Eternal hell or annihillation make no sense

[Ignatius A]

But it's more about the use of the word 'sin', given there just is a grey area as to such things and not some 'law' as to such - and seemingly as to the value of anything found.

All sin could be summed up as stealing. Value is irrelevant in regards to sin

 

[Mock Turtle]

All sin could be summed up as stealing. Value is irrelevant in regards to sin

In my world the word 'sin' is not useful at all and since there is no objective morality (in my view), some subjective morality seems to cover such events - given that some will not be bothered as to what they find (Finders keepers) whilst others will try to find an owner regardless of what was found. And the 'sin' involved seems to have a sliding scale in your world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know you are

Consent of the will is the same difference regarding sin. Let's try an experiment:

If I tell you I found a $20 bill and a gold bracelet which of the two would you best be able to prove to me that the specific ones of each that I have, you own?

Because whichever one I can't conclusively identify is okay for you to steal?

 

[Ignatius A]

In my world the word 'sin' is not useful at all and since there is no objective morality (in my view), some subjective morality seems to cover such events - given that some will not be bothered as to what they find (Finders keepers) whilst others will try to find an owner regardless of what was found. And the 'sin' involved seems to have a sliding scale in your world.

Oh yes the subjective morality crowd. On what basis could you say I shouldnt just beat the $20 out of somebody. Tell me why that should be a crime.

I was very clear about the basis of sin so you werent paying attention if you think there's a sliding scale. That's too bad because I thought you were sharper then that.

 

[Ignatius A]

Because whichever one I can't conclusively identify is okay for you to steal?

No. Is it a skill you learn somewhere to respond to things in your head and not to what was actually said?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Is it a skill you learn somewhere to respond to things in your head and not to what was actually said?

I'm trying to talk you through making a coherent point. If you find the experience frustrating, communicate better.

 

[Eddi]

Why?

Because or actions and sins is finitive. Infinitive punishment for finitive sins is not just.

God is loving and just. So my conclusion is that eternal hell or annhilation of the soul do not exist. That is my belief

What is your thoughts about this?

Is God obliged to make sense to humans??????

 

[Ignatius A]

I'm trying to talk you through making a coherent point. If you find the experience frustrating, communicate better.

The starting point is you ignoring the voices in your head. If you can.

 

[Ignatius A]

Is God obliged to make sense to humans??????

Some humans seem to think so and if he doesnt they think they are punishing him by not believing in him.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ahh, so you're an annihilist. I'd be curious to know what your thoughts are on verses that constantly refer to a place of eternal torment. Take for example Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31

I'm not sure what you mean by a nihilist, I figure you probably mean do I believe that God can annihilate what He wants to? Specifically the lives and thoughts of that which is in opposition to him? Yes, I believe that.

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Why constantly refer to a place that's misinterpreted to mean total destruction as a place of eternal torment? I don't get it. Why mention eternal torment at all, then?

Hell does not necessarily mean a place of total destruction. First we'd have to discuss how the word hell is used. And Jesus gave a parable to teach a lesson. We can discuss this as to what was the meaning of this story.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because whichever one I can't conclusively identify is okay for you to steal?

Neither one is okay for you to steal. Last summer when I was in the hospital, when I was sleeping someone on the hospital staff stole a necklace and 370 dollars from my purse. I have reported that more than once and I am still waiting to hear back. But how can I prove that someone stole those? I cannot prove it so they will just have to take my word for it or not. I will continue to pursue this because it is just not right for this kind of thing to happen, especially in a hospital!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither one is okay for you to steal.

*I* know that. I've been trying to figure out if @Ignatius A knows it, too.

 

[Ignatius A]

*I* know that. I've been trying to figure out if @Ignatius A knows it, too.

Is stealing a sin?

 

[Altfish]

I'm just curious to your thoughts on whether mass murder is a finitive or infinitive action.

The problem is (as I understand it) you get the same punishment for being a mass murderer as you do for not believing in god.

 

[Ignatius A]

The problem is (as I understand it) you get the same punishment for being a mass murderer as you do for not believing in god.

And? Oh I forget we live in a world where there is always an extenuating circumstance for why we shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of our choices.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't think God exists at all to inflict any punishment..

..so no contradiction then.

 

[Altfish]

And? Oh I forget we live in a world where there is always an extenuating circumstance for why we shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of her?our choices.

Are you serious?
Are you really saying that your god is correct to equate a mass murderer with (say) me, who doesn't believe in her?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Oh yes the subjective morality crowd. On what basis could you say I shouldnt just beat the $20 out of somebody. Tell me why that should be a crime.

Well this more reflects morality than the objective sort seemingly imposed on humans from some unknown source. Now we are talking my language - crime. Sin should be left in the BIN!

I was very clear about the basis of sin so you werent paying attention if you think there's a sliding scale. That's too bad because I thought you were sharper then that.

You are the one with the black and white notion of sin.

 

[Ignatius A]

Well this more reflects morality than the objective sort seemingly imposed on humans from some unknown source. Now we are talking my language - crime. Sin should be left in the BIN!

You are the one with the black and white notion of sin.

Yes it is black and white. That's not my fault.

 

[Soandso]

Dont start with the silliness that I didn't answer the questions. I answered but apparently you dont like the answer or it's not the answer your looking for.

That would be the second option. Instead of answering my questions you went off on a tangent about consequences. So yes, you didn't initially answer the questions I was asking. You did here in this response down below though, so thank you

I don't care what answer you're looking for.

A little rude, but ok. At least you're being honest

If you can't handle my answer move on.

What is there to handle? You misinterpreted my question so I brought it back on track

If you can then address it.

Sure. The fact consequences exist is irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that consequences exist within the context of the rules that have been put in place by the one who made them

Your whole response here speaks directly to what I said in my previous post. I will give you one more shot though.

You can "give me one more shot," or not. If you aren't having fun discussing the topic, I'd move on then

To your first question, hell is properly understood as separation from God. It's not a place per se as much as a consequence. You are free to decide not to be with God. That decision has consequences.

Ok good! Question, though: How does separation from God = eternal torture when I can experience life torment free now while also being separated from God? Why should separation from God in life be painless while separation from God in death mean never ending torment? It seems to me that if this is the case, couldn't god just make it so that separation in death from him would be torment free like it is now? Why didn't he make it that way? Why did he specifically choose for people to experience never ending torment in death?

The second question is just the drama queen version of the first. Why? BECAUSE CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES

...consequences that the rule maker made. If I'm playing Monopoly and I draw the go to jail card and "do not pass go and do not collect 200$," that is a consequence that is specifically structure by the creators of that game according to the rules they've put together. They could have made the card say anything, but that was what they chose to print on the card

All choices and consequences in life are made within the context of the rules governing the world we inhabit. If I smoke a pack of cigarettes every day, chances are that I'll get lung cancer or emphysema due to the rules on how smoke and tar inhalation effect lung tissue, specifically

So why would God create a reality where separation from him would = eternal and never ending torment? Why were those the rules he stuck with? Sure, we can just say that those are just the consequences of our actions, but it certainly seems evil to create those consequences in the first place

You say you understand choices have consequences then blast God for creating the consequences.

Blast him? No. I'm just looking for a logical reason for how he can be considered all good and loving while structuring a fundamental system that is so starkly opposite of those two things. He can create those rules, but those rules are unimaginably evil. Doesn't seem reasonable

Any consequences you experience are YOUR choice not his.

True, but those consequences are consequences he made possible. He could have made them anything

It's reasoning like yours that leads places like Harvard to hire an atheist to hear their religious studies department.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you unpack this a little more for me?