Is hell a good place?

[Greatest I am]

Is hell a good place?

 

We cannot know how the first iniquity demonstrated itself but we can know that rebellion begins with questioning the status quo.

 

The moment God was questioned in any way, he responded with an evil punishment.

 

Evil as I class it in any case. He does not tolerate anyone doing their will, if it does not comply with his will. Obey or else. Not quite what scriptures say he should be doing.

 

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

 

It would seem that God let himself be overcome by evil and responded with evil. Or evil must be good. God created the first division in his once united kingdom.

 

It appears that God does not follow his own good advise. Or does he? If God was following his WORD, then hell must be a good place somehow.

 

Strange but true.

 

Are their any theists who would like to show how this is not back sliding?

 

That is of course, a rhetorical question as back sliding cannot be denied.

 

Was God overcome by evil?

 

Did God follow his literal WORD or not?

 

Should we?

 

 

 

Is hell a good place or is Gods WORD worthless since he himself ignores them and breaks his own laws?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[A Tripolation]

No.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Is there any reason that God, an omnipotent and omniscient being, should follow advice He gives to puny mortals? Presumably, when you're God, you have to behave a bit differently than most people.

[Brainteaserfan]

Is hell a good place?

 

We cannot know how the first iniquity demonstrated itself but we can know that rebellion begins with questioning the status quo.

 

The moment God was questioned in any way, he responded with an evil punishment.

 

Evil as I class it in any case. He does not tolerate anyone doing their will, if it does not comply with his will. Obey or else. Not quite what scriptures say he should be doing.

 

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

 

It would seem that God let himself be overcome by evil and responded with evil. Or evil must be good. God created the first division in his once united kingdom.

 

It appears that God does not follow his own good advise. Or does he? If God was following his WORD, then hell must be a good place somehow.

 

Strange but true.

 

Are their any theists who would like to show how this is not back sliding?

 

That is of course, a rhetorical question as back sliding cannot be denied.

 

Was God overcome by evil?

 

Did God follow his literal WORD or not?

 

Should we?

 

 

 

Is hell a good place or is Gods WORD worthless since he himself ignores them and breaks his own laws?

 

Regards

 

DL

You keep wanting to point out that God punishes people needlessly. I have tried to sensibly refute this, but your definition of punish does not seem to agree with my dictionary, as pointed out quite a while ago. Are you going to make a new point?

[GateOfRain]

It's a question of perspective. If it really had been the worst place in space, Then I suspect the obvious. Someone or something wants to feel safe tonight, and I don't recommend anyone to so much as move a muscle out of line. A such a place would've been built for a good reason, and that's why there would probably be a very risky thing here on earth that needs safety. Simply the hammer of Thor. That is why I believe that it may very well be true that hell is the worst place in space, thus we aren't in a safe place of the galaxy. This is really a sucky place to be in. So if you figure hell should be sorta like a paradise then you should hitchhike out of the planet. If anyone would dare take you.

 

 

[Greatest I am]

Is there any reason that God, an omnipotent and omniscient being, should follow advice He gives to puny mortals? Presumably, when you're God, you have to behave a bit differently than most people.

 

If omnipotent, having infinite pursuasive powers, then he would not need a hell at all would he?If God will not act in an omnipotent way, why should we even think he is omnipotent.

 

Just another attribute we give our imaginary construct.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

No.

 

Yes.

 

Regards

DL

 

It's a question of perspective. If it really had been the worst place in space, Then I suspect the obvious. Someone or something wants to feel safe tonight, and I don't recommend anyone to so much as move a muscle out of line. A such a place would've been built for a good reason, and that's why there would probably be a very risky thing here on earth that needs safety. Simply the hammer of Thor. That is why I believe that it may very well be true that hell is the worst place in space, thus we aren't in a safe place of the galaxy. This is really a sucky place to be in. So if you figure hell should be sorta like a paradise then you should hitchhike out of the planet. If anyone would dare take you.

 

 

 

 

The only place that we know of for sure where man can survive and you call it a suchy place.

 

 

Start sucking.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[GateOfRain]

If omnipotent, having infinite pursuasive powers, then he would not need a hell at all would he?If God will not act in an omnipotent way, why should we even think he is omnipotent.

 

Just another attribute we give our imaginary construct.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

 

The only place that we know of for sure where man can survive and you call it a suchy place.

 

 

Start sucking.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

Well thats an invalid argument, the aliens sure do survive on their planet, and where man survive is irrelevant. Let's just say they didn't.Infact they died out and where resurrected.

Edited August 29, 2011 by GateOfRain

[Dekan]

If the purpose of Hell is to deter people from committing sins, then it obviously serves a good purpose. Just as jails deter people from committing crimes.

 

The snag is, Hell might be better than Heaven, for some people. People such as masochists, who enjoy having pain inflicted on them. They'd be eternally experiencing pain in the traditional Hell. So they'd find it a place of eternal enjoyment. And therefore, from their point of view, a "good" place to be in.

 

This would of course, detract from the deterrent and "punishment" function of Hell. If you're actually enjoying the Hell experience, you're not really being punished.

 

To get round this, perhaps God sends the souls of masochists, not to Hell - but to Heaven. There, they will experience eternal freedom from pain. This pain-deprivation will make them eternally miserable.

 

So the traditional dichotomy - all the saved souls go to Heaven, all the damned souls go to Hell, may be too simplistic. God is more subtle in His punitive policy.

 

He sends each damned soul to whichever place they'd least enjoy being in.

[Greatest I am]

If the purpose of Hell is to deter people from committing sins, then it obviously serves a good purpose. Just as jails deter people from committing crimes.

 

The snag is, Hell might be better than Heaven, for some people. People such as masochists, who enjoy having pain inflicted on them. They'd be eternally experiencing pain in the traditional Hell. So they'd find it a place of eternal enjoyment. And therefore, from their point of view, a "good" place to be in.

 

This would of course, detract from the deterrent and "punishment" function of Hell. If you're actually enjoying the Hell experience, you're not really being punished.

 

To get round this, perhaps God sends the souls of masochists, not to Hell - but to Heaven. There, they will experience eternal freedom from pain. This pain-deprivation will make them eternally miserable.

 

So the traditional dichotomy - all the saved souls go to Heaven, all the damned souls go to Hell, may be too simplistic. God is more subtle in His punitive policy.

 

He sends each damned soul to whichever place they'd least enjoy being in.

 

I agree that punishment is given to deter crimes or sins bit it is hard to see who the sinner will sin against after he is dead. That would be deterrent enough would it not?

 

Further, punishment is given to change attitudes and thus prevent reoccurrence but removing the source of the inclination.

 

If that does not happen then the torture is pointless.

 

Right?

 

Would killing that soul be the more moral thing to do then?

 

Regards

 

DL

[Brainteaserfan]

Further, punishment is given to change attitudes and thus prevent reoccurrence but removing the source of the inclination.

No. Not always.

[Greatest I am]

No. Not always.

 

I'm waiting for the other shoe.

 

Or will you just let that hang without an explanation, which of course make it a useless statemnent?

 

Debate training is free. Learn.

 

Regards

D:

[Brainteaserfan]

I'm waiting for the other shoe.

 

Or will you just let that hang without an explanation, which of course make it a useless statemnent?

 

Debate training is free. Learn.

 

Regards

D:

I already did months ago. I'm not going to just say it over and over again. Look in the dictionary. Here's what I have: 1. The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.

 

So that there isn't any dispute about retribution, here it is too:

n.

1. Something justly deserved; recompense.

2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.

3. Theology: Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.

 

Source: googled "define retribution" and "define punishment"

 

There is no reason that punishment is only given for changing behavior. Even if it was, you could still make an argument that God would then be able to point to those in hell and warn any other creations of His, beware! And then He would possibly be influencing someone's behavior.

[Greatest I am]

I already did months ago. I'm not going to just say it over and over again. Look in the dictionary. Here's what I have: 1. The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.

 

So that there isn't any dispute about retribution, here it is too:

n.

1. Something justly deserved; recompense.

2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.

3. Theology: Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.

 

Source: googled "define retribution" and "define punishment"

 

There is no reason that punishment is only given for changing behavior. Even if it was, you could still make an argument that God would then be able to point to those in hell and warn any other creations of His, beware! And then He would possibly be influencing someone's behavior.

 

So hell is a tool of fear mongering and infinite torture without purpose for the victim, but a good lesson for potential sinners.

 

What a pathetic view.

 

Especially when you have God not following his own WORD of not using evil against evil.

 

Regards

DL

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Especially when you have God not following his own WORD of not using evil against evil.

You still haven't explained why God is obligated to follow his own word to mere mortals when he is vastly different.

[The Skilled Noob]

who is god?

[Brainteaserfan]

So hell is a tool of fear mongering and infinite torture without purpose for the victim, but a good lesson for potential sinners.

 

What a pathetic view.

 

Especially when you have God not following his own WORD of not using evil against evil.

 

Regards

DL

I recall that was written as a law for humans, not for Himself.

[Greatest I am]

You still haven't explained why God is obligated to follow his own word to mere mortals when he is vastly different.

 

As above so below.

 

A & E became as Gods. God's own words, so your vastly different, does not agree with God's own words.

We are in his mental image.

Wouls you vote for a law maker who you know will ignore his own laws?

If so, remain blind.

 

Regards

DL

 

who is god?

 

A figment of the imagination.

 

A catch all word for human hopes and dreams.

 

Regards

DL

 

I recall that was written as a law for humans, not for Himself.

 

All do as I say and not as I do eh? A good law for a tyrant.

 

Your statement is a lie.

Go get the quote.

 

Regards

DL

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As above so below.

 

A & E became as Gods. God's own words, so your vastly different, does not agree with God's own words.

We are in his mental image.

Wouls you vote for a law maker who you know will ignore his own laws?

If so, remain blind.

We may be created in His image as Genesis says, but we do not play the same role that He plays. A statue of Napoleon is not a great emperor or general, regardless of the detail and care put into the statue. Also, Adam and Eve were not omniscient or omnipotent.

 

The nature of received morality -- that is, human morality being defined by God -- implies that it is impossible to judge God's actions as good or evil, since God sets the definitions for humans and clearly does not establish standards of conduct for supernatural beings.

[Greatest I am]

We may be created in His image as Genesis says, but we do not play the same role that He plays. A statue of Napoleon is not a great emperor or general, regardless of the detail and care put into the statue. Also, Adam and Eve were not omniscient or omnipotent.

 

The nature of received morality -- that is, human morality being defined by God -- implies that it is impossible to judge God's actions as good or evil, since God sets the definitions for humans and clearly does not establish standards of conduct for supernatural beings.

 

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

 

HOW does an omnipotent being suddenly regret anything he had ever done? Is he not supposed to be perfect and all knowing?

 

You can con yourself into being less than you can be but God definitely said that A & E had his moral sense and thast means we can jusdge that genocidal A hole.

 

You have judged him good with your foolish morals so let's keep a level playing field where I can do as you do and judge.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

 

HOW does an omnipotent being suddenly regret anything he had ever done? Is he not supposed to be perfect and all knowing?

How is this relevant?

 

You can con yourself into being less than you can be but God definitely said that A & E had his moral sense and thast means we can jusdge that genocidal A hole.

I thought my point was that His moral sense does not apply to His actions. The fact that our morality is supposed to be received from God emphasizes the point, since it means Gods actions are by definition moral. He who writes the rules decides what constitutes their violation.

[Phi for All]

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

 

HOW does an omnipotent being suddenly regret anything he had ever done? Is he not supposed to be perfect and all knowing?

 

You can con yourself into being less than you can be but God definitely said that A & E had his moral sense and thast means we can jusdge that genocidal A hole.

 

You have judged him good with your foolish morals so let's keep a level playing field where I can do as you do and judge.

 

Regards

DL

!

Moderator Note

Personal attacks are against the rules and won't be tolerated. This is not your first warning.

[Greatest I am]

How is this relevant?

 

 

It blow hell out of your omni everything.

 

I thought my point was that His moral sense does not apply to His actions. The fact that our morality is supposed to be received from God emphasizes the point, since it means Gods actions are by definition moral. He who writes the rules decides what constitutes their violation.

 

Exactly.

If we receive our moral sense from God, then it is in the image of his, we can thus judge his.

 

If all of his actions are moral and we as you say have the same moral sense, then all our actions must be moral as well.

 

Does your moral sense tell you that genocide is good or evil?

 

Regards

DL

 

!

Moderator Note

Personal attacks are against the rules and won't be tolerated. This is not your first warning.

 

I spoke to his morals. Not him.

 

Regards

DL

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It blow hell out of your omni everything.

Irrelevant. God is vastly more powerful than humans.

 

Exactly.

If we receive our moral sense from God, then it is in the image of his, we can thus judge his.

 

If all of his actions are moral and we as you say have the same moral sense, then all our actions must be moral as well.

This does not follow. God has a position of power over humans, and defines what is right and wrong; our judgments of morality come from obeying God's rules. Should God behave in a manner contradictory to the rules set down for humans, one can only conclude that what is good for God is not the same as what is good for humans.

 

This is particularly true when you consider the covenant laid out in the Old Testament: the Israelites agreed to obey God's rules in return for the land of Israel and his protection as God. God did not agree to obey any rules. He did not imply that He should obey them.

 

I spoke to his morals. Not him.

Just like "you're stupid" would speak to my intellect, not to me. Right.

 

You may be surprised to find out that I am not, in fact, theistic in any way. I merely find your arguments against religion tiresome.

[DevilSolution]

I agree with "greatest i am", if one cannot judge god by its so called actions then its not a level playing field, god too must be accountable to the so called morals it itself created in all the so called holy books.

 

God is however supposed to be all forgiving depending on which book you want to read which means we too could be of its contradictions.

 

The concept of hell should never be seen as good, but it doesnt mean it wont be, from a subjective view point i could wish hell upon someone which in return makes hell good for me...ovcourse i would wholly have to believe hell exists in the first place which i dont.

 

what really confuses me is the definition "the greatest i am" gave to god, if god is an imaginary place holder for our dreams, aspirations and idea's then why base an argument on scriptures you obviously dont follow? (if you do claim too then your contradicting yourself, scriptures do specify god as an actual being rather than an imaginary place holder)

perhaps your trying to provoke a reaction from someone who holds an opposed opinion but dont forget the ONLY ammo you have is theirs. By this i mean your not going persuade someone that god is evil for punishing the innocent or ignorant or that god (as most religions depict) is self contradictory. I mean all you can do is twist what the scriptures say to contradict their belief, you do not convey your own belief which is a very .... condescending approach, you attack weak parts and leave out any good

 

i got into a fight last week, well it was forced on me somewhat but i could have ran in retrospect, he went for me like a pitbull but i got a good punch in and put him down, i could tell he was partially intoxicated, his friend starting shouting "do it bro dont take that", the next thing i know he had a 7" butterfly knife in his hand and was approaching rapidly, without a conscious thought he was on his back with blood pouring down the nearest drain pipe, i tried to run but got knocked over by a car with extreme pressure. this is all i remember.

 

when i went to heaven god said to me "ahhh, alas, here he is, how was hell?" i replied rather shocked "it was awful, from the moment of birth i was forced to have thought, yet the choice too kill didnt feel like mine, how can i be in heaven?" god replied to me with a smile "heaven was never a test, just a safe house for your deepest thoughts, now back to hell with you boy and be more careful what you think this time"

 

moral of the story? heaven and hell are what you make of them......

[Greatest I am]

I agree with "greatest i am", if one cannot judge god by its so called actions then its not a level playing field, god too must be accountable to the so called morals it itself created in all the so called holy books.

 

Thanks.

 

God is however supposed to be all forgiving depending on which book you want to read which means we too could be of its contradictions.

 

 

An all forgiving God would, by definition, never punish.

 

I know of no God but mine that does not have the carrot and stick.

 

 

The concept of hell should never be seen as good, but it doesnt mean it wont be, from a subjective view point i could wish hell upon someone which in return makes hell good for me...ovcourse i would wholly have to believe hell exists in the first place which i dont.

 

what really confuses me is the definition "the greatest i am" gave to god, if god is an imaginary place holder for our dreams, aspirations and idea's then why base an argument on scriptures you obviously dont follow?

 

Because it is out dated and doing damage. To women, Gays and generally being divisive to society.

Further, how else to engage a thumper without thumping on his door?

 

 

(if you do claim too then your contradicting yourself, scriptures do specify god as an actual being rather than an imaginary place holder)

 

 

Of course. What should our God look like if not a man?

 

http://imgur.com/3C7G1

 

Who do you think our first God was if not a man?

 

In the real world.

 

Who but a man can put words to God’s will?

 

 

 

perhaps your trying to provoke a reaction from someone who holds an opposed opinion but dont forget the ONLY ammo you have is theirs.

 

That is all I need. As a Gnostic Christian, I can be ahead of their thinking.

 

By this i mean your not going persuade someone that god is evil for punishing the innocent or ignorant or that god (as most religions depict) is self contradictory. I mean all you can do is twist what the scriptures say to contradict their belief, you do not convey your own belief which is a very .... condescending approach, you attack weak parts and leave out any good

 

Believers will believe what they will.

I just show that O T God is immoral and that N T God is rhetorical garbage.

 

The duality that you find in scripture is there for a reason.

 

Two creation stories, two flood myths etc.

 

The reason is to tell you that the authors did not know what truth was. If they did, they would not have bothered writing lies.

 

It is not to be read literally.

 

i got into a fight last week, well it was forced on me somewhat but i could have ran in retrospect, he went for me like a pitbull but i got a good punch in and put him down, i could tell he was partially intoxicated, his friend starting shouting "do it bro dont take that", the next thing i know he had a 7" butterfly knife in his hand and was approaching rapidly, without a conscious thought he was on his back with blood pouring down the nearest drain pipe, i tried to run but got knocked over by a car with extreme pressure. this is all i remember.

 

when i went to heaven god said to me "ahhh, alas, here he is, how was hell?" i replied rather shocked "it was awful, from the moment of birth i was forced to have thought, yet the choice too kill didnt feel like mine, how can i be in heaven?" god replied to me with a smile "heaven was never a test, just a safe house for your deepest thoughts, now back to hell with you boy and be more careful what you think this time"

 

moral of the story? heaven and hell are what you make of them......

 

I agree with you that hell is not supposed to be a good place.

That is one of my points.

God used it going against scripture.

 

God was overcome by evil.

 

Regards

DL