God and Eternal Hell

[thomasedison]

According to some religions, if you accept and believe in God, then you are absolved of all sins no matter how bad or evil they are but if you reject God even if you know that He exists, then you are condemned to eternal Hell or non-existence.


By what standard is a dictator like Hitler who accepts God better than a moral man who has lived by his own ideals but refuses to accept God as an authority?

By what standard is a morally impeccable man evil and should be condemned to Hell if he wants to govern his own life, wants freedom and doesn't want to obey God?

Isn't God acting like an evil and cruel dictator here who condemns people for not obeying him or not following what He says?

What right does God, if He exists, have a right to our lives? Just because He created us? Creation of a free-willed person does not mean that you threaten him/her with Hell/eternal damnation just because that person isn't following what you believe. Free will implies that a person has a right to do what he/she wants with himself without violating the rights of others without the fear of any punishment. Conditional free will is no free will.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

first of all, please broaden your horizens, there are other forms of God besides the christian, zues like "father" or Jesus.

according to hindus, by doing bad deeds and thinking negative thoughts, we send ourselves into an emotional and spiritual hell by being born again and again and again in Samsara. we have control over our karma by doing positive things, to negate the negative ones and control our destiny. God has no power of sending us to *hell* or *heaven*, we do it to ourselves.

 

[thomasedison]

first of all, please broaden your horizens, there are other forms of God besides the christian, zues like "father" or Jesus.

according to hindus, by doing bad deeds and thinking negative thoughts, we send ourselves into an emotional and spiritual hell by being born again and again and again in Samsara. we have control over our karma by doing positive things, to negate the negative ones and control our destiny. God has no power of sending us to *hell* or *heaven*, we do it to ourselves.

I assume that God created the cycle of being reborn or going to heaven as per your sins as He created everything. But by what standard or logic did He decide what was good or bad? I have heard a lot of moral statements by religions and many are true but no justification behind them except for the statement "God says so".
Why does the word of God have to be a moral edict which cannot be wrong? By what right?

BTW, Hell exists in Hinduism. But when does a person go to hell if he is born again and again.
Also, how do we know that heaven is better than the excitement of a challenging life on Earth.

 

[Scott1]

thomasedison,

I don't know which specific "religions" you are speaking about, so It makes it a bit harder to respond.

For the record:

if you accept and believe in God, then you are absolved of all sins no matter how bad or evil they are

I don't believe that at all.

Free will implies that a person has a right to do what he/she wants with himself without violating the rights of others without the fear of any punishment. Conditional free will is no free will.

If you can not violate the rights of others it is not "free will".... it is a "conditional free will" as you describe it.

Scott

 

[thomasedison]

thomasedison,

I don't know which specific "religions" you are speaking about, so It makes it a bit harder to respond.

For the record:
I don't believe that at all.

Yes but my question is that why what God says have to be a moral edict?

If you can not violate the rights of others it is not "free will".... it is a "conditional free will" as you describe it.

Scott

Got me there

 

[Scott1]

Yes but my question is that why what God says have to be a moral edict?

Well,you are asking the question in the context of someone who believes in God, the Creator:

if you reject God even if you know that He exists, then you

In this context, the answer to the question is almost self-evident.... at least to me

The moral edict comes from a fatherly love. God is love, so, like any other parent He guides us to do right and hopes we don't do wrong. The condemnation that you seem to so dislike is used as a weapon by some religious groups... I don't agree with the "fire and brimstone" damnation preachers.... again, my view of God is not as a judge, but as a father.

Hope this helps.
Scott

 

[thomasedison]

The moral edict comes from a fatherly love. God is love, so, like any other parent He guides us to do right and hopes we don't do wrong. The condemnation that you seem to so dislike is used as a weapon by some religious groups... I don't agree with the "fire and brimstone" damnation preachers.... again, my view of God is not as a judge, but as a father.

Hope this helps.
Scott

Fathers can be wrong

What bugs me is that nowhere is any explanation, reasoning or standard provided for the moral edicts of God. So how is a person to respect God if He has not given any explanation for what He believes in?

 

[Mister Emu]

By what standard is a dictator like Hitler who accepts God better than a moral man who has lived by his own ideals but refuses to accept God as an authority?

No one is better than anyone else, If Hitler truly accepted Jesus in his heart before he died, than he even if only for an instant was a good man before he died.

By what standard is a morally impeccable man evil and should be condemned to Hell if he wants to govern his own life, wants freedom and doesn't want to obey God?

We have all sinned, thus we all deserve judgement. Jesus, the only perfect being to come out of a woman died was sacrificed so that we should not have to be judged.

Isn't God acting like an evil and cruel dictator here who condemns people for not obeying him or not following what He says?

No, Is the judge a cruel dictator for sentencing a mass murderer to prinson for life? Do you believe that even if the person had saved 20 kids out of a burning orphanage that the person should go free?

If you were a perfect person, if you have never even thought about sinful things, then you would not have to follow God and you would not have to accept Jesus, but we have all sinned. Therefore we all need Jesus to help us out, He is the Johnny Cochran of the after-life He'll get you out of anything

 

[Scott1]

What bugs me is that nowhere is any explanation, reasoning or standard provided for the moral edicts of God. So how is a person to respect God if He has not given any explanation for what He believes in?

Sure there is....... you just haven't found it.

Peace,
Scott

 

[Jaymes]

Sure there is....... you just haven't found it.

Peace,
Scott

Well if you have could you share it with the rest of us?

 

[Scott1]

Jensa,

Well if you have could you share it with the rest of us?

That's not the topic of the thread, but you don't have to be a genius to figure out what my answer is:

The Catholic Church. :jam:


Scott

 

[Paraprakrti]

According to some religions, if you accept and believe in God, then you are absolved of all sins no matter how bad or evil they are but if you reject God even if you know that He exists, then you are condemned to eternal Hell or non-existence.

Actually, I think a Christian would tell you that all sin is on an equal level in the eyes of God. The only exception, according to the Bible, is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

By what standard is a dictator like Hitler who accepts God better than a moral man who has lived by his own ideals but refuses to accept God as an authority?

By what standard? I think the answer should be obvious. If you are hypothetically accepting the existence of God, then understand that God is the standard. The question though is whether or not Hitler really *accepts* God. One can say that they accept God, but the value of mere words is next to nil. If in fact Hitler did sincerely surrender to God before he died, then he may very well be a liberated soul. But why worry about Hitler?
The man who lives by his own ideals and moral standards may be a nice guy as far as we can see, but refusing God is like biting the hand that feeds you. God has no need to be inimical toward such a man, but He gives the guy what he apparently wants. God basically says, "ok, I'll leave you alone. You go out and find your own happiness." The problem is, there is no happiness separate from God. So to reject God means to reject happiness. This fleeting sense of happiness we experience in this world is nothing more than a counteraction to distress. It has no independent existence. It is a perverted reflection of spiritual happiness. It is by God's grace that we even have the facility, the comfort level available to even consider these questions.

By what standard is a morally impeccable man evil and should be condemned to Hell if he wants to govern his own life, wants freedom and doesn't want to obey God?

Morally impeccable means surrendered to God. The impeccability of his morality is compromised if he has specifically decided to disobey God. Freedom from God is a contradiction. Anyone who wants freedom from God is basically asking for freedom from freedom. There is an inconceivably more amount of freedom in the association of God.

Isn't God acting like an evil and cruel dictator here who condemns people for not obeying him or not following what He says?

Man asks to be separate from God. Man tries to govern his own happiness and sustenance. Man falls down. Man cries out to God. God tells the man to surrender to Him. The man rejects God. God is an evil and cruel dictator? I guess with that reasoning your doctor is an evil and cruel dictator. "What!? You want me to take two of these otherwise I will continue to have migraine headaches?! You cruel dictating *******!"

What right does God, if He exists, have a right to our lives? Just because He created us? Creation of a free-willed person does not mean that you threaten him/her with Hell/eternal damnation just because that person isn't following what you believe. Free will implies that a person has a right to do what he/she wants with himself without violating the rights of others without the fear of any punishment. Conditional free will is no free will.

What right does God have with our lives? If you don't want Him to, then He'll leave. He is that nice. And He'll even let you attempt to govern your own life. But of course, there are certain things that are inescapable. You govern your life using facilities that have been created and/or ordained by God. Nevertheless, God can make it appear to you that you are the sole creator and enjoyer of all you survey in your life. And that is exactly what He is doing now. So what is the problem? Are you not happy? Well, maybe you have to work at it. I am sure that if you make just a bit more money you can have immense pleasure for the rest of your days.
God forbid that your free will is trampled on. What happens when someone else's free will has them choose to kill you? Your free will may be to live, but unfortunately we have a clashing of free wills. You could always surrender to God. Naw, that would defeat the purpose. "Conditional" free will is no free will.

 

[thomasedison]

By what standard? I think the answer should be obvious. If you are hypothetically accepting the existence of God, then understand that God is the standard. The question though is whether or not Hitler really *accepts* God. One can say that they accept God, but the value of mere words is next to nil. If in fact Hitler did sincerely surrender to God before he died, then he may very well be a liberated soul. But why worry about Hitler?

Hitler was just an example of an evil man. Actually he never believed what he did was wrong.
That is what I am asking. Why is God the standard? God has never offered a reason for any of His morals and beliefs. Does God base his morality on arbitrary assumption? Is God irrational? If God's morality is arbitrary, then how can a person say that God's morality is better than a murderer's morality?
What is better or not is proved through reason. Proof implies reason. God, so far, has offered no reason.

The man who lives by his own ideals and moral standards may be a nice guy as far as we can see, but refusing God is like biting the hand that feeds you. God has no need to be inimical toward such a man, but He gives the guy what he apparently wants. God basically says, "ok, I'll leave you alone. You go out and find your own happiness." The problem is, there is no happiness separate from God. So to reject God means to reject happiness. This fleeting sense of happiness we experience in this world is nothing more than a counteraction to distress. It has no independent existence. It is a perverted reflection of spiritual happiness. It is by God's grace that we even have the facility, the comfort level available to even consider these questions.
Morally impeccable means surrendered to God. The impeccability of his morality is compromised if he has specifically decided to disobey God. Freedom from God is a contradiction. Anyone who wants freedom from God is basically asking for freedom from freedom. There is an inconceivably more amount of freedom in the association of God.

Again, how does morally impeccable mean surrendered to God? If God exists, he created everything. What reason does he have to follow the morality He follows be it right or wrong?

Man asks to be separate from God. Man tries to govern his own happiness and sustenance. Man falls down. Man cries out to God. God tells the man to surrender to Him. The man rejects God. God is an evil and cruel dictator? I guess with that reasoning your doctor is an evil and cruel dictator. "What!? You want me to take two of these otherwise I will continue to have migraine headaches?! You cruel dictating *******!"

Happiness means contentment. You are saying Man will not be happy without God. Why?
Is it because God will not let him be happy?

If God made him such that Man is never happy without God. God could have made it otherwise. Why did God take such a decision? Solely on the basis of God's pleasure? Why does God want Man to obey Him?

What right does God have with our lives? If you don't want Him to, then He'll leave. He is that nice. And He'll even let you attempt to govern your own life. But of course, there are certain things that are inescapable. You govern your life using facilities that have been created and/or ordained by God. Nevertheless, God can make it appear to you that you are the sole creator and enjoyer of all you survey in your life. And that is exactly what He is doing now. So what is the problem? Are you not happy? Well, maybe you have to work at it. I am sure that if you make just a bit more money you can have immense pleasure for the rest of your days.
God forbid that your free will is trampled on. What happens when someone else's free will has them choose to kill you? Your free will may be to live, but unfortunately we have a clashing of free wills. You could always surrender to God. Naw, that would defeat the purpose. "Conditional" free will is no free will.

I did concede in my last post that I was wrong about the conditional free will part.

If God exists, then he has given us the facility to think, to govern our life. You say that God can make it appear that we are the sole creator of everything. But that does not mean that he does make it appear that we are the sole creator of everything and that he is governing all. And indeed if He is governing everything, then why does He let a murderer become a murderer?

I am sure that if you make just a bit more money you can have immense pleasure for the rest of your days.

Pleasure does not equate to happiness or long term benefit.

 

[retrorich]

No one is better than anyone else, If Hitler truly accepted Jesus in his heart before he died, than he even if only for an instant was a good man before he died.

I'm sorry, but I find that statement totally ridiculous and unbelievable. The more I hear and read statements like that, the stronger my atheism becomes.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm sorry, but I find that statement totally ridiculous and unbelievable. The more I hear and read statements like that, the stronger my atheism becomes.

First why did you add a smiley, mine was not until the end of the post? Second, do you know my definition of better, from your response most likely no.

Yes, you may on the whole be a more moral person than someone else, that does not make you better. We have all sinned, and thus are all worthy of judgement. To me, tho only way someone could be better, is to be free from judgement, that means you would have to be perfect, which no one is.

 

[retrorich]

First why did you add a smiley, mine was not until the end of the post? Second, do you know my definition of better, from your response most likely no.

Yes, you may on the whole be a more moral person than someone else, that does not make you better. We have all sinned, and thus are all worthy of judgement. To me, tho only way someone could be better, is to be free from judgement, that means you would have to be perfect, which no one is.

Mr. Emu: My inclusion of the out-of-context smiley was a an unintentional error. Please accept my apology. I have removed the smiley from my post.

My reply to you was in response to the following statement by you.

QUOTE BY MR. EMU:

"No one is better than anyone else, If Hitler truly accepted Jesus in his heart before he died, than he even if only for an instant was a good man before he died."

I reject the idea that Hitler could have become "a good man," even for an instant, just by accepting Jesus into his heart. As an atheist I do not believe that accepting Jesus into one's heart has any effect at all--let alone making one "a good man."

 

[Paraprakrti]

Hitler was just an example of an evil man. Actually he never believed what he did was wrong.

The only thing I am going to say about Hitler is that it is possible that he received liberation/salvation. But it is really pointless to speculate because that is between Hitler and God. What I follow is not exactly the same as Christianity. Someone who lives in the mode of goodness will, first of all, not reject God. Now, they may not be deeply spiritual devotees of God, but they will at least be open to the concept. Such a person will not burn eternally in hellfire, but at the same time they will not receive salvation. The fact that such a person remains in this material world means that they remain susceptible to suffering such things as hellfire. So even though this man may receive material benefit for his good activity, he will eventually fall down into hell. Up and down, over and over again. That is why it is stressed that we should give up this nonsense and surrender to God. The Bible stresses the ultimatum, heaven or hell, which I feel is perfectly alright.

That is what I am asking. Why is God the standard? God has never offered a reason for any of His morals and beliefs. Does God base his morality on arbitrary assumption? Is God irrational? If God's morality is arbitrary, then how can a person say that God's morality is better than a murderer's morality?
What is better or not is proved through reason. Proof implies reason. God, so far, has offered no reason.

God is the standard because there is nothing but God. That is what it means to be God. God is the reason, it is not that God needs a reason because there is no reason external from Himself. God is the final conclusion of reason. What exactly do you mean by God's morality? God is morality. You cannot separate the two. The murderer, by seeking control over life, is seeking to be God himself. Trying to fill the post of an omnipotent being is not prescribed, and actually, it is the very reason we fall down.
If what is better or not is proved through reason, then God is that reason. The reason God is that reason is because no matter what we do, we are eternally dependent on God for our sustenance. I think herein lies the problem because you will not accept. But at least understand hypothetically that there is nothing higher than God and therefore no reasoning beyond Him.

Again, how does morally impeccable mean surrendered to God? If God exists, he created everything. What reason does he have to follow the morality He follows be it right or wrong?

Morally impeccable means surrendered to God because God is moral impeccability.
Who says God has to follow anything? God is the leader, we are the followers. When we seek to be the leader, we fall. If it wasn't so then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Happiness means contentment. You are saying Man will not be happy without God. Why?
Is it because God will not let him be happy?

Man will not be happy without God because man is eternally dependent on God. Even if you do not accept God you can understand that you are dependent on so many material things for the sustenance of this body. It is reasoned furthermore that everything, every facility is ultimately given by God. God has the final say so for what is given. He creates the one who creates the one who creates the one who creates what you need.
No, God will let everyone be happy. God is not restricting man from seeking happiness. If we have not found happiness yet then it is our flaw, not God's.

If God made him such that Man is never happy without God. God could have made it otherwise. Why did God take such a decision? Solely on the basis of God's pleasure? Why does God want Man to obey Him?

First of all, this is the eternal designation. The infinitesimal souls are happy in their constitutional position, which is in direct association of the Infinite Soul, aka: God. It is not that God made man with the need for God. The soul is eternal with God, but the difference is that the souls are eternally dependent on God. Everything is perfect in its position.
Secondly, your inquiry reveals the fundamental flaw: You want to be free of God, but at the same time you want God to make it all better. You should make a decision and stick with it. Either you accept that you are independent of God and seek your own happiness, or you decide that you need His help and surrender to Him.

If God exists, then he has given us the facility to think, to govern our life. You say that God can make it appear that we are the sole creator of everything. But that does not mean that he does make it appear that we are the sole creator of everything and that he is governing all. And indeed if He is governing everything, then why does He let a murderer become a murderer?

Our thinking that we are creators, enjoyers and controllers is false ego because we are none of these things. But if you want to try and be them without God then God has given you the facility. Furthermore, if you want God to help you then you are contradicting your original decision.
God is overseeing this universe, but how much necessity is there for Him Personally amongst people who want Him out of the picture? God does not have to work hard at sustaining the universe. He sets it in motion and its good to go for its billions upon billions of years duration. God only comes Personally for the sake of His devotees when He feels the time is right. The murderer is allowed to be such just as anything else is allowed. The murdered is allowed to be such for the same reason. The murderer is another example of man trying to be God. The murdered is another example of man failing in trying to be God. Both of these souls have taken shelter under the material energy for the same reason, and that reason was to seek enjoyment outside of God's association.

Pleasure does not equate to happiness or long term benefit.

I am not sure I follow here. Pleasure means to be pleased. I would think that being pleased is being happy. And it depends on what kind of pleasure that we are talking about. Apparently, nothing in this material world is really long term. Perhaps looking relative to our tiny life spans, but it is still insignificant if we are continuously susceptible to the cycle of pleasure and pain, happiness and distress.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

God is spirituality in nature and morality. having a mass genocide is not moral, and goes against the laws of nature.

sure, whatever happened is between God and hitler. but no... just no. i cannot bear to entertain the thought that he went to heaven, while others, who suffered by his hands, didnt.

 

[Mister Emu]

I reject the idea that Hitler could have become "a good man," even for an instant, just by accepting Jesus into his heart. As an atheist I do not believe that accepting Jesus into one's heart has any effect at all--let alone making one "a good man."

I am saying that to truly accept Jesus into your heart you have to be a morally right person, and if Hitler even up to a moment before his death did accept Jesus, and did repent his sins than he would goto heaven. I understand you are an Atheist, that is your right, I know of and trust in God's mercy, that whoever accepts Jesus into his/her heart and repents is saved.

 

[thomasedison]

God is the standard because there is nothing but God. That is what it means to be God. God is the reason, it is not that God needs a reason because there is no reason external from Himself. God is the final conclusion of reason. What exactly do you mean by God's morality? God is morality. You cannot separate the two. The murderer, by seeking control over life, is seeking to be God himself. Trying to fill the post of an omnipotent being is not prescribed, and actually, it is the very reason we fall down.
If what is better or not is proved through reason, then God is that reason. The reason God is that reason is because no matter what we do, we are eternally dependent on God for our sustenance. I think herein lies the problem because you will not accept. But at least understand hypothetically that there is nothing higher than God and therefore no reasoning beyond Him.

Morally impeccable means surrendered to God because God is moral impeccability.
Who says God has to follow anything? God is the leader, we are the followers. When we seek to be the leader, we fall. If it wasn't so then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I think here is where we differ. Although I do not believe in God, the only position of God I can accept is that of the creator of material world and the giver of free will and consciousness to man even though that is not in accordance in science.

Abstract concepts such as truth, morality and reason exist because the human mind and consciousness exists. Morality and reason are not applicable to animals.

Reason is the faculty to draw conclusions based on verifiable facts. Reason tells what is right and wrong.
Morality consists in doing what is right. Thus morality is based on reason.

Everything we do should be based on reason. If God is reason then everything we do should be based on God? How can anything anyone does be based on anyone. It can be based on the good of oneself or somebody but how can it be based on someone or something's existence?

Man will not be happy without God because man is eternally dependent on God. Even if you do not accept God you can understand that you are dependent on so many material things for the sustenance of this body. It is reasoned furthermore that everything, every facility is ultimately given by God. God has the final say so for what is given. He creates the one who creates the one who creates the one who creates what you need.
No, God will let everyone be happy. God is not restricting man from seeking happiness. If we have not found happiness yet then it is our flaw, not God's.

First of all, this is the eternal designation. The infinitesimal souls are happy in their constitutional position, which is in direct association of the Infinite Soul, aka: God. It is not that God made man with the need for God. The soul is eternal with God, but the difference is that the souls are eternally dependent on God. Everything is perfect in its position.
Secondly, your inquiry reveals the fundamental flaw: You want to be free of God, but at the same time you want God to make it all better. You should make a decision and stick with it. Either you accept that you are independent of God and seek your own happiness, or you decide that you need His help and surrender to Him.

That is what I am asking. If God exists, then God made man. God made his nature and God decided who should Man be dependent on.
Why did God (if he exists) make man such that Man be dependent on God?

No, I do not want God to make anything better. If God exists, I want him to give reasons for what He did. If the reasons are valid, I will gladly accept them.

Our thinking that we are creators, enjoyers and controllers is false ego because we are none of these things. But if you want to try and be them without God then God has given you the facility. Furthermore, if you want God to help you then you are contradicting your original decision.
God is overseeing this universe, but how much necessity is there for Him Personally amongst people who want Him out of the picture? God does not have to work hard at sustaining the universe. He sets it in motion and its good to go for its billions upon billions of years duration. God only comes Personally for the sake of His devotees when He feels the time is right. The murderer is allowed to be such just as anything else is allowed. The murdered is allowed to be such for the same reason. The murderer is another example of man trying to be God. The murdered is another example of man failing in trying to be God. Both of these souls have taken shelter under the material energy for the same reason, and that reason was to seek enjoyment outside of God's association.

You said that we are not creators, enjoyers and controllers. But we can try to be. Yet the "are not" implies that nobody has tried to be the creator, enjoyer or controller. In effect nobody has tried to be God. How is then any person responsible for what he/she does if nobody is the creator, enjoyer and/or controller?

If we are not enjoyers, then what does anybody mean when he/she says "our happiness"?

I am not sure I follow here. Pleasure means to be pleased. I would think that being pleased is being happy. And it depends on what kind of pleasure that we are talking about. Apparently, nothing in this material world is really long term. Perhaps looking relative to our tiny life spans, but it is still insignificant if we are continuously susceptible to the cycle of pleasure and pain, happiness and distress.

Promiscuity gives pleasure. But it destroys our self-esteem. It does not give happiness. Happiness is a feeling of elation and contentment. Of having pride in knowing what you have done and what you can do. Pleasure is not the same.