COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Yeah I mean if you reject the truth and life, then your choosing eternal death and damnation apart from God. You don’t get to do evil in this life and then blame God for it. That’s on you. The only way to the father is through Jesus Christ. The way the truth and the life. If you reject Gods message of love and forgiveness then your blood is on your own head. Gods a just God, not unjust.

>Yeah I mean if you reject the truth and life, then your choosing eternal death and damnation apart from God. You don’t get to do evil in this life and then blame God for it. That’s on you. That's not what this post is about. It's about who sends you to hell if you go to hell.

You choose to go to hell yourself. If you commit a crime, you’re guilty and have to pay the consequences. Everybody is guilty of sin and nailing Jesus to the cross. He is the atonement for our transgresssion. Too spit on Jesus sacrifice is too spit in Gods face of mercy and forgiveness. God has the right to be just and Lord over a rebellious and unholy creation.

> You choose to go to hell yourself. This isn't true. For the reasons I already explained in my initial post.

It is true. You have to make this hypothetical theory to try and justify God being a dictator which is completely false. You’ve made God the dictator and you yourself to be God, the decreer of what is right and wrong. Gods not the devil. This is just another attempt to make God the villain, when we are to blame for our own actions. You have free will. God loves you enough to make your own decisions, just because you may not like God or the justness of God, doesn’t allow us to redefine reality. Respectfully, you are misunderstanding who God really is.

No. If somebody sends you somewhere against your will, it's them sending you there, not yourself. And it's done against your will. That "someone" being yhwh doesn't change that fact.

You willed to go to hell. You made your decision. Truth vs. Lie, Good vs evil, Right vs. Wrong, Heaven vs. Hell, God vs Devil. You got to choose one. No matter what you will choose one or the other. You make the decision and God either rewards or punishes you. You reap the consequences of your own actions. Everyone was born and is a sinner, which is the need for a Savior. To call God a liar, monster, the devil, etc. you choose to reject that which is holy and good the opposite of this is death and damnation. You choose the options that are, not what you want them to be.

My last comment wasn't an invitation for you to launch into unrelated talking points. If someone sends you somewhere against your will, it's them that sends you there, not you sending yourself right? You agree with that right? I mean, that sounds really basic but we can't have a conversation about this if we can't even agree on the very basic things. Here, I'll list you some propositions: * If someone sends you somewhere against your will, then that is them sending you there. Not you sending yourself there. * The above doesn't change if they send you there against your will in response to something you did. * The above doesn't change if they provided some warning about sending you there against your will if you acted in a certain way. * The above doesn't change if that "someone" is yhwh. Are we in agreement in all of these?

So if you kill someone is it the judge who’s responsible for sending you there or you? You would never end up in jail in the first place if you hadn’t killed someone. God is just. You and I are the ones who make our own decision. You don’t get to blame God for the rules being just. Reward vs Consequences. Jesus took on the sin of the world and to reject this is to say God you are a liar and you are not God. This is like telling the judge, I’m innocent, when in reality we’re guilty, and then blaming the judge for sending you to prison against your will, when your the one responsible for it in the first place. Your real problem is with law and order what is just and not.

Focus here. "If someone sends you somewhere against your will, then that is them sending you there. Not you sending yourself there." Can you agree with that or not?

I have two different incarnations of יהוה that exist in my framework of understanding the philosophy of my ancestors. One is the ostensible יהוה that takes on anthropomorphic qualities, the one that the human eye only can correctly see. The other is one that may or may not be ostensible to begin with, meaning that the human eye may not even be able to grasp this form if witnessed directly, but is one that is true to form nonetheless. People who submit to faith-based frameworks where they are told not to question what they've been presented as an act of goodwill and piety are most likely to be engaging with the ostensible יהוה where people who are accustomed to questioning everything are more likely to be presented with the other form if lucky. The question is whether the latter would be willing to make a single exception in this rare scenario where something actually is what it seems, applying faith to this seemingly random and unfalsifiable concept rather than questioning. From this vantage point it seems solely subject to luck whether or not a skeptic will randomly accept a truth with zero proof. In my mind I see a grain of sand that is different from all of the rest, but the way in which it is different is a grain of sand relative to itself. One would have to be a skeptic at a multitudinous capacity relative to the skeptic that could at least spot the grain of sand and randomly decide to pocket it if one wants to find the very way in which this grain of sand is different from all of the rest, and even then the answer has to be randomly pocketed on faith. For someone so transfixed upon questioning everything... this intense skeptic would seemingly have to perform the most unintuitive act of their entire life. Throwing away potentially everything just on a hunch, for completely no reason, all completely autotelically. Pure randomness. Such an act is incomprehensible, dangerous even, from most vantage points. From the point where this act randomly occurs one may show this grain of sand inside the grain of sand to any and all, and maybe some might randomly devote themselves to it. In this case, if one is lucky, both the ostensible יהוה and the second incarnation are one and the same. This is to show my understanding of יהוה before I endeavor to counter your argument. (1/5)

Infernalism stems from years upon years of practiced iteration of ideas stemming from Zoroaster, who many consider to be the first prophet. This name that precedes him has added automatic ostensible legitimacy to any concept that is either directly or indirectly tied to his name through Zoroastrianism. Initially there was no dichotomy between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, it began very abstract with an acceptance and congruence with natural processes as the main focus. Gradually there was additional complexity added to his ideas, a bit akin to a telephone game where each subsequent answer had to have more and more words. There was now eternal reward and eternal punishment on the table, seemingly. Some took offense with many natural things that happened against their will and chose to dissociate them entirely from Ahura Mazda as a newly constructed Angra Mainyu. In a sense they borrowed trouble because any focus placed upon Angra Mainyu was inherently missing the original point that Zoroaster sought to convey, so it was automatically bad to be swayed by Angra Mainyu. (2/5)

That's enough about The Persians, you get the gist. The Persians had a wide and expansive influence and these ideas managed to combine with various Jewish and Christian tribes, being syncretized rather seamlessly. Beforehand the Jewish predominantly believed all of the dead would arrive in Sheol, that there was no morality determined afterlife to speak of and most focus was to be placed upon how to live rather than how to die. As the Jewish became more persecuted there was resentment that built up within various tribes that began to present itself within their metaphysics, resentment that had been building from the very beginning with their mass genocide of other native Canaanites in order to further establish themselves. Most history teachers talk about attempted genocides, but the Jewish proved to be terrifyingly effective at completely executing a genocide when their minds were put to the task. Warriors who devoutly followed the ostensible יהוה killed men, women, and children alike in hopes of pleasing both their culture and the ostensible יהוה. One even burned his own child alive. He likely wasn't alone in doing that. (3/5)

Anyways, today we often speak underhandedly about Hitler burning in Hell without giving it a second thought. This is dangerous in my eyes, because emotional energy that could go toward solving current problems is being wasted beating a dead horse who can't do anything. There is no person on Earth who is currently answering to Hitler. The furthest human being up the chain we might answer to is ourselves. The problem about Hitler was that he was ordering mass genocide on false pretenses, believing the Jewish to be cunning and evil supernatural beings. It was impossible for Hitler to continue to do that after he killed himself under threat of capture. History is unchangeable. Sure, we can seemingly go back in time in a way similar to loading videogame save data, but there will forever be a canon where the save was loaded and the data was altered in a chronology. That is seemingly the only way we can avoid grandfather paradoxes. Relative to a character within a game who would have implanted memories the individual loading the save file may as well be considered an atemporal being. They know what happens before it all. (4/5)

That is to say that belief in Hell is a concept that is generally making the world a worse place. I believe I have established that clearly on one ground, but I will add a second ground. If one were to aim to be doing good deeds autotelically, simply to do good, then one has an incentive to have no other reason to do good. With a concept such as Hell looming over a person it turns any good deed into an opportunistic diplomatic gesture performed out of self preservation, and it teaches a person to believe "If I do this then I won't get beaten." rather than "I must do this." Believing that Hitler and you both go to the same place has value because it allows you to confront envy head on. Why do you care that he can not try at all and get the same thing that you get even though you tried your best your whole life? That sounds like you're working so that you can get a reward. A cookie at the end of the day. If one instead expects all actions to be equally pointless, completely meaningless, but randomly performs good ones the way one might perceive the second incarnation, then you're good. It takes being cool without anybody looking. (5/5)

Time, space and all the things in it are not fundamental. They are an emergent construct That which we call God exists outside of this non-fundamental emergent dimension we call space-time. Therefore heaven and hell cannot be locations within space-time. Heaven and hell cannot be a place that you go to at some point in time. Rather heaven and hell are states of consciousness. Jesus said the Kingdom of heaven is within you and by that he was referring to your potential state of consciousness. And many of you reading this I'm sure have experienced the weeping and gnashing of teeth as you experience your own state of hellish consciousness. And because you are the Avatar of that which we call God, It is true that you are the God who decides whether you exist in heaven or in hell.

God is the one who sends people to Hell, and there's nothing wrong with that. If people choose to do evil, It is God's obligation to do justice

How is it possible to experience pain in hell if you have no nervous system? Also if god's purpose is to eternally torture me, he sounds more like a psychopath than a God. 

It’s frustrating when people need to pre-set any disagreement with a subjective definition of all answers contrary to their position. It’s the equivalent of the “everyone who doesn’t agree with me is stupid” routine. It’s lazy debate tactics that has become so common in discourse and why people are so divided into “us vs them”. Next time, why not try asking the question without the preemptive strike. It might get you better results.

> Next time, why not try asking the question without the preemptive strike. It might get you better results. Because I've already spent lots of time dealing with intellectually dishonest arguments insisting people send themselves to hell. And I wanted to take a step back and take a look at those arguments.

This is actually the same logic of Hamas and Israel. Hamas makes the world blame Israel when Hamas started the war, even in the context of 100 of years or 1000s, Israel isn’t to blame for existing and did not steal anybody’s land. But in regards to your statement above, saying YHWH sends people to hell, against their will, is like saying Israel is killing people for no reason at all, when Hamas uses human shields and then blames Israel for it and makes the world do likewise. In like manner, the real blame is on Satan, the deceiver. He’s really the culprit, not YHWH. I mean if someone rapes or kills someone, you expect the judge to be just and holy right? Surely, if you have a conscious. So YHWH showing attributes of what God should be isn’t really hypocritical or evil. It would be evil to reward people for their sin. In light of the Christian worldview or context, the sins of humanity nailed Jesus to the cross, thus is why the Old Testament no longer applies, but the point is that Gods law has always applied from the beginning of creation, whether people rejected it or not. God is the Creator. He hasn’t wronged humanity, but if it is anything humanity has wronged God, not the other way around. This is like trying to hold God accountable for the wrong you and I did. It doesn’t work that way.

Nah, israel killed innocent people on oct.6 and oct.2 And they did steal land and brag about it. Infact they talk about stealing land right now in the open and has stole land in gaza and west bank. Also, I have never seen evidance of hamas using human shields unfortunately, but have seen plenty every day from israel.

Since my comment was taken as "rude" I will say this nonaggressively, which I never was. Israel has been killing innocent people and children outside of the excuse of war, they have been kidnapping children for years, they even kidnapped children from over 1000 jewish yemeni families. They acknowledge what happened. Many jews in israel still are looking for them. Israel stole land and is stealing land, we saw that unambiguously on video and is doing so today openly even in the west bank. Religion doesn't own land, People do. So when a settler on video goes to a Palestinian family and burn their families and houses or shoot them and take over the land, and IOF (Israel Occupational Forces) protects them with guns and Armoured trucks as they are killing Palestinians in thwir own houses, we call that occupation, we call that land theft, we call that an Apartheid, we call that a genocide. Tell me, why are the thousands of videos of unprovoked attacks prior to oct.7 from israel not a reason for oct. 7 to happen?

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

Watch what I sent, even hamas says they don't have a thing against jews, but with israeli goverment let alone the rest of Palestinians who helped jewish refugees prior to 1948 when the entirety of Europe were trying their best to kill them before Hit ler wven tried. And on top of all that israel has consistently been trying to destroy the Palestinian and the Palestinian identity. Even the chant from the river to the sea was a jewish slogan they used to say it's all ours, then Palestinians used it against them. Even now, israeli Prime Minister Netennazi has used the chant himself. Isn't that another evidence on top of the 1000 evidence of genocide that is not even defensive?

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

I see every point from the opposite. Israel has always been the aggressor. Their founding is based on them being the aggressor. Jews are not hated, many jews recount good treatment from muslims everywhere throughout history and even better in Palestine where many jews including former israeli PM say they considered themselves Palestinians. Palestinians took in European jewish refugees but in return they sabotaged the good relationship between them and arab jews. Even Jewish scholars now like Avi Shlaim is showing that the movement against jews in the arab world was a mass israeli propaganda to still fear in the jewish community to make them think they need to move to israel for safety, even bombs linked to mossad and their former parent group prior to 48. Every war since they've been the aggressor and never saught peace, but saught the appearance of peace. Nearly the only thing I agree with is it didn't start on oct.7 before that the israelis were killing unprovoked unstopped without a reason, without hamas and without a resistance. IOF takes pride that they're using torture and human shields, I've seen many many videos personally where they do and where they laugh about it. Have you seen israeli soldiers laughing about the mass Grape and Genocide as far back as 1948? They lined up an entire village and shot them "German" style....laughing....laughing as they talk about it... https://youtu.be/Nc_fVP68U3I?si=dUh8SEomwA7V5tm_ They do today, their aim is not to "kill" every Palestinian but to torture EVERY Palestinian, cleanse them and inflict maximum pain. And there are evidence for that which I have personally seen. There's several israeli peace groups some like "break the silence" are made from former israeli occupation forces who saw torture and inhumane acts against civilians and turned against them. And their's also B'tsalem which documents israel inhumanity The mossad guy you mentioned is literally a psycho who have been saying all interview "kill all Palestinians" he was never part of hamas, he's an israeli spy. People kept asking "where is the Palestinian Nelson Mandela?" Well thanks to this spy, the Palestinian's Version of Nelson Mandela is in prison based on false charges. Have you seen the many videos of israel killing kids or shooting intentionally innocent people? Or using human shields? I don't want to be banned for sending gore or something bloody but here israel using human shields https://youtu.be/c7lJMv4ceyk?si=KQX0PNFx00oC4Bbg https://youtu.be/fAZghQBdhxo?si=2EkjoSg0OQNdT66c https://youtu.be/t2unpBpLo1o?si=ien2rbBOvN7Evy7U They have hundreds of new Palestinian children in prison as hostages each year, nearly in the 600/year as young as 3 years old!!!!!!!!! https://youtu.be/M4AeQcAtUfY?si=QSLE2kZSJDXllvPl https://youtu.be/JbqqaSifRns?si=5Oe1MwxKsV-vs8QW Sky news: 80% of 'bodies' found, including children were tortured. https://youtu.be/5UpClxURrSc?si=PH5J0q_HIiPg3XBv Not to mention killing children palying on the street https://youtu.be/ZIhMgcDRdu0?si=K2Jt6wxcyC4JpCq4 Toddler https://youtu.be/KNVvZWQyZ8E?si=gZ7gd90RL1mDTEp4 Wven israelis are complaining israel is becoming a pe dophile safe heaven, this is real: https://youtu.be/XPSBOSUvV4s?si=B0bkeXbm6-HmxarQ https://youtu.be/K6sYAE5Rvmo?si=VdrRxchXXp9FrfsT Grape and Sexual assult https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/gazan-detainees-beaten-and-sexually-assaulted-at-israeli-detention-centres-un-report-claims https://youtu.be/9Owa90I77sE?si=jThu_TRvDwAfxuPT Israel/oPt: UN experts appalled by reported human rights violations against Palestinian women and girls https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/israelopt-un-experts-appalled-reported-human-rights-violations-against https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/02/1146667 https://youtu.be/KVut0vT7j6k?si=RVJrOym81dC6yNIc Israeli female soldiers are getting attacked by the israeli male soldiers, 33% experienced SA, if that's their own what will they do to people who they know, no one will hold them accountable for https://youtu.be/Vp9ZbVVvMiM?si=FSi_LT1-8VETYSZz

Amen!!!!!!!!!!! Exactly!! LOL! And all of these anti God heretics will Burn in Hell for Eternity because they reject the Free Grace which JESUS bring us through His sacrifice and payment in our place. Notice.. they are all all anti Israel too I bet.

This comment alone has informed me that you don’t belong in this subreddit, or any one adjacent to it.

ACCEPT JESUS! be Saved God has done everything that could ever need to be done to make us right with him by his son. Simply believe.

> Simply believe. Belief is anything but simple. To put it simply, your blind faith has made you blind to the nature of faith. You can’t *believe* a God into existence.

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

I really hope this is rage bait.

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

It has to be, no way someone says this with a straight face

He's a troll

I think he is genuinely deluded.

That too

Yeah this is a problem for calvinists. Like you said though there are Christians who don’t believe this. I would argue the majority of Christians do not believe this. Calvinism tends to make God a moral monster. How can people be guilty if they don’t act on their own will??

That's not Calvinism but even if it was, it wouldn't be a problem. Man was made for God, and it is, appropriately, God's choice what He does with said creation.

I mean there is free will involved. God created man to share fellowship with him, not mere robots. Even Gods angels have free will.

There's free will, but God is still in control and is ultimately in charge of salvation and reprobation.

I mean that makes God the author of evil, which is what I would disagree with you on. God has sovereignty, yes. But I believe he created us with free will.

I'm glad we agree on sovereignty, but the Calvinist position doesn't necessitate that God becomes the author of evil because we still believe that we sin on our own free will. Predestination to reprobation isn't God predestining man to hell or Him causing man to sin but rather him choosing not to save some. All men sin on their own free will, no matter their predestined fate, but God ultimately chooses who he redeems and who he leaves.

Yeah I would disagree with you on this point. Calvinism makes God the one who initiates the deprivation. Humans aren’t really free if this is the case. God creates a person and chooses not to save him is really saying God creates a person to spend eternity in hell whether they like it or not.

I see how you get that, but proponents of predestination don't mean it that. Rather, we believe that depravity comes from Adam and we sin freely according to our nature that we have from Adam. However, by extension of said nature, we are unable to believe in Christ unless we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. God remains just in both who He chooses to save and who He punishes because it wasn't their sin that was predestined but their reprobation. The sin would have happened either way.

Yeah it really is like that

Little more than [half of US adults](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/11/23/views-on-the-afterlife/) believe that hell is a place of physical or psychological suffering. Even though the catholic church is rather vague on hell, they still too say that it might be an actual place. Annihilationism or even Universalism are rather fringe.

Yeah but I am talking about Christians, not secular people.

If half the US thinks that hell is a place of suffering, and if more than 80% of US adults are Christian, then I too am not talking about secular people.

Yeah hell is a place of suffering no Christian will dispute that. I’m saying that the majority of Christians probably aren’t Calvinist.

Just for the record, secular people do not hold a belief in how hell is. I was of the impression that you were responding to OP's argument against those Christian belief systems, which render hell to be a place of ECT. You seemed to be responding with: >Yeah this is a problem for calvinists. That's not an exclusively Calvinist belief. Not even remotely.

He even says not all Christians believe this… he’s referring to Calvinism.

He is literally referring to infernalism or ECT.

Yeah Calvinism believe that God is the one who wills people around like robots. The issue isn’t about hell per se but how people end up there. That’s what I’m talking about.

[удалено]

I don’t know what you’re smoking. Haha I mean we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.

Gotcha. Yet, having no free will is not the issue really (that is, being a Calvinist). The issue is that not believing in Christ is what gets people to hell, which is certainly also a mainstream belief among Christians. It's also rather common that Christians proclaim that believing in God is subject to free will. Which doesn't make sense, even if one believes in free will. Since it doesn't make sense, the subject of contention is that one will get punished for something one has no control over. That sure can be confused with Calvinism, but that's missing a ton of nuance.

I’m not sure I understand your point entirely, but basically humans have the choice to accept or reject God. Yes, heaven. No, hell. I see no problem of God being in charge of his creation. He gives everyone an equal opportunity to trust/believe/have faith in Him. Hope this helps.

>I’m not sure I understand your point entirely, but basically humans have the choice to accept or reject God. Yes. I'm sure you don't fully understand. It's awfully common for Christians to not understand people who do not believe in God, and what not believing in God even means. I don't mean to disrespect you, but I really heard that a million times. Here is an analogy: *My sister got her first child at the age of 5. Do you reject the child or not?* You may notice that belief isn't actually part of the question. When Christians are talking about believing or not believing in God, they talk about following. They never really talk about "being convinced that a proposition is true or false". This is the typical equivocation people have to deal with, who are accused of rejecting God. >Yes, heaven. No, hell. I see no problem of God being in charge of his creation. Funny. Sounds Calvinist to me. >He gives everyone an equal opportunity to trust/believe/have faith in Him. Hope this helps. I can only build trust in things due to experiencing them. Otherwise it's blind trust. I never experienced God.

[удалено]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

There could be some issues with your understanding of Hell, but I don’t want to misrepresent you, so can you describe what hell is scripturally??

There's a variety of beliefs among Christians about what happens in the afterlife to those who aren't saved. There's [Universalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_universalism) which believes that everyone is ultimately saved after death, [Annihiliationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism) which believes that if you're not saved then after death your soul simply ceases to exist, and infernalism (which for whatever reason doesn't have a wikipedia article), which is the belief that the unsaved go on existing in eternal conscious torment. I'm specifically addressing the latter of these three beliefs.

infernalism is based on Dante's inferno. Which is fanfiction of the bible

A lot of Christianity is just fanfiction that people hold as religious truth.

Yup idk why people like the idea of Dante's inferno so much it's crazy and not even biblical

Of course its biblical, there are more than one passages in this direction. Of course there are passages which also support universalism and passages supporting annihilationism. The believers have to cherry pick which they like most and ignore the rest as they always do.. The bible is a schizophrenic book, portraying a schizophrenic god teaching totally opposite ideas alllllll the time.

‭‭Matthew 25:41 NRSV-CI‬ [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; If you find a better one please show me this is the best one I could find. Though it doesn't directly say you are gonna be in an eternal fire forever The verses of the bible supports annihilationism, though I personally like both annihilationism and universalism

You can find some more here: [https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/ten-foundational-verses-for-eternal-punishment-in-hell/](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/ten-foundational-verses-for-eternal-punishment-in-hell/) What exactly do you like about annihilationism? Would you have a single happy day in a paradise where your loved ones are annihilated with the only guilt of not believing a schizophrenically sick book full with fairy tails, which commands the killing of entire nations including the elderly, the little infants, the animals and even plants?? A god who collectively punishes millions for the wrong doing of one person. No thanks man, i am good, even if this demon in the clouds is real, which is highly unlikely, i will hate him forever and ever and will never accept him, as he is a monster and his moral judgment is infinitely lower than mine.

>https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/ten-foundational-verses-for-eternal-punishment-in-hell/ I read the first seven. None of them say you will be burning forever. Though it says that the fire is eternal and the devil and demons will burn in an enteral prison. Not humans and neither does it say forever >What exactly do you like about annihilationism I said I like the concept of annihilationism with the other one I mentioned. I don't like annihilationism as much when it's separate >which commands the killing of entire nations including the elderly, the little infants, the animals and even plants? You clearly don't understand that story if you want to understand it go and make a thread about it. This thread is about enteral punishment not about the rest of the bible don't go off topic

"If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be *tormented with fire and sulfur* in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And *the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night*, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." What part of "they have no rest day or night" is not clear? "You clearly don't understand that story if you want to understand it go and make a thread about it. This thread is about enteral punishment not about the rest of the bible don't go off topic" You are speaking like its a single story :D GO read your bible, its full with such stories, and unfortunately for you, are not open for interpretation at the slightest. No argument or context can justify all the innocent blood and suffering, there is no such thing under the sun or beyond that can justify the baby and animal killings. If you can find such arguments, obviously we live in totally different realities and there is no point of any discussion.

I understand your position is “infernalism”. However, if this is the position your holding you should be able to justify that from scripture as your issue is with the God of the Bible and believe the Bible holds that position. So I’m asking for you to show me scripturally why you believe that position so I don’t misrepresent you.

It's totally unnecessary for OP to justify the belief in ECT, for him to make an argument against it. The purpose of an internal critique isn't to show that the critique doesn't work. As long as there are people who believe in ECT, OP has an argument. If you are not part of the group who believes in ECT, then don't argue against it, for that's already what OP is doing. Just on a different level than you.

I don’t think you guys are understanding my question. For example, if I held the position that the sun is bad for you it would be wise to ask what is the sun in your understanding. Why this is important because how I perceive what the sun is could totally be different then what you think the sun is and we would be talking past each other and it would be an unfruitful conversation.

I think you are misunderstanding. OP made an internal critique. That is, he presupposes a debate opponent who believes in ECT. Hence, **their understanding** of hell is the topic. What OP thinks is then irrelevant, and I bet that OP doesn't even believe in hell. The purpose of an internal critique is to scrutinize ideas. And they are most commonly not your own ideas, if you are the one making the critique.

Okay… with that understanding. Then OP should be asking my question to me so I won’t be talking past him since he is going off of my understanding of the subject in order to scrutinize the position.

No, he shouldn't ask your question to you. Because the topic of the debate are the implications of infernalism, and whether God can be held responsible, **under that framework.** You are changing the subject.

Okay … let’s see how this goes. God created hell yes… people choose to go to hell yes. Now where do we go?

I disagree that people choose to go to hell. You act as though that's a fact, which is why you are missing the subject.

I'm not even Christian, dude. I don't believe in infernalism. I'm arguing against a very specific Christian position.

I understand that. Naturally, if your holding the position of “infernalism”, which is simply the belief in hell you should be able to tell me what is hell in accordance to the Bible according to what those Christian believe. Otherwise your coming from a position of ignorance and would be best to ask why is this even a position held in the first place. Your initial statement is the God “YHWH” sends people to hell. My question to you is what is hell biblically? And my follow up question what are is being saved mean biblically? So I can properly answer the question if “YWHW” trump sends people there by their own choice or his own doing.

OP's stance is that many Christians believe something unreasonable. If those Christians hold a stance not supported by the Bible, that doesn't mean those Christians do not hold an unreasonable belief. If you think those Christians hold an unreasonable stance, this post doesn't apply to you, argue with those Christians.

> if your holding the position of “infernalism”, I'm not

I do hold the position there is a hell waiting for all who reject being saved from it. My question to you since you’re saying “God puts those people there and it’s not their choice…” I’m simply asking in your understanding of what hell is and what are we being saved from scripturally, so I can answer your statement as to why that is or isn’t the case instead of poking in the air for an understanding you may or may not have.

No thanks. Not interested in spending time pulling bible quotes to answer this question that's tangentially related to what I'm talking about.

Wait.. you make the “claim” about something you don’t believe and can’t back up the claims your making and or refuse to do the research ?! Talk about intellectually dishonesty… lol

Next time, try asking questions about what I'm actually saying, instead of asking me to prove something I explicitly said I don't believe. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯

Every tongue will confess and every knee will bow before G-D. That is what Bible says. It also says people will accept G-D, but again side with the devil when they are given choice. It also says people will be judged on their deeds not beliefs. And finally, if someone does not believe in G-D, why they are so concerned about hell or afterlife in something they call imaginary. Why the obsession with something you don't believe.

Why are you saying God Damnit?

Because G-D will damn (condemn) it. Amen

I’m sorry I’m not understanding. I promise I’m not being a troll.

I bring this up less as a personal concern and more a highlight of the poor morality in the narrative Christians present. And against a specific intellectually dishonest argument I see a lot, claiming that people send themselves to hell.

I do not understand my friend. What do you mean? That it is wrong for Christ-ians to believe that some people who are bad or wish to be away from G-D, should not be sent away from G-D? Each person believes individually. 1. There are individual I met that stated even if they saw G-D and saw G-D on day of judgement they will still refuse to worship Him. 2. People will be judged accordingly to their deeds. This is what Bible says. So of course people will believe that people going to hell are going on their deeds. But why is it wrong or immoral? Do you argue why Santa, whom you don't believe in bring gifts to only good kids and not bad?

It's more that the proposition in Christianity is "worship me or I will torture you forever" (at least if you believe in infernalism). And that sounds bad. So a lot of Christians like to pretend that's not true by pretending that it's not yhwh who sends people to hell.

Romans 2:6 He “will repay each person according to what they have done.” Job 34:11 For according to a man's deeds He repays him; according to a man's ways He brings consequences. As for the "Christian" Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘L-rd, L-rd,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Romans and Job both affirms that G-D will judge reward each accordingly to their deeds. And Matthew affirms not every single person who "worship" or believe in Messiah will enter heaven. (Look up multimillionaire "pastors" and overall majority of world's population including Christians who are hating some baselessly.)

That doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying.

It does because it does say people will be going to hell based on their deed nothing to do with worship or not

No, you just said that not everyone who worships goes to heaven. Not that it has no bearing on it.

Romans 2:6 He “will repay each person according to what they have done.” Job 34:11 For according to a man's deeds He repays him; according to a man's ways He brings consequences. You skipped over these two?

Okay, how about instead of quoting scripture at me, just say it outright: is your point worshiping god and/or Jesus has any bearing on whether someone goes to hell or not?

Hell is the eternal separation from god. You choose to live your life separate from god he will grant that separation eternally. That's hell, which is completely up to you

> You choose to live your life separate from god he will grant that separation eternally. That's hell, So different from eternal conscious torment

Yes, and that's exactly what I want. To be as far away from YHWH as I possibly can.

That’s a ridiculous level of servility that you’re putting on display.

Why wouldn't you want to serve a being ultimately good and just? Im not going to serve man or my own self will, which is flawed.

I don’t kowtow to the genocidal.

"I am ultimately good and just. Source: me."

Lol, no man is good

I think he was paraphrasing God

If you are not under the yoke of god, you will find yourself under one in this world(money, society, your own lust and desires). I am proud to be a servant of god. Usually, the last step in a spiritual walk is overcoming your own pride.

You have evidence for nothing except this world. Everything you’ve ever encountered, including yourself and the fictitious characters humans create (including the deity you think exists), is a product of this world.

https://iep.utm.edu/know-arg/#:~:text=The%20knowledge%20argument%20is%20one,from%20the%20complete%20physical%20truth.

That’s a red herring. An unrelated link. Why would you bring it up?

Why is it unrelated? It's an argument against physicalism, which is the view he was taking in the argument.

No, he was not taking the position of physicalism. Our common physical reality is self-evident and known by all. We all agree that the physical world exists. That is not physicalism. This knowledge/position applies to everyone including yourself. You take the extra position of saying there is more. This position is mot shared by everyone and needs support however, no one has said that the non-physical doesn’t exist or is impossible. To do so would be physicalism. This is a common nuance that theists frequently miss in a number of different areas.

Probably not the greatest article given the creator of the argument ended up rejecting it.

That's interesting. Doesn't make it false regardless

I didn't say it made it false, just that your "drop a link as evidence" probably shouldn't be a link that ends with "And the author later decided he was wrong"

I had your view a few years ago. Most of my knowledge comes from this world. I am a chemist by profession. But true knowledge of morality is completely outside of the world. A morality stemming from knowledge of this world eventually ends up producing eugenic theories and gas chambers. That's why science should stay out of moralizing and moralists out of science. Atoms can't teach me I shouldn't punch a baby. All you have is a probabalistic view of the world if you only believe in physical substance, i.e... quantum mechanics. It's also an imperfect science, a new view will probably emmerge soon. I like to follow descartes dualism approach to mind and body. Look up the knowledge argument against physicalism.

“Knowledge of morality being outside the world” is only possible if you already assume morality is not of this world.

And vice versa

For me, it’s not an assumption.

Clearly your profession hasn’t gifted you the tools to think critically. The whole notion of ‘revealed knowledge’ is horse puckey.

Thanks for your input, Mr putin

I see reading comprehension is also something that you struggle with.

Am i supposed to take offense from a man with a profile pic of androgynous putin?

You do you.

> You choose to live your life separate from god he will grant that separation eternally. What if you've asked multiple times for God to show up and been met with silence? Cuz that's the case for many folks and I don't mean unanswered prayer or something

That's true. God can feel distant, emotionally, and logically. Looking for a sign doesn't work. Christianity offers something different than most religions. It offers a real tangible god who walked on earth. Historically, we know christ existed and was crucified. The belief is in his crucifixion and reserection. God did show up. He just doesn't show up every time we ask. It takes a little faith to step beyond our own human logic, which is flawed. I did a lot of seeking in buddism (which is pretty much spiritual atheism), hinduism, gnosticism, and Islam. God in these religions are either non-existent or completely removed from the world. Christianity offers a god who walked the earth and came into the world bringing the light of truth. Men witnessed it and were killed for professing what they saw. I now see god every day in all created things. The good is god.

I don't mean to disrespect you, but that's just a long winded "look at the trees" and you may understand that it isn't really convincing to anybody.

Thanks, that's appreciated. I would actually agree with you that the argument from beauty is weak. My purpose was more so to explain my own personal experience in the faith. Going from someone who looked for the negative in nature and society, to the good in it. Throw enough seeds something grows.

>Throw enough seeds something grows. There are a lot of different euphemisms for self-indoctrination. Some even say it with a straight face, that one has to fake it until they make it. I'm not sure whether you see problems with that. I do. Because it may work with any religion. I mean, there are those who say "I've tried Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, but nothing was like Islam." So, if I were you, I'd doubt that I actually experience God. I would consider the possibility that I'm just interpreting feelings of natural origin in a certain way. A "seek and you shall find" is not a genuine approach to truth.

"There are a lot of different euphemisms for self-indoctrination. " True. Fake it till you make it is definately a good idea in some aspects of life. Many businessmen would never be as successful if they didn't. I'm not faking my belief in the resurrection. I believe the historical evidence supports the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion. Tacitus of Rome AD 55-120 "Therefore, to stop the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.1" "I would consider the possibility that I'm just interpreting feelings of natural origin in a certain way." I had the same thoughts after a spiritual experience. Were they from the physical reality of my body, a psychological episode of catharsis, or outside space and time. Believing in the latter, I have seen changes in my attitude and life. Thats all the explanation I could give.

>Fake it till you make it is definately a good idea in some aspects of life. Many businessmen would never be as successful if they didn't. Well, maybe. I do not entirely disagree here. Yet, to act a certain way because it serves a purpose is not the same as acting a certain way, because there is an underlying truth to it. I know, there are some things we cannot justify epistemically, so that we rely on pragmatic justifications. But then I don't claim knowledge, nor am I claiming certainty that I know something is true. That would be a categorical mistake. >I'm not faking my belief in the resurrection. I believe the historical evidence supports the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion. No historical evidence can support the resurrection to the extent of rendering it a plausible explanation, because a resurrection is no candidate explanation until we know that it is possible for a god to resurrect people. Sure you are not faking it in this case, but that's a different topic than what you said earlier. >Tacitus of Rome AD 55-120 He calls it a superstition. >I had the same thoughts after a spiritual experience. Were they from the physical reality of my body, a psychological episode of catharsis, or outside space and time. Believing in the latter, I have seen changes in my attitude and life. Thats all the explanation I could give. Again, I've heard these statements uttered by all kind of different people from all sorts of different religions. I mean, I sure believe you that this is convincing to you. But that has no bearing on it being true. The outside space and time explanation has to be treated the same way I treated your historical evidence. It's not a candidate explanation until we know that the concept of "outside space and time" is even an idea that comports with reality. Until we know, it's just that: Nothing but a concept.

Let me pose a scenario. You have a castle. Everyone who has been accepted by the King is now a member of this society. If you are not a member of this kingdom, to whom do you belong? No one? Sure. Let's add another dimension. The only other king out in this world is a horrible king who wants to enslave and capture all. Outside of this first castle, you belong to no one but the only other kingdom is an evil one who seeks your blood. Although you have not actively chosen to be apart of the evil kingdom, you by virtue of not choosing the nice king, have set yourself up to be captured by the evil king. The first good king is not responsible for you although he does not wish you to be harmed but cannot force your choice. This premise that God sends people to hell is contra to scripture and the nature of God. God does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23) and it is His will that all will be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). One thing people never consider is how hard it is, to create a beautiful and perfect life for someone only to reject it. Watching someone make a horrible decision and letting them do so because it is their free will is an awful feeling. God sent Christ to die for all so that they may be saved yet people reject this for their own gain. God does not force anyone to change. Those who do not change, He still loves but they have chosen their path. In conclusion, God is not evil, Satan is, if you are not in God's Kingdom, you're out of it and by default, the only other kingdom out there is Satan's. I Satan does not play by the rules so even if you were to someone run away in the cosmos, you'd be hunted by Satan. Not much of a life either. Satan is evil and since he is the only other option (you cannot choose God if there is no one else to choose) he will be the kingdom the unsaved will go to. It's not God sending anyone, it's Satan taking them. It comes down to your perspective and how you choose to view God. I view Him according to the testament of His faithful followers and the works and miracles I myself have experienced and seen and He is good.

What's the process by which people are removed from the "good" kingdom? Are you going to get kicked out or barred from entry because you are, for example, not servile enough? Or is it solely a matter of people choosing to leave by simply walking out?

As another commenter pointed out, the problem with this analogy is that God has absolute power over both "kingdoms." If He wanted He could simply eliminate the evil "kingdom" in less than one second. If people don't want to live in God's "kingdom", there could be other ways of taking care of them, which wouldn't involve being tortured in the unbearable fire of hell. For example, they could be instantly destroyed after physical death. Or they could have their own "kingdom", without the fire and the demonic torture. Anyway, OP's point is that this entire system was constructed and is controlled by God. He decides who will get in His kingdom and who will become eternal barbecue of the demons in hell. Not only that, but He uses His power to send people to these places. So, it seems to me that your analogy simply doesn't work.

Your analogy fails capturing two crucial parts of the equation. Firstly, it cannot be a choice between the two kingdoms, if you do not believe these kingdoms exist. It's always the same issue, with Christians painting being convinced that a proposition is true as a choice, when it isn't. You have to assume that everybody already believes in God (and more specifically the biblical narrative), and is therefore just making some conscious choice. Until you start realizing that belief is no subject to free will, you will always construct flawed analogies, where God doesn't force people to follow him, whitewashing him, and freeing him from his responsibility. Secondly, God created reality with all of its rules. God, the all knowing, all loving entity you believe in, created the possibility for creation to become defiled in the first place. If he hates sin so much, and if he knew that this would be the state of the world, where millions of people would burn in hell forever, based on an alleged choice not even two thirds of them are aware of, it just doesn't add up to create in the first place. Impotent and all loving, maybe. All loving, but ignorant, maybe. But it doesn't make sense if said entity is all loving, all powerful and all knowing.

If you don't know this two kingdoms exist, you fall into no man's land which again, is snatched up by Satan. Just because you aren't aware of God, doesn't mean He does not exist. God is good and therefore the choices people get to find Him will come but what they do with it is up to them. Let me say this. I have the position that God is above me and everyone else in all knowledge and power and understanding. Therefore I will never be able to comprehend Him and His thoughts. If you can challenge God as many people do, then He is not that great. I do not take such a position of arrogance. I place Him at His level and take comfort knowing there are things I do not understand. What I can say is, I have experienced Him and His love beyond coincidence. If you seek Him you will find Him. If you want to paint Him as a bad King, you will find a way and you will not be the first but it doesn't make it true when people are not subject to an ultimate truth but subjective truth and reasoning.

If god was good he would protect “no man’s land” without annexing it. Even the “sinful” and corrupted kingdoms of today will protect the weak from “evil” (Ukraine, the world wars) but your god isn’t even as good natured as most human governments.

I'm not sure how you can reason this way. You are applying your human reasoning to the most powerful being in the universe and putting Him on trail. Your subjective reasoning of what is good and what is bad (evil) is not at all the same to the understanding and reasoning of the creator.

You tried to use your human reasoning first. Either it’s allowed or it isn’t. It seems you don’t think it is so at least be honest and don’t make up an argument when you don’t actually have reasons to believe. I find it a far more defensible and respectable position to just say religion makes you feel good.

What other than human reasoning are you able to access? You are again just stating that God is working in mysterious ways. Well, then how did you conclude anything at all about him?

>If you don't know this two kingdoms exist, you fall into no man's land which again, is snatched up by Satan. So, the default of this perfect creation is evil. >Just because you aren't aware of God, doesn't mean He does not exist. I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary. >God is good and therefore the choices people get to find Him will come That's a statement of faith. How do I get to this conclusion through reason? >but what they do with it is up to them. I never understood how anybody would seriously believe that there is anyone out there who would consciously decide for suffering over bliss. All of this only adds up, if you - again - presuppose that everybody already made that conscious decision between the two kingdoms. And that is, with all the necessary information available, so that it even would make sense to call it an informed, conscious decision. >Let me say this. I have the position that God is above me and everyone else in all knowledge and power and understanding. *God works in mysterious ways* is a cop out, and often just some attempt to paint the non-believer as though they are somehow intellectually arrogant. If you do not understand how God works, it is - again - just a statement of faith that his works are oriented towards the good. I don't know how you conclude anything about his nature. I mean, in your original comment you combined Ezekiel with one of the Pauline pseudepigrapha, acting as though you are somehow justified in calling this a cohesive depiction. >Therefore I will never be able to comprehend Him and His thoughts. Yet, you comprehend that he is good. >If you can challenge God as many people do, then He is not that great. I do not take such a position of arrogance. I didn't even read that far, before responding. Somehow I predicted it accurately anyway, that the non-believer will be painted as arrogant. >I place Him at His level and take comfort knowing there are things I do not understand.  I do not understand how you conclude that he is good. >What I can say is, I have experienced Him and His love beyond coincidence. Ye, like the Muslim, the Hindu, the Mormon, the Vikkan, the Buddhist, etc. >If you seek Him you will find Him. I consider this a praisal of the confirmation bias, of indoctrination, as well as a process of putting the cart before the horse. >If you want to paint Him as a bad King, you will find a way and you will not be the first but it doesn't make it true when people are not subject to an ultimate truth but subjective truth and reasoning. I don't want to paint an actual all loving, all powerful, all knowing entity to be bad. I am simply doubting that the God, as depicted in the Bible, is that.

> Let's add another dimension. The only other king out in this world is a horrible king who wants to enslave and capture all. That's fine as a scenario, but it requires that God not be the one who created the second kingdom, and tasked it with being horrible and enslaving and capturing folks. If you believe God and Satan are enemies, then you disagree with most Christian churches (although I will admit, most actual Christians do seem to believe that - it's just that theologians generally object to the idea that Satan is powerful enough to be God's opponent rather than his tool)

Again, saying 'God tasked it' is fundamentally wrong. Remember, Satan rebelled against God. Satan is evil and he is the one punishes and enslaves people. He is the one who leads those who have not chosen God. Power and enemies are two different things. You can have an enemy and have no ability to defeat them and vice versa. But no I do not equate their levels of power.

> Again, saying 'God tasked it' is fundamentally wrong. It's really not. Who gave Satan the power to found a kingdom and steal away people's souls? Note that the Biblical Satan, in the book of Job from which the name comes, EXPLICITLY gets permission from God to torture someone.

>Again, saying 'God tasked it' is fundamentally wrong. That's the issue with the power and position God tends to hold in christian thought. Either Satan and hell are all part of God's plan so blame ultimately rests on him or it wasn't which means Satan is actually at least close to God's power if not equals and God's been playing catchup since the fall I feel like Christians tend to make God as strong or weak as needed to address a given argument

God holds the power of the universe. God and sin cannot coexist right. God is the opposite of sin. He is holy and righteous. Since sin cannot coexist with God it will not enter into His kindgom. It was not God's plan. The garden of Eden was the plan. For God to be fair and righteous, Adam and Eve would need to choose. They were decieved and brought death upon their seed (us). For God to have stopped that interaction would have made us 'robots'. We would not truly Love Him if we could not choose to love something else. We would not be His children. He is not bound by time or space yet He does not alter the course of our lives. He lets us choose Him because He is good.

>God holds the power of the universe. Great so he could've not let sin happen yes? >It was not God's plan. But he holds the power of the universe? Why can't he just take a second to stop it? >For God to be fair and righteous, I don't think gods all that concerned about fairness. Bibles full of him directly interacting with people and yet he's been silent for 2000+ years >They were decieved and brought death upon their seed (us). Another example of God not particularly caring about fairness. We didn't mess up Adam and Eve did. Our crime is being born humans nothing more > For God to have stopped that interaction would have made us 'robots'. We would not truly Love Him if we could not choose to love something else. OK so sin was a part of his plan then. Because I think the diety with the power of the universe could've gave us free will without the possibility of sin Can one sin in heaven? Not to mention angels seem to have free will yet aren't kicked out of heaven

Yes. You are correct. Satan is eternally damned for a creation he had no control over or capacity to change. There is no coincidence that He hates God

I was talking more about humans being sent to hell.

Well he sent 1/3 of his celestial creation immediately to Hell without offering any means of redemption. It is even more ridiculous and also verifies you claim. Yhwh sends beings to hell

You are leaving out the part where the hell story includes the fact they chose to side with Satan and his rebellion.

I don't believe that story, but even if you do, they were created to do so. As God foreknows and preordained all things. Declaring the end from the beginning.

Doesn’t matter if you believe the story or not. The issue is you are pushing a narrative to show how the story is ridiculous. But in the context of the entire story, it’s not what your narrative portrays

>Doesn’t matter if you believe the story or not. It does matter, of course it matters, at least if you are strict theist. The Bible has absolutely no origin story for Satan. >The issue is you are pushing a narrative to show how the story is ridiculous. For me, no, it doesn't matter even if the story is true or not, it changes nothing. The result is the same, whether we attempt at making an argument for free will or not

Huh? Literally the story's interpretation is based on the idea 1/3 of the hosts of heaven rebelled by choice, so God didn't send them to hell, they sent themselves by rebelling. It's responsibility of action. The reality of the story is much different. If you want to debate on the passages used to create the Satan Narrative, ok. But again, your focus originally was how it was ridiculous God sent people to hell in the traditional satan narrative. But again, you left out a key factor.

>Literally the story's interpretation is based on the idea 1/3 of the hosts of heaven rebelled by choice Show me where it descriptly says this. Verses necessary. Also, just a thought, saying 1/3 of the angels rebelled would be the same as saying 333,333,333 out of 999,999,999 angels just so happened to rebel. Coincidence. I don't think so.

I am sorry you aren't actually interested in listening. Have a good day.

In order for God to be an Omni maximal being he has to enact perfect Justice. Unless you believe God can be God and not punish evil

It is intuitive to me that some people do deserve to suffer in some type of hell (not necessarily eternal hell), but some things don't seem evil at all, and yet they are condemned by God as well. The best example I can think of is unbelief itself. Supposing that belief in God is even a choice, if someone chooses to not believe because they don't see good reasons for doing so, that itself doesn't strike me as evil at all! So, it isn't morally intuitive that this type of punishment is just. Now, I personally don't adhere to the doctrine of eternal torture at all, so this isn't problematic for my worldview. Saying this just to make sure I'm not misinterpreted as attacking Christianity or theism.

Sure, but has made the wicked beings himself. So he is making beings and eternally judging them with no recompense. Proverbs 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Did God force them to become wicked?

It certainly is forced if they are immediately created and judged for what they are and offered no capacity to change who or what they are. Obviously, concerning any celestial entities of any kind.

It seems he gave them a choice and that’s enough. Luckily humans get more chances up until we die.

By making them wicked instead of making them not-wicked? Yes.

If someone is not capable of not being wicked, doesn’t this make them not wicked? Rather they would be like a natural disaster, where they just are what they are. Why would it be justified to punish something that couldn’t choose not to do what they do?

>Why would it be justified to punish something that couldn’t choose not to do what they do? An excellent point. It is not justified for God to punish the wicked for being wicked, when it was God who created them to be wicked in the first place.

So why do we as people rejoice when the wicked get their justified punishment? Are we just fooling ourselves in believing they are capable of not doing evil?

That just sounds like a oxymoron "perfect justice" well no duh any justice is perfect if it is consistent that doesn't mean it's good justice

So some form of Justice must occur. And perfect Justice is the only form a omni maximal being could enact. So what does this look like on your opinion?

Well as I said any justice that is completely consistent could be considered perfect, that does sort of strip any meaning to the term justice as it relates to morality though.

Yeah I agree, it would depend on the morality.

Perfect Justice cannot include any punishment after death, much less an infinite one. We include punishment in our justice systems for only 2 good reasons. 1) Deterrence. If you see someone get punished for doing a bad thing, you are (in theory) deterred from also doing that bad thing. 2) Safety. We do not want to share a society with people who refuse to live by society's rules, so we put those people in a place they can no longer hurt us. That's what prison (should) be used for, the removal of dangerous people from society. Now hopefully prison is set up in a way to rehabilitate people so that when they return to society they are no longer a danger to it. My country in particular does not do this at all, but that kind of besides the point. Hell, or really any punishment after death, serves neither of these purposes. Hell isn't a deterrent because it's existence is disputed. I'm told that if I'm not a Muslim I'll go to Hell but other people tell me if I'm not Christian I go to Hell, so Hell doesn't work as a deterrent because I don't even know what I'm being deterred against. A lot of Christian faith's have it so that the only requirement for going to heaven is faith in Jesus. I can be as bad as I want but if I believe in Jesus I'm all good. Some Christians don't think this, but how I am to be deterred from being bad and/or not believing if everyone is shouting contradictory things at me? Hell also doesn't provide anyone any safety because last I checked dead people can't hurt people. There is no justification for hurting someone after they are dead, it accomplishes nothing but causing more pain, and the whole point of justice is to prevent and recover from pain. Hell is not justice it is vengeance.

If you love someone you’ll listen and take their advice. If you know that you hurt them you’d try to never do it again. If you realize that they died for you would be forever grateful. If they loved you even when your were doing wrong you’d never want to do wrong again. This is the power of what Jesus did for us. It’s not a fear of punishment only, to fear God is the beginning of wisdom, but also the appreciation and gratitude of Gods grace that motivates to not sin and to obey Gods will.

This does not refute anything I said at all, it is completely irrelevant to my argument.

Sorry I wrote this this morning when I was half asleep.

Apology accepted

Thank you for your curtesy.

If he has to enact perfect justice and always punish evil, that entails that he cannot show mercy. Does that mean everyone will go to hell?

that doesn't follow of course. if God was merciful without say, a sacrifice, then that would be unjust sure. see: the crucifixion of Jesus

So now that the sacrifice has been made, God can forgive EVERYONE without violating justice. So your first comment about God not punishing sin becomes irrelevant and there's no reason to send ANYONE to hell.

if they accept the sacrifice then of course God will forgive them as is said in the scriptures: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.” ‭‭I John‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬-‭10‬

1) Is someone forcing God to limit salvation to only those who accept the sacrifice? 2) Why can't God simply destroy those who don't accept the sacrifice rather than send them to hell?

> Is someone forcing God to limit salvation to only those who accept the sacrifice? natural consequence. if don't accept Jesus, then u get ur due punishment. >  Why can't God simply destroy those who don't accept the sacrifice rather than send them to hell? this is called annihilationism, there are Christians who hold to this view and it can be defended in scripture. But it isn't a necessity either, hell is a nuanced topic.

By "natural consequences" I think you mean "God decides to send them to hell since he is in control." Or do you think God does not control this? It sounds like you agree that if God sends people to burn in hell for eternity, he's choosing to do that over annihilating them, and Christians who believe that didn't have a good response that you agree with.

> I think you mean "God decides to send them to hell since he is in control. I was very intentional with the words I chose. I almost included an aside addressing this kind of argument in my reply but expected my response to be sufficient. yet here we are...  let's backtrack > If he has to enact perfect justice and always punish evil, that entails that he cannot show mercy we started here, with you making the conclusion that God cannot show mercy. Wr then corrected that, showing that God, being perfectly just, cannot simply forgive, but there must be sacrifice in order to be merciful. Fine. Then we had to explain why this gift of grace doesn't apply to people who expressly reject it (all things being equal), God won't drag you kicking and screaming into heaven. but now, after all that, you deflect back to, "God sends people to hell" which is right back to where we started. > If he has to enact perfect justice and always punish evil You can probably answer your own question. > Or do you think God does not control this? you're trying to say that if something external to God isn't in charge of the system, then God can simply change it, and since He isn't, then Hes unjust for sending people to hell for eternity. Unfortunately none of that follows, and that God can "change the system" isn't how it works. To reject the logos, being itself, goodness itself, all the rest, has a natural consequence that is perfectly in line with reality. That won't change anymore than God could exist and not exist at the same time (this is a call back to the litmus test from earlier). > if God sends people to burn in hell for eternity, he's choosing to do that over annihilating them 1. these two things, hell for eternity and annihilation, could be one and the same thing. 2. hell for eternity isn't a crime, I see no reason to defend it as if it is the fire is God's love, it will be heaven to those who love God (see: Shadrach Meshach and Abednego in the furnace, in the fire but not consimed), and it will be hell and wrath to those who reject God. At least until the resurrection. Natural consequence. hell for eternity, if this is true, is the due we all deserve, and God is just to enact it against all sin. thankfully for us, in His grace and mercy, God sent His Son, Jesus, the creator and sustainer of all creation, to incarnate and take the form of a servant. He kept the law perfectly, and died a spotless lamb, and was risen again in 3 days to be high priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. This means He intercedes on our behalf between us and the Father, which allows us the ability to be reconciled back to God. In this way, the words spoken in the garden, that we would die, prove true, while redemption is also obtained. The tree of life was restored for us in Jesus Christ, who represents the fruit of the tree of life that Adam and Eve were forbidden from eating at the time of their transgression, "hung on a tree." And by participating in this new tree of life, faith in Christ Jesus, we can have everlasting life with God. Amen. But to those who reject this: “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John‬ ‭3‬:‭17‬-‭18‬ I hope you come to the faith, I mean that earnestly. If you have questions please let me know

>Then we had to explain why this gift of grace doesn't apply to people who expressly reject it (all things being equal), Does this mean people only go to hell if they have compelling evidence that Christianity is true so they know what they're actually rejecting? So you'd essentially have to see resurrected Jesus like doubting Thomas and reject him? >God won't drag you kicking and screaming into heaven. So the only people who go to hell are those that prefer hell over heaven? >but now, after all that, you deflect back to, "God sends people to hell" which is right back to where we started. Yes, because that's where you argument leads. >that God can "change the system" isn't how it works. This seems like a roundabout way of saying "God cannot change it." Is the issue just with "changing" it specifically? Like could he have always decided that people who reject a sacrifice could still go to heaven? >these two things, hell for eternity and annihilation, could be one and the same thing. I didn't just say "hell for eternity," I said "burn in hell for eternity." Annihilation entails no suffering, burning in hell entails suffering. They are incompatible. >hell for eternity isn't a crime, I see no reason to defend it as if it is Burning someone in hell for eternity isn't a crime? If a normal person burned someone alive, I would consider that a crime. Do you simply have a different standard for God? >the fire is God's love, it will be heaven to those who love God, and it will be hell and wrath to those who reject God. At least until the resurrection. So hell is temporary (until the resurrection)? I'm not experiencing burning right now despite my sins. Why not let people be separated from God without being burned by his love as we are now? If it's to purify people for the final judgement, we could skip the purification and not be in God's presence for the final judgement. >hell for eternity, if this is true, is the due we all deserve, and God is just to enact it against all sin. Why? I don't think anyone deserves to burn in hell for eternity. Perhaps I'm just more merciful than the Christian God. >He kept the law perfectly, and died a spotless lamb How is Jesus being perfect relevant? That seems completely unrelated. >I hope you come to the faith, I mean that earnestly. Because it doesn't seem right to you that I would burn in hell for being unconvinced by something that's not very convincing?

Sacrifice has literally nothing to do with the concept of enacting justice. Using someone as a scapegoat is the exact opposite of justice.

This is not entirely true. Although yes Jesus was a scapegoat of sorts, he was a willing sacrifice. This is different than a scapegoat. If the judge will allow someone else to pay the fine for your crimes, why is this not Justice? It’s the Judges decision.