffer in torment for eternity is not a moral position. This is especially problematic when god is not asking us to choose to be moral or not, but to choose whether we can interpret the fact of his existence correctly or not (i.e. whether god exists or not). This is an arbitrary and capricious way for god to decided who gets into heaven and who doesn't.

This is further problematic when one considers a couple things. First, god says clearly that he grants mercy on those he will grant mercy upon and that we are all destined for hell unless god grants us mercy. This clearly denotes that we don't actually have a choice in the matter, and that god will put us into hell unless he arbitrarily decides to save us. Second, free will is inherently impossible with an omni-max deity, so there's no way for us to decide to go to heaven or hell anyway.

You also begin with the false premise that the same moral code applies to both a superior being and an inferior being.

You should take that up with your fellow Xians then who claim that morality is absolute and not relative. However, I see no reason to give god a pass for acting immorally simply because he is god.

We understand this concept to be false and lacking any support in the real world. It is morally alright for parents to subjegate their children to certain rules and restrictions they understand to be for their child's own good. However it is not acceptable that a child would try to gain this same type of control over the parent.

We find that the parent acts in certain ways to protect the child because the parent has a moral obligation to the child! If the child had knowledge that the parent didn't - knowledge that would protect the parent from some danger or harm - and wished to share it with the parent, then it would NOT be immoral for the child to speak up. Morality isn't about control. Parents don't morally control their children. They teach their children to be moral agents and try to keep their children from coming to harm. This notion of morality equals control that you seem to be saying may be part of the problem in your inability to see how god can be an immoral being.

A parent is required and expected to provide for the child, and yet the child is not expected to fulfill this same role in the relationship.

Again, it is because the parent has assumed a moral obligation to the child by virtue of bringing the child into the world and because the parent should have more knowledge and cognitive ability. I fail to see how this gets your god off the hook.

If there are distinctions between parent and child, how much greater a distinction we should expect between God and mankind.

It doesn't matter how great the distinction between god and mankind, sending people to hell is immoral and unjust. Things that are immoral in every situation that we can imagine do not simply become moral because god does them.

Your question was based upon a false premise, which you have here admitted.

Not to speak for Prase, but I don't see where he admitted anything of the sort. Please show us all where this happened.

Comment by: OMGF | October 3, 2008, 2:34 pm

...or we have no free will at all.

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/divineblackmail.html

Comment by: heliobates | October 3, 2008, 4:44 pm

Lynet:

To be fair, I haven't responded to your questions. For the sake of this forum I don't think I will.

Someone suggested at one point that my comments would be more appriate on my own blog. I don't know that that will actually happen, however you all have motivated me to pick up some fresh books on apologetics.

This conversation certainly has been interesting, and I appreciate all the references given so I can look further into these topics as I seek to broaden my own understanding.

Comment by: karatemack | October 4, 2008, 12:05 am

Lynet,

I'll concede the coherency of the idea that in creating hell, God simply created a place where he wasn't. I'll also concede the coherency of a (hypothetical) God allowing human beings to choose to go to the place where he wasn't. However, that hypothetical situation is not identical to saying, in this world, that "if you don't believe in God you'll go to hell".

This is a fantastic comment.

TO EVERYONE ELSE...This post is only for those who already have said, as Lynet did:I'll concede the coherency of the idea that in creating hell, God simply created a place where he wasn't. I'll also concede the coherency of a (hypothetical) God allowing human beings to choose to go to the place where he wasn't. If you have not already conceded this, then I understand that you'll have huge problems with what I am going to post!

Lynet,

If you're interested. I think, to your surprise, that the Cathecism of the Catholic Church might help answer your questions of: "that 'if you don't believe in God you'll go to hell'".

Here is the link to the part of the CCC that I think you would want to read: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1035

Starts with the THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT, paragraph 1021 and read on...skip the puragtory part if you want, then read on. (see the references at the bottom as well)

You might also be interested in Mortal and Venial sin: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#1861

start with paragraph, 1854

1860 is key to answering your question!, I'll post it here:

Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Directly related to your question is CCC, 597: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm#597

I hope this helps a bit.

Comment by: Adam | October 4, 2008, 7:24 am

I really don't think you'll surprise Lynet, Adam. What you linked to is 100%-filled with pure assertions, and no support. So it won't "help" answer his question.

Plus, the points raised in this discussion about the ontology of hell (how does evil exist without God's supporting it? Magic?), the infinitude of hell (Why can't people change their minds? It seems probable they would, after eternity. Why would God not allow come-backs, if he is loving, forgiving, merciful, and gracious?), and the informed consent involved (Locality and our programmed-fallible minds).

These points, plus the Bible's own definition of love that I outlined above, make the Bible's notion of hell incompatible with a loving God. In this sense, I can confidently say that I don't see the doctrine of hell to be coherent.

Comment by: Brad | October 4, 2008, 10:11 am

Adam,

It would be a lot easier for me to know what your argument actually is if you put the reasoning in explicitly. I have difficulty constructing a sensible argument out of the long list of passages you have indicated for the following reasons.

Firstly, most of them assume boldly and without explanation that faith in God is the only thing that God could possibly accept as a reason to forgive people.

Secondly, it seems to be assumed boldly and without explanation that eternal punishment is a sensible and natural consequence to certain kinds of misdeed, whereas it seems fairly obvious to me that eternal punishment is not a just consequence to any misdeed.

Even if I granted the first of these (and I see no reason to), it just takes me back to my first question to karatemack. Since knowing, or at least believing, that God exists is a necessary prerequisite to having faith in God (I use 'faith' in the sense approximate to 'trust', here), why does God not make his existence more clear?

Moreover, given that eternal punishment is not a just consequence of anything, there is still nothing to prevent a just God from allowing sinners to choose to cease to exist rather then experiencing eternal torment. So my second question has not been answered, either.

Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.

I wasn't talking about ignorance of moral law. I have strong feelings about morality, even though I'd describe it relative to the welfare of human beings rather than to any law set down by God. I was talking about ignorance of the existence of (or nature of) God, which would prevent those who would otherwise ask for forgiveness from doing so in the 'approved' fashion. If you think that all human beings know that in their hearts, you're ignoring the evidence provided by the vast variety of sincerely held religious beliefs in the world.

Comment by: Lynet | October 4, 2008, 2:59 pm

Heliobates,

Truth cannot be out there—cannot exist independently of the human mind—because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own—unaided by the describing activities of humans—cannot.

I've been essentially saying the same thing all the time I've been here: fact may exist independent of us, but "truth" is just a construct of the mind - a human interpretation of fact!

It seems that when I say it, no one takes me seriously - but when that Rorty fellow says the same thing all of a sudden it's worth noting.

Comment by: Christopher | October 4, 2008, 9:10 pm

I gave up on religion 15 years ago when I was 22 years old. When I did I had never heard of atheism, nor did I know anyone that vocally spoke out against god. I just knew none of it made any sense. I spent the first year, so depressed and angry I didn't want to live, But to scared that I could be wrong to die. I am sure there was not a day in the first year that I did not think of god, hell, and what if I am wrong.
This is how I over came my fear.
I decided that If there really was a god and he could not accept that I could not associate myself with such hypocrisy, then I would rather go to hell than be associated with him. I resigned myself to this fact.
I then decided that what I really wanted was just to be happy. I decided that to do this then I needed to live the best life I could. All I could offer god (if he existed) was to live my best and if this was not good enough to hell with him anyways.
All I wanted was the best for me, and the best for all of those concerned.
This has become the core belief for my life.
I resolved that I will live my life doing my impeccable best. This did not mean I decided to become an over achiever, But that I would be responsible for me, my life, my actions, my survival, and that I would refuse to be held responsible for the lives of others. (Hell, I could barely hold my own life together, I had no right to try to be responsible for others.) This part was the hardest, I was taught the need for self sacrifice.
I learned that the only way to be able to give your best to your fellow man was to give your best to yourself first, not the other way around as religion teaches. You can only really help others when your healthy and strong. The best help you can give others is to let others learn to accept responsibility for their own lives, so they can become healthy and strong too.

It took years of coming back to the core, that to be healthy and happy I am responsible for me, and I all I can do is my impeccable best.

I also learned how to deal with guilt. We all know that if you've learned to be a christian, you learned to be guilty. I learned feelings of guilt are only feelings of violating a belief. I learned to observe my feelings and determine if the guilt was from my religious training or a violation of what I believe now. If I found that these feelings manifested themselves from my religion I would ponder on what it is I really believe, once this was established I found the feelings of guilt and fear would dissolve, and I could proceed acting according to what I now believe guilt and fear free.

Now when confronted with the question; "what if your wrong?" I can say, I have done my best to live my life doing my impeccable best, if that is not enough, to hell with him anyways.

Now 18 years later I have stood back from religion long enough to see what a horrible lie it really is. How it is only there to suck your energy from you and to leave you an empty shell, sick, dependent, and desperate for approval.
It is good to be free and it is even better to know I am not alone.

Comment by: Richard P | October 5, 2008, 1:10 am

karatemack,

To be fair, I haven't responded to your questions. For the sake of this forum I don't think I will.

Oh, so now you admit that you haven't answered the questions that you claimed you did, and instead of actually answering them you're going to take your bat and ball and go home. Nice. Well, I'm going to assume it's because you don't have an answer for those questions if that's all right with you.

Adam,

***This should answer your question right here. One can not go to hell for not believing in God without full knowledge and deliberate consent of their actions***

So, you are now saying that no one goes to hell? Cool. Unfortunately that is not in line with what the Bible says, but hey, whatever.

Comment by: OMGF | October 5, 2008, 11:36 am

Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome

Mind you, I suspect that there are enough mortal sins out there that we've all committed one of them at least once, so I'm not sure how big a difference it makes.

You're right, we all sin. But we all have another chance...many chances for that matter..As a catholic I have confession, for non-catholics if one admits they are sinful and repents of their sin, God's mercy saves.

Comment by: Adam | October 5, 2008, 5:13 pm