outta heaven you go

Originally posted by SwissGambit
How do you deal with the possibility of eternal hell? Do you deny that it is eternal, or do you just trust God to act justly despite not knowing his reasons (like Job)?

lots of trusting and praying

Originally posted by Zander 88
I dunno, that's why I tried to get outta the way. 🙂

But seriously, if I were to choose one, I would be more inclined to pick #1.

I would too. But that’s because I do not think we can abrogate our own moral sensibilties just because a certain (any) religious text says “X.”

In fact, it may be self-deceptive to attempt to do so...

Originally posted by vistesd
I once made the same argument as Zander.

However, it is possible that “human nature” (the nature of our consciousness) has evolved to include ethical sensibilities, that may be fairly common across groups (at least statistically). This is not to say that human nature is endowed with particular moral principles—but simply that we may have a “moral ...[text shortened]... this.)

That does not, of course, point to any kind of “divine command” theory of morality...

Although I have not read nearly enough about it, I have leaned towards belief in "Natural Law" simply because it seems like "common sense" (a dangerous phrase, I know). We seem to have a natural empathy for others (from something as basic as the involuntary cringe when someone cries out in pain to something more involved, like sending money to feed starving kids in Africa), and even if this fades, there is still the concept of a mutual agreement to respect the person and property of others. Without that, nobody's person or property is safe.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
How do you deal with the possibility of eternal hell? Do you deny that it is eternal, or do you just trust God to act justly despite not knowing his reasons (like Job)?

Just to set my own record straight for myself (though I think you have a pretty good idea of it), I don’t think that an eternal hell can be considered either loving or just—even if one accepts the monotheistic view of “conventional” Christianity (which I don’t). I have only been arguing lately, within the Christian paradigm, that that is not the only (or even, in some quarters, the most prominent) view.

I just don’t see why—mostly Western, Protestant—Christians spend so much time trying to defend that position. (Well, maybe I do—since I grew up with it.)

________________________

Basically, I think you and Zander and I are "singing out of the same hymnal" here...

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Although I have not read nearly enough about it, I have leaned towards belief in "Natural Law" simply because it seems like "common sense" (a dangerous phrase, I know). We seem to have a natural empathy for others (from something as basic as the involuntary cringe when someone cries out in pain to something more involved, like sending money to feed starv ...[text shortened]... spect the person and property of others. Without that, nobody's person or property is safe.

I don’t disagree. I freely admit that my own moral sense is a patchwork affair.

Originally posted by Zander 88
I don't believe in God, so I don't believe in hell. 😛

But it's very clear. If you deny God's existence, or choose not to believe in him, then you have commited an unforgivable sin. Once in hell, basically, your screwed. Given that the ten commandments are very reasonable, and his message of love as well, I wouldn't have many problems trusting him to be just.

Again, the idea of 'eternal hell' is but one interpretation. Some believe that 'hell' is a temporary refining process.

I'm not sure why you say the 10 commandments are 'very reasonable'. Half of them aren't worth following. Furthermore, I fail to see how anyone who believes in an eternal hell can claim that the Bible has only a 'message of love'.

Originally posted by vistesd
Just to set my own record straight for myself (though I think you have a pretty good idea of it), I don’t think that an eternal hell can be considered either loving or just—even if one accepts the monotheistic view of “conventional” Christianity (which I don’t). I have only been arguing lately, within the Christian paradigm, that that is not the only (or ev ...[text shortened]... ______

Basically, I think you and Zander and I are "singing out of the same hymnal" here...

Why do they defend eternal hell? I think the answer is simple - coercion. Hell literally scares people into becoming Christians. Since Evangelicals measure their success by how many converts they get, they need high-power tools.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Again, the idea of 'eternal hell' is but one interpretation. Some believe that 'hell' is a temporary refining process.

I'm not sure why you say the 10 commandments are 'very reasonable'. Half of them aren't worth following. Furthermore, I fail to see how anyone who believes in an eternal hell can claim that the Bible has only a 'message of love'.

Ok, I was just going off by what I was taught.
What exactly is wrong with the 10 big ones?
I said his message of love was reasonable. That doesn't exclude him from punishing people for commiting the unforgivable sin. Isn't it reasonable to expect consequences for doing something bad?

Originally posted by vistesd
Just to set my own record straight for myself (though I think you have a pretty good idea of it), I don’t think that an eternal hell can be considered either loving or just—even if one accepts the monotheistic view of “conventional” Christianity (which I don’t). I have only been arguing lately, within the Christian paradigm, that that is not the only (or ev ...[text shortened]... ______

Basically, I think you and Zander and I are "singing out of the same hymnal" here...

Yeah. I'm just defending from the other side since I'm bored and nobody else jumped in. 🙂 Although I think I'm ready to concede cause swissgambit is nailing me with the hell and love concept. So if anybody else would like to take my position, please do so.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Why do they defend eternal hell? I think the answer is simple - coercion. Hell literally scares people into becoming Christians. Since Evangelicals measure their success by how many converts they get, they need high-power tools.

Maybe; I actually can’t think of another reason. (Although, for some, I suspect it might be because of the security offered by a closed biblical system.) But it commits them to untenable positions—e.g. vis-à-vis Euthyphro’s dilemma.

I think they also underestimate the number of people who walk away because of all that. Since embarking on some study of Eastern Orthodoxy, I have seen that neither an eternal hell nor the idea of “God” as a being is necessary to the Christian paradigm—even in the West, there have been such as Meister Eckhart.

Oh well...

Originally posted by Zander 88
Ok, I was just going off by what I was taught.
What exactly is wrong with the 10 big ones?
I said his message of love was reasonable. That doesn't exclude him from punishing people for commiting the unforgivable sin. Isn't it reasonable to expect consequences for doing something bad?

OK, let's deconstruct the commandments.

1 you shall have no other gods before me.
Meaningless to a non-theist. For theists, they must ask: Is jealousy permissible in a morally perfect God?

2 You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Nobody takes this one seriously. Even Christians make graven images of crosses, praying hands, etc....

3 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
Too strict. One slip of the tongue, one "Goddammit", and you're beyond redemption. What are we supposed to say when we miss with the hammer and hit our fingers?

4 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy.
Shouldn't we let people set their own work schedules?

5 Honor your father and your mother.
Shaky. What about those who have abusive parents? Do those parents deserve to be honored?

6 You shall not murder.
Finally, one I can fully endorse.

7 You shall not commit adultery.
This should only apply to someone who has committed to a monogamous relationship, while that relationship lasts. This allows people to divorce and get out of bad relationships. It also permits one-night stands, etc. I see no reason to forbid such things in cases where both parties understand there is no expected commitment.

I agree with both 8 & 9:
8 You shall not steal.
9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
A needless command. (Or worse: It endorses slavery! Yikes!) This is already covered #8 and #7. Furthermore, what's wrong with offering to buy one of my neighbor's possessions? This commandment would mean the death of the 'yard sale'. 😛

To your 2nd point:
It is reasonable to expect a just punishment for doing wrong. Eternal Hell is terribly excessive and thus unjust.

Originally posted by vistesd
Maybe; I actually can’t think of another reason. (Although, for some, I suspect it might be because of the security offered by a closed biblical system.) But it commits them to untenable positions—e.g. vis-à-vis Euthyphro’s dilemma.

I think they also underestimate the number of people who walk away because of all that. Since embarking on some study of ...[text shortened]... he Christian paradigm—even in the West, there have been such as Meister Eckhart.

Oh well...

Good point in the 1st paragraph; the existing believers like the idea that "I have access to the Truth." They get their security, but at a price: the searching and questioning ends, and they become rigid and dogmatic.

It really is a shame that Protestant/Evangelical Christianity is so prevalent in the West (particularly the U.S.). It seems like, out of all the possible variants of the Christian faith, we got the most obnoxious and least intellectual one.

Originally posted by Zander 88
Yeah. I'm just defending from the other side since I'm bored and nobody else jumped in. 🙂 Although I think I'm ready to concede cause swissgambit is nailing me with the hell and love concept. So if anybody else would like to take my position, please do so.

I think you did about as well as you could within the rigid constraints of modern fundamentalist Christianity. Thanks for playing! 🙂

Originally posted by Zander 88
But you can't provide evidence that he is God. So, There is no reason to believe he speaks the words of God. We don't even know if God exists.

Don't say WE don't know God exists. I know God exists, and so do you.
You simply fail to acknowledge him.

The whole question of hell verses heaven is a topic that troubles any who ponder it. After all, we are all in the same boat. The question becomes what to do about it while in the boat talking to each other?

Why punish someone for eternity? What could they possibly do to deserve such a fate? Is it eternal or is it temperal? Is it fire and brimestone or is it simply seperation from God?

All I know is the warning Moses gave the children of Israel just before entering the Promised land. Choose this day blessing or cursing, death or life, choose this day whom you shall serve.