Thread: Would you let God out of Hell?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well if you believe the bible, Jesus' execution was ordained. It was necessary. If god is omnipotent, then anything that happens in regards to earth law is also in accordance with heavenly law. If god in human form ended up in hell, then it should have been in accordance with his own will that that happened. If Ted Bundy got executed for doing god's will, then just like Jesus it was ordained by god and as human beings we shouldn't worry about doing anything that would subvert god's will.

If God is supposed to end up in Hell, this conversation would have no meaning, because he would still end up in Hell, no matter what any of us say we would do, at the time of judgement.

If Ted Bundy was proven to have been working under God. Then it would prove that God exists, and to me, everything would change. Honestly, I don't know what I would do in that situation. Like I said, I would feel that I know so much less about the universe than I thought, and ultimately, I don't know what kind of decision I would make.

Originally Posted by Xaq

Now, if you really want to get picky, killing anyone disobeys god's commandments so whether or not Ted Bundy was working for god, the person who condemned him to death will have to pay for the crime of murder. That doesn't mean that it went against the will of god though. I'm not a christian so I won't try to justify this apparent contradiction.

The Law says you can't do over 70mph, on I-4. In pursuit of a suspect, police officers - who are working for those who create the law - are allowed to break that law.

Same concept. (If I understood your premise correctly, which - after re-reading it - I'm not sure I did...)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You don't know that letting people burn forever benefits humanity in the long run. The Bible and the nature of God both contradict themselves. So, is it more likely that God allows people to burn forever while having the contradicting label of "loving", or that letting people burn forever benefits humanity in the long run? Since the contradictory nature has been established, it seems that the former is much more likely. The second seems impossible in a way for which the possibility has not been established.

It's hard to say, UM. If we didn't understand the specific lesson being taught to a child, by making him stand in a corner, would we find it more likely that the parent is just doing it to be a dick, rather than doing it "for the child's own good?" Yes, we would. Such would be a very rational conclusion (given our level of understanding, at that moment). However, we would be wrong.

And I'm not ready to let God burn in Hell, for such an event, knowing that there is likely a reason for such punishment. If I'm correct, you don't have children? The second situation you mentioned is more likely to me, than it is to you, because it is something that I observe in parents - whether other people or myself. It is simply a difference of perspective. You keep trying to downplay the possibility of that second explanation as slim-to-none. I just don't see it that way.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you are willing to give benefit of the doubt over some perceived possibility of the latter, as far beyond the fringe as it is, why not give benefit of the doubt over the possibility that God existed in the form of Ted Bundy or Jack the Ripper? It is already established that he came in the form of a burning Bush and a Middle Eastern man.

Because (and this is the point I've been trying to make all along) - as of right now - I don't believe the Bible. I believe it's full of holes, just like you do. I am not sold on the idea of a creator, nor do I openly deny that one exists. I have no reason to pardon a serial killer who says he is working for God, because I don't have much reason to believe his story.

If I knew the person actually was talking for God, or the person I'm potentially letting out of Hell is God, then my entire perspective of the situation will change. I will have to more closely consider the Bible, than I am now. Regardless of its inconsistencies and contradictions, I would have to take a fresh look at it, from the new perspective of Knowing God exists..something I've never had. You see what I'm trying to get at, here?

You have to understand - to consider such a heavy situation seriously, I have to take into account a lot of surrounding variables. And I know that, in knowing there is a God, those variables would change. Mine is not a position of exonerating God because I don't think some of the things he allows to happen is terrible. Mine is a position of not condemning God, because to know that he actually does exist, I would have to more closely consider all variables. I would have to get more information. I would have to have a much broader perspective than I do right now.

If I was to learn enough, to my satisfaction, I would let him go. If not, and it turned out to be nothing more than your former proposal, I would give more consideration to letting him burn, like he has let so many.

Originally Posted by UM

This is not contradicted by the premise that God had a "reason" for doing what he does. Even if it were, it is irrelevant because God's personality and behavior involve contradictions, so contradictions are not inherent disprovers of of the contradicting natures involved with God.

You can't be so bold as to say you know God's "personality and behavior", I'm sorry. I gotta stop you on that one.

What we know (or at least, what I know, and what is relevant to this discussion), is that he allows for suffering. That's it. That's all we're talking about here. We haven't put God down on the couch and given him a psychoanalysis. All we know, here, is that it's said that he is all-loving, and yet he allows for suffering. I will give you that it seems, superficially (which is the only perspective that we have), to be contradictory. Can't argue with that at all. But we can't make judgement calls on the idea that we "know" God's overall behavior and personality. We know tiny slivers of what we perceive to be his actions.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What you are talking about has not been established as in a category of possibilities, but God's existence in another form, even the form of a human, has.

I believe it has. I'm no expert on the Bible, but I do believe that it says God has a plan, his intentions are just, and the ascension of a soul, through Earthly trials, is necessary for that 'other-worldly' plan. This is just as much established as God's appearing in the form of a human. We're using the Bible as our frame of reference, for both sides of this particular section of the argument, so since they are both sourced by the Bible, one is just as likely as the other.

(Also, I thought it important to ask: Are we talking about being the decider of whether or not God goes to Hell, as a human, or if God is already in Hell, we are the decider on whether or not to bring him back?? )

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

It's hard to say, UM. If we didn't understand the specific lesson being taught to a child, by making him stand in a corner, would we find it more likely that the parent is just doing it to be a dick, rather than doing it "for the child's own good?" Yes, we would. Such would be a very rational conclusion (given our level of understanding, at that moment). However, we would be wrong.

And I'm not ready to let God burn in Hell, for such an event, knowing that there is likely a reason for such punishment. If I'm correct, you don't have children? The second situation you mentioned is more likely to me, than it is to you, because it is something that I observe in parents - whether other people or myself. It is simply a difference of perspective. You keep trying to downplay the possibility of that second explanation as slim-to-none. I just don't see it that way.

Again, very importantly, parents are not infinitely powerful. They do what they have to do. With God, there is no "have to". He can achieve whatever result he wants with or without any given factor being involved. When a parent makes a child suffer a great deal without it being necessary, it is child abuse.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Because (and this is the point I've been trying to make all along) - as of right now - I don't believe the Bible. I believe it's full of holes, just like you do. I am not sold on the idea of a creator, nor do I openly deny that one exists. I have no reason to pardon a serial killer who says he is working for God, because I don't have much reason to believe his story.

If I knew the person actually was talking for God, or the person I'm potentially letting out of Hell is God, then my entire perspective of the situation will change. I will have to more closely consider the Bible, than I am now. Regardless of its inconsistencies and contradictions, I would have to take a fresh look at it, from the new perspective of Knowing God exists..something I've never had. You see what I'm trying to get at, here?

You have to understand - to consider such a heavy situation seriously, I have to take into account a lot of surrounding variables. And I know that, in knowing there is a God, those variables would change. Mine is not a position of exonerating God because I don't think some of the things he allows to happen is terrible. Mine is a position of not condemning God, because to know that he actually does exist, I would have to more closely consider all variables. I would have to get more information. I would have to have a much broader perspective than I do right now.

If I was to learn enough, to my satisfaction, I would let him go. If not, and it turned out to be nothing more than your former proposal, I would give more consideration to letting him burn, like he has let so many.

So you would have to give the situation a great deal more consideration and learn a lot more if you learned that God is real? I would want to do so also. However, what he has done has already been established.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If God is supposed to end up in Hell, this conversation would have no meaning, because he would still end up in Hell, no matter what any of us say we would do, at the time of judgement.

If Ted Bundy was proven to have been working under God. Then it would prove that God exists, and to me, everything would change. Honestly, I don't know what I would do in that situation. Like I said, I would feel that I know so much less about the universe than I thought, and ultimately, I don't know what kind of decision I would make.

Even if I knew God existed, I would consider it very likely that he was Ted Bundy. However, I would see the possibility, just like you would see the possibility that letting the vast majority of humanity burn forever might somehow benefit humanity in the long run.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You can't be so bold as to say you know God's "personality and behavior", I'm sorry. I gotta stop you on that one.

Why? We've agreed on what some of those characteristics are. We're going by what The Bible says.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What we know (or at least, what I know, and what is relevant to this discussion), is that he allows for suffering. That's it. That's all we're talking about here. We haven't put God down on the couch and given him a psychoanalysis. All we know, here, is that it's said that he is all-loving, and yet he allows for suffering. I will give you that it seems, superficially (which is the only perspective that we have), to be contradictory. Can't argue with that at all. But we can't make judgement calls on the idea that we "know" God's overall behavior and personality. We know tiny slivers of what we perceive to be his actions.

We also know that the fictitious character is infinitely powerful, which means suffering is unnecessary in the fictitious scenario involving his existence.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I believe it has. I'm no expert on the Bible, but I do believe that it says God has a plan, his intentions are just, and the ascension of a soul, through Earthly trials, is necessary for that 'other-worldly' plan. This is just as much established as God's appearing in the form of a human. We're using the Bible as our frame of reference, for both sides of this particular section of the argument, so since they are both sourced by the Bible, one is just as likely as the other.

Then, by your reasoning, Ted Bundy should have been pardoned because God might have existed in the form of Ted Bundy.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

(Also, I thought it important to ask: Are we talking about being the decider of whether or not God goes to Hell, as a human, or if God is already in Hell, we are the decider on whether or not to bring him back?? )

The question is whether you would let him out after he ends up there.

I would let him out because I think eternal suffering is too much for any conscious being, even a pirrhana. Also, though I think it is incredibly far fetched, the whaaaaaaaat if possibility of the necessity of eternal suffering would be enough alone for me to let God out of Hell even if I believed that 100% knowledge of allowing eternal suffering without necessity makes someone deserve Hell. With a punishment that steep, I would have to have 100% knowledge even if I believed in such a punishment. I don't know anything 100%, though I have strong beliefs.

Originally Posted by Naiya

I'd let God out.





For a price.

Awesome song. Pay attention to the lyrics.


!EDIT! I like Within Temptation's version better:



Your post made me think of the exact situation -- getting God out of Hell only if He gave you all His powers.

YAY, I love within temptation!

/hijack.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

My religion doesn't believe in a hell of fire

That's convenient.

I would probably let the guy out. There's some cool cats down there.

Considering all of the people he supposedly let end up there and how he reportedly had no intention of ever letting them out, would you let God out

Actually, God didn't put anyone in Hell. People put themselves in Hell. God gave us a handbook on how to live our lives. It is called the Bible. If you don't follow it, then you go to Hell. Your choice. Its like if I chose to go out and kill someone, a cop will come and arrest me, I will see a judge and end up in prison. The cop didn't send me to prison. The judge didn't send me to prison. I sent myself to prison.

Originally Posted by davej

Actually, God didn't put anyone in Hell. People put themselves in Hell. God gave us a handbook on how to live our lives. It is called the Bible. If you don't follow it, then you go to Hell. Your choice. Its like if I chose to go out and kill someone, a cop will come and arrest me, I will see a judge and end up in prison. The cop didn't send me to prison. The judge didn't send me to prison. I sent myself to prison.

Ok, I get it. Everything you do is your fault, got that. I'd argue against it for a million reasons, but to debate there has to be common ground, so I'll just skip that. Now tell me, where do the choices we make come from? If somebody did choose to kill someone, where did it come from? What if we can trace that incentive to kill back to his childhood, where his father kept him in a box and tortured him, making him mentally unstable. Is it still his fault? (Also note that every choice that is made has a cause, which might not be so obvious as an evil father.) I'm looking forward to your answer.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Now tell me, where do the choices we make come from? If somebody did choose to kill someone, where did it come from? What if we can trace that incentive to kill back to his childhood, where his father kept him in a box and tortured him, making him mentally unstable. Is it still his fault? (Also note that every choice that is made has a cause, which might not be so obvious as an evil father.) I'm looking forward to your answer.

You can't "trace" incentives or motives to do anything. It was not caused by childhood, their upbringing, or whatever. It's not caused by things. Intentionality is beyond cause.

The whole reason why we consider "faults" and "blames" is because we believe in perpetrators and victims, and we end up blaming somebody or something, and many of us who don't believe in God prefer to blame it on God Himself. This is flawed. Take responsibility for your choices, while understanding innocence.

If we choose God, we find God. If you do not choose God, you find darkness. Simple.

Originally Posted by really

You can't "trace" incentives or motives to do anything. It was not caused by childhood, their upbringing, or whatever. It's not caused by things. Intentionality is beyond cause.

The whole reason why we consider "faults" and "blames" is because we believe in perpetrators and victims, and we end up blaming somebody or something, and many of us who don't believe in God prefer to blame it on God Himself. This is flawed. Take responsibility for your choices, while understanding innocence.

If we choose God, we find God. If you do not choose God, you find darkness. Simple.

I know that's their view of things. It just doesn't fit with reality. You don't have to take that apologist "you're atheist because you want no responsibility" with me, because that's the furthest from the truth. If anything,I take too much responsibility for my choices. But I'm not the subject here and neither is anyone in particular. I just wanted to know how a person can be so adamant in their stance which is in reality quite loose and unfounded when put beside the scientific reality.

What do you mean intentionality is beyond cause? It's only beyond cause if you see it that way. If I create a virtual reality where the characters percieve themselves as aware, then of course I could acknowledge the fact that they experience responsibility. But that doesn't stop the reality, that they are just following the rules of the game over which they have no control. If I create a game where it is impossible (even if some transcendental soul exists) to win and go to heaven, I wouldn't see it as a fair game.

I'm sure it all feels so obvious when you look at it from your own perspective. That the choices you make are yours. But if you believe in god and if he is also an entity like us, so does he have responsibility. If you're telling me that this god doesn't have a "soul" or free will, then you might just be presenting a universe which also includes spiritual places like hell. If you believe in a god which actually is an entity not just something that spews things into existence, then I don't see how you can't believe in his responsibility as well.

This whole situation of "God can do anything he wants with me, but it'll always be my fault" is just some sick totalitarian fantasy. And it's not even hidden in between the lines but is explicitly presented every time somebody says "God created anything, but it's all my fault". Seriously, how can I blame myself for going to hell, if I didn't create it, don't know it exists and also deny it's existence.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I know that's their view of things. It just doesn't fit with reality. You don't have to take that apologist "you're atheist because you want no responsibility" with me, because that's the furthest from the truth. If anything,I take too much responsibility for my choices. But I'm not the subject here and neither is anyone in particular. I just wanted to know how a person can be so adamant in their stance which is in reality quite loose and unfounded when put beside the scientific reality.

That's not what I'm implying. If you take responsibility for your every action, you have more integrity than most human beings. What I am saying is, those people who blame God do not have responsibility. This also applies to those who blame God but for something that has nothing to do with them; I.e. something that is undesired or perceived to be "wrong" in the world, which is not always within one's control. It is all within Karma.

What do you mean intentionality is beyond cause? It's only beyond cause if you see it that way. If I create a virtual reality where the characters percieve themselves as aware, then of course I could acknowledge the fact that they experience responsibility. But that doesn't stop the reality, that they are just following the rules of the game over which they have no control. If I create a game where it is impossible (even if some transcendental soul exists) to win and go to heaven, I wouldn't see it as a fair game.

I mean that intention is not caused by things, or dependent on external forces. It is up to you. When you realize this, you see that even your own thoughts are to be looked after, and not to be blamed upon yourself. There are many things that are part of our lives that we cannot control, yes, but the responsibility in that case is related to whether these things have power over us or not.

I'm sure it all feels so obvious when you look at it from your own perspective. That the choices you make are yours. But if you believe in god and if he is also an entity like us, so does he have responsibility. If you're telling me that this god doesn't have a "soul" or free will, then you might just be presenting a universe which also includes spiritual places like hell. If you believe in a god which actually is an entity not just something that spews things into existence, then I don't see how you can't believe in his responsibility as well.

Well no I don't see God as a separate entity with free will. God doesn't have any responsibility or action as we do.

This whole situation of "God can do anything he wants with me, but it'll always be my fault" is just some sick totalitarian fantasy. And it's not even hidden in between the lines but is explicitly presented every time somebody says "God created anything, but it's all my fault". Seriously, how can I blame myself for going to hell, if I didn't create it, don't know it exists and also deny it's existence.

Of course, if you aren't experiencing it or never have, then you probably don't know of it. I guess you could say that hell is "created" out of negating God. It's probably easier to understand if you see that this is the same as negating love. Denying the existence of hell isn't of much use either, since hell is formed out of illusion and despair anyway. Denying it is not the same as not understanding it, nor letting it go.

Originally Posted by davej

Actually, God didn't put anyone in Hell. People put themselves in Hell. God gave us a handbook on how to live our lives. It is called the Bible. If you don't follow it, then you go to Hell. Your choice. Its like if I chose to go out and kill someone, a cop will come and arrest me, I will see a judge and end up in prison. The cop didn't send me to prison. The judge didn't send me to prison. I sent myself to prison.

God doesn't take any of the responsibility even though he created the eternal torture chamber, the rules on how to end up there, and the ambiguous nature of those rules? That's like saying an armed robber is not responsible for shooting a cashier because he gave the cashier a choice, except at least the cashier knows the armed robber is there and shooting somebody to death is an infinitely smaller offense than making him be tortured forever. Plus, I don't choose not to believe in God. It honestly seems like he does not exist. That is not a choice.

Besides, what kind of psychopath sets somebody up to be tortured at all, much less forever, for believing he does not exist? There might be people out there who have heard about you and don't think you exist. Do you hate them for that? Maybe you were a really good high jumper in school or something and somebody honestly doesn't believe you jumped over 6'10" although you actually did and in all honesty thinks somebody made you up. Is that a torture worthy offense?

Do you have any children? If not, suppose for a moment that you do. If somebody murdered one of your kids and said, "Your child killed himself. I gave him rules on how to stay alive, and he disobeyed them. It was his choice," would you ask the D.A. to drop the charges? Serious question.

The problem is that you are cherry picking the references of god you want to believe in. When you take some sterotypes as fact, and ignore others, and you believe some things in the bible are literal and others are not, and you say you are using the bible yet at the same time ignore the bible, of course you are going to get a very conflicting and confusing idea of what god is.

You need some consistancy. If you are using the bible as the absolute authority on the topic, then you can't use conflicting stories outside the bible and assume they are correct. If you are using some churches teachings and that church doesn't take the bible literly, then you can't say they are correct, and also take the bible literly.

Some people already mentioned things you are assuming in your topic, as not being in the bible, and your response was that this is a theortical discussion based on your assumptions. Well if you are taking things not in the bible, why are you so stuck and hung up and some select passesge from the bible?

In light of the truly massive posts and my limited time, I'm posting without reading all the posts. You've been warned.

Okay, so if we define God as that dude who's responsible for everything bad in the world, and hell as the place he goes to burn for eternity, I'd probably let him out. Provided, of course, he sealed off hell and swore never to send another soul there ever again. Until such a time, he can feel the weight of a trillion souls stacked on his shoulders, scorching his flesh. I suppose if the prick never decided to seal off this hell, he could stay there for eternity.

Now, say we define hell not as a pit of fire, but as a place where the punishment fits the crime. In this case, God may work off the suffering he's caused, or else feel all the pain he has inflicted over the millenia. If that were the case, I'd let him work it off. Help him to become a better, more compassionate God that recognizes us not as mongrel pups that must be smacked to understand anything, but rational individuals that he can be straightforward with. Sprinting toward Armageddon? Lack of compassion? Tell us, don't blast millions for the sake of trying to teach a lesson.

Now, say we change the definition of God to one of negligence, which is to say he is not responsible for either the bad or the good in the world. This would mean the bible is bunk, null and void. He created the earth and walked away, focusing on other galaxies, leaving his prototypes to develop on their own. How could I justly punish a God that had no clue of human suffering? He'd be out in a heartbeat.

Eh, my two cents.

Originally Posted by Alric

The problem is that you are cherry picking the references of god you want to believe in. When you take some sterotypes as fact, and ignore others, and you believe some things in the bible are literal and others are not, and you say you are using the bible yet at the same time ignore the bible, of course you are going to get a very conflicting and confusing idea of what god is.

You need some consistancy. If you are using the bible as the absolute authority on the topic, then you can't use conflicting stories outside the bible and assume they are correct. If you are using some churches teachings and that church doesn't take the bible literly, then you can't say they are correct, and also take the bible literly.

Some people already mentioned things you are assuming in your topic, as not being in the bible, and your response was that this is a theortical discussion based on your assumptions. Well if you are taking things not in the bible, why are you so stuck and hung up and some select passesge from the bible?

I am talking about the Bible as interepreted by mainstream Christianity. Understand?

Are you going back to the stuff about how the Bible says God is loving and compassionate? I covered that. The contradiction creates a logic clusterfuck. If God created Hell, he is a fucking asshole, even if he is somehow compassionate (however that is supposed to work ). If he created Hell and lets people burn there forever because they are confused about his insane rules, fuck him. His contradicting characteristics don't erase that one.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you going back to the stuff about how the Bible says God is loving and compassionate? I covered that. The contradiction creates a logic clusterfuck. If God created Hell, he is a fucking asshole, even if he is somehow compassionate (however that is supposed to work ). If he created Hell and lets people burn there forever because they are confused about his insane rules, fuck him. His contradicting characteristics don't erase that one.

That's why God doesn't create hell, let alone end up there. It's nonsense.

You don't arrive at hell out of love.