"A good God wouldn't have a Hell"

One could say this is an interpretation of present reality. So it doesn't necessarily have to do with religion or any assumptions about God.

If I could use logic or non-faith based arguments to convince you that many (possibly even the majority of) people deserve hell, then it would follow (I believe) that the existence of a good God would not be inconsistent with the existence of Hell, and that would be one less argument for atheists to be able to use.

 

This might be a very subtle point to make, but it is possible (good) Christians might not rejoice when someone goes to Hell, yet still take joy from someone receiving the punishment they deserve.

I know that might not seem to make sense on the surface, so let me explain further.
It could be said that Hell has more than one component to it. It is not only all about persons receiving the punishment they deserve. Being there might also make that person much more prone to continually staying in sin, and committing more sins.

It would be like being glad that a criminal is getting the punishment they deserve, but being sad that that criminal is never go to change and is continuously going to spend all his life going in and out of prison, due to him committing more crimes and being unable to change course.

 

Absolutely agree! I think that is the problem when one tries to poke holes in a modern persons take on an ancient construct of a highly selective, politically sanitised and often mis-quoted set of writings, however, I guess therein lies the dichotomy - faith versus the mystery.
Anyway....its all bollocks....was all an invention designed to maintain a quasi ancient Rome social hierarchical system of privilege and power which has withered over the centuries. Until today, where it is pretty well moribund and we seem to have constructed a God being/creature that resembles some pathetic little fluffy white bunny who loves everyone and everything and those that now claim to represent it are all floundering around in a miasma of doubt worrying about how their interpretations of their construct might piss off some person or group. Bring back the fire and brimstone God of old that said "don't phuck with me or else.....!!" my kinda guy...

 

I think we can agree on this: If people do not actually deserve Hell, then it would not be possible for both a good God to exist and for these people to go to Hell.

So I think that may ultimately be the main issue this comes down to. What the argument really hinges on.

 

Punishment is not necessary because we're not here on Earth to be judged. We're here to learn & grow toward being more good--more positive, caring, compassionate, & loving. We make mistakes & do negative things at times along the way. But we're expected to learn from our mistakes & improve from them. Since physical life is so short, we don't usually have time in one or two lives to learn what is required, so we reincarnate as many times as it takes to achieve the level necessary for graduation from physical reality. Punishment would not only be against the finer lessons we're here to learn, but it would be counter productive. Reincarnation removes any need for punishment.

 

It's not about the definition of "good" but the definition of "a good God". You could define "fast" but "fast plane" and "fast animal" would still be two different concepts.

That was part of my point too. There is massive variation, inconsistency and dispute within Christianity so if you want to discuss detailed theological points like this, you need to clearly establish your definitions.

 

I always liked the teachings of Jesus. A hell of a lot nicer guy than the old prick.

 

NEWS-FLASH, for the omniscient Kazenatsu: there have been cases of MISTREATED PRISONERS OF WAR (an old movie was based on one case of an American Olympian who ended up a Japanese p.o.w. during WW2) and SURVIVORS OF NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS, who have FORGIVEN THEIR CAPTORS.

There have also been American citizens, railroaded by trials that were mockeries of justice, who've spent DECADES in prison before being proven innocent so overwhelmingly that their convictions were ultimately overturned & they were released (w/ no big payout in compensation for the large chunk of their lives stolen), who have HELD NO GRUDGE against anyone.

And there have been people who've had LOVED ONES killed, who've FORGIVEN THE MURDERERS. (In one case, after forgiving him, a woman found that there was reason to believe the person convicted was not the true murderer, so she helped him to, many years later, finally be vindicated & released-- so both types of cases were combined in one incident.)

Now, I'm honest enough to believe that, in the same position, I would not be able to show such exemplary charity of heart or resentment-cancelling love for others to match those extraordinary acts. But Kazenatsu, you CANNOT, "PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE," anything of the kind you claim. You cannot use subjects so flawed as you & I to prove anything about God's capacity for forgiveness, especially since there are SOME people who DO achieve, or access, that divine peace of mind & absence of vindictiveness.

 

Great. But that doesn't mean all people can.

Are you saying if they went up into a courtroom in Heaven, and God told them who the person (or persons) responsible was for what happened to them, and gave them the option, they would decide that they did not want the person responsible to face any punishment?

 

Yes, they've only forgiven those murders because they know those murders in are in prison!

Would they still be so willing to forgive if they knew the murderer of their loved one definitely wasn't going to spend a single day in prison, or be punished in any way, either on earth or in the afterlife?

 

On the contrary, I believe that proves that this is very common, probably the norm.

Now, I'm not discounting the possibility there may be some people out there who are able to forgive, without the one who wronged them ever suffering. I am sure there are some people out there like that. But the point is, if regular normal people are to be able to forgive, there might need to be the existence of some suffering.

Now, I think God is trying hard to get people to be able to forgive without there needing to be suffering. But in many cases that simply might not be possible.

Think about it. If there doesn't need to be suffering for sins to be forgiven, then why did Jesus have to suffer on the cross?

 

I don't think you really understand the teachings of Jesus. If you did, I am thinking you would probably not be saying that.

Take a guess who is going to be the judge when it comes time to decide whether you are going to be thrown into Hell.

 

I am honestly sorry that you are not even able to accept the full human potential for forgiveness, even if most of us don't employ its replete measure.

Your hypothetical scenario of the person in heaven (who would then, presumably, be able to see their murdered loved one, so, if anything, would seem to have more reason to see the past event as water under the bridge) gives me an excuse, though, to bring up a comic that I've just read & been thinking about. It was a syndicated comic titled Half Full, & was published 3 wks ago. It is comprised of a cat in a robe, w/ a halo over its head, standing atop clouds & in front of (apparently) St. Peter, behind a book-topped lectern. There are also metal bars, presumably part of the heavenly gates or fence, in the near-background. The sole word spoken is St. Peter asking, "Curiosity?"

At first I just didn't get its meaning. After thinking a bit, I did come up w/ an explanation, though I was surprised that the creator, Maria Scrivan, would go to such a dark & dense conceptual place for the Sunday Funnies. Asking someone else for their interpretation, however, showed me that I'd been wrong; though I think a lot less of the actual intent than my imagined one.

I now accept the joke to simply have been that St. Peter was hazarding a guess as to the cause of the feline's demise-- because of the expression, "Curiosity killed the cat." What's funny about that, I still couldn't explain (not to mention that, because of the open book before him, there would be no need for Peter TO guess).

But my original interpretation had been that St. Peter was responding to what the cat must have just asked him. That is, about the location of, "Curiosity," because, naturally, that must have been the party responsible for his death. In other words, the cartoon cat must have wanted to either 1) be assured that Curiosity had wound up in Hell; or 2) if Curiosity had been allowed, nevertheless, into heaven-- for those overly-fixated on details, you can think of it as a murder-suicide situation, to have both of the principals arriving in heaven around the same time-- the cat would have been wanting to know where in heaven he would be able to find Curiosity, for the purpose of exacting REVENGE!

Consider that: a soul being admitted to heaven but still harboring the urge to get even with the entity that had done it harm when they were still in the physical realm. That ought to get you in the mood for The Family Circus.

 

You are describing something that, even by your own admission, you are not able to do.

I don't see what exactly your argument is here.

 

Not as naive as to think there needs to be a hell.

If I were a God, I was omniscient and omnipotent, I would know before hand of my creation those who would obey me and those who would not obey me.
And I being omniscient and omnipotent, would have the power to not create those that would not obey me.

And to think different would be intellectually dishonest.
Like the OP is.

 

Government didn't create the humans. God did. And created them evil.

According to the bible, God created every thing. Good and evil.
So all things on Earth, God created.

 

The question is, why create something just for the purpose of killing it or torturing it? If the creator is deemed to be good.
Do good people torture and kill things? Especially if they created it, knowing before hand what the outcome is? Being omniscient and all.

 

The opening post is inchoerent.
Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being create other beings knowingly for the sole purpose of having to forgive them or torture them?

A good being would simply not create those being known before hand that it was going to torture and spare the pain.

In fact, a good creator would create paradise from the beginning. Instead of creating evil and bad people.
That is, if a God actually creates things, good and evil. And knows before hand what is good and what is evil.

 

Off-topic.

I don't think you were reading my post earlier in this thread when I said that that's another topic for another thread.

Just because you decide to say something and I refuse to answer in that thread because it's really another separate long topic, doesn't mean you win.
What it really means is it's kind of unfair for you to bring that up in the wrong thread.
Unless of course you just wanted to link to a discussion on it in another thread.

I don't have any obligation to argue against something when it's going to derail the discussion in the thread, making this discussion even less coherent than it already is, and is probably not going to go anywhere.

Again, happy to have that discussion with you, but it's not going to happen in this thread.

 

LOL.
The OP is about a good god wouldn't create something.

When the same god you supposedly speak of, creates all things.

Now if you want this god to only create certain things, then certainly, the topic is limited.
But I assumed, AM I WRONG, the god you post about created all things?

As another poster said, you need to define this god and the rules if you don't want to speak of what this god is capable or not capable of.

When speaking of god and hell, it is assumed the Christian god and the one from the bible.
Where that god created all things. Good and Evil. And it omniscient and omnipotent.

If you are posting about a different god, define it.

 

You people are all the same. You think any topic is license to bring up any topic that is even tangentially related to the original topic.

Then the discussion in the thread gets derailed and wanders off to multiple other topics, and the discussion involving the original issue never goes anywhere.

If it were a quick answer and was going to be a quick little side discussion, I would have answered you, but it is not.


If you want to talk about it, go start a separate discussion thread, and then leave the link here.

 

Define your god and the limits imposed upon that god.
Else the omniscient and omnipotent god of the bible is open to all things related to the creation.

Since according to the bible and most christian religions, that god is omniscient and omnipotent. And the creator of every single entity on earth.

So define exactly this god you post of.

 

dairyair, your post is totally off-topic and about a theological issue that is really an issue that could stand all by itself.

 

So the topic isn't about the god of bible. The christian god.
OK,
Define this god of the OP.

 

That's a logical fallacy of specificity.