Thread: Would you let God out of Hell?

Suppose God is somehow transformed into an ordinary human, he dies, and he goes to Hell for the eternal sentence. Also suppose you have the power to get him out after he goes 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? Why?

Easy.
My religion doesn't believe in a hell of fire, brimstone and eternal suffering. We teach that it's the "common grave of mankind".

We don't believe in a spirit that's separate from the person (i.e. "29 souls [meaning living people] were lost in the plane crash."

So, seeing how such a place doesn't exist....................................

It's totally hypothetical. I don't believe in Hell either.

I don't think anyone deserves to burn in eternal fire. Not even god.

I would.

Why would I?

Because I believe that all of the hate and angst and spite that is thrown at "God" is founded on the inability to accept that "God's" perspective is infinitely greater than our own. Even as an agnostic, I think it's arrogant to carry hatred toward a "benevolent being" (because what we're talking about is that interpretation of God, yes?), simply because one doesn't understand his point of view. What we call "suffering" (which is the main reason people 'hate' the idea of a 'benevolent God') could be - cosmically - a mere, slight irritation. By definition, this is not a concept we will be able to understand, until we have passed beyond the veil and into the alleged "afterlife."

So as of right now, I couldn't hate the super-being for allowing me to suffer, without knowing why, and to what end? It would be like a dog hating its master for popping it on the nose, after it was caught chewing on a toxic substance. Does the dog know why it was smacked? No. But did that smack potentially save the dog's life? Yes.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I would.

Why would I?

Because I believe that all of the hate and angst and spite that is thrown at "God" is founded on the inability to accept that "God's" perspective is infinitely greater than our own. Even as an agnostic, I think it's arrogant to carry hatred toward a "benevolent being" (because what we're talking about is that interpretation of God, yes?), simply because one doesn't understand his point of view. What we call "suffering" (which is the main reason people 'hate' the idea of a 'benevolent God') could be - cosmically - a mere, slight irritation. By definition, this is not a concept we will be able to understand, until we have passed beyond the veil and into the alleged "afterlife."

So as of right now, I couldn't hate the super-being for allowing me to suffer, without knowing why, and to what end? It would be like a dog hating its master for popping it on the nose, after it was caught chewing on a toxic substance. Does the dog know why it was smacked? No. But did that smack potentially save the dog's life? Yes.

You said we are going by the interpretation of God as a "benevolent" being. I should have addressed which version of God I am talking about. I am referring to the God of the mainstream versions of The Bible. It might say in there that he is benevolent and the he loves us and is love itself and so forth, but his actions show otherwise. He committed genocide worse than that of Mao, Stalin, Pol, and Hitler combined. In fact, the character killed all of the humans in the world except one family and all of the other animals except for two of each type. What would Human Rights Watch and PETA have to say about that? He ordered the executions of all known adulterers, homosexuals, people who work on Sunday, and kids who disobey their parents. God condoned slavery and said that it is okay to beat your slave to death as long as he/she dies more than two days after the beating. Also, not only did he allow suffering and even bring it about because somebody took a bit of an apple, he allowed the existence of Hell. Did he create it? Since he has infinite power (according to The Bible), he has no excuse. There are no limitations on him, as there are with a dog's owner. He doesn't have to allow suffering, yet he allows an eternity of it for people who honestly didn't think he existed and who didn't repent for doing things like working on Sunday and having sex outside of marriage.

I am not saying I wouldn't let him out of Hell. I'll get into my answer later. I want to read some more answers first.

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.

God ha let the shitter burn he created hell why shouldn't he burn in it i don't care i hate him for what he has made me and i may aswell have at least the enjoyment of watchin him burn.

I would take advantage of the situation and let him out under certain conditions. Kind of like parole for god.

If he'd undo all the things he did that lead to hatred, genocide, rape, murder, etc (basically anything sinful not including ridiculous things like premarital sex). Also he'd need to undergo a serious personality change. I'd send him to see a psychiatrist; maybe an hour session on a daily basis. Take care of that jealousy and need for revenge. I think god would be a nice guy if he could just evolve a little bit and escape those medieval philosophies.

So we're condemning/saving the Christian God?

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 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.

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.


]

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.

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

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 Oneironaut

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?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. Therefore, God's existence as Ted Bundy or Jack the Ripper is more likely than a scenario in which letting people burn forever benefits humanity in the long run. God could let people burn forever without it beneffiting humanity yet still be loving. The door to contradictory nature has been opened. So, we have enough reason to believe that God could exist as a serial killer. We do not have enough reason to believe that the vast majority of humanity burning forever could be a benefit to humanity.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

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.

It's a serious thread, and I hope for deep answers. I just want the thread to be about the picture I presented and not a hair splitting contest over the words I used.

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.

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?

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.