Who Deserves to be in Hell?

[truetofaith]

You think Jesus preached about eternal hell because the 4th century church thought the translators thought he did.

I see Jesus as an out-spoken charismatic rabbi who considered himself to be a prophet. Everything else is cultural evolution and interpretation. I respect the rabbi Jesus and think of his teachings often.

Please read Matt. 25 :31 to 46.

Jesus is the Son of the Living God, BTW !

 

[frangiuliano115]

Of course they won’t. To think that just professing is enough to BE a Christian is silly.

To be a Christian you need to BE a Christian, period. It is not just saying “I am Catholic” or “I believe Jesus is my savior” that is going to save me. Basically, if I believe Jesus is my savior I will act according to His teachings (and if I act according to His teachings, I won’t be a mass murderer).

However, those who truly repent their decisions are also following Christ’s teachings. Perhaps they once were murderers, adulterers, abortionists, and n type of sinners, but if they truly repent and seek forgiveness, they will find forgiveness.

Which is why “unrepentant” is important.

As to Fran: no worries! I put “small” under quotation marks precisely to show I was using it to mean something else - what I said is that our “small” sins (that is, the sins we THINK are small compared to things like murder) still keeps us from God.

I’ve been busy.

Just wanted to tell you that I agree with all you’ve said above. I found it difficult to believe that you meant what you had said in your previous post!

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Happy Birthday to your granddaughter!

I re-read your post. God’s omniscience is involved in this dilemma. If he is not omniscient, then he has an “out.” For instance, imagine that God doesn’t know who is going to end up in hell forever. If he doesn’t know, then we can’t blame him for creating them in the first place since he didn’t know how it was going to turn out. He can’t be responsible for things that are either of out his control (but then he is not omnipotent) or of which he has no knowledge (but then he is not omniscient). I ignored this point previously, but I hope this explanation makes it more clear.

Ezekiel’s message is of course death and catastrophe to the unfaithful Israelites of his time, but chapter 18 is a great message of hope for humanity. The prophet tells us that 1) God does not punish children for the sins of their fathers and vice-versa and 2) the ultimate punishment for sin is death (not eternal torture). Also, the prophet tells us that it is within our power to repent and to do what is right. These are all good things! No original sin, no slavery to sin unless we’re given miraculous grace, and no eternal hell. Praise God for he is good, he does not punish children for their father’s sins, he does not create us as slaves to sin, and he does not punish his enemies relentlessly and endlessly. His justice is swift, decisive, and final. May we never be on the wrong side of his judgment!

Good Morning PC

Thanks for the well wishes for my granddaugher. All went well; she turned 15. Where does time go??

Okay. I kind of realized with you that I wasn’t undersanding something. Silly me. I never checked your religious affiliation! But, alas, I didn’t know what it meant. So I asked Professor Google. He knows everything. I still don’t know too much, of course. You can’t learn about any religion from the net. Noah has something to do with this and the O.T. laws.

So you see - posters here are concerned that you don’t believe in hell. But, as I originally said, this is not the problem at all. The real problem is with the understanding of this person, Jesus.

Jesus, the stumbling block to the Jew; came to divide father and son; will cause the rise and fall of many in Israel (Luke 2:34); he who does not gather with Him, scatters (Luke 11:23).

You said a couple of intersting things in previous posts to others. You said that you can’t trust what was said about hell (hate talking about hell) because it was just what the 4th century church translators thought Jesus said.

So basically, you don’t trust the N.T. Forget about the translators and how the church thought of it. You know how I feel about this. Do you think the entire N.T. is not to be trusted? Now, I’d have to agree that we can’t know each and every word Jesus said. But Mathew walked with Him, John walked with Him, Mark and Luke gleened their knowledge from those who actually spoke to Jesus. Ditto for Paul who wrote at least a third of the N.T. Are we no to trust these people?

Then what in heavens name could we base our faith on? Personally, I could believe BECAUSE of the apostles. In basic theology the first thing you learn is that our faith is reasonable because we could base it on reasonable people - the apostles.

The other point you mentioned was to Truetofaith:

“I see Jesus as an out-spoken charismatic rabbi who considered himself to be a prophet. Everything else is cultural evolution and interpretation. I respect the rabbi Jesus and think of his teachings often.”

Now we could speak of anything but regarding the above I’d have to say that there’s no way you could make that statement and here’s why. I don’t understand how anyone could see Jesus as a charismatic rabbi or a prophet, or a good teacher whom you could follow.

I think Jesus was either the Son of God - even more than the Messiah - or he was a crazy man that we should avoid. I mean, think of it: He went to the cross, He forgave sins, He miraculously healed people - He confirmed to Peter that he was The Christ, The Son of the Living God. He either had to be these things, or he was a dilusional person who thought he was God. Seems to me that Jesus left no wiggle room there.

Also, why would you trust the O.T. and not the N.T.? Does it seem to you that the translation is superior? Yoiu say that Ezekiel is a message of hope for humanity. Didn’t Jesus have a message of hope for humanity?

You say there is no original sin. Adam and Eve should only be used to show HOW sin entered into the world. Call it original sin, call it the sin nature, call it what you will but you have to admit that it does exist. That “thing” in us that inclines us toward “evil”.

You say that Ezekiel says that the ultimate punisment for sin is death. I do believe Ezekiel is alluding to physical death and not spiritual death (correct me if I’m wrong) so how do you line that up with when he says that doing right will lead you to life? Do you live forever?

Slaves to sin: We’re slaves to sin in the sense that the evil one has great power in this world. He is the prince of the air. Jesus death took that power away and through Christ and our love for Him we could live a righteous life,covered by Him - not that we’ll never sin again.

I’m at a great disadvantage because you know a lot about christianity and I know nothing about what you believe, so I hope I’ve made some sense.

I think accepting Jesus as Messiah is the problem, not whether or not hell exists.

Fran

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Good Morning PC

Same to you! I actually have to work a lot today so I can’t respond later.

Thanks for the well wishes for my granddaugher. All went well; she turned 15. Where does time go??

Okay. I kind of realized with you that I wasn’t undersanding something. Silly me. I never checked your religious affiliation! But, alas, I didn’t know what it meant. So I asked Professor Google. He knows everything. I still don’t know too much, of course. You can’t learn about any religion from the net. Noah has something to do with this and the O.T. laws.

I have Jewish beliefs but I am not a Jew. I have thought of converting but do not believe God is calling me to that.

So you see - posters here are concerned that you don’t believe in hell. But, as I originally said, this is not the problem at all. The real problem is with the understanding of this person, Jesus.

Jesus, the stumbling block to the Jew; came to divide father and son; will cause the rise and fall of many in Israel (Luke 2:34); he who does not gather with Him, scatters (Luke 11:23).

You said a couple of intersting things in previous posts to others. You said that you can’t trust what was said about hell (hate talking about hell) because it was just what the 4th century church translators thought Jesus said.

So basically, you don’t trust the N.T. Forget about the translators and how the church thought of it. You know how I feel about this. Do you think the entire N.T. is not to be trusted? Now, I’d have to agree that we can’t know each and every word Jesus said. But Mathew walked with Him, John walked with Him, Mark and Luke gleened their knowledge from those who actually spoke to Jesus. Ditto for Paul who wrote at least a third of the N.T. Are we no to trust these people?

I don’t have good enough reasons to suppose the N.T. is an accurate reflection of the situation surrounding Jesus or the person of Jesus. I believe the New Testament is a reflection of the early Christian’s beliefs about Jesus as they evolved over a couple generations and were sorted out in the 4th century.

Then what in heavens name could we base our faith on? Personally, I could believe BECAUSE of the apostles. In basic theology the first thing you learn is that our faith is reasonable because we could base it on reasonable people - the apostles.

I do not believe God requires us to believe that which contradicts reason. Many doctrines allegedly based on the N.T. contradict reason, and many prophecies have gone unfulfilled. These are two signs of un-inspired testimony.

The other point you mentioned was to Truetofaith:

“I see Jesus as an out-spoken charismatic rabbi who considered himself to be a prophet. Everything else is cultural evolution and interpretation. I respect the rabbi Jesus and think of his teachings often.”

Now we could speak of anything but regarding the above I’d have to say that there’s no way you could make that statement and here’s why. I don’t understand how anyone could see Jesus as a charismatic rabbi or a prophet, or a good teacher whom you could follow.

I think Jesus was either the Son of God - even more than the Messiah - or he was a crazy man that we should avoid. I mean, think of it: He went to the cross, He forgave sins, He miraculously healed people - He confirmed to Peter that he was The Christ, The Son of the Living God. He either had to be these things, or he was a dilusional person who thought he was God. Seems to me that Jesus left no wiggle room there.

Yes I am very familiar with this argument. I used to use it when trying to evangelize others. Here is the way out of the “trap:” we do not know what Jesus himself said about himself. We only know the “legend” as it grew up around him during the following two generations. The early Christians could have put words in his mouth, making him appear to claim to be God (in John at least) but this may have been misrepresentation (not on purpose but by the evolution of legend). I have no reason to suppose Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. I have good reasons to suppose that he was a charismatic Rabbi who developed a cult of personality that got out of hand and became a religion in the pluralistic society of imperial Rome.

Also, why would you trust the O.T. and not the N.T.? Does it seem to you that the translation is superior? Yoiu say that Ezekiel is a message of hope for humanity. Didn’t Jesus have a message of hope for humanity?

I trust the Torah by faith. The God portrayed in it does not contradict reason, in my understanding. Maybe I’m wrong. My belief in one God is fundamental, and the Torah seems to be talking about this God. If Jesus preached original sin and eternal hell, then he most certainly does not have a message of hope! I do not think he preached these things though, I think they are the product of Greek influence.

You say there is no original sin. Adam and Eve should only be used to show HOW sin entered into the world. Call it original sin, call it the sin nature, call it what you will but you have to admit that it does exist. That “thing” in us that inclines us toward “evil”.

Not true. According to Catholic theology, we also incur mortal guilt just by being conceived. Ask professor Google . Read Trent, the Baltimore Catechism, and the Councils of Florence and Lyons. Read Augustine and Aquinas.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You say that Ezekiel says that the ultimate punisment for sin is death. I do believe Ezekiel is alluding to physical death and not spiritual death (correct me if I’m wrong) so how do you line that up with when he says that doing right will lead you to life? Do you live forever?

I am not sure if the righteous will live forever. The written Torah does not seem to say so explicitly. I hope that all good and mostly good people will be resurrected and live in the World To Come someday, but I am happy even if this is my only life. It is enough for me. If God gives me more, how endlessly grateful I will be, but I have already been given more than enough. I try my best to serve God not because I “want more” or because I’m afraid he’ll torture me forever if I don’t, but because I love God and am grateful to him for whatever life he has given.

Slaves to sin: We’re slaves to sin in the sense that the evil one has great power in this world. He is the prince of the air. Jesus death took that power away and through Christ and our love for Him we could live a righteous life,covered by Him - not that we’ll never sin again.

I’m at a great disadvantage because you know a lot about christianity and I know nothing about what you believe, so I hope I’ve made some sense.

I think accepting Jesus as Messiah is the problem, not whether or not hell exists.

In order for me to believe that anyone deserves to go to hell I would need to believe in a lot of things that I just can’t believe.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

HELLO PUMPKIN COOKIE

Don’t you feel, somehow, that God revealed Himself to man in a slow and progressive way?

You know how people say that the God of the OT is mean and angry and the God of the NT is nicer and more understanding. Well, it IS the same God, as you say. Don’t you believe Jesus could be the ultimate revelation of God to mankind? In fact, nothing has followed Him. He’s the last “Word” from God.

You say the NT has greek influence. The OT could be said to be taken from other cultures too. Adam and Eve, the great flood, these stories were already existent in Mesopotania. And what about Genesis 1 and 2, the creation of man. Scholars believe there were probably 400 yrs between the two accounts.

I’ve always felt that I could trust what the OT tells me because of its fulfillment in the NT. I’m more comfortable trusting a person who, to me, fulfilled what the OT said of Him. I’ve had Jewish friends having grown up in NY, and the funny thing is that we’re both waiting for the Messiah. They’re waiting for HIm to come back the first time and we’re waiting for Him to come back the second time.

The Messiah was to gather the Jewish people, I think the state of Israel is a miracle. He was supposed to bring peace - well the second time He will! The NT speaks many times of how Jesus will return. But you think this is made up.

I like what Gamaliel had to say in Acts:

“Stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action be of men it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them, or else you may even be fighting with God.” Acts 5:38-29 (Acts 5:24-40).

And here we are speaking of this man Jesus 2,0’00 years after He was killed.

And I guess you don’t believe the resurrection either? What do you make of the extreme change in the apostles just a few days after Jesus was crucified? They all disappeared, except for John, at the crucifixion. They probably hid out in Mary and Martha’s house in Bethany the night of the trial. They were fearful that they might be found and also put to death. After a few days they all appeared again - courageous men - and they all went to a martyers death because of their testifying about this man Jesus. Only an extreme incident could have caused this change in them. Could it have been to have seen a dead man come to life? I mean, WHY would they have perpetrated such a lie?

And what about all the prophecies He did fulfill?
I could make a list but it seems you know the bible well, so I won’t. But there are so many. There were others who claimed to be the Messiah, as you must know, but do you remember their names? No. We only remember Jesus’ name.

And regarding life after death. The sadducees did not believe in an afterlife. The pharisees did. How could this be explained? They were both OT men. I believe it’s because what came to be believed in the NT was revealed in time and not all at once. The Macabees believed the dead were alive somewhere.

Jesus, the teacher you respect, told the story of Abraham’s Bossom and another place where souls were in torment in Luke 16:19. How do you explain that away? I don’t mean this re hell but rather that souls are waiting somewhere.

Also, this idea of hell. We can’t know what it’s like because no one explains it. We do know that whatever it is it’ll be away from God. That alone could represent hell - never feeling God near again.

You really confuse me with this idea that the bible was sorted out in the 4th centrury. I’m repeating myself but Mathew and John knew Jesus and wrote their gospels and John’s letters before they died. You think they wrote lies or exaggerated reality for some reason? What could that reason be?

You say you trust the Torah by faith. I guess I trust Jesus by faith. You say the God of the Torah does not contradict reason and that many doctrines allegedly based on the NT contradict reason. Please give me a sample. I haven’t found any unreasonablemess in the NT.

And you say in catholic theology (also protestant, BTW) we incur guilt just by being born.
So you don’t believe the Adam and Eve story even though it’s in the OT? Didn’t their act of disobeying God allow sin to enter into all creation? Be it man and nature.

Jesus never spoke of original sin, this is a concept put forth by Paul, but He did say that we’re to make sure we follow the narrow road. It’s clear that there are two powers at work in the world and that we’re to choose which one we’re to serve. The OT gives us the same choice. Deuteronomy for instance. “I put before you life and death…” “Choose this day whom you will serve.”

You say that in order for you to believe that anyone goes to hell you’d have to believe a lot of things that are not believable to you. Once again, I wonder what things are not believable.

You say: “I try my best to serve God, not because I want more or because I’m afraid he’ll torture me forever if I don’t, but because I love God and am grateful to Him for whatever life he has given.”

AMEN!

And isn’t this what the christian faith teaches?

Have a good day.
Fran

 

[Iron_Donkey]

OK cool. So, if anyone is sad about the souls in hell, they’re wrong, because hell is objectively good. So, again, celebrate! I mean, even if you aren’t so happy about it right now, as you grow in holiness, and your will becomes more aligned with God’s, you’ll feel better and better about the state of the damned, and in heaven, you’ll rejoice at their sufferings because they reveal God’s glorious wrath and justice! Right?

You phrase this to be intentionally weird sounding, but I would say yes - we will be happy that the best that can be done is done, but we will not be happy that they have made choices such that the best is so bad. Taking those actions that lead to damnation as given, Hell is the best that can be done.

Your point of view is not immune from such phraseology either. In your point of view, will we rejoice in the Holy Wrath and Justice of God for snuffing out the very existence of people who don’t like Him?

So, the means justify the ends? I think that is a good ethical theory for limited humans, actually. Unfortunately, God has infallible knowledge of the ends in the “eternal now” so there isn’t a meaningful distinction here. In your view, does God “let the chips fall where they may” because he values free will above all else, even more than love? Question: how can one who is all-knowing not be responsible for “letting the chips fall where they may” when he knows precisely where they are falling in the “eternal now?”

Yes, means can justify the ends. Try to optimize the end results, but always within what is good. One can assume that God does this as well. I’ve been emphasizing that Hell is our choice (because it is), but I don’t mean to imply that God does not work to bring all things to the best outcome, within the restrictions of what is good. He does not just let the chips fall where they may, but He does give us real freedom in determining where they fall. The mechanics of how and to what extent He works to bring about good are not knowable to us, only that He does that sort of thing.

The distinction between ends and means does remain even in the eternal now though. Removing free will in order to stop evil still has two distinct parts - “removing free will” and “stopping all other evil.” (Of course, not making free will in the first place would be different.) So there are still ends and means, just no uncertainty about what exact ends follow the means. Which means that God would be the optimal optimizer.

Also, I would say that true love requires free will, otherwise it’s do different than programming your computer to play a sound file that says “You’re great!” every time you boot it up.

If God is on our side, working to save us, why does he fail so much and so spectacularly (if we believe the opinion of most Catholic saints)?..

He doesn’t fail, we fail. He sets us up to succeed, gives us every opportunity to come to Him, calls us, etc. That is what He is trying to do - give us the opportunity to freely choose Him, and He does that flawlessly. We don’t choose Him because we’re dumb.

Also, the saints are often pessimistic on such things, their statements on numbers are (to Catholics) definitely not to be dismissed out of hand, but also not taken as sure either. (A large number of Saints also thought the world would end in their lifetime, or shortly after.) My personal view is hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. (Do work as though they are right, but hope they are not.)

They are the same. By abdicating control, or giving control to us, he is ratifying our choices. He could stop us without killing us or removing our free will. He could merely put us in a different situation. He chooses not to. By choosing not to, he approves.

No, it means that He approves of the possibility of our failure, not the failure. He knows what we will do of course, but what we do is nevertheless our choice. The fact that He knows what we will do doesn’t change this. And yes, He could put us in a different situation, and we say that He does things like that to our advantage - but since our failures are a result of our choices and not our situations, we can fail pretty much anything. Again, God does things to bring us to salvation, but it is ultimately something that we can reject.

Annihilation is the final and most radical act of freedom of the soul who obstinately hates God. It is the final end of he who values his own freedom over and against absolutely everyone and everything else, even God. Such a person cannot live! By cutting themselves off from God, they have undone themselves. You’re right, it is radically evil. But, God does not have to “strip” them of anything. They do it themselves. May we never do this!

I don’t have the power to annihilate myself, any more than I could annihilate anyone else. I exist because God wills it, and the only way for me to stop existing is for God to stop willing it. (Which would be the same thing as God stopping loving me, which is not a thing that God does.) I mean, if annihilation were the fate of the damned, then you could say they have chosen annihilation, but they haven’t carried it out because they don’t have the ability.

 

[fred_conty]

Bonald of the Throne and Altar blog posted Who Deserves to be in Hell? here: bonald.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/who-deserves-to-be-in-hell/

I wanted to post it full here because I’ve noticed a tendency among Catholics to defend the existence of Hell, but try to soften it by suggesting that “God’s hands are tied” and that going to Hell is entirely the will of the sinner. For the edification of anyone interested:

One of the greatest misunderstandings of hell or heaven or eternity is that it is something like endless time. And the argument goes that it is wrong for a person to be punished for ALL eternity.

There is no such thing as All eternity, for this is saying that eternity is time forever, and it isn’t time forever because it is eternity once. Eternity is not time … it is something we are not able to get our mind around but it is not time forever.

If anything, eternity is more like a state … a fixed status in one instant … a being frozen, never to change and never experiencing time again.

Once a person dies completely so that his soul leaves his body, then our status is frozen and is never to be altered. That is the way we are and are and are and are…

And our frozen status outside of time depends on our status as we left time. And if we are not in the STATE of grace with God, then our frozen status will be the same.
It isn’t as if God is forcing something on anyone for ALL eternity whether hell or heaven, but it is the state of the person that determines this, which cannot change because time has ceased for that person which makes a change possible. Which means those in heaven are there permanently and those in hell are there permanently because there is only one “now”. We will experience what we are, friends of God or slaves of the devil.

God does not condemn anyone during our time on earth, because his church, his bible, his priests, his saints, are all unanimous in saying that God never ceases to offer his mercy for anyone who is truely sorry for their sins in this life. He never ever turns his face away from anyone and rejoices when a lost sinner returns. Nothing is beyound God to forgive if only the person comes to him for help. God places no limits on his mercy for those who ask. But ask we must for he gives full respect to our decision for mercy.

But once the end comes, it is the status of the person’s soul that determines his quality of being in the eternal now. He now “is what he is”, friend of God or slave of the devil.

Tho God is not limited by anything and may give a person forgiveness in his last moments, would it be wise to wait that long or even expect that to happen?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

One of the greatest misunderstandings of hell or heaven or eternity is that it is something like endless time. And the argument goes that it is wrong for a person to be punished for ALL eternity.

There is no such thing as All eternity, for this is saying that eternity is time forever, and it isn’t time forever because it is eternity once. Eternity is not time … it is something we are not able to get our mind around but it is not time forever.

If anything, eternity is more like a state … a fixed status in one instant … a being frozen, never to change and never experiencing time again.

Once a person dies completely so that his soul leaves his body, then our status is frozen and is never to be altered. That is the way we are and are and are and are…

And our frozen status outside of time depends on our status as we left time. And if we are not in the STATE of grace with God, then our frozen status will be the same.
It isn’t as if God is forcing something on anyone for ALL eternity whether hell or heaven, but it is the state of the person that determines this, which cannot change because time has ceased for that person which makes a change possible. Which means those in heaven are there permanently and those in hell are there permanently because there is only one “now”. We will experience what we are, friends of God or slaves of the devil.

God does not condemn anyone during our time on earth, because his church, his bible, his priests, his saints, are all unanimous in saying that God never ceases to offer his mercy for anyone who is truely sorry for their sins in this life. He never ever turns his face away from anyone and rejoices when a lost sinner returns. Nothing is beyound God to forgive if only the person comes to him for help. God places no limits on his mercy for those who ask. But ask we must for he gives full respect to our decision for mercy.

But once the end comes, it is the status of the person’s soul that determines his quality of being in the eternal now. He now “is what he is”, friend of God or slave of the devil.

Tho God is not limited by anything and may give a person forgiveness in his last moments, would it be wise to wait that long or even expect that to happen?

In that case, neither suffering nor consciousness is possible since both depend upon the passage of time. In fact, neither heaven nor hell are comprehensible without time. Our very existence is incoherent without time, and it doesn’t make any sense for the Church to insist that the damned suffer both bodily and spiritually if there is no time. Bodies require space, or they aren’t bodies. Space requires time, or it isn’t space. The “eternal now” defense makes no sense given the other Church teachings.

 

[CompSciGuy]

All of us deserve to be in hell. It is because of the cross that a way to salvation is even possible.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You phrase this to be intentionally weird sounding, but I would say yes - we will be happy that the best that can be done is done, but we will not be happy that they have made choices such that the best is so bad. Taking those actions that lead to damnation as given, Hell is the best that can be done.

Your point of view is not immune from such phraseology either. In your point of view, will we rejoice in the Holy Wrath and Justice of God for snuffing out the very existence of people who don’t like Him?

No, there is nothing in which to rejoice. The souls have annihilated themselves by removing themselves from relationship with God and he has merely to “let go” of them, so technically he has not done anything at all. He does not force himself on us. He loves us enough to let go. Those who will live in the World To Come will praise God for his overabundant goodness in sustaining their lives into infinity and will take no pleasure and pay no mind to those who aren’t there. Vengeful glee has no place in the World To Come.

Yes, means can justify the ends. Try to optimize the end results, but always within what is good. One can assume that God does this as well. I’ve been emphasizing that Hell is our choice (because it is), but I don’t mean to imply that God does not work to bring all things to the best outcome, within the restrictions of what is good. He does not just let the chips fall where they may, but He does give us real freedom in determining where they fall. The mechanics of how and to what extent He works to bring about good are not knowable to us, only that He does that sort of thing.

The distinction between ends and means does remain even in the eternal now though. Removing free will in order to stop evil still has two distinct parts - “removing free will” and “stopping all other evil.” (Of course, not making free will in the first place would be different.) So there are still ends and means, just no uncertainty about what exact ends follow the means. Which means that God would be the optimal optimizer.

Also, I would say that true love requires free will, otherwise it’s do different than programming your computer to play a sound file that says “You’re great!” every time you boot it up.

So, hell is the best outcome for some people? Then rejoice! Right? Problem is, we have no reason to believe that eternal hell is necessary for free will, as if there couldn’t be free will if eternal hell didn’t exist. How odd. Jews have proclaimed free will for 5,000 years and yet have never believed in eternal hell. Greeks and ancient pagans believed in inexorable fate and also eternal hell. Is it a coincidence?

He doesn’t fail, we fail. He sets us up to succeed, gives us every opportunity to come to Him, calls us, etc. That is what He is trying to do - give us the opportunity to freely choose Him, and He does that flawlessly. We don’t choose Him because we’re dumb…

If he knows we are going to fail in the “eternal now” and creates us anyway, he enables and underwrites our failure. We could not fail if we did not exist in the first place. God knows hell is our “telos.” He has created us for hell in that case. That is sick, and wrong in my opinion. Fortunately I do not think this is how God is.

No, it means that He approves of the possibility of our failure, not the failure. He knows what we will do of course, but what we do is nevertheless our choice. The fact that He knows what we will do doesn’t change this. And yes, He could put us in a different situation, and we say that He does things like that to our advantage - but since our failures are a result of our choices and not our situations, we can fail pretty much anything. Again, God does things to bring us to salvation, but it is ultimately something that we can reject.

I agree that God’s knowledge does not force our hand, the problem is that he forces existence on us in the first place, which is not our choice. He must approve of our failure if he knows in the “eternal now” that we are failing. He is unwilling not unable to prevent this, unless you are saying he is not omnipotent. That is fine, but it isn’t OK to punish the failure forever since the person couldn’t choose to exist in the first place.

I don’t have the power to annihilate myself, any more than I could annihilate anyone else. I exist because God wills it, and the only way for me to stop existing is for God to stop willing it. (Which would be the same thing as God stopping loving me, which is not a thing that God does.) I mean, if annihilation were the fate of the damned, then you could say they have chosen annihilation, but they haven’t carried it out because they don’t have the ability.

Annihilation is not a positive act, but the absence of God’s sustaining power. The scriptures are full of God’s promises to totally destroy those who oppose him. The scriptures are fill of examples of God totally destroying those who oppose him. Just as he is not required to create every logically possible being, he is not required to sustain the existence of every actual being in order to be perfect in his desire to create.

He wills that all beings in the universe come together and exist for a time, then disintegrate into dust. Everything from the tiniest particles to the largest galaxies will disintegrate into dust, including us. If God chooses to miraculously sustain us and our world into infinity, then praise be to him for his boundless and overwhelming generosity! If not, then praise be to him for his boundless and overwhelming generosity! We are not required to exist, and there is no reason to suppose we exist forever by nature. Only God exists by nature, and we exist to serve him and his creation. If we choose not to, we die.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

HELLO PUMPKIN COOKIE

Don’t you feel, somehow, that God revealed Himself to man in a slow and progressive way?

God reveals himself through Nature, Reason, and the Torah, all of which are permanent. The Torah through Moses, the Prophets, and Sages was revealed gradually, yes.

You know how people say that the God of the OT is mean and angry and the God of the NT is nicer and more understanding. Well, it IS the same God, as you say. Don’t you believe Jesus could be the ultimate revelation of God to mankind? In fact, nothing has followed Him. He’s the last “Word” from God.

Muslims say their prophet has the last word. Mormons say their prophet has the last word. Every other religion says they are right. Nothing new here. God is neither mean nor angry, but his tolerance for the wicked is not endless.

You say the NT has greek influence. The OT could be said to be taken from other cultures too. Adam and Eve, the great flood, these stories were already existent in Mesopotania. And what about Genesis 1 and 2, the creation of man. Scholars believe there were probably 400 yrs between the two accounts.

That could also be because those things happened, or the ancient peoples in the area were descended from the same ancestors.

I’ve always felt that I could trust what the OT tells me because of its fulfillment in the NT. I’m more comfortable trusting a person who, to me, fulfilled what the OT said of Him. I’ve had Jewish friends having grown up in NY, and the funny thing is that we’re both waiting for the Messiah. They’re waiting for HIm to come back the first time and we’re waiting for Him to come back the second time.

The Messiah was to gather the Jewish people, I think the state of Israel is a miracle. He was supposed to bring peace - well the second time He will! The NT speaks many times of how Jesus will return. But you think this is made up.

Jesus failed to fulfill the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah. We are not living in the “Kingdom of God” this is abundantly clear. Jesus promised to come back within one generation, and the early Christians fully expected this. They never intended to create a religion but were an apocalyptic cult. They were wrong, clearly, just like every other apocalyptic cult throughout history. Christianity morphed into a religion and a state-sponsored religion and therefore exists today.

I like what Gamaliel had to say in Acts:

“Stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action be of men it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them, or else you may even be fighting with God.” Acts 5:38-29 (Acts 5:24-40).

And here we are speaking of this man Jesus 2,0’00 years after He was killed.

It has been overthrown. Christianity has been filled with nothing but strife and conflict since its inception. It has splintered into thousands of opposing sects and has been the cause of much suffering for the last 2,000 years. Is that what God wants? Strife, division, and suffering?

And I guess you don’t believe the resurrection either? What do you make of the extreme change in the apostles just a few days after Jesus was crucified? They all disappeared, except for John, at the crucifixion. They probably hid out in Mary and Martha’s house in Bethany the night of the trial. They were fearful that they might be found and also put to death. After a few days they all appeared again - courageous men - and they all went to a martyers death because of their testifying about this man Jesus. Only an extreme incident could have caused this change in them. Could it have been to have seen a dead man come to life? I mean, WHY would they have perpetrated such a lie?

They didn’t lie, they were mistaken. They believed in the resurrection for the same reason the early Mormons believed Joseph Smith was a prophet.

 

[fred_conty]

In that case, neither suffering nor consciousness is possible since both depend upon the passage of time. In fact, neither heaven nor hell are comprehensible without time. Our very existence is incoherent without time, and it doesn’t make any sense for the Church to insist that the damned suffer both bodily and spiritually if there is no time. Bodies require space, or they aren’t bodies. Space requires time, or it isn’t space. The “eternal now” defense makes no sense given the other Church teachings.

Full glory and full happiness does not depend on time for this is what the eternal God is, and those who are fit to share it in him. And those not fit get what is left … full emptiness … darkness, disillusion, hate, despair.

Our very existence does not depend on time but on God’s power keeping us in existence, within time or out of it.

Our body will participate in either our glory or our shame at the end of world and the final comming of Christ in the final resurrection of all from the dead. At this time our body will rise from the earth and be spiritualized and glorified and not necessarily require anything.

Other Church teachings are in sync with this teaching.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

And what about all the prophecies He did fulfill?
I could make a list but it seems you know the bible well, so I won’t. But there are so many. There were others who claimed to be the Messiah, as you must know, but do you remember their names? No. We only remember Jesus’ name.

We remember the name of Jesus because Christianity became the state religion of the most powerful and influential empire on Earth, only to be equaled by 19th century England and 20th century USA. The debate about prophecies is long and complicated. Suffice it to say, I do not believe Jesus fulfilled the essential prophecies pertaining to the Messiah.

And regarding life after death. The sadducees did not believe in an afterlife. The pharisees did. How could this be explained? They were both OT men. I believe it’s because what came to be believed in the NT was revealed in time and not all at once. The Macabees believed the dead were alive somewhere.

People have differences of opinion, are not infallible, and don’t have all the facts. That is OK.

Jesus, the teacher you respect, told the story of Abraham’s Bossom and another place where souls were in torment in Luke 16:19. How do you explain that away? I don’t mean this re hell but rather that souls are waiting somewhere.

I don’t explain it away. I personally believe in life after death, I’m just saying it isn’t explicit in the written Torah. There is no reason to suppose the Rich Man’s torment has no end. I believe in temporary punishment as well.

Also, this idea of hell. We can’t know what it’s like because no one explains it. We do know that whatever it is it’ll be away from God. That alone could represent hell - never feeling God near again.

You really confuse me with this idea that the bible was sorted out in the 4th centrury. I’m repeating myself but Mathew and John knew Jesus and wrote their gospels and John’s letters before they died. You think they wrote lies or exaggerated reality for some reason? What could that reason be?

You think they knew Jesus, but have no evidence. The Church sorted out the “inspired” scriptures in the 4th century. They decided what was the word of God and what was not. I do not accuse them of lying of course, but of writing down legends they believed to be true. I do think the nativity narratives are outright fiction in an attempt to position Jesus as the messiah. They’re unfortunately based on Greek misunderstandings of Isaiah. Pope Benedict’s books about this subject are excellent.

You say you trust the Torah by faith. I guess I trust Jesus by faith. You say the God of the Torah does not contradict reason and that many doctrines allegedly based on the NT contradict reason. Please give me a sample. I haven’t found any unreasonablemess in the NT.

Hell is unreasonable. Vicarious atonement is unreasonable. Transubstantiation is unreasonable. Original sin is unreasonable. The trinity is unreasonable. Papal or magisterial infallibility is unreasonable. Sacraments are unreasonable. The Marian dogmas are unreasonable. Satan is unreasonable. I certainly do not have time to go through all of these!

And you say in catholic theology (also protestant, BTW) we incur guilt just by being born.
So you don’t believe the Adam and Eve story even though it’s in the OT? Didn’t their act of disobeying God allow sin to enter into all creation? Be it man and nature.

Jesus never spoke of original sin, this is a concept put forth by Paul, but He did say that we’re to make sure we follow the narrow road. It’s clear that there are two powers at work in the world and that we’re to choose which one we’re to serve. The OT gives us the same choice. Deuteronomy for instance. “I put before you life and death…” “Choose this day whom you will serve.”

No, there is only one power: God. There is only one God. He is all-good and would not allow us to be born under the dominion of “Satan.” Original sin is the dark fantasy of Augustine. Jews have had Genesis for 5,000 years and no one ever dreamed up something so insidious! It is the product of Gnostic dualism, in my opinion.

You say that in order for you to believe that anyone goes to hell you’d have to believe a lot of things that are not believable to you. Once again, I wonder what things are not believable.

You say: “I try my best to serve God, not because I want more or because I’m afraid he’ll torture me forever if I don’t, but because I love God and am grateful to Him for whatever life he has given.”

AMEN!

I fail but I’m trying!! We can do it!

And isn’t this what the christian faith teaches?

Have a good day.
Fran

 

[Iron_Donkey]

No, there is nothing in which to rejoice. The souls have annihilated themselves by removing themselves from relationship with God and he has merely to “let go” of them, so technically he has not done anything at all. He does not force himself on us. He loves us enough to let go. Those who will live in the World To Come will praise God for his overabundant goodness in sustaining their lives into infinity and will take no pleasure and pay no mind to those who aren’t there. Vengeful glee has no place in the World To Come.

Do you rejoice in the fact that He has let go of them? You can try to make it sound as passive as you like, but nevertheless there has been a transition from a person existing to a person not existing, and God is the one who had the ultimate say in whether it happened. You can hardly hold the position that God cannot approve of our free will without approving of what we do with it while saying that God does not approve of the direct outcomes of even His own action (or lack thereof).

God’s sustaining of our existence is the same as God loving us. Is it good that God stops loving some people? If it is not, is it good that those in heaven completely ignore it? They neither rejoice nor mourn the annihilation of the people they loved most on earth because… they’re too distracted?

So, hell is the best outcome for some people? Then rejoice! Right? Problem is, we have no reason to believe that eternal hell is necessary for free will, as if there couldn’t be free will if eternal hell didn’t exist. How odd. Jews have proclaimed free will for 5,000 years and yet have never believed in eternal hell. Greeks and ancient pagans believed in inexorable fate and also eternal hell. Is it a coincidence?

Yes it is. It’s a horrible outcome, but it is the best outcome, and being more complicated creatures than thinking every aspect of every situation is either good or bad, we can rejoice that the best is being done while mourning that the person has chosen in such a way that the best is so bad.

My understanding is that Judaism as a whole had little to say about the afterlife other than that it’s a thing. The opinions of the Greeks don’t trouble me overmuch. Could go into this more, but it’s a tangent and the post is already long.

If he knows we are going to fail in the “eternal now” and creates us anyway, he enables and underwrites our failure. We could not fail if we did not exist in the first place. God knows hell is our “telos.” He has created us for hell in that case. That is sick, and wrong in my opinion. Fortunately I do not think this is how God is.

You still ignore that knowledge of is not the same as cause of. God creates a person knowing his end, but the person still chooses it.

But your view fairs no better under your analysis. Does God create people merely to destroy them? Keep in mind that whatever “they destroy themselves” arguments you may bring up are equally applicable to my position on hell.

Why create those who will be annihilated? Under the view of hell, we can say that a person’s existence is good, and so he is created and sustained for his own sake because the very fact that he exists is a good thing. Under the view of annihilation, this no longer makes sense. A person’s existence is no longer ultimately good in and of itself, so those who will be annihilated must be made for some other purpose. This reduces people to tools.

I agree that God’s knowledge does not force our hand, the problem is that he forces existence on us in the first place, which is not our choice. He must approve of our failure if he knows in the “eternal now” that we are failing. He is unwilling not unable to prevent this, unless you are saying he is not omnipotent. That is fine, but it isn’t OK to punish the failure forever since the person couldn’t choose to exist in the first place.

Again, if existence is good, then annihilation is worse than hell, objectively speaking. If existence is not good then there’s a whole host of problems since God is Existence, but leaving those aside, we still end up in the position of God using humans as disposable tools at best. Why create Bob if not for Bob’s sake? Then for what Bob will do. But then Bob is more shovel than man.

God is omnipotent, but your idea that God is “unwilling to prevent [failure]” here is the same as the idea that God is “unwilling to go against Goodness (Himself) in order to force a person to do what He wants,” which I don’t see as a bad thing.

Annihilation is not a positive act, but the absence of God’s sustaining power.

As much as you try to make it sound passive, God chooses to withdraw this sustaining power. We have no claim on Him for it, but we cannot deny that what He chooses to do with it, He actually chooses to do with it.

You cannot get around the fact that annihilation is a positive choice of God, whatever factors He may consider. It may be that He refrains from doing what He is doing, but He still had to decide to do so.

He wills that all beings in the universe come together and exist for a time, then disintegrate into dust. Everything from the tiniest particles to the largest galaxies will disintegrate into dust, including us. If God chooses to miraculously sustain us and our world into infinity, then praise be to him for his boundless and overwhelming generosity! If not, then praise be to him for his boundless and overwhelming generosity! … Only God exists by nature, and we exist to serve him and his creation. If we choose not to, we die.

So praise God for choosing to annihilate the pitiful weak and helpless who have come to the incorrect conclusion that such is good, though they be our friends and family? Praise His boundless and overwhelming generosity in treating people like disposable objects, to be used and thrown out.

 

[truetofaith]

Do you rejoice in the fact that He has let go of them? You can try to make it sound as passive as you like, but nevertheless there has been a transition from a person existing to a person not existing, and God is the one who had the ultimate say in whether it happened. You can hardly hold the position that God cannot approve of our free will without approving of what we do with it while saying that God does not approve of the direct outcomes of even His own action (or lack thereof).

God’s sustaining of our existence is the same as God loving us. Is it good that God stops loving some people? If it is not, is it good that those in heaven completely ignore it? They neither rejoice nor mourn the annihilation of the people they loved most on earth because… they’re too distracted?

Yes it is. It’s a horrible outcome, but it is the best outcome, and being more complicated creatures than thinking every aspect of every situation is either good or bad, we can rejoice that the best is being done while mourning that the person has chosen in such a way that the best is so bad.

My understanding is that Judaism as a whole had little to say about the afterlife other than that it’s a thing. The opinions of the Greeks don’t trouble me overmuch. Could go into this more, but it’s a tangent and the post is already long.

You still ignore that knowledge of is not the same as cause of. God creates a person knowing his end, but the person still chooses it.

But your view fairs no better under your analysis. Does God create people merely to destroy them? Keep in mind that whatever “they destroy themselves” arguments you may bring up are equally applicable to my position on hell.

Why create those who will be annihilated? Under the view of hell, we can say that a person’s existence is good, and so he is created and sustained for his own sake because the very fact that he exists is a good thing. Under the view of annihilation, this no longer makes sense. A person’s existence is no longer ultimately good in and of itself, so those who will be annihilated must be made for some other purpose. This reduces people to tools.

Again, if existence is good, then annihilation is worse than hell, objectively speaking. If existence is not good then there’s a whole host of problems since God is Existence, but leaving those aside, we still end up in the position of God using humans as disposable tools at best. Why create Bob if not for Bob’s sake? Then for what Bob will do. But then Bob is more shovel than man.

God is omnipotent, but your idea that God is “unwilling to prevent [failure]” here is the same as the idea that God is “unwilling to go against Goodness (Himself) in order to force a person to do what He wants,” which I don’t see as a bad thing.

As much as you try to make it sound passive, God chooses to withdraw this sustaining power. We have no claim on Him for it, but we cannot deny that what He chooses to do with it, He actually chooses to do with it.

You cannot get around the fact that annihilation is a positive choice of God, whatever factors He may consider. It may be that He refrains from doing what He is doing, but He still had to decide to do so.

So praise God for choosing to annihilate the pitiful weak and helpless who have come to the incorrect conclusion that such is good, though they be our friends and family? Praise His boundless and overwhelming generosity in treating people like disposable objects, to be used and thrown out.

God is always there for you to call on His forgiveness…right up to your final breath. So don’t make Him out to be some kind of fiend!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Do you rejoice in the fact that He has let go of them? You can try to make it sound as passive as you like, but nevertheless there has been a transition from a person existing to a person not existing, and God is the one who had the ultimate say in whether it happened. You can hardly hold the position that God cannot approve of our free will without approving of what we do with it while saying that God does not approve of the direct outcomes of even His own action (or lack thereof).

God’s sustaining of our existence is the same as God loving us. Is it good that God stops loving some people? If it is not, is it good that those in heaven completely ignore it? They neither rejoice nor mourn the annihilation of the people they loved most on earth because… they’re too distracted?

I believe the people who will be annihilated by God are truly evil to the core. They hate God and have done severe evil and have never repented. God has given them the totally undeserved gift of life, and they have abused it and used it to harm others and themselves. These people have made themselves unlovable and no one will miss them, not even God. They will disappear into oblivion never to be remembered again. Are there any people like this? I hope not! Is this a “good thing?” Absolutely. God says over and over again that he will obliterate his enemies, crush them into nothingness, totally destroy them, drown them, burn them, smite them, etc. This is a message of hope for those who love God and are abused by his enemies. It is also a message of warning for those who rebel against him.

For me, God loving us and sustaining our existence is not the same thing.

Yes it is. It’s a horrible outcome, but it is the best outcome, and being more complicated creatures than thinking every aspect of every situation is either good or bad, we can rejoice that the best is being done while mourning that the person has chosen in such a way that the best is so bad.

My understanding is that Judaism as a whole had little to say about the afterlife other than that it’s a thing. The opinions of the Greeks don’t trouble me overmuch. Could go into this more, but it’s a tangent and the post is already long.

Why would we mourn when the best possible thing takes place?

But your view fairs no better under your analysis. Does God create people merely to destroy them?

Yes! Not merely of course, but ultimately yes. They may serve some other purpose as well. Didn’t he create pretty much the entire universe just to destroy it as well?

Why create those who will be annihilated? Under the view of hell, we can say that a person’s existence is good, and so he is created and sustained for his own sake because the very fact that he exists is a good thing. Under the view of annihilation, this no longer makes sense. A person’s existence is no longer ultimately good in and of itself, so those who will be annihilated must be made for some other purpose. This reduces people to tools.

Yes, we are “tools.” This doesn’t have to mean we have no dignity at all, but I believe we exist solely to serve God and his creation. We do not inherently deserve to exist, and serve only “at his pleasure” in my view. In Genesis we learn that man was created to tend the garden, fill the earth and subdue it. We have a job to do. Those tools that don’t work (or refuse to work) get thrown out! I believe this is what Jesus is talking about in all the parables about the wheat and chaff. The chaff doesn’t burn forever, it gets burned up and turns to dust.

Again, if existence is good, then annihilation is worse than hell, objectively speaking. If existence is not good then there’s a whole host of problems since God is Existence, but leaving those aside, we still end up in the position of God using humans as disposable tools at best. Why create Bob if not for Bob’s sake? Then for what Bob will do. But then Bob is more shovel than man.

Existence is good, but it does not follow that our individual existences are good. Bob is created to serve God. If he does not, he dies. We are disposable!

God is omnipotent, but your idea that God is “unwilling to prevent [failure]” here is the same as the idea that God is “unwilling to go against Goodness (Himself) in order to force a person to do what He wants,” which I don’t see as a bad thing.

Ok…

As much as you try to make it sound passive, God chooses to withdraw this sustaining power. We have no claim on Him for it, but we cannot deny that what He chooses to do with it, He actually chooses to do with it.

You cannot get around the fact that annihilation is a positive choice of God, whatever factors He may consider. It may be that He refrains from doing what He is doing, but He still had to decide to do so.

OK, it is fine if you want to consider annihilation a positive act, the authors of the Torah and the Prophets apparently did as well.

So praise God for choosing to annihilate the pitiful weak and helpless who have come to the incorrect conclusion that such is good, though they be our friends and family? Praise His boundless and overwhelming generosity in treating people like disposable objects, to be used and thrown out.

I don’t know about your friends and family but mine are not like this. I’m sure yours aren’t either . Yes praise him for destroying his enemies once and for all, forever! Yes praise him for giving us a chance to live in the first place!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I believe the people who will be annihilated by God are truly evil to the core. They hate God and have done severe evil and have never repented. God has given them the totally undeserved gift of life, and they have abused it and used it to harm others and themselves. These people have made themselves unlovable and no one will miss them, not even God. They will disappear into oblivion never to be remembered again. Are there any people like this? I hope not! Is this a “good thing?” Absolutely. God says over and over again that he will obliterate his enemies, …

For me, God loving us and sustaining our existence is not the same thing.

If God can annihilate a person without ceasing to love them, then why not annihilate His enemies now? Why wait and allow them to inflict all this harm? Their existence is not good in itself, and all they do is evil, so why are they here?

An answer to the similar question from the orthodox point of view involves both that the person’s existence is a good in its own right, and that God will ultimately bring good out of the evil that they do.

But if you lose the first, then it becomes that God creates evil people whose existence is not good (so that the act of creating them is not a good thing in itself), and so who must be created for their effects. But their immediate effects are evil, and so you end up with God creating fundamentally, in nature not just in choice, evil people who do evil, which is evil. That He will bring good out of it (if you believe such) doesn’t actually matter at this point, because good ends cannot justify evil means - God has done evil. Which is not sensical.

Further, how would it be possible not to miss someone who you love(d)? Heaven is a place of perfect happiness, to be sure, but that does not imply that we magically lose the ability to recognize that someone who we love has fallen.

And while I admit that annihilation is consistent with destroying enemies, it is not implied by that phrase, as there are other alternatives which would also be consistent with it.

And last, if God is existence, and God is love, and God is simple, then fundamentally existence and love, in God, are the same. To be gifted existence by God would then be identical to being gifted love by God.

Why would we mourn when the best possible thing takes place?

Because the best could have been much, much better.

Yes! Not merely of course, but ultimately yes. They may serve some other purpose as well. Didn’t he create pretty much the entire universe just to destroy it as well?

No, but rather to perfect it. There is a resurrection of the dead - we are not given new bodies, but instead have our old bodies perfected. Likewise with the universe. Of course, our bodies may wither and rot before such is done, and likewise large parts of the universe may also wither and die. But when God created the universe, He saw that it was good, not merely expedient.

Yes, we are “tools.” This doesn’t have to mean we have no dignity at all, but I believe we exist solely to serve God and his creation. We do not inherently deserve to exist, and serve only “at his pleasure” in my view. In Genesis we learn that man was created to tend the garden, fill the earth and subdue it. We have a job to do. Those tools that don’t work (or refuse to work) get thrown out!..

Tools for what purpose, exactly? To serve God and His creation, you say, but God does not need us, and His creation wouldn’t need servants if it didn’t exist, so that would make all of creation rather pointless.

Don’t get me wrong, we still need to work the vineyard. But that is not the reason for our being created, rather our job once we are. We are created out of Love, not out of a need for slaves nor a desire for something to watch. In Genesis, man was created and tasked with tending the Garden (which was there for man’s sake, not the other way around), but this was not why he was created. Rather, he was created to be man. God does not need a man to tend the Garden, He could just as easily do that Himself, or not bother making a Garden in the first place.

Existence is good, but it does not follow that our individual existences are good. Bob is created to serve God. If he does not, he dies. We are disposable!

The difference between a created person and a non-person (be it a dog or a couch) is that a person was created for his own sake and a non-person is not. Otherwise, a man is no more than a rather squishy rock that makes weird noises.

This also destroys your objection Hell, even with the worst understanding of it possible. If we are so disposable, merely tools, what harm is it to throw a tool in an unregarded corner for eternity? I mean, it might make unfortunate noises, but so long as you aren’t listening, who cares?

I don’t know about your friends and family but mine are not like this. I’m sure yours aren’t either . Yes praise him for destroying his enemies once and for all, forever! Yes praise him for giving us a chance to live in the first place!

First, how could you possibly know? Second, the parallels between your view and the view of hell that you try to describe in such words as to make it sound like the creation of an evil God are pretty near exact - the same objections you make carry over exactly. The orthodox Christian could say more or less the same thing: Praise God for giving us the chance to live, and praise God for doing the best for even the worst of us!

The difference is that the Christian view paints a picture of a God who loves us all unconditionally, and your view paints a picture of a God who loves us so long as we are useful. Which isn’t really love.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

God is always there for you to call on His forgiveness…right up to your final breath. So don’t make Him out to be some kind of fiend!

I was mostly extrapolating off of the assumption of annihilation, I don’t actually believe fiendish extrapolations to be true.

 

[BornInMarch]

In my opinion, the people who deserve to be in Hell are those who do real, severe, and intentional harm to others and do not repent. Rapists, murderers, suicide-bombers/kamikaze pilots, child pornographers, pedophiles, mass-murderers, those who steal from or exploit the destitute, those who through selfishness allow others to suffer or die despite being able to save them (“I call it genocide-like activity because if I called it a genocide I would have to intervene and that would hurt my career”), violators of human rights, those who purposefully obstruct justice; people who John Locke would describe as “enemies of humankind”.

The people who don’t deserve to be in hell are people whose sins only hurt themselves or whose harm towards others is minor. Petty thieves, occasional masturbators, drug addicts, and non-believers would (assuming Jesus is as merciful as he claims to be in The Gospel) get to Heaven when they die (either directly or after a bit of time in the educational class that is purgatory).