"A good God wouldn't have a Hell"

Yes I can.

Do you have some argument showing my overall general argument is not valid unless I show these details?

The fact that something is fundamental to a question still does not mean that I have to show exactly what that thing is for you to agree with me.

 

Those who want nothing to do with God will get their wish. God is a gentleman, He won't force anyone into heaven.

 

That is true in a theoretical sense, but not a practical sense.

I don't think our varying definitions of "Hell" are different enough to make a difference to this argument.

I think the point of the argument, stated one way, is that you could still suffer greatly and for that to be "fair".
That might be the simplest way to put it.

 

I think we can still have this discussion without needing to define exactly what "good" and what "Hell" is.

But if you have a problem with that, why don't you be the one to give us definitions of what "good" and "Hell" is, and then I can see if I can base the argument on that.


Or maybe we can ask the question this way: "What's the worst Hell could be like, and for God to still be good?"

 

If your heart is filled with hatred and if you are bloodthirsty for vengeance, are you good and deserving of heaven? Jesus seems to be saying no.

 

I find the suggestion that you couldn’t love this daughter without wishing torment upon her rapist and murderer very disturbing. And completely out of line with what Jesus was supposed to be all about. And also out of line with what modern justice systems are all about.

It is not about vengeance. It is about restitution, reformation, and in some cases making an example with punishment in order to discourage others from committing the same crimes.

It isn’t about a bloodthirsty call for vengeance and a desire for further suffering. That is barbaric.

 

I'm not saying you have to show details, I'm saying you have the acknowledge the details behind the individual instances of the statement.

That depends who the "our" covers. Are you only looking from a mainstream Western Christian perspective or the much wider and earlier history of the concept?

I would say that the "fairness" of a punishment relies on the subject of it being clearly aware of the rules and potential penalties and the punishment being consistent with the nature of the "crime". If any god exists, I'd argue that they'd have entirely failed on the first part (hence this discussion in the first place) and regardless, I'm not sure how an eternity of constant suffering would be justified in few if any cases.

 

But is that really true?

I mean, if you cause a terrible wrong to someone else, and you have no reason to believe you will be punished, would that all by itself make it wrong to inflict the same wrong on you that you had inflicted on that other person?

We can also say that simply being aware that there will be a punishment attached to one's actions does not, by itself, make that punishment right either.

 

That's a good question.

Can we focus on, just for a moment, for the sake of hypothetical argument here, just several lifetimes of suffering?
Could that perhaps be justified in several cases?

 

I've already stated throughout this thread several different ways that an eternity of suffering could be justified.

I hate to repeat myself over and over again, but I'll outline the ways:
1. Natural effects of the person's own state of being, if that person still finds this state of being to be preferable to death
2. Natural effects of the interaction within a group of people, if that individual still finds being in this group preferable to complete isolation
3. Punishment for repeated sin continuously committed after death

 

Well that was a long and winding road to you not knowing what hell is so no one can judge whether your god is just or vengeful. But yes, religions can be criticized for their beliefs if they believe them to be just and those on the outside (and on the inside) think them to be unjust....it is the ethical thing to do.

 

Give me your basic view of what you suppose religion describes hell as being like, and we'll try to see if that still works in my argument.

 

Let's also point out one more possibility, and that could be that Hell lasts for a long time, but does not last absolutely forever, and any occupants still remaining at the end will be permanently snuffed out of existence.

I don't know if that would help any of you feel that God is more "good" or just, or if it would still be nearly completely irrelevant in your minds.

 

Heaven or hell is determined by whether a person believes (puts their trust) in Christ alone to save them (John 3:16, 36, etc.).

• Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
• Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
• Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”

 

Everyone will exist eternally either in heaven or hell (Daniel 12:2,3; Matthew 25:46; John 5:28; Revelation 20:14,15).

 

None of those verses actually explicitly say that those in Hell will live forever.
Or at least the language leaves open the possibility of interpretation to that effect.

 

Okay, but that still does not absolutely necessarily mean they must believe in Christ before death to have any possibility of being saved.

 

To be fair, that is talking about the punishment of one specific individual.

 

All your rationalizations aside, the fact remains that a religious belief, under a supposed just god, that one judges as unjust needs to be criticized.

 

Okay, can you agree with this statement?
"God can still be good if he gives each individual what they deserve"

 

I will agree that is a potential problem that should be looked at. Now, what specific religious belief is it that you have a problem with?

 

The Fundamentalist belief that if you do not accept Christ you will go to hell. That's okay if they keep it to themselves, but they don't and view other religions as toxic and must denigrate them and claim adherents of other religions will burn in hell to get them to convert and if the do, heaven (we promise). An unjust god for one thing.

 

I think I addressed that in post #412. (which was 11 posts back)


I still don't think you've given any specific religious beliefs to criticize.

Or do you have an overall problem with the concept of Hell itself?

You seem to have made the allusion in the past that it would depend on the specific details.

 

I believe God's chosen people have defined it. Sheol.

 

That isn't what we're talking about though is it? Hell isn't a specific punishment for a defined crime.

Not automatically, but I see it as an important factor.

I think that'd be overstretching your flexibility on definition. Eternity is a core element of the general concept.

If the situation is preferable to the default alternative of just being dead it wouldn't be much of a punishment.

On the third point, at risk of getting in to a definition debate again, I'd question the idea of sin being possible after death in any of the depictions of hell (or heaven) I'm aware of (though that's just another aspect which doesn't help the whole idea make any sense ).