Question for the Non-Muslims

[Mr Spinkles]

You misunderstood my post. I didn't ask him to believe in God. My point was that because he doesn't believe in God, so maybe he still don't know the nature of God whom i'm talking about. A Jew, a Christian, etc might have an idea of the nature of God and his qualities. An Atheist might not know what is God because he doesn't believe that God exist on the first place.

So, what he can do is to study how Muslims "for instance" describe and perceive God, then from there, he can start making an informed decision about whether God is just or not.

Forgive me for jumping in ... but I would just point out that it is very curious indeed when someone has to believe in something in order to understand it. All the things which we know are real do not require you to believe in them to understand them. That's how we determine that something is real: you can test it and observe it, and the results for each person do not depend on their personal mental state or subjective opinions.

On the other hand, many of the things which we know spring from the human mind, like a nightmare or a hallucination or religious beliefs, require belief for understanding. I think it was Thomas Aquinas (sp?) who espoused the principle "believe in order to understand". Maybe that's why Muslims cannot understand the Holy Trinity or the profound forgiveness of sins through God's incarnation as Man in the person of Christ. Christians would say you have to open your heart and believe in order to understand it. I think Hindus would make similar claims.

Maybe they are right. After all, that is exactly what we would expect from ideas that are created by, and maintained in, the human psyche. Anyone who knows what it means to "lose yourself" completely in the emotions of a song or a movie should recognize this subtle difference between the reality that is there and the realities we create (or allow to happen) in our heads.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

through misfortunes Allah wants us to reflect and change our bad ways so that we avoid hell.

By "us" you must mean the lucky survivors. Come on eselam, you can't believe the lightning rod and pennicillin had something to do with changing "our bad ways so that we avoid hell". If you want to know why people die of infectious diseases or get hit by lightning, and why our countermeasures work, read about those subjects. It has absolutely nothing to do with "our bad ways", bacteria and electrons act according to their nature in the environment they find themselves in, they have no idea or care for who they hurt (or help) along the way. In fact some American Christians in the 19th century said the lightning rod (when it was invented) was evil, a cheap trick to avoid God's just punishment, undoubtedly some Muslims were saying the same thing. That was over 100 years ago, I thought humanity had moved past that nonsense.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

eselam,

Sorry for the consecutive posts but..... just to anticipate your objections, I'm not saying we shouldn't reflect on our ways when misfortunes happen. By all means, that's a great idea. We should reflect and try to look on the bright side and try to learn. This would be a good idea *whether or not* misfortunes were deliberately sent by God.

 

[Sunstone]

In fact some American Christians in the 19th century said the lightning rod (when it was invented) was evil, a cheap trick to avoid God's just punishment, undoubtedly some Muslims were saying the same thing. That was over 100 years ago, I thought humanity had moved past that nonsense.

Technology and knowledge are progressive. Humanity isn't.

 

[Fatihah]

On the contrary. One who loves and who is loved cannot hurt the other. If you are fearful that you could hurt a loved one then you trust neither yourself or your love for the other. Upsetting another is a momentary trifle of little lasting consequence as those who truly love quickly overcome these upsets because of their deep love. Fear has no place in such relationships and is a perversion of love.

Response: One can not hurt another they love intentionally. However, since we are all capable of making mistakes, actions with no intent to hurt, it is very possible that one can committ such an act which in return can upset a loved one. Surely one who truly loves will forgive the mistake, but that does not mean that they won't feel a sense of disappointment or hurt from the act, depending on the act. It just simply means that they have forgiven the person.Thus fearing the idea of committing such acts is in fact a fear that coincides with love and is not a perversion of love.

 

[Fatihah]

Sure we fear upsetting those we love, but with Allah there is the additional fear of the horrible, eternal torture that has been prepared for unbelievers. That is the focus of all the Islamic texts quoted in the OP.

The glee with which the torture is described in the OP, how the wicked, stupid, lying, disobedient non-Muslims will one day get their just desserts, and how exhilirating this will be for Allah and his followers, borders on the pornographic.

Response: Only in the case of injustice. However, the justice in the OP could never border on the pornographic.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Physics is something which you can do experiment on, but spirituality can't be measured in labs, my friend

Not everything in this life can be proven in labs. Human beings still know nothing except a drop of water of knowledge and truth about this life.

You say we know very little, and I agree, I am not the one claiming to know things about the mind of God, what he knows, why he cares about this but not that, what tests he has prepared and why, how we should feel about him, what he wants from us, etc. I agree that spirituality cannot be measured in a lab, that is what we would expect if spirituality was a subjective mental experience. My point was that rituals and affirmations are not what we expect from an objective, free field of inquiry.

Furthermore, even without a laboratory we can examine the plain meaning of words....I believe you did not respond to this part of my post (# 381) about thought-crime:

"Fear the fire, which is prepared for the disbelievers."
[Ali'-Imran, 3: 131]
"Truly Hell is lying in wait- a destination for the transgressors."
[an-Naba, 78: 21-22]
(One’s rejection of faith is transgression against Allah and himself).
​

How is this not thought-crime? This is the very definition of thought-crime.

I said that this idea of hell is just the religious version of thought-crime and it constrains free thought. Don't you agree that a person is *more* liberated to think about a question, if that person is not threatened with punishment for arriving at the wrong conclusions?

This will contradict with him by just. He is juts AND merciful, and you are still not aware of what God do to be called the most merciful.

You are saying it would be unjust if disbelievers did not go to hell for eternity? Even if it would be unjust, it would be more merciful. This conclusion seems to follow from the plain meaning of words.

You had these thoughts before, and you think it's wrong to feel that way, because?

I wouldn't say it's wrong to feel that way, I'm not going to tell people how they have to feel, but I do think it's a mistake to interpret your personal feelings as evidence of an external reality. When I see an American flag I might feel patriotic, I feel that this is a beautiful, great country, it's not necessarily "wrong" to indulge in these feelings but they must be set aside, perhaps overcome, in order to achieve anything close to a realistic view of the U.S. The same is true of religion. Muslims would feel indescribable emotions that reaffirm their faith whether or not Islam was actually true, just like Mormons, Catholics, etc. These feelings are fine but they are not evidence of anything, to establish facts about the world we have to set aside a lot of emotions.

So? does that make my belief in heaven and hell wrong?

No it just helps explain the only undeniable fact about heaven and hell, which is the fact that some cultures have believed in it.

There is a huge difference between repeating blindly, and repeating after understanding the meaning of these words and why it's being repeated. I'm afraid you didn't capture yet the correct image of these actions.

Okay I concede that. But it is also true that there is a huge difference between "repeating after understanding the meaning of these words and why it's being repeated", and truly objective inquiry.

If it was that critical as you have explained, God would have forced it on us, but he didn't.

I don't agree or disagree, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. Believing in God is "critical" yet you say God doesn't force it on us. Ergo, it is possible repetition could be "critical" but God wouldn't force it on us.

For me, as i was growing up, i don't remember that i ever was taking part in any repetition rituals till i became older, and at one point in my life, i have stopped everything as you did, had gave myself sometime to know whether i'm on the right path or not till i reached to abandoning all types of rituals and all the beliefs i acquired before.

Religion has not become an interesting topic for me till i finished my search for the truth when i re-discovered Islam and has embraced it since then till now. To me, it was an informed decision, not something i just HAD to believe in, although i was born as a Muslim.

Individual results will vary of course, I am only saying that ritualistic affirmation is one factor that causes us to be biased. I am not saying that repetition forces us to do anything or determines the outcome in every individual case. But if you zoom out, and look at millions of people over thousands of years, you can see the huge effect. Surely you can't deny repetition has at least some influence on us? It's an observed fact of psychology.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Response: Only in the case of injustice. However, the justice in the OP could never border on the pornographic.

Well let's let the gentle readers decide:

Imran bin Husayn (radiAllahu anhu) narrated that the Prophet (salAllahu alayhi wasalam) said:
“I looked into Paradise and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were the poor, and I looked into Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.”
[Sahih al-Bukhari]

(When the Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wasalam) saw Hell, many different kinds of people were there; however, there were two types whom he did not recognize because they did not exist at the time when he was alive, (seventh century). These two types of people are the following:
1) those carrying whips who were beating others (oppressors)
2) women wearing revealing outfits much like the fashionable clothing of today. These women have unusual hairstyles, perhaps like the ones worn by modern-day women.

“For the disbelievers We have prepared chains, yokes and a blazing fire.”
[al Insan, 76: 4]

Intestines will come out of Bellies:
Abu Hurairah (radiAllahu anhu) stated that Allah’s Messenger (salAllahu alayhi wasalam) said:
“I saw ‘Amr bin ‘Amir al Khuya’I dragging his intestines in the Fire; he was the first who dedicated animals to false deities.”
[Muslim]

On the Day of Judgment the inhabitants of Hell will see their destined abode face to face and will realize the error of their ways. But, of course, it will be too late.

“No, they deny the Hour (of the judgment to come), but We have prepared a blazing fire for such as deny the Hour. When it sees them from a far off place, they will hear its fury and its raging sigh. And when they are cast, bound, in chains, into constricted place therein, they will plead therein for destruction. Do not plead today for a single destruction; plead for destruction oft-repeated.”
[al-Furqan, 25: 11-14]

“Those in the Fire will say to the keepers of Hell, ‘Pray to your Lord to lighten for us the penalty for a day (at least).’ They will say, ‘Did there not come to you your messengers with clear signs?’ They will say, ‘Yes.’ They will reply, ‘Then pray as you like. But the prayer of those without faith is not but in error.’”
[Ghafir, 40: 49-50]

“They will cry out, ‘O Malik, let your Lord put an end to us.’ He will say, “Surely, you will stay (as you are).’”
[adh-Dhukhrub, 43: 77]

Those who reject [truth] among the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, dwelling therein forever. They are the worst of creatures.”
[al-Bayyinah, 98: 1-6]

"No food will there be for them except bitter dhari (a thorny plant), which will neither nourish nor satisfy hunger."
[Surah al-Ghashiyah, 88: 6-7]


“Verily, the tree of Zaqqum will be the food of the sinful. Like molten brass it will boil in their insides like the boiling of scalding water.”
[ad-Dukhan, 44: 43-46]


“Thus. Then will they taste it – a boiling fluid and a filthy fluid of pus and blood and other penalties of a similar kind to match them.”
[Sad, 38: 57-58]

​

 

[TashaN]

Let me clarify something first. In Islam, we believe that this life is the place to work, and people will either do bad or do good, and there is no type of work what so ever in the hereafter. It's just a judgment day and people will either go to heaven or hell. There is no point in believing in God in hell.

This still doesn't solve the problem. If God were to simply eradicate the person's soul, then the sin would be finite. Even in your interpretation, the sin is infinite because God decides that it should be.

Not because God "decide" so, but because God knows that this person simply won't change. God knows our future, remember?

Also, I think it's important to introduce another element that I think is a necessary part of a just punishment: a just purpose.

In human terms, punishment is used to correct a person by either rehabilitating the person or deterring them from future crime.

If, as you point out, the Quran says that the people in Hell would "certainly relapse to the things they were forbidden", then this says to me that Hell is completely ineffective at either deterrence or rehabilitation.

However, even if it didn't fail in these regards, these sorts of purposes of punishment are intended to make a purpose fit for re-entry into society. But in Hell, re-entry is not a possibility. There is nothing left for the person to be rehabilitated for.

So... that's another thing that's missing from the idea of Hell: a just reason to punish the hell-bound. The suffering of those in Hell accomplishes nothing. It doesn't even satisfy God's blood-lust, since no amount of suffering from a person is ever considered enough.

That's misunderstanding of the hereafter. In hereafter, there is nothing to work for. For Muslims, they will not be required to do anything. So, no praying, no fasting, no zakat, no haj, no NOTHING. It will be just a plain enjoyment. The same goes for hell, no matter one do, it would be pointless, because we have one test, and you either have to pass or fail. Tough, one will go through this life and will receive guidance from God in so many ways, so if he ignored that guidance, he can't blame God for not doing well on the test.

So, rehabilitating is actually happening in this life, because God punish some people in this life and he give them always another chance to change.

If you want an example of the punishment in this life and the rehabilitating process, please read my post # 459 at the link below:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...9239-question-non-muslims-12.html#post1826290

I'm fine with the idea that God's knowledge is unlimited. I still think that even when we take this into account, Hell is still an unjust concept.

That's only what you think, because you still don't know everything about God, purpose of life, and the meaning of life, etc. insufficient information might cripple your analysis which your conclusion was based on.

Well, no. Even in what you present, it's only an "infinite crime" because of the choice of God to make it infinite. The "infinite" nature of the crime is a direct result of God's own choices.

How so?

God knows the future, and he already know that a specific person will never change even if he was given the chance to live for millions and millions of years.

Expanding on YmirGF's idea:

For a moment, I imagine myself to be a creator of something special. This thing that I have created is capable of doing good and evil. It does something evil, so I decide to send it to a lake of fire to burn for eternity.

That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. If I made something and it committed evil, then I would wonder what I did wrong and I would try to fix it. I don't see any point in horrific punishments.

Well, it's expected from this creature to commit evil, but they are required to seek forgiveness.

So God is God? and the Quran says HE is male and has limits? he lives forever, but he doesn't have the ability to manifest as a man.

You are limited because you can't be a rapist? you are limited because you can't be a molester? you are limited because you can't do drugs? you are limited because you don't want to commit murder? you are limited because you don't want to make a fool out of yourself?

Just because a king doesn't want to make a clown out of himself, that doesn't mean he can't DO it.

 

[Kerr]

God knows the future, and he already know that a specific person will never change even if he was given the chance to live for millions and millions of years.

Doesn´t justify hell. It is like saying if someone will shoplift forever then they should be executed. Hell is wrong, especially when good people end up there. I am like that, I just can´t look on my parents and the people I love and care about and think that they may be good people, they may be extraordinary people, but they believe in the wrong deity and therefor should burn in hell for all eternity. They don´t deserve that, no matter if they do the so called crime of disbelief for all eternity.

I am also a but confused. Allah is supposed to be perfect, yet I should apply lower standards on him then on myself. Doesn´t seem very perfect to me.

 

[TashaN]

The glee with which the torture is described in the OP, how the wicked, stupid, lying, disobedient non-Muslims will one day get their just desserts, and how exhilirating this will be for Allah and his followers, borders on the pornographic.

They are not just non-Muslims!

Please read my post # 455 at the link below to the answer.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...9239-question-non-muslims-12.html#post1825851

The test of course makes no sense to begin with.... (1) if God knows everything then he already knows the outcome of any test, (2) even if he doesn't know everything, if God is all-powerful he could figure out the outcome without even bothering with a test, (3) people can't have a "permanent nature" unless God put it there to begin with, (4) they also can't have a "permanent nature" if they have free will, maybe they will change their mind tomorrow but they are hit by a bus and die a non-believer, and finally (5) it's not a test of goodness but only a test of credulity (i.m.o. of course).

(1) Yes he does.

(2) True, but instead of waking up one day finding yourself in hell, because God knows you will end up being in hell, it's much more reasonable to live your choice, so you wouldn't wonder why you deserved to be in hell. That's why i think although God knows everything, he is just and merciful that he allowed us to see by ourselves what we are doing although he could have sent us straight to hell for knowing our future.

(3) It's not that God has enforced this "nature" but it's that God knows that a specific person can never chance no matter what.

(4) God knows that for some people, even if they lived for thousands or millions of years, they won't change, while others can.

(5) It's just an opinion, as you said.

Forgive me for jumping in ... but I would just point out that it is very curious indeed when someone has to believe in something in order to understand it.......

I don't think it was necessary to make this post, because i already have said that one doesn't have to believe in God in order to understand what i'm talking about, but one has to study how Muslims "for instance" describe and perceive God, then from there, he can start making an informed decision about whether God is just or not.

I believe you did not respond to this part of my post (# 381) about thought-crime

I believe i did. Please read post 455.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...9239-question-non-muslims-12.html#post1825851

I wouldn't say it's wrong to feel that way, I'm not going to tell people how they have to feel, but I do think it's a mistake to interpret your personal feelings as evidence of an external reality. When I see an American flag I might feel patriotic, I feel that this is a beautiful, great country, it's not necessarily "wrong" to indulge in these feelings but they must be set aside, perhaps overcome, in order to achieve anything close to a realistic view of the U.S. The same is true of religion. Muslims would feel indescribable emotions that reaffirm their faith whether or not Islam was actually true, just like Mormons, Catholics, etc. These feelings are fine but they are not evidence of anything, to establish facts about the world we have to set aside a lot of emotions.

We are not machines. Do you believe in something called "soul"? If you don't know even whether it does exist or not or how a soul can be affected or dealt with, then i think you are not qualified to judge whether *these feelings* are credible and real or not. It's a very big mistake to neglect, suppress, and ignore feelings and emotions when dealing with religion, which the soul play a major part in, which probably have prevented you and those who believe the way you do from seeing the truth about religion.

No it just helps explain the only undeniable fact about heaven and hell, which is the fact that some cultures have believed in it.

Adam, the first man, knew about it, so i don't see why it's strange that people since then acknowledged this concept.

Okay I concede that. But it is also true that there is a huge difference between "repeating after understanding the meaning of these words and why it's being repeated", and truly objective inquiry.

Inquiry about what? the wisdom behind rituals and repetitions?

I don't agree or disagree, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. Believing in God is "critical" yet you say God doesn't force it on us. Ergo, it is possible repetition could be "critical" but God wouldn't force it on us.

Not everything is critical in Islam. I guess you already know that.

I am impressed by the nuance of the rulings, that it is not just "this is forbidden, that is required", many things are "recommended", "permissible", or "disliked" but not expressly required or forbidden.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam/90142-fiqh-made-easy.html#post1811041

Individual results will vary of course, I am only saying that ritualistic affirmation is one factor that causes us to be biased. I am not saying that repetition forces us to do anything or determines the outcome in every individual case. But if you zoom out, and look at millions of people over thousands of years, you can see the huge effect. Surely you can't deny repetition has at least some influence on us? It's an observed fact of psychology.

It can have influence on us because we want it to have influence on us. Someone would embrace Islam before even repeating a single word. He then start repeating certain things willingly, not that it was forced on him or anything. What's with the repetition? You make it sound as if we were an army of zombies walking on the streets aimlessly while repeating certain words. There is a beauty in repeating certain words but it's not an integral part for why we believe in God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, that's why I like the other opinion in the Islamic thought that says hell is not eternal. Eternity of hell, Penguin, is a debatable issue and there are two different opinions regarding it.

Thanks. TashaN mentioned that other opinions exist, but I think it's a good thing to be reminded of.

One that Tashan has presented which is more famous between Muslims and the other one that says hell will come to an end after all its dwellers become purified from their disbelief and sin. They drive their evidence from the Qur'an and the sayings of some companions of the prophet. But also reasoning says that if the punishment in this life is intended to refine the soul from its evil and discipline it, and God of this life is the same God of the hereafter and His mercy is in this life and the hereafter and even His mercy in the hereafter is much greater and He doesn't punish His creatures aimlessly; "What can Allah gain by your punishment, if ye are grateful and ye believe?" Qur'an, then there must be a wisdom behind the punishment of hell and it must be for His creatures' interests and then hell must be a means for a purpose and not a purpose itself and when it carries out its purpose, it comes to an end.

But what is that purpose? My question isn't so much the one you gave but "What can Allah gain by your punishment, period?"

Moreover, Allah's mercy encompasses every thing; as angels said "Our Lord! Thy Reach is over all things, in Mercy and Knowledge". Qur'an and thus His mercy must then encompass those who are punished in hell, and if they stayed there forever, it would mean His mercy didn't reach them.

I tried to convey that opinion which I find it beautiful and we can't say for sure what will happen but what I am sure of is that Allah is the Just and the Most Merciful.

But here's what bothers me with this argument:

I think that Hell, if such a place were to actually exist, would be intrinsically evil. My moral sense that guides my decisions, and that has supposedly been instilled in my by God, absolutely, instinctively rejects the idea that torture after we die (and especially infinite torture after we die, though as you point out, not all Muslims agree that Hell is infinite) could ever be an element of a divine plan that's based on goodness and justice.

If you're right and Hell is actually perfectly good, doesn't the failure on my part and on the part of many, many others to recognize its goodness point to the fact that our innate moral sense is utterly unreliable? And if so, then how could it be just for God to punish us for coming to the "wrong" conclusions based on this flawed moral sense that he placed in us?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me clarify something first. In Islam, we believe that this life is the place to work, and people will either do bad or do good, and there is no type of work what so ever in the hereafter. It's just a judgment day and people will either go to heaven or hell. There is no point in believing in God in hell.

In that case, then I think this implies something that contradicts your position from before.

Depending on how you look at it, sin is either action or choice. If all our actions and choices take place in life, then all our sins must take place in life as well. Our lives are finite, therefore our actions and choices - including our sins - must be finite as well.

Not because God "decide" so, but because God knows that this person simply won't change. God knows our future, remember?

You said that infinite punishment is warranted because God knows that the person will continue to reject him forever. But this is predicated on the idea that the person (or his soul) will exist forever. Who chose to make that person's soul immortal? Who chose to sustain that person's existence? Not the person himself; only God.

I can appreciate (though not necessarily agree with) the argument that responsibility for the initial sin falls on the sinner himself. However, the responsibility for the infinite nature of that sin must fall to God, since it was never in the power of the sinner to change that aspect of the sin.

That's misunderstanding of the hereafter. In hereafter, there is nothing to work for. For Muslims, they will not be required to do anything. So, no praying, no fasting, no zakat, no haj, no NOTHING. It will be just a plain enjoyment. The same goes for hell, no matter one do, it would be pointless, because we have one test, and you either have to pass or fail. Tough, one will go through this life and will receive guidance from God in so many ways, so if he ignored that guidance, he can't blame God for not doing well on the test.

So, rehabilitating is actually happening in this life, because God punish some people in this life and he give them always another chance to change.

If you want an example of the punishment in this life and the rehabilitating process, please read my post # 459 at the link below:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...9239-question-non-muslims-12.html#post1826290

That's fine. I wasn't trying to say that these purposes were necessarily the purpose of Hell; I was only trying to illustrate that the purposes for earthly punisment that we normally consider to be just wouldn't apply in Hell.

The question remains, though: what's the purpose of punishment in the hereafter? Why would it be just to make a person - any person - suffer in Hell?

That's only what you think, because you still don't know everything about God, purpose of life, and the meaning of life, etc. insufficient information might cripple your analysis which your conclusion was based on.

Well, yes and no. I know enough for me to be sufficiently responsible for my decisions and actions that it's just to punish me for making the wrong ones, aren't I?

If judgement after death is just at all, then despite all our human failings, we must have at least a certain ability to tell right from wrong. If my moral sense is so unreliable and useless that I think that I would call something perfectly evil when it's actually perfectly good, then how would it be right to use that same useless moral sense as the basis of judgement against me in the afterlife?

I think that if our moral senses really do work, then we can recognize the concept of Hell as unjust. And if they don't work, then it would be unjust to punish us for their failings, since we would have never had a proper basis to avoid sin by choosing right from wrong. Either way, Hell is an unjust concept.

How so?

God knows the future, and he already know that a specific person will never change even if he was given the chance to live for millions and millions of years.

Like I said, the choice to make a person's soul immortal is God's. If God had chosen to give a sinner a finite soul, then there would be no way that his sin could ever have been infinite.

 

[TashaN]

Thanks. TashaN mentioned that other opinions exist, but I think it's a good thing to be reminded of.


But what is that purpose? My question isn't so much the one you gave but "What can Allah gain by your punishment, period?"


But here's what bothers me with this argument:

I think that Hell, if such a place were to actually exist, would be intrinsically evil. My moral sense that guides my decisions, and that has supposedly been instilled in my by God, absolutely, instinctively rejects the idea that torture after we die (and especially infinite torture after we die, though as you point out, not all Muslims agree that Hell is infinite) could ever be an element of a divine plan that's based on goodness and justice.

If you're right and Hell is actually perfectly good, doesn't the failure on my part and on the part of many, many others to recognize its goodness point to the fact that our innate moral sense is utterly unreliable? And if so, then how could it be just for God to punish us for coming to the "wrong" conclusions based on this flawed moral sense that he placed in us?

We came to this world as babies, and we are like a white piece of paper in term of moral sense. Your society will help in shaping your moral sense, not God. But when you grow up, you become capable of choosing between right and wrong. You can't blame God for anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We came to this world as babies, and we are like a white piece of paper in term of moral sense.

Modern psychology disagrees with this. However, I do agree that this doesn't necessarily imply that our moral sense has to have a divine source.

Your society will help in shaping your moral sense, not God. But when you grow up, you become capable of choosing between right and wrong. You can't blame God for anything.

We're getting into an area where I'm not too sure of the Muslim theology, but maybe it'll help if I lay things out from a Christian perspective (Catholic, specifically) and you can tell me how the Muslim view differs.

According to Catholic teaching, for a sin to be capable of sending you to Hell by God's judgement, it has to have three necessary elements:

- grave matter: the action has to be serious. Since I know some people say that offending God in the slightest degree is a very serious matter, I'll take as given that for whatever sin we're talking about, this requirement has been met.
- deliberate consent: the person had to wilfully choose to commit the act.
- full knowledge: the person had to have committed the act knowing it was wrong and knowing that it would have a negative (or "evil") effect.

Before we go further, do the Muslim ideas of sin and judgement agree with this? If not, what's the Muslim view?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(3) It's not that God has enforced this "nature" but it's that God knows that a specific person can never chance no matter what.

(4) God knows that for some people, even if they lived for thousands or millions of years, they won't change, while others can.

I've got to jump in here: don't these two points imply that God is not all-powerful?

God could change anybody's mind if he chose to, couldn't he? If he's capable of anything, then he's capable of giving even the most ardent non-believer a perfectly convincing argument or demonstration, right?

 

[Kerr]

(2) True, but instead of waking up one day finding yourself in hell, because God knows you will end up being in hell, it's much more reasonable to live your choice, so you wouldn't wonder why you deserved to be in hell. That's why i think although God knows everything, he is just and merciful that he allowed us to see by ourselves what we are doing although he could have sent us straight to hell for knowing our future.

The issue here is that people don´t deserve hell for disbelief. Fact is they don´t deserve hell for anything, but let alone a crime that is not even worth being called a crime.

I also have an issue here... why do people call someone merciful when they act in a way that cannot even be described as close to being merciful? The most merciful thing to do would be to make so that they didn´t end up in hell.

(3) It's not that God has enforced this "nature" but it's that God knows that a specific person can never chance no matter what.

(4) God knows that for some people, even if they lived for thousands or millions of years, they won't change, while others can.

Doesn´t matter in this case I am afraid.

 

[Luminous]

You are limited because you can't be a rapist? you are limited because you can't be a molester? you are limited because you can't do drugs? you are limited because you don't want to commit murder? you are limited because you don't want to make a fool out of yourself?

right, limitations are limits; look up Discordianism NOW they have an all-powerfull truely monotheist God

Just because a king doesn't want to make a clown out of himself, that doesn't mean he can't DO it.

So HE can do anything, he just hasn't wanted to. what if he wants to now?
anyway: the case with the math. (b^2)x = x means that (b^2) = 1 which means b =1 which means x=x. which means you did not identify what 'God' was at all. by identifying God as a type of God, you didn't identify God at all. which basically means you have no presentable hypothesis for me to try to imagine the working of. am i wrong? to you and many others, God is whatever works. FSM works because its a type of "whatever works."
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/91076-what-would-take-you-believe.html

 

[Kenect2]

Well, it's expected from this creature to commit evil, but they are required to seek forgiveness.

That doesn't address the point.

If I created something special that I loved, then sending it off to eternal torture is something I would not do. It makes no sense that some creator would do such a thing to Humans.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

We came to this world as babies, and we are like a white piece of paper in term of moral sense. Your society will help in shaping your moral sense, not God. But when you grow up, you become capable of choosing between right and wrong. You can't blame God for anything.

Some people are born in to families that teach them to choose to be unethical. The fact is that these people have less of a chance of becoming good ethical humans. Others are born with chemical imbalances in their brains to greater or lessor extents. These folks have less of a choice on how they behave. Is it not clear that God makes it hard for some and easy for others. Is that in any way fair? So God is stacking the deck against some people and throwing them into Hell. Some folks who he seems to love he gives all the advantages of a good life then brings them to unending joy in heaven. Many of our brothers and sisters are given evil parents who teach them how to be selfish and hurt-full from birth. They are both sexually and physically abused from day one. How can you say we can't blame God.