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.