Thread: Would you let God out of Hell?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The scenario you described involves the God that was depicted in the Bible. Where the Bible does say that God is all powerful, the Bible also says that God has a plan.

Hitler had a plan.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Given the amount of suffering in this world, the two variables seem contradictory, but that doesn't change the fact that they are both variables of the God in this scenario.

So, confused or not, you're still left with a choice:

A) Believe that God is all powerful, has no plan, and just doesn't care that you suffer - in which case the Bible is wrong.

B) Believe that God is all powerful, has a plan, and human suffering is essential for the plan to bear fruit - in which case the Bible is right.

C) Believe that God is not all powerful, and he can't stop suffering - in which case the Bible is wrong.

The Bible is wrong. It is also full of contradictions. According to The Bible, A is correct, based on God's actions and expressions, but it is incorrect according to some of the characterizing statements made in The Bible. That is a contradiction. So in the scenario I illustrated, God is the same being that acts like a cold blooded, egomaniacal, irrational psycopath, but he is also loving. Despite the contradiction, The Bible describes lots of horrendous things God did.

Again, how do you relate eternal torture to what you are saying? What about mere world genocide? Please tell me about those specifics. I remember your views on waterboarding, and that is just getting some water in your nose and thinking for a few seconds you are about to drown. Imagine the actual process of drowning. Now imagine it happening to every person on Earth except for one family and also to all other animals except for two of each "kind" (I don't know if that's genus, species, family, or what.). Imagine that. Now imagine something much more awful than drowing... and experiencing it for eternity. Do you think that might somehow be a good thing? Please talk about this directly.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If you're allowing for one deviation from the Bible's interpretation (God just not caring whether or not humans suffer), then you're allowing for my interpretation, where God may not be "omnipotent", beyond our level of understanding.

You see where I'm going with this?

Yes, but I disagree with it. The Bible says God is omnipotent, which means there is no limit to what he can do. Do you think that means there might also be stuff he cannot do?

Originally Posted by UM

Hitler had a plan.

Yes...I know he did. Doesn't really have anything to do with my point, though...

Originally Posted by UM

The Bible is wrong. It is also full of contradictions. According to The Bible, A is correct, based on God's actions and expressions, but it is incorrect according to some of the characterizing statements made in The Bible. That is a contradiction. So in the scenario I illustrated, God is the same being that acts like a cold blooded, egomaniacal, irrational psycopath, but he is also loving. Despite the contradiction, The Bible describes lots of horrendous things God did.

That is your assessment of God, based on your perspective of his actions. You ask me the same question, and I'm going to answer it the same way. If God is Omnipotent, and all Loving, as the Bible says, and he allegedly has a plan...if these things are all true, then logic would lead me to assume that (along with scripted text of the different level of experience, between human and spirit) the human experience is nothing, in comparison to that, scripted, spiritual existence. These conflicting points of reference would be reason enough for me to give God the benefit of doubt. I've already explained why.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Again, how do you relate eternal torture to what you are saying? What about mere world genocide? Please tell me about those specifics. I remember your views on waterboarding, and that is just getting some water in your nose and thinking for a few seconds you are about to drown. Imagine the actual process of drowning. Now imagine it happening to every person on Earth except for one family and also to all other animals except for two of each "kind" (I don't know if that's genus, species, family, or what.). Imagine that. Now imagine something much more awful than drowing... and experiencing it for eternity. Do you think that might somehow be a good thing? Please talk about this directly.

You still don't understand what I'm saying. UM, with my interpretation of the Christian God (and don't kid yourself, you are merely working with your interpretation of the Christian God, as well), I am completely open to the idea that the entire scale of human suffering may amount to nothing more than a smack on the nose. Plain and simple. It really doesn't get any more complicated than that. That includes drowning. It includes burning alive (something that I'm terrified of). It includes any level of human suffering that you can possibly mention in any subsequent posts. If this God exists, I concede that there exists a level of existence (ugh, I can't help but cringe at the way I have to word that) that I cannot yet fathom.

With that, I have to remember, that God is supposed to be omnipotent, all loving, and with a plan. I have to remember what I've also read about human existence vs. spiritual existence. I have to concede to the possibility that human pain is Nothing, when compared to the levels of joy/pain I will experience, on the other side. Waterboarding. Torture. Acid in the eyes. Sodomy with razorwire. It's all the same thing. My point is, if we are sticking to this literal translation of God, and the Bible is right, then all of those pains are nothing more than a relative smack on the nose. With this being the case, God's motives are so far beyond our comprehension, that I'm not going to damn him for eternity, for choices of his that I just don't understand.

Do you get what I'm saying? You're asking me if I would pardon God. I would. And that is why.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, but I disagree with it. The Bible says God is omnipotent, which means there is no limit to what he can do. Do you think that means there might also be stuff he cannot do?

I believe that, if he is omnipotent, from a human perspective, there might be things that he might not be able to do.

I believe that, if he is omnipotent, from a cosmic perspective, then there shouldn't be anything he cannot do.

I belive that, if he is omnipotent, from a cosmic perspective, then he has the power to stop all suffering, without question.

I believe that, if he is omnipotent, from a cosmoic perspective, he may choose not to stop human suffering, for reasons that are far beyond our comprehension.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Yes...I know he did. Doesn't really have anything to do with my point, though...

If God is infinitely powerful, the fact that he has a plan is irrelevant. In that case, he didn't have to do what he did and doesn't have to do what he does.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That is your assessment of God, based on your perspective of his actions. You ask me the same question, and I'm going to answer it the same way. If God is Omnipotent, and all Loving, as the Bible says, and he allegedly has a plan...if these things are all true, then logic would lead me to assume that (along with scripted text of the different level of experience, between human and spirit) the human experience is nothing, in comparison to that, scripted, spiritual existence. These conflicting points of reference would be reason enough for me to give God the benefit of doubt. I've already explained why.

If you were to find out that your speculations there are correct, would you be okay with waterboarding?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You still don't understand what I'm saying. UM, with my interpretation of the Christian God (and don't kid yourself, you are merely working with your interpretation of the Christian God, as well), I am completely open to the idea that the entire scale of human suffering may amount to nothing more than a smack on the nose. Plain and simple. It really doesn't get any more complicated than that. That includes drowning. It includes burning alive (something that I'm terrified of). It includes any level of human suffering that you can possibly mention in any subsequent posts. If this God exists, I concede that there exists a level of existence (ugh, I can't help but cringe at the way I have to word that) that I cannot yet fathom.

With that, I have to remember, that God is supposed to be omnipotent, all loving, and with a plan. I have to remember what I've also read about human existence vs. spiritual existence. I have to concede to the possibility that human pain is Nothing, when compared to the levels of joy/pain I will experience, on the other side. Waterboarding. Torture. Acid in the eyes. Sodomy with razorwire. It's all the same thing. My point is, if we are sticking to this literal translation of God, and the Bible is right, then all of those pains are nothing more than a relative smack on the nose. With this being the case, God's motives are so far beyond our comprehension, that I'm not going to damn him for eternity, for choices of his that I just don't understand.

Do you get what I'm saying? You're asking me if I would pardon God. I would. And that is why.

Let's suppose that drowning or being set on fire is no big deal at all because of what's in store with God's plan (I still say that stuff is awful to us here now and God is therefore evil for making or letting it happen.). What about the people who experience horrific pain for eternity? What does God's plan matter for them?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I believe that, if he is omnipotent, from a human perspective, there might be things that he might not be able to do.

I believe that, if he is omnipotent, from a cosmic perspective, then there shouldn't be anything he cannot do.

I belive that, if he is omnipotent, from a cosmic perspective, then he has the power to stop all suffering, without question.

I believe that, if he is omnipotent, from a cosmoic perspective, he may choose not to stop human suffering, for reasons that are far beyond our comprehension.

The Bible says that there is nothing he cannot do. It does not mention or suggest any exceptions. It says "nothing", not "just about nothing" or "nothing we can understand". It says no words about human perspective or supernatural perspective or anything. It just says there is nothing God cannot do. If there is something on a spiritual level beyond our comprehension that he cannot do, it is still something he cannot do.

You've explained why you give God the benefit of the doubt on deeds that make some people think he deserves Hell, but what if you were to find out that he really did have malicious intentions with all of it and is just a cold blooded monarch with a monster ego? Would you want eternity in Hell for him then?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If God is infinitely powerful, the fact that he has a plan is irrelevant. In that case, he didn't have to do what he did and doesn't have to do what he does.

It's not necessarily a matter of "having to do." It could be as simple as "having reason to do."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you were to find out that your speculations there are correct, would you be okay with waterboarding?

The two are unrelated. Where are you going with that one?

If God has a reason to allow humans to suffer, then he knows that reason is justified. He knows that the level of suffering the humans endure is going to serve a purpose.

When we waterboard, we don't know what that person is going to say - if anything. We are torturing them in the hopes that our assumptions are correct, and they have information.

God does not assume.

And I have never been opposed to the waterboarding of the people we know have the required information, but that hasn't always been the case. The trial and error process is what I've always been opposed to, when it comes to the act of torture.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Let's suppose that drowning or being set on fire is no big deal at all because of what's in store with God's plan (I still say that stuff is awful to us here now and God is therefore evil for making or letting it happen.). What about the people who experience horrific pain for eternity? What does God's plan matter for them?

What, you mean Hell?
I don't know. I'm not very religious, so I don't know all of God's reasons for sending people to Hell. Regardless, I'm left with the question: Does it serve a purpose? Does mom have a reason for aborting my unborn brother? Is that reason something that I would understand, from my frame of reference?

All of these are just areas of uncertainty that I find myself humbled by. I'm not really to condemn the alleged creator, because of a knee-jerk reaction to how my feeble, human mind perceives his actions.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Bible says that there is nothing he cannot do. It does not mention or suggest any exceptions. It says "nothing", not "just about nothing" or "nothing we can understand". It says no words about human perspective or supernatural perspective or anything. It just says there is nothing God cannot do. If there is something on a spiritual level beyond our comprehension that he cannot do, it is still something he cannot do.

So there is nothing he cannot do. The Bible also says he is Loving and has a plan. So that must mean human suffering has a purpose. No matter how you want to slice it, that's what it boils down to.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You've explained why you give God the benefit of the doubt on deeds that make some people think he deserves Hell, but what if you were to find out that he really did have malicious intentions with all of it and is just a cold blooded monarch with a monster ego? Would you want eternity in Hell for him then?

At that point, fuck 'im. I really wouldn't care, either way. Let him burn. Why do you ask?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

It's not necessarily a matter of "having to do." It could be as simple as "having reason to do."

In which case he doesn't have to allow suffering to exist.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The two are unrelated. Where are you going with that one?

If God has a reason to allow humans to suffer, then he knows that reason is justified. He knows that the level of suffering the humans endure is going to serve a purpose.

When we waterboard, we don't know what that person is going to say - if anything. We are torturing them in the hopes that our assumptions are correct, and they have information.

God does not assume.

And I have never been opposed to the waterboarding of the people we know have the required information, but that hasn't always been the case. The trial and error process is what I've always been opposed to, when it comes to the act of torture.

You said human experience might be nothing. If it is nothing, why would there be a problem with waterboarding even people who are known to be innocent? Why would it matter?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What, you mean Hell?
I don't know. I'm not very religious, so I don't know all of God's reasons for sending people to Hell. Regardless, I'm left with the question: Does it serve a purpose? Does mom have a reason for aborting my unborn brother? Is that reason something that I would understand, from my frame of reference?

All of these are just areas of uncertainty that I find myself humbled by. I'm not really to condemn the alleged creator, because of a knee-jerk reaction to how my feeble, human mind perceives his actions.

So there might possibly be a good reason for a person to burn forever because he couldn't make sense of the idea of God or didn't majorly kiss up to him?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So there is nothing he cannot do. The Bible also says he is Loving and has a plan. So that must mean human suffering has a purpose. No matter how you want to slice it, that's what it boils down to.

It doesn't matter if there is a purpose. If God is infinitely powerful, he can achieve any result he wants without suffering being part of the picture. The purpose could drive a scenario of non-suffering and reach the same end.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

At that point, fuck 'im. I really wouldn't care, either way. Let him burn. Why do you ask?

It's the issue of the thread.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In which case he doesn't have to allow suffering to exist.

I don't even know that there is much to argue on, with this one. Do I believe the literal translation of God is contradictory? Yes.

The Bible says he is omnipotent and all loving and has a plan.

You are on a witch hunt, here, that is why you are only addressing the "omnipotent" part, because it helps make your point. You are willing to accept that he is not all loving (in fact, that is your point), and that his plan (if he has one), is not just. You are willing to judge a God based on those principles. You are not ready to judge a God based on any other interpretation, though. If the God is not cosmically "all-powerful", then you will not recognize someone's reasons for sparing him. There is really nothing in this thread that I can say, outside of agreeing to your terms on what kind of being we're dealing with here.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You said human experience might be nothing. If it is nothing, why would there be a problem with waterboarding even people who are known to be innocent? Why would it matter?

Because I am a human. I am not God. If I were to know that God existed, and the metaphysical were possible, my stance on waterboarding might change. As of right now, it matters, because I live the human experience, and make my calls from a human perspective. But if I had confirmation that there was an afterlife, and I had a better understanding of that afterlife, I'm sure my position on matters of life, death and human suffering would be shaken.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So there might possibly be a good reason for a person to burn forever because he couldn't make sense of the idea of God or didn't majorly kiss up to him?

You keep pulling up these arbitrary factors of God to make your points, but you're ignoring others. God is all Loving. If that is right, then that would mean there IS such a reason. Do you see what I'm saying? You want people to throw stones at God because the Bible says he's omnipotent, yet he allows suffering. Well the Bible also says he is all loving. But you say "well the Bible must just be wrong on that one. Let's go back to focusing on how he is supposed to be all powerful."

A bit unfair. Don't you think?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It doesn't matter if there is a purpose. If God is infinitely powerful, he can achieve any result he wants without suffering being part of the picture. The purpose could drive a scenario of non-suffering and reach the same end.

And if God is all-loving, it means there is a reason he would do such a thing.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's the issue of the thread.

Not really. You basically told me what to think of God, and to base my decision on that. I did that, and wound up with the decision that you wanted to hear. The issue of the thread is to take our own interpretations of the Christian God, and say whether or not we would pardon him. You are throwing way too much spin on this, and not allowing people to answer from their own perspectives.

Oneironaut, I already said I would let God out of Hell if he were there, so I am not merely accepting some answer I am looking for. You started debating me on the nature of God's personality, and here we are on the issue still. God has a record of genocide and condoning eternal torture, and possibly creating it. Your talk about love does not get us around that. Okay, so the Bible says God is loving. That just means there is a contradiction. He's loving, yet he committed world genocide and let people burn forever. The second part is a factor of despicability even though he is loving. A great altruist who has the contradicting aspect that he is a psychopath is still a pscychopath. I am only arguing that aspect because you tried to illustrate the plausibility of denial of it. Nobody else tried to deny the evil nature of his acts, so I didn't debate them. I haven't argued with anybody's mere answers to my question.

The idea of this thread is that the God of The Bible lets people by the billions burn forever, and I wanted to see what people think about things happening in the reverse direction. What if God were in Hell and we could let him out? I want to probe how human morality compares to God's morality. It's fine with me if your answer involves an explanation of God's personality. Just don't exptect me to necessarily agree with it.

I disagree with your explanation because the character God has caused and allowed outrageous mass tragedies, and having infinite power means he didn't have to. So I disagree with you on that issue. No matter how many good deeds a person does, one murder makes him a murderer and I won't say he is not a murderer even if he pulls off the complete contradiction of simultaneously being 100% good. His record is still what it is, and I won't say it's not there. If you say you would save God because he is all loving, I will just point out the flip side of the coin. If you say you will save God because his seemingly evil actions were not actually evil, I will tell you I think you made a false statement.

Which Hell are we talking about? Originally hell did not mean a place of eternal torment. That was a misinterpretation of the original Hebrew language.

Hell and the Grave

"For You will not leave my SOUL IN SHEOL (Hell in the Authorised Version), nor will You allow Your Holy One to see CORRUPTION." Psalm 16:10

"If I ascend up into heaven, You are there; if I make my BED IN HELL behold, You are there." Psalm 139:8

'Hell' is not a translation

'Hell' is not a translation. It is a word that has been inserted by translators into the Bible because of their preconceived ideas about a place of eternal torment. This idea is fast losing ground today as modern translators realise that Hebrew words like 'sheol', simply meant the grave to the original inspired writers of the Scriptures. The translators are still very shy though, and in many instances have left the word 'sheol' untranslated in modern Bible versions. This is because they can see that this word obviously means 'the grave' and not the traditional meaning. Rather than admit this though, and the folly of using the inserted word 'hell' in the past, they have just left the Hebrew word 'sheol' untranslated many times, and left the readers to make up their own minds.

Comparing old and new translations

The following are two interesting examples of how translating has changed by comparing the King James Version (A.V.)and the New King James Version (N.K.J.V.) of Jonah 2:2, and Isaiah 4:14:

Jonah 2:2 A.V. - "out of the belly of HELL cried I" N.K.J.V. - "out of the belly of SHEOL I cried"

Isaiah 4:14 A.V. - "Therefore HELL hath enlarged herself" N.K.J.V. - "Therefore SHEOL has enlarged itself"

You will notice the same situation with Psalm 16:10 quoted as a key verse above.

'Gehenna' the rubbish tip

'Gehenna' or 'The valley of the son of Hinnom' which is what the Greek word means, was the rubbish tip outside of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus which was also used to burn the bodies of criminals who had suffered capital punishment. Most of the occurrences of the word 'hell' in the New Testament refer to this 'place of burning' outside of Jerusalem.

'Hades' the unseen

The word Hades comes from two words: 'A', which is 'Alpha', the first letter of the Greek alphabet and is a negative letter which simply means 'without'. The equivalent in English would be the word 'un'. The other word is 'eido' which means 'to see'. So 'Hades' simply means, 'unseen'. Is the 'hades' of the Bible the same place as that described in Greek Mythology? Websters Dictionary describes Hades as, "the grim god of the lower world dwelling in the abode of the dead conceived as either a dark and gloomy subterranean realm or a remote island beyond the western sea."

Consistent Bible teaching

If we can accept the words quoted from Psalm 16 which prophetically teach that Jesus went to 'sheol' (ie. the grave) when He died, then to be consistent with Bible teaching, we must accept that Peter meant the grave as well when He said that Jesus went to hades when he quotes Psalm 16 in Acts 2:27. Any other explanation would have Old Testament teaching contradicting the New Testament. The fact that the New Testament was written in Greek does not mean that we have to use Greek mythology to interpret Scripture. Today we use words like "lunatic", but this does not mean that we accept that somebody's mental health depends on the phases of the Moon.

Extra info and Bible references

'Hell' is a word that was added (interpolated) to our Bibles and is not a translation of the original language. When we see this word in scripture its true meaning is 'the grave' or 'the pit' in the Old Testament. In the New Testament this word is used with reference to the burning 'rubbish tip' that was outside of Jerusalem, known as 'the valley of the son of Hinnom' or 'gehenna'.

'sheol' in the Hebrew is interpolated 'hell' or translated 'grave' or 'pit' in the Old Testament. Psalm 6:5, 9:17, 30:3; Numbers 16:30,33

'hades' in the Greek is translated 'grave' or interpolated 'hell' in the New Testament. 1Corinthians 15:55, Matthew11:21, 16:18

'gehenna' in the Greek is interpolated 'hell' in the New Testament. Matthew 5:22, 23:15; Luke 12:5

All Scripture quoted is from the N.K.J.V.

From Hell and the Grave

So, this pretty much changes everything then, no? I mean, all the people so pissed off about how an infinitely compassionate god allows eternal suffering and all....

Turns out that isn't what the bible meant at all.



.... Which raises an interesting question. I wonder exactly what was the original meaning of Heaven/ Kingdom of God?

<<< >>>

Ok, this site I just found is veeeery interesting. It's actually very level-headed study of the bible that attempts to cut right through all the misinformation and misunderstandings that are popularly attributed to the bible. I highly recommend anyone who's really interested in a more realistic study of biblical ideas (and what they REALLY mean) should take some time and do some reading here. I'm working on this article about heaven now. And I really like what I:m seeing. Apparently heaven was never meant to represent an eternal place of joy and happiness where you go after you die... and in fact it's starting to sound like the whole idea of an immortal soul was never originally intended (?)

IDK... gotta read some more, but this has really got me interested now.

<<< >>>

Ok, I've read a few more of the articles, and I'm really diggin it. Finally, some straightforward, no-nonsense thinking about the bible - cutting through all the popular misconceptions. So, I guess with the understanding that Hell is simply the grave and there's no such thing as an immaterial soul (soul simply means a living thing... animal or person) - here's my answer to the OP:

I'd let god out of hell, but only if he accepted me as his personal savior. (Tit for tat, right?)

What is the lake of fire?

Even if the Bible can be interpreted to mean just death when it mentions Hell, it is not that interpretation I am talking about.

I didn't mean for this thread to be anything more than a consideration of the idea that God destroys people and lets them burn forever and what we would do if the tables were turned.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You started debating me on the nature of God's personality, and here we are on the issue still. God has a record of genocide and condoning eternal torture, and possibly creating it. Your talk about love does not get us around that. Okay, so the Bible says God is loving. That just means there is a contradiction. He's loving, yet he committed world genocide and let people burn forever. The second part is a factor of despicability even though he is loving. A great altruist who has the contradicting aspect that he is a psychopath is still a pscychopath. I am only arguing that aspect because you tried to illustrate the plausibility of denial of it. Nobody else tried to deny the evil nature of his acts, so I didn't debate them. I haven't argued with anybody's mere answers to my question.

Exactly. This thread is based on the premise that God is evil. That his actions are "evil." "Evil" is your opinion on God's acts. So if someone doesn't agree that the acts are proven to be unequivocally "evil", then this thread isn't actually very accepting of their point of view.

And here we are.

But I understand your stance on it, and I've given mine. I don't agree with your passing judgement on God simply because, at face value, you believe his actions to be evil. Do I KNOW they they are not? No. But I understand the possibility that my not understanding such a being's motives, doesn't necessarily mean the allowing of such things like Genocide IS, actually, evil.

And the bottom line is, accuse as you will, but you really don't have anything to substantiate that the allowance of such concepts as Genocide is actually evil, from a cosmic frame of reference. Yours (like any other human) is the perspective of a child hating his parent for making him clean his room, or grounding him. You fail to see the relationship, and that's ok, but as this is all a hypothetical - and I don't necessarily agree with your premise - that is the reason I would pardon God.

I think I've explained my position rather well, actually. I don't really know what else you want me to say...

Your arguments could be applied just as well to any criminal. What if we just don't realize that what Ted Bundy did is good in a cosmic way we don't understand? What if Ted Bundy was working for God? That wouldn't hold up in court.

Genocide is something I threw in there because most of the people posting in here are adamantly against it. That is what is relevant. As far as you can tell, you are against it too. I too consider it to be profoundly evil. I always leave micro room for the possibility that reality as we know it is an illusion, but I consider the idea that genocide is somehow beneficial for humanity in the long run because of some cosmic wow that is beyond our Earthly comprehension to be extremely far fetched. What is even more relevant than the genocide situation is that the character God allows people to burn forever and might have even created Hell. That brings us to the big question-- What if the tables were turned? You keep harping on the genocide, but the eternal torture scenario is much harder to get around and much more part of the issue.

There is no hope for people who have to burn forever. How could it possibly be a benefit for them? I give micro room to what ifs on that too, but they are too insignificant for me to give the God character the benefit of the doubt. If what the Bible says is true, then God is guilty of world genocide and mass eternal torture beyond a reasonable doubt. The cosmic what ifs concerning contradicting realities and worldwide hallucinations don't hold up in court.

Still, I would let God out of Hell if he were an ordinary human (and I knew he wouldn't cause anybody else to face eternal torture). Nobody deserves eternal torture.

You gave your answer, and it included the big cosmic what if. I get it. Thank you for your opinion.

Only if I'd get to let everyone else out first, and then shut down hell entirely. Deities are usually bound by such agreements, yes?

I'd let god out of hell, but only if he accepted me as his personal savior.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Your arguments could be applied just as well to any criminal. What if we just don't realize that what Ted Bundy did is good in a cosmic way we don't understand? What if Ted Bundy was working for God? That wouldn't hold up in court.

Ted Bundy is not God. Unless we have proof of God, we have no reason to believe Ted Bundy was working for God. If we had proof that Ted Bundy was working for God, and that God existed, the game would change. The rules would change. Rationality would change. I can't say that I would sentence Ted Bundy, if it was proven that he was working for God. Judging by the analogy, I'm really not quite sure you understand...

Originally Posted by UM

Genocide is something I threw in there because most of the people posting in here are adamantly against it. That is what is relevant. As far as you can tell, you are against it too. I too consider it to be profoundly evil. I always leave micro room for the possibility that reality as we know it is an illusion, but I consider the idea that genocide is somehow beneficial for humanity in the long run because of some cosmic wow that is beyond our Earthly comprehension to be extremely far fetched. What is even more relevant than the genocide situation is that the character God allows people to burn forever and might have even created Hell. That brings us to the big question-- What if the tables were turned? You keep harping on the genocide, but the eternal torture scenario is much harder to get around and much more part of the issue.

The issue remains, that you're asking us if we would condemn something that we don't understand. Yes, God might have created Hell. Eternal Fire. All that. Such is balance. Balance is neutrality. If there is a Heaven, why not a Hell? Even those who aren't religious respect the concept of balance.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is no hope for people who have to burn forever. How could it possibly be a benefit for them? I give micro room to what ifs on that too, but they are too insignificant for me to give the God character the benefit of the doubt. If what the Bible says is true, then God is guilty of world genocide and mass eternal torture beyond a reasonable doubt. The cosmic what ifs concerning contradicting realities and worldwide hallucinations don't hold up in court.

God is accused of genocide and mass eternal torture beyond a reasonable doubt, but as with any court decision, God has the opportunity to explain himself. He does not have that, in this arena.

So, yes, maybe many who read this will say "Genocide = Bad! Eternal Torture = Bad! God deserves to be destroyed!" But others might say, "Yes, on the Earthly plane, we know 'Boo, Genocide! Boo, Eternal Damnation!", and one can try to reason as to why it's that cut-and-dry, until they're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that we are human. What is bad, from our perspective, is Bad. What is bad - from a 'loving parent', with a higher frame of reference - might carry a lot more logic.

That is the way perspective works, and we are limited by ours.

And I know I've given my opinion, already, but you seem to insist on rebutting everything I say. So it's kind of hard to just state my opinion and leave, when someone is constantly trying to contradict me.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ted Bundy is not God. Unless we have proof of God, we have no reason to believe Ted Bundy was working for God. If we had proof that Ted Bundy was working for God, and that God existed, the game would change. The rules would change. Rationality would change. I can't say that I would sentence Ted Bundy, if it was proven that he was working for God. Judging by the analogy, I'm really not quite sure you understand...

Proof? You were talking "whaaaaaaaat if" until just then.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The issue remains, that you're asking us if we would condemn something that we don't understand. Yes, God might have created Hell. Eternal Fire. All that. Such is balance. Balance is neutrality. If there is a Heaven, why not a Hell? Even those who aren't religious respect the concept of balance.

Balance? What would that balance do? Do you want to beat one neighbor for every neighbor who has a birthday party? What is the point? We are talking about eternal torture. Also, even if "balance" were so important, something infinitely powerful (literally) could create it without hurting anybody.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

God is accused of genocide and mass eternal torture beyond a reasonable doubt, but as with any court decision, God has the opportunity to explain himself. He does not have that, in this arena.

So, yes, maybe many who read this will say "Genocide = Bad! Eternal Torture = Bad! God deserves to be destroyed!" But others might say, "Yes, on the Earthly plane, we know 'Boo, Genocide! Boo, Eternal Damnation!" and you can try to reason as to why it's so cut-and-dry, until you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that we are human. What is bad, from our perspective, is Bad. What is bad - from a 'loving parent', with a higher frame of reference - might carry a lot more logic.

Why can't that argument be legitimately made about Earth criminals? What if there is something cosmic we are overlooking?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And I know I've given my opinion, already, but you seem to insist on rebutting everything I say. So it's kind of hard to just state my opinion and leave, when someone is constantly trying to contradict me.

I wasn't telling you to stop posting. Say all you want. I was just acknowledging that you had made your point and saying I understand it because you mentioned that issue.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I'd let god out of hell, but only if he accepted me as his personal savior. (Tit for tat, right?)

Originally Posted by Samael

Yeah, that is hilarious. I would stop God from burning forever, but I would screw with him for a little while about that personal savior stuff.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Proof? You were talking "whaaaaaaaat if" until just then.

Lol. UM..

Your entire thread is based upon the idea that we know the person we are judging, is God in human form, is it not? If it's not, then what exactly are you asking? If some dude that might be God is in Hell, would we rescue him? That would be a pretty ridiculous question, wouldn't it?

So if you're asking the question "If you know this man is God, in human form, would you let him out?" then you cannot just interchange a human for "God", and ask for the same ruling. The person would be human. It would be Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy would not be some omniscient super-being. And if we KNEW that he WAS actually working for God, then, like I said, the game would change.

I'm sorry, but it really was a bad analogy, on your part.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Balance? What would that balance do? Do you want to beat one neighbor for every neighbor who has a birthday party? What is the point? We are talking about eternal torture. Also, even if "balance" were so important, something infinitely powerful (literally) could create it without hurting anybody.

Sure. He could. But why would he? Why even create us in the first place? We know jack shit about anything, when it comes to a supernatural universe. Why did he create eternal torture? Why is there such a thing as suffering?

I guess what it really comes down to is that, I would be more interested in having these questions answered, not immediately assuming I understand it all, and am ready to pass judgment on God, based on my understanding.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why can't that argument be legitimately made about Earth criminals? What if there is something cosmic we are overlooking?

That is not the same as a situation where we know that cosmic thing exists - that cosmic thing being God, in human form. Two completely different scenarios.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I wasn't telling you to stop posting. Say all you want. I was just acknowledging that you had made your point because you brought up that issue.

Ok. I just think this is going to be an early impasse, because all of this is so hypothetical. There really is no basis for logic, because this is religion. It is full of gaps, contradictions, and unknown, "possible" variables. It would be horrible to get into too deep a debate on it, if you ask me, because there is no "right", in this kind of discussion. Wouldn't you agree?

I think if Ted Bundy were working for god, I'd still execute him. Jesus was working for god and he got executed.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Lol. UM..

Your entire thread is based upon the idea that we know the person we are judging, is God in human form, is it not? If it's not, then what exactly are you asking? If some dude that might be God is in Hell, would we rescue him? That would be a pretty ridiculous question, wouldn't it?

So if you're asking the question "If you know this man is God, in human form, would you let him out?" then you cannot just interchange a human for "God", and ask for the same ruling. The person would be human. It would be Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy would not be some omniscient super-being. And if we KNEW that he WAS actually working for God, then, like I said, the game would change.

I'm sorry, but it really was a bad analogy, on your part.

It was a bad interpretation on your part. You opened up the cosmic what if door by talking about genocide and eternal torture maybe being great stuff without us realizing it. Right? Well, with that cosmic what if door still open, what if Ted Bundy is really God and we just don't realize it? You bring in a whole universe of absurd considerations once you start playing that game.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Sure. He could. But why would he? Why even create us in the first place? We know jack shit about anything, when it comes to a supernatural universe. Why did he create eternal torture? Why is there such a thing as suffering?

I guess what it really comes down to is that, I would be more interested in having these questions answered, not immediately assuming I understand it all, and am ready to pass judgment on God, based on my understanding.

Why would he? So that people don't have to be tortured forever. Sorry for assuming so much that I have a problem with eternal torture.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That is not the same as a situation where we know that cosmic thing exists - that cosmic thing being God, in human form. Two completely different scenarios.

No, I mean apply the cosmic excuse to both of them. What if Jack the Ripper was working for God and doing wonderful things that only seem evil? How do you know he wasn't? Do you? Remember the door you opened. How can we as humans possibly know the nature of Jack the Ripper's actions when he did them in God's universe and maybe even under the orders of God?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ok. I just think this is going to be an early impasse, because all of this is so hypothetical. There really is no basis for logic, because this is religion. It is full of gaps, contradictions, and unknown, "possible" variables. It would be horrible to get into too deep a debate on it, if you ask me, because there is no "right", in this kind of discussion. Wouldn't you agree?

I think we can still separate the sensible from the incredibly far fetched, but as I said, I don't quite 100% rule out the incredibly far fetched. I don't claim to 100% know anything, but I do have beliefs. Debating the nature of a character with contradictions in his personality and descriptions from a book that is full of contradictions and WTF's does get logically chaotic, but I think certain rules of logic can be applied even to logical chaos, at least from a logical standpoint. You did make good points that involved doing that, though I disagreed with some. In the end, the scenario has me calling even more B.S. on the big picture created by The Bible. I is a logic clusterfuck.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think if Ted Bundy were working for god, I'd still execute him. Jesus was working for god and he got executed.

Darkmatters wins, tit for tat my friend lol

I would let him out because no matter what i would want to be able to rise above condemning the condemner. I would essentially hold myself above the idea that 'nothing' is forgivable, nor should a 'retry' be ever withheld, i mean shit if the human never gets it right, reliving this world over and over and over and over would be enough when it's known that there is something greater, and yes i believe over enough time some sort of "awareness memory" would build up and the person would be disgusted at the repetitiveness his/her life was seeming to carry.

So, let god out, show him a better way, show him a different way of thinking, be his guiding light to a new enlightenment, and if he fails to learn, then well it was a lose lose scenario to begin with.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think if Ted Bundy were working for god, I'd still execute him. Jesus was working for god and he got executed.

Was Jesus executed under the knowledge that he was God? Or under the disbelief of his story?

You can't compare yourself executing Ted Bundy, knowing that he was working for God, to Jesus's execution, in which he wasn't believed as having been working for God.

How is it that both you and UM are missing the exact same point?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It was a bad interpretation on your part. You opened up the cosmic what if door by talking about genocide and eternal torture maybe being great stuff without us realizing it. Right? Well, with that cosmic what if door still open, what if Ted Bundy is really God and we just don't realize it? You bring in a whole universe of absurd considerations once you start playing that game.

What if he is? Then you execute him, because you don't know that he was working for God.

In your scenario, you know that this is God, you are passing judgement on.

Once again...they are not the same situation.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why would he?

I don't know. Ask him.
Am I going to condemn him to Hell for that uncertainty? No. So, unless you are, it's really not an issue.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, I mean apply the cosmic excuse to both of them. What if Jack the Ripper was working for God and doing wonderful things that only seem evil? How do you know he wasn't? Do you? Remember the door you opened. How can we as humans possibly know the nature of Jack the Ripper's actions when he did them in God's universe and maybe even under the orders of God?

Because Jack the Ripper doesn't have scripture telling us that his actions had reason. God does.

And if you want to fall back on the "what if Jack was good and we didn't know it?" If we didn't know it, it doesn't matter, and you treat him like you would treat any other human.

The only reason I can pose a "what if God's actions had reason", is because logic dictates that a being of a higher consciousness has a higher frame of reference, as I demonstrated plenty of times in the thread, already.

There is no such logic that dictates Jack the Ripper was working for God. Even if he walked around saying he was, would you believe him, and thus judge him any differently than you would judge another human?

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think we can still separate the sensible from the incredibly far fetched, but as I said, I don't quite 100% rule out the incredibly far fetched. I don't claim to 100% know anything, but I do have beliefs. Debating the nature of a character with contradictions in his personality and descriptions from a book that is full of contradictions and WTF's does get logically chaotic, but I think certain rules of logic can be applied even to logical chaos, at least from a logical standpoint. You did make good points that involved doing that, though I disagreed with some. In the end, the scenario has me calling even more B.S. on the big picture created by The Bible. I is a logic clusterfuck.

Just to put a stamp on the "human criminal vs. God" argument; I find it more incredibly far-fetched to believe that a human - claiming he is working for God, is actually working for God - than to believe God has a substantial reason for allowing human suffering. I guess if you disagree with that position, then there is nothing more I can say in defense of my view on that.

That being said, I do agree that the big picture created by the Bible is a logic cluster-fuck, and is most-likely bullshit.


]

Thanks Memo (can I call you Memo for short?)

UM, sorry to get all deep on what's intended to be a flippant thread, but my final answer still applies - in fact really it was a flippant answer anyway. If I look at it more seriously, I gotta say I tend to agree with Oneironaut. And personally I'm interested in cutting through all the rather ridiculous misconceptions that have accumulated around Christianity, like the idea of hell as a place of eternal torment, which I believe originated from the fertile and very morbid imaginations of a number of medieval philosopher/theists.

But even when cut down to its core beliefs (as I now understand them) the Bible is still messed up. Javeh seems to be a god conceived by a primitive and very violent group of people whose mission is to cleanse the world of their enemies and prepare it to become an eden for the risen believers upon Christ's second coming (which was supposed to happen during the lifetime of some of his apostles).

So... even after pruning out the horror-movie version of the Devil and the idea that heaven and hell are places where your immaterial soul goes when you die for either punishment or reward (neither idea comes from the bible itself) - I still have a number of problems with it.

I agree with Alan Watts, who said something to the effect that Jesus did pretty well considering the material he had to work with, only knowing this obscure and very flawed Hebrew religion, but that his own teachings tended much more toward the beliefs of Buddha in spirit.

I still stand by my previous answer, but I'll add that god must also worship me and beg forgiveness for his sins.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Was Jesus executed under the knowledge that he was God? Or under the disbelief of his story?

You can't compare yourself executing Ted Bundy, knowing that he was working for God, to Jesus's execution, in which he wasn't believed as having been working for God.

How is it that both you and UM are missing the exact same point?

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.

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 thing i find most intriguing about the bible is that some people take it literal. Just knowing that: It's an amalgamation of bunch of different perspectives on god and his commandments and teachings, and that those numerous different perspectives is what supplies the contradictions, people actually accept the idea that all these different things are ONE thing, gods word. So apparently god likes to back track, restate himself, edit and revise, and change his mind about things but not clarify which idea he's currently sticking with, and no one in the religion sees it. If it were the
'Word of God' it would be perfect because no matter what he would know that the future generations would see such contradictions and shun his word and so he either intended for some to stray (which is sadistic) or IT'S NOT THE WORD OF GOD, but yet different interpretations of the word, so not directly meant to be worshiped and meditated on.

That's why i evacuated my seat in the church of christianity and abandoned the "religion". Because to me it seems a good lesson blown way out of proportion by medieval priests... i believe we got it wrong and Zen Buddhist's got it right. It's not that you're supposed to revere the deity, but revere the deities way of life, a better way of life. That's what religion is supposed to be about, a better way of life, not about confessions in a booth, or paying for your sins with gold, or making sure to drop on your knees in fear that your god may send you to hell for not saying your sorry. These things don't make the world a better place, facing your faults in life, and learning of the things that really matter, and learning your place in this life, and trying to understand the relationship you share with the rest of existence does... just my thoughts though...

Hear hear!!!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If we had proof that...God existed, the game would change. The rules would change. Rationality would change.

Suddenly you'd have a bunch of people who would have to actively rebel against God in order to justify their own ex-rational beliefs and that would make me tired. I'm so glad that this situation is unlikely.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If there is a Heaven, why not a Hell? Even those who aren't religious respect the concept of balance.

Ah, but in order to bring balance to the Force, those wielding the dark side had to be brought down. It was the dark side that was the unbalance.

What, were we having a serious discussion or something?