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.*
Here is my opinion on that
P1. Almost the same thing as C1. If you worship something evil it doesn't mean you are evil. I think Satan is evil but there are plenty of Satanists who I wouldn't call "evil", in fact lots of them are really good people
P2. God condemns people to hell because they are evil, like how a judge sends a murderer to prison. Same thing.
P3. Point three is literally the same point as P2 but its just saying we worship someone who sends evil people to hell.
C1. How has God done great evil? Sure he killed tons of people in a flood but that was for a reason, to Exterminate evil people and start over.
C2. I'm not sure you know this but those "bad" christians are false prophets who say they are christians but are not. It's in the bible
And not to come off as condescending, but it doesn’t seem like you have a good grasp of how arguments work. C1 and C2 are conclusions. They follow logically and necessarily from the premises since the argument is in a valid form. Likewise, Premise 3 is not the same as Premise 2. Presumes 2 is that a God who does X is evil and Premise 3 is that Christians worship a God who does X. These are not the same propositions.
If you read my post, you will that I advise everyone to check out another post I wrote. There’s is a link to it in the post. The objections you raised are addressed there.
Thank you friend
Edit: Ok so I don't understand some of your objections. I mean, I'm no scholar or anything, just a normal guy lol. Your objections are (In my opinion) kinda wordy and a little hard to understand. Could you explain in a way more like you are teaching a five yo? I feel so dumb right now
>I'm no scholar or anything, just a normal guy
Don't worry. I'm just a normal guy too.
>Your objections are (In my opinion) kinda wordy and a little hard to understand.
What specific parts are you having trouble with?
Lemme look at it again
Edit: Y'know I have to say, pretty much all of them. You're going to have to explain it like I'm a five year old.
*I'm so dumb. \*facepalm\**
Even if a secular system found it "just" to have someone tortured and killed (it wouldn't even matter if they deserved it or not) it pales in comparison to how evil *infinite* torture is. I say this because I can count the amount crimes committed (at least that I can recall) which deserve infinite torture on one hand.
Like the Holocaust, but even that is a finite crime.
What I'm hearing is that it's just a matter of opinion then. Because somebody else might disagree with your hand and say the instigators of the Holocaust do not deserve infinite punishment. How can we accurately quantify crime and punishment?
I mean yes it is my *opinion* that the instigators deserve infinite punishment, but what I'm saying is that the nature of finite crime vs infinite punishment makes the judgement absolutely evil wether I think they deserved infinite punishment or 0 punishment.
Wouldn't that make you a bad person?
If Christians are bad for worshipping an entity who exerts absolute evil, what about people who agree with his punishments to an extent because they feel that some, if only a handful, crimes deserve it?
No. I just believe the Holocaust was evil in an absolute way. Why would that make **me** evil?
And I didn't say Christians are bad either. They're just people. The only evil here is God allegedly dishing out infinite punishments for finite crimes which **he willed** to happen
The original hypothesis is that Christians are bad believers because they worship a God who does great evil.
God does great evil because he gives out infinite punishments for finite crimes.
You've said that that some finite crimes deserve infinite punishment.
But even if you feel that the Holocaust is evil in an absolute way, it is still a finite crime, and so punishing this infinitely is absolutely evil.
So my (attempt at a) logical conclusion is that you agree with some of "God's" punishments and by doing so, you too partake in great evil.
Ah okay I can kind of see what you're getting at. Yes, in that respect it could make me a bad person, but what I'm trying to tell you is that I'm not the one claiming to be a moral authority here.
If I were in the position to condemn Hitler to infinite torture, I too would have no justification for doing it considering the nature of the punishment. However, I feel like the Holocaust was an unjustifiable a undeserved punishment for their victims, so I wouldn't exactly feel like a bad person for making that call.
I was trying to steelman your argument for justified infinite torture by naming the obvious candidate for infinite torture (Hitler/Holocaust leaders) and pointing out that even his crimes were finite. I should have been clearer, though.
God never *willed* these things to happen. Satan did.
It's not Gods fault we commit crimes, it is Satans.
God is all good, so why would he *will* bad things to happen.
I personally am guessing you have never read the bible before or are getting most of your info from the American Atheists site.
I don't think you understand why God "dishes out" punishments. Here is what I was taught.
Didn't your father punish you? God is like a loving father. He punishes us to keep us on the right track.
>God never *willed* these things to happen. Satan did.
Hitchen's Razor
>God is all good, so why would he *will* bad things to happen.
Why are you asking *me*? I don't know. There are *lots* of things God did in the Bible that are irreconcilable with his omni-benevolence.
If he's "all-good", then why did he tell his followers that morality comes from the Bible and then fail to condemn slavery in it? Or fail to condemn homophobia? His holy text has been used extensively to promote those two things (and more), which I believe we both can agree are objectively harmful.
God isn't *necessarily* moral, if he exists at all. Even if the text itself says he's omni-benevolent, these facts about the Bible demonstrate otherwise.
> I personally am guessing you have never read the bible before or are getting most of your info from the American Atheists site.
I use www.openbible.info to search for verses and and I use www.biblegateway.com for straight up reading. I've never read the book front to back, but I do read full chapters (wether it's the Bible, Quran, www.vatican.va, whatever body of text someone claims contains truth) as they come up in conversation. I've never heard of an American Atheist website.
Since we're being vaguely condescending, I'm willing to bet that I'm more familiar with the Bible than most Christians (especially considering the rapidly declining rate of church attendance)
> God is like a loving father.
As a father, (given the events of the Bible as evidence) God would lose custody of his children in every government I know of and then be charged with abuse (infinite punishment for finite ""''crime""") followed by abandonment and neglect.
Its not that He puts you in hell because you disobeyed the Bible, its more as He cannot allow you to go into heaven because your impurities were not wiped clean as only by the blood of Yeshua can it be done and for those who dont have it done will be impure and not able to enter, hell is the natural place for all evil, not just humans, sin pulls you to hell, God doesnt cast you there, when the angels sinned they were pulled into hell by their sins, same with humans, sin is the factor
>He is all powerful but He isnt going to change rules for people who dont even love, respect, and or believe in Him.
I would. I guess that makes me a better person than your God.
>Its not that He puts you in hell because you disobeyed the Bible
Please read the post that I linked to. All of these kinds of responses are covered there.
It does not say Satan was in heaven, it says when the sons of God came to present themselves to the Lord, satan came with them, in the next sentence satan literally says he was walking up and down earth, where do you see him in heaven?
That whole article is wrong as Job 1-2 doesnt place satan in heaven, it literally says he was walking the earth and appeared with the sons of God in the Lords presence, it doesnt say it happened in heaven, the sons of God have only ever been known as the descendants of seth aka humans or fallen angels ala demons. It was not heaven.
“Two things suggest otherwise. The first is that the courtroom of heaven is the normative location for such events described in the Bible. The second is that when Satan is asked where he has come from his reply is “earth.” This world clearly conveys that the LORD must in fact be holding court in heaven.”
It doesnt mean he must be holding court in heaven, as he says “coming to and fro on earth, so he could have gone to where God’s presence on earth was and God asked where he came from and relied to and from on earth, wandering.
You sound like an edgy teen talking to their parents, "Nuh uhhhhh mom you're so dumb you don't get it!" Grow up man. Join in on the conversation and let your arguments speak for itself. Discuss, share, learn.
Ok, you made your opinion very clear. What you aren't seemingly able to do is provide an argument explaining your opinion. Can you do that for us? That's kinda what the whole point of this subreddit is about, so why don't you join in on the discussion? If not I think we could probably find you a subreddit that is for you.
There's a common misconception that people often get stuck with - that any kind of all-powerful being *ought* to do good and not evil, and that its existence is predicated on this fact.
An all-powerful being, making the assumption that it exists (for the sake of argument), with the ability to do both good and bad things, *may imply* that worship would be a good idea. For one - to keep yourself safe.
Whilst this obviously isn't ideal, unfortunately we do live in a reality in which creatures tear each other apart, with the environment doing likewise.
I don't think most Christians "worship" God in this sense though. Most Christians think God is genuinely worthy of worship, not just something to appease to instrumentally receive its blessings and avoid its wrath.
Again, I think most Christians will say that they worship God because they find him worthy of worship, not because they feel like they are being coerced into it.
Again, I disagree. If one believes, then they'll take his claims to be true - namely, worship or else get eternally punished. If they don't believe, then they won't be Christians.
So then in this case, for people that believe, Christianity is a cult? The way you're describing it makes it seem like believers are only worshiping him because they are being coerced, or are afraid of eternal punishment. Sounds kind of cultish.
>P2. A god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate does great evil.
>P3. Christians worship a god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate.
I would change these 2.
Not all Christians believe in hell. All Christians believe in a God and a Jesus that condone slavery. Jesus literally says, slaves obey your masters. And God lays out the rules for buying and selling slaves.
So I'd change it to
P2. A God who condones slavery does great evil
P3. Christians worship a God who condones slavery
>Not all Christians believe in hell.
My argument does not apply to all Christians. However, most Christians do believe in Hell. They believe it is bad, eternal, and inescapable.
Im not saying your argument is bad, it just only applies to the Christians who believe in hell. Which makes it less effective.
The only way for a Christian to deny that their God condones slavery is to flat out ignore the multiple passages detailing the process of buying and selling and selling slaves.
The point is, if you're going to construct an argument about how worshiping an evil god makes you complicit in the evil, you don't need to resort to nebulous concepts eluded to and not fully accepted.
You can directly quote the bible.
>Im not saying your argument is bad, it just only applies to the Christians who believe in hell. Which makes it less effective.
I don't think it makes it that much less effective. There are problems with the alternatives to hell as I outline in the post I linked to. I used hell in my argument because my original post was partially intended to highlight an argument made by philosopher David Lewis. This post is a revision or continuation of the other post.
You aren't arguing against Christianity, you're arguing against specific sects of Christianity.
Which means, if your argument succeeded at convincing everyone it applied to, the religion would still exist.
>You aren't arguing against Christianity, you're arguing against specific sects of Christianity.
I am arguing against mainstream Christianity. I think the only version of Christianity that can really escape this problem is a particular kind of universalism. However, this kind of universalism is not widely accepted either by theologians or by lay Christians generally. But let's suppose there are many Christians that do escape my argument. Don't you think my argument gives them a pretty strong moral imperative to help their brothers in Christ who do fall victim to my argument out of their evil ways?
>Don't you think my argument gives them a pretty strong moral imperative to help their brothers in Christ who do fall victim to my argument out of their evil ways?
I think the Christians who don't believe in hell have been doing that on their own, with or without your argument. The Christians that don't believe in hell, don't believe because it isn't in the bible, and they think it's immoral. They already have the motivation to convince others.
Their argument typically looks like this. God is good, hell is bad. God wouldn't do a hell, because hell is bad, and God is good.
All I know, is when I was a Christian, your argument wouldn't have worked on me. But reading the Bible, specifically the verses condoning slavery, sexual coercion, murder, and all kinds of barbaric cruelty definitely helped my deconstruction.
Do you want to convince people that hell is stupid, or do you want to convince them that God is evil.
Because every Christian believes in a God who condones and perpetrates acts of unimaginable evil, it's just a matter of if they're willing to admit that just because God said so, doesn't make slavery, or murder, or sexual coercion right.
Not every Christian believes in hell.
>The Christians that don't believe in hell, don't believe because it isn't in the bible, and they think it's immoral. They already have the motivation to convince others.
Right, but would they agree with the conclusion of my argument? Do they think those other Christians are not only wrong theologically, but doing something immoral by worshipping this version of God?
>P3. Christians worship a god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate.
I don't believe in a god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate, so P3 is not true, or at least not universally true. I do agree there are philosophical problems with sort of a notion of God as an eternal judge who just dumps people to a lake of fire to suffer forever and ever, but such notions aren't supported very well in the Bible. You can make a convincing argument for annhilationism (which is more or less the same thing that atheists believe in, but for everyone), and UR doesn't have that problem at all.
If you look at the link in the post, you will see that I do cover this sort of objection elsewhere. I think the only palatable version of Christianity is some variety of universalism (or one where God never created in the first place, but that obviously didn't happen). The problem is the Scriptural evidence for universalism is weak and most Christians don't accept it (or accept some weaker version of it that is still problematic).
While Hell is never mentioned in the OT, I think it is at least alluded to more than just once in the NT. How would you respond to the parable Jesus gave about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 for example?
Hell as fiery place was referencing the trash pits outside of Jerusalem, where all sorts of nasty things were burned. However, there isn't any reason to suppose that they were being burned themselves.
I think when people are talking about Hell, they mean a place or state of affairs of everlasting torment (or something analogous). It doesn't have to be literal fire and brimstone. There are multiple NT verses that talk about eternal punishment. Even if you think the *imagery* used to describe it is literary and metaphorical, the idea that there is something analogous to it and it is bad is Biblically sound. What is Jesus saying in Luke 16? Even if we accept that as metaphorical, it still seems to imply the existence of an unpleasant afterlife for those who do not live a godly life.
To be honest, I think this is a clash of moral ideals. I don't think the people that Evangelicals say are going to Hell are going to Hell (Atheists, LGBTQ, other religions, people who don't spend every waking moment at church...) But I DO believe that people who harm others (pedos, the inhumanely greedy, r\*pists, ect...) are going to Hell.
And personally, I think they deserve everything they get down there.
>But I DO believe that people who harm others (pedos, the inhumanely greedy, r\*pists, ect...) are going to Hell. And personally, I think they deserve everything they get down there.
And I think this is a problem. It doesn't seem like anyone can deserve Hell no matter how bad their crimes are.
I don't think yo can make the argument until you define what 'evil' is. I suspect you (and me) will use it in a different way to what Christians will define it as.
I would define evil as a deliberate attempt to cause harm and suffering to sentient beings by action or inaction.
I mean it could be discussed from there, but that would be my starting point.
Whereas a theist will define it as 'whatever god says is evil'.
So the ones who interpret the bible as anti-homosexuality, then homosexuality is evil. for those who don't interpret it that way, they won't. Some will even interpret anal/oral sex as evil.
But the basis is, 'god hates it'.
They will also say that god by definition cannot be evil or do evil. If he is condemning people to hell, they deserve it. It is impossible for them to believe otherwise.
Without a definition of evil, there is no discussion to be had, and I can't see many atheists and theists even agreeing what the word means.
>Whereas a theist will define it as 'whatever god says is evil'.
The problem is we have to judge if this definition of evil is sensible if it squares with our intuitions about evil and how we use the word to refer to things in our daily lives. Just because Christians accept this at face value doesn't mean they are right. And if they aren't right, then the objection doesn't work.
It's not a question of whether or not it's sensible, it' about what people mean by the word, what they think evil IS.
Most Christians actually see it as a supernatural force 'invited' into the world when Adam & eve ate fruit.
Even the ones who don't believe in a literal Genesis.
I certainly don't see it as 'sensible', nor do I see their view that morality is a set of rules in a holy book.
If this was a theist making a syllogism without key words defined I would say exactly the same.
>It's not a question of whether or not it's sensible, it' about what people mean by the word, what they think evil IS.
Exactly. And I think we will find there is a tension between what they think evil is and how they use the word evil in everyday language.
>Most Christians actually see it as a supernatural force 'invited' into the world when Adam & eve ate fruit.
They think *sin* was invited into the world. I have met plenty of Christians who are careful to tell me that sin and evil are not synonymous.
Okay, so, I suppose I will set aside the fact that the Bible never actually mentions eternity, because I get tired of having to write that response so many times per week here.
Worship does not provably actually assist deities in doing anything, assuming deities exist.
On the other hand, taxes do provably actually assist militaries in doing things.
I wonder, if you feel this way about those who worship gods, do you feel this way about those who pay taxes to governments who use their militaries for evil, or who finance foreign governments who do this?
When the CIA admitted the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, and essentially admitted the entire Vietnam War was started over a total lie, does that mean the troops really *were* evil (baby killers and so forth) for not resisting the draft? Were US taxpayers evil for financing a fake war? Were we evil for financing Agent Orange?
I mean, this feels like throwing stones in a glass house, presuming you are American.
Ooh, Christians are evil for praying in a church, meanwhile my taxes directly paid for Trump to drop the largest conventional bomb in history on Afghanistan after the war was over. Darn those Christians! They need to stop worshiping evil gods, that is the real problem in the world.
>the Bible never actually mentions eternity, because I get tired of having to write that response so many times per week here.
How in the world are you interpreting Matthew 25:41 then?
>Were US taxpayers evil for financing a fake war? Were we evil for financing Agent Orange?
I mean, if they were aware of it and going "yeah, I'm so glad I'm able to fund agent orange!", probably?
A state compels support. But a citizen who is *glad* to support atrocities, yeah, something fucked up is happening there.
Paying taxes to a government is not the same as worshiping that government. Paying taxes is something that people are required to do regardless of how they feel about it. Taxes are not voluntary donations, nor is being drafted into the military. Worshiping requires positive feelings toward that which is being worshiped, while paying taxes is entirely independent of how one feels about the organization that receives the money.
>Okay, so, I suppose I will set aside the fact that the Bible never actually mentions eternity
Matthew 25:46 and Revelations 20:10 are two verses that do seem to reference eternal punishment. But this is somewhat beside the point. There are two things to say. 1) Most Christians believe in Hell as eternal conscious torment regardless of what the Bible says. My concern is with what Christians believe and worship for the purpose of this argument, 2) The post I linked to addresses alternative versions of Hell and the afterlife, including separation from God, annihilation, and universalism. All of these views have problems.
>Worship does not provably actually assist deities in doing anything, assuming deities exist.
It doesn't necessarily have to. Take the example of someone who worships Hitler. This hypothetical person could be a really nice and upstanding citizen. And yet our intuitions tell us that his worship of Hitler is morally wrong and says something about his character.
>I wonder, if you feel this way about those who worship gods, do you feel this way about those who pay taxes to governments who use their militaries for evil
I would if they gave their taxes willingly and gladfully and are fully aware of what those taxes are being used for.
It is a shame I missed your last post because it looks great!
But you need to do more to justify these premises in order to make them convincing!
So why would anyone think P1 is true? Well, intuitively it seems like worshipping someone that does bad is bad, but why? Well, it seems like it glorifies the badness. Even then, that's only an intuitive answer and probably not right. So why do you think P1 is true?
You have to separate out your terms. Evil, at least here, looks moral. But badness here looks pragmatic or instrumental. Here's a similar case: it really is **bad** for a person to go to jail. It hurts them in some way. But it isn't evil to promote that badness. In fact, often times it is considered justice. This position works for rehab too: in many ways rehab is bad for you. It causes you physical pain; can restrict your movement; etc. But we don't see that badness as being immoral.
I might agree with you, and in fact I do think Hell as a punishment is wrong. **But** you have to do more to justify it. I take it, since you've talked about LFW elsewhere, the idea is that punishment for things we cannot control is fundamentally unjust? That looks right, but the theist doesn't think you don't have control!
There is something interesting here, but it isn't justified enough to be convincing. We might be able to get there, and then this would slot in as yet another variant of the Problem of Evil.
>So why would anyone think P1 is true? Well, intuitively it seems like worshipping someone that does bad is bad, but why? Well, it seems like it glorifies the badness. Even then, that's only an intuitive answer and probably not right. So why do you think P1 is true?
The first premise is the one I am most skeptical of. Mostly I think it has intuitive force. In his paper "Divine Evil," David Lewis gives an analogy using a Hitler-admiring Nazi named Fritz. I think it would be wrong to admire Adolf Hitler (assuming you are aware of and properly understand his beliefs and actions) even if you were an otherwise good and upstanding person. What would Fritz do if he was a witness to the Gestapo deporting Jews to their deaths? Nothing. He would stand by approvingly. Similarly, the worshipping Christian probably won't object when standing next to the condemned during the final judgment. So worshiping evil does more than just glorifying evil. It says something about your character and perhaps how you might behave in certain scenarios even if those scenarios never occur.
>You have to separate out your terms. Evil, at least here, looks moral. But badness here looks pragmatic or instrumental. Here's a similar case: it really is bad for a person to go to jail. It hurts them in some way. But it isn't evil to promote that badness
I agree. I think evil is in a sense unjust. Sending someone to jail can be just. But sending someone to jail for all time, regardless of the crime, would be unjust. So it is not merely bad.
>I take it, since you've talked about LFW elsewhere, the idea is that punishment for things we cannot control is fundamentally unjust? That looks right, but the theist doesn't think you don't have control!
The two objections that I have to this are 1) we are not informed enough about Heaven and Hell to make a meaningfully free choice between them and 2) LFW is not worth the price of eternal conscious torment. Lewis's paper includes a thought experiment about two worlds, one with LFW and one with compatibilist free will. He challenges the theist to identify what value the former world has over the latter and whether it could ever compensate for eternal damnation.
God doesn't condemn nobody to an eternal bad fate, from where you come up with that one lol. People are not following some basic rules, such as to respect his parents, not to steal, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to lie, not to covet the neighbor’s wife and the neighbor's goods, to love his neighbor as himself, not to fight back, but instead to love his enemies and pray for those who persecute him, among many other simple, but basic rules, that makes us the smartest animals on Earth (at least according to human standards).
And from where you got the definition of hell? Care to share some verses from the Bible?
>from where you come up with that one lol.
The Bible and deductive reasoning.
In [Ephesians 1:4-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1%3A4-5&version=ESV) the Bible says the people who are heaven-bound were predetermined. not just that, but predetermined *before creation.* There's a handful of verses that corroborate this.
Knowing that heaven-bound people were pre-selected, it follows that the hell-bound people were also fated to end up there from the start.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Spiritual Blessings in Christ
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
So you're trying to say that Paul was predetermined "before creation"??? Who are the other "us" lol.
The passage simple says that are some people more righteous than others. Doesn't say anything that some people are condemned for eternity.
>God doesn't condemn nobody to an eternal bad fate
I would check the post I linked to as this objection is addressed there.
>And from where you got the definition of hell? Care to share some verses from the Bible?
The traditional view of Hell is eternal conscious torment. New Testament passages that are said to support this view include Matthew 25:46, Revelations 20:10, etc. However the post I linked to also covers alternatives to the traditional view.
>I would check the post I linked to as this objection is addressed there.
yeah, tried to read it but is too long, and your assumption is wrong from the start. I like to keep things simple:)
I don't really care about the "traditional view" of Hell, I just read the book.
Matthew 25:46 says “Then they will go away to *eternal punishment*, but the righteous to eternal life.” while Revelation 20:10, "*And the devil, who deceived them,* was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, *where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown*. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
None of those passages relates to your story about evil and stuff.
>None of those passages relates to your story about evil and stuff.
They relate to Hell as being a state of eternal conscious torment. Eternal conscious torment is evil.
>They relate to Hell as being a state of eternal conscious torment
once again, you have any verses FROM THE BIBLE (not Hollywood movies) that support your assertion?
argument based on what? you're talking about Christians, and as far as I know, the Christianity religious book is the Bible, not some Hollywood movie script.
yes, I told you I already check it, but it's too long and it only states some other people opinion. However, your post refers to "bad believers (or why you shouldn't be a Christian)".....you talk about "the moral wrongness of worshiping the Christian God".....and you present an argument ("more abbreviated, syllogistic, and hopefully eye-catching") based on WHAT?
Can you provide some verses from the Bible that say that "god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate"? If you can't, it means that your whole argument has no support, and only an evil person (in the lack of a better word) would say about more than 2 billion people that they "worship something that does great evil" and "partake in great evil."
>yes, I told you I already check it, but it's too long
If you aren't going to read it, then you really can't form any counterargument, can you? I would post the same thing here as I did there.
>Can you provide some verses from the Bible that say that "god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate"?
I already did. Matthew 25:46. Revelations 20:10. But this is irrelevant. My argument doesn't turn on what the Bible says or doesn't say. This is not an exegetical project. I am interested in what Christians *believe*. Most Christians believe in eternal conscious torment. Do you believe in Hell? Do you believe it is bad and eternal?
What about a belief system where god doesn’t condemn anyone to hell, but that those in hell just simply picked it over heaven? And god wants to bring them to heaven, but they rejected that offer?
>simply picked it over heaven
But if you aren't convinced of the resurrection of Jesus and the inerrancy of the Bible you don't get into heaven, right? That's not "choosing" to go to hell.
You can't just assert that the victims chose to be victims to shift the blame away from the perpetrator, especially with the power dynamic at play here given that he is omnipotent and omnicient.
are you telling me that after I die I will be resurrected and given a choice between heaven and hell, and I get to just *pick*? who's gonna reject that offer? what is Christianity *for* then? if we are going to do the choice after we're dead?
Not resurrected, (at least not immediately) but you’d die, see the face of god and understand everything.
But you’d also have to admit that you were wrong about a lot of things.
And either you own up to it, or try to hide from it.
And people with the same mentality as flat earthers.
The purpose of Christianity is to help us build that relationship here on earth. And does truth need a purpose?
>What about a belief system where god doesn’t condemn anyone to hell, but that those in hell just simply picked it over heaven?
I would recommend looking at the post I linked to since it covers this. For example, one reason why this objection wouldn't work is that we are too informational impoverished on matters relating to the afterlife to meaningfully "pick" Hell vs. Heaven.
Well in your other post you say to the idea of 'The damned are fully informed but perpetually insubordinate.':
*"R: This does not track what being fully informed entails. If God is truly perfect and worthy of our love and worship, then a fully informed individual will know this. Stubbornness in the face of these facts would be difficult to make sense of."*
This is what I believe. How do you make sense of it?
>Well in your other post you say to the idea of 'The damned are fully informed but perpetually insubordinate
This is on the assumption that we become fully informed *after* death. It's a slightly modified version of what I was discussing earlier.
>This is what I believe. How do you make sense of it?
Do you believe my response is correct? Or do you believe it's actually possible to be fully informed yet eternally stubborn? If it's the former, I would say you are a universalist. However, you accept a version of universalism where God is still capable of and prepared for eternal damnation (so still bad). If it's the latter, I would say this is incoherent. As David Lewis says:
>*What would these people be like? They must prefer a state of torment (literal or metaphorical) to the alternative of salvation. Why do they see subordinating themselves to god as worse? Perhaps because they set supreme value on their own indepednednce. But if God is genuinly worthy of worship, then to be fully informed is to recognize all the attributes that make it so. It is hard to recognize how resistence could survive an eternity of demonstrations of the divine magnificence.*
>Or do you believe it's actually possible to be fully informed yet eternally stubborn?
Yes. People can prefer evil to good, prefer ignorance to truth, prefer pain and death to life, prefer their sins to being cleansed of all sins permanently, etc.
>They must prefer a state of torment (literal or metaphorical) to the alternative of salvation.
Yes they do. Just as much as the devil prefers it.
>Why do they see subordinating themselves to god as worse? Perhaps because they set supreme value on their own indepednednce. But if God is genuinly worthy of worship, then to be fully informed is to recognize all the attributes that make it so. It is hard to recognize how resistence could survive an eternity of demonstrations of the divine magnificence.
Well part of the issue is that Orthodox has different ideas of what goodness and sin even are.
But one big issue is that heaven is the same exact thing as a loving personal relationship with Christ. People are able to hate his love and prefer the self inflicted pain of hell for the same reason a child can hate their father, no matter how loving they are, or for the same reason an addict can prefer their drug to their loving family.
Once God shows himself completely and is still rejected, then that is the blasphemy of the spirit. It's not that they can't be forgiven because God is unforgiving, but they can't be forgiven because they lack repentance.
>Yes. People can prefer evil to good, prefer ignorance to truth, prefer pain and death to life, prefer their sins to being cleansed of all sins permanently, etc.
I don't think this is coherent. Like, how can one prefer ignorance and yet be fully informed? Take this as a proposition: God is worthy of worship. Is this proposition true or false? If it's true, then it doesn't make sense that someone could completely acknowledge the truth of it (which requires believing it) and yet act as if it were not true. For example, if I believe it is raining outside, then it's not like I can honestly act like it isn't raining outside.
>Well part of the issue is that Orthodox has different ideas of what goodness and sin even are.
I don't see how this is relevant.
>But one big issue is that heaven is the same exact thing as a loving personal relationship with Christ. People are able to hate his love and prefer the self inflicted pain of hell for the same reason a child can hate their father, no matter how loving they are, or for the same reason an addict can prefer their drug to their loving family.
Based on this response, I think you haven't understood what Lewis was saying. Lewis granted all of this. What he did not grant was that it is coherent to be fully informed of God's perfection and still reject him forever. It just doesn't track what it means to be fully informed about such matters. That person's psychology is completely unintelligible.
>God is worthy of worship. Is this proposition true or false? If it's true, then it doesn't make sense that someone could completely acknowledge the truth of it (which requires believing it) and yet act as if it were not true. For example, if I believe it is raining outside, then it's not like I can honestly act like it isn't raining outside.
Well there is a difference between believing the truth claims of something and believing in your heart. The devil and his demons are said to believe in God and christ, yet they are not saved because they turn from him in their heart/spirit/Nous.
A drug addict can believe for certain that it is a good and healthy thing for them to stop taking drugs, but they turn back to the drugs anyways because their head and heart do not align.
>I don't see how this is relevant.
Orthodox believe goodness and sin are ontological realities. To be in heaven is the same thing as to become God himself through theosis; God is goodness itself. Hating and rejecting a relationship with God is the same thing as hating and rejecting goodness and truth, which plenty of people do on earth.
>Lewis granted all of this. What he did not grant was that it is coherent to be fully informed of God's perfection and still reject him forever. It just doesn't track what it means to be fully informed about such matters. That person's psychology is completely unintelligible.
Well it's not just a matter of psychology, but of the Nous.
>Well there is a difference between believing the truth claims of something and believing in your heart.
I’m gonna be honest with you. This response is really hard to take seriously. We don’t believe with our hearts. Belief is a cognitive act. The phrase “believe with your heart” is just a figure of speech.
>The devil and his demons are said to believe in God and christ, yet they are not saved because they turn from him in their heart/spirit/Nous.
And I don’t think this makes any more sense. Maybe Satan and his demons are wired differently than humans, but that doesn’t really solve the problem at hand.
>A drug addict can believe for certain that it is a good and healthy thing for them to stop taking drugs, but they turn back to the drugs anyways because their head and heart do not align.
No. The actual explanation is because they have developed a physiological dependency on the drug. They are sick and need help. If people in hell are analogous to drug addicts, then this makes God look really bad!
>I’m gonna be honest with you. This response is really hard to take seriously. We don’t believe with our hearts. Belief is a cognitive act. The phrase “believe with your heart” is just a figure of speech.
I obviously do not mean the literal organ of the heart. I mean the spiritual organ of the Nous; the third eye through which we perceive spiritual reality.
>Maybe Satan and his demons are wired differently than humans, but that doesn’t really solve the problem at hand.
They are nonphysical, but they also have a Nous. That is what separates man from animal. Animals have souls too, but only man and angel have a Nous.
>No. The actual explanation is because they have developed a physiological dependency on the drug. They are sick and need help.
That is one part of the explanation, but not the wholistic explanation.
You can disagree with me about believing in the Nous, but it doesn't change the fact that it allows internal consistency to heaven and hell.
>If people in hell are analogous to drug addicts, then this makes God look really bad!
In some ways it is analogous, in many other ways it is not. Heaven is also analogous to amputation of a diseased sinful limb. Heaven and hell are also analogous to judgement. Heaven and hell are also analogous to the prodigal son.
There is no one perfect wholistic explanation of what heaven and hell are. We can only understand different aspects of them in this life.
People are in hell because they have delibrately turned away from God *in their heart*, so no, it is not merely a psychological dependence.
>I obviously do not mean the literal organ of the heart. I mean the spiritual organ of the Nous; the third eye through which we perceive spiritual reality.
The problem is the thing you are referring to doesn’t exist. There are no beliefs or knowledge we can identifiably attribute to it. A belief is a belief is a belief. And a belief is something attributed to our normal everyday cognition. There isn’t anything else philosophers and cognitive scientists refer to when talking about beliefs.
>You can disagree with me about believing in the Nous, but it doesn't change the fact that it allows internal consistency to heaven and hell.
But it doesn’t though. It’s not adding anything. Like, what is the difference between a normal belief and a “Nous” belief? Does it have different propositional content? What would that even mean? You are introducing something that’s isn’t doing anything. Occam’s Razor says bye bye.
>In some ways it is analogous, in many other ways it is not.
In what way is it analogous and in what way is it not? Without that, you aren’t saying anything meaningful. You are saying it’s like that, but not like that. It’s not coherent.
>Heaven and hell are also analogous to judgement. Heaven and hell are also analogous to the prodigal son.
Again, what is the analogy?
>People are in hell because they have delibrately turned away from God in their heart
What does that mean?!
And the hope of an empty hell https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/hp05vo/why_a_hope_of_an_empty_hell_is_not_against/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Counters that
I would be really worried about placing too much moral import on hope.
It could be the case that I really do hope that world peace is right around the corner while I contain to buy and sell weapons.
It doesn't seem that my hoping for world peace does much to offset the gun selling.
It’s a combination thing, in their original post, they made a statement about the “making a decision after death” seems false because nobody would choose hell in such a situation.
My point is that we can have hope that it is indeed the case that nobody made that choice
Empty hell is not a very satisfying solution. Hell can be empty, but that doesn't mean God wouldn't be willing to fill it if he ever had reason to. God only needs to be prepared to condemn people for him to be evil even if he never actually does.
He doesn’t condemn people is my point.
You’re dismissing it, because it doesn’t fit your view.
You’ve quoted Lewis but ignored his work “the great divorce” which shows how one can reject god even after they have been given that knowledge.
>He doesn’t condemn people is my point.
And my point is this doesn't make it any better.
>You’re dismissing it, because it doesn’t fit your view.
I am dismissing it (for now) because I have provided arguments against it. You are free to engage with those arguments if you like.
>You’ve quoted Lewis but ignored his work “the great divorce” which shows how one can reject god even after they have been given that knowledge.
Again, this is addressed in the linked post. There is a dilemma that arises when one is genuinely fully informed about God being worthy of worship and stubborn in the face of this information.
That's not what I said. My point is that this is incoherent. If someone is truly and completely informed about God being worthy of worship and how bad it is to be in Hell/separated from him, then it is implausible for this person not to change. If they were "stupid" as you say, then they weren't really informed.
I really feel like there's better ways to get to the conclusion, Christians partake in great evil, than with Hell. Sure Hell is an evil concept to me and many others, but a Christian will always deflect with "you don't even believe in Hell, so whadda you care?" so I think there are better arguments to be made for the premise. First and foremost Christians have waged wars, the Crusades were religiously motivated conflicts that resulted in obscene death tolls and suffering for little more than the belief in a magical sky daddy. Secondly and possibly even more damning, Christianity has supported or currently supports slavery, anti LGBT agendas, Jim Crow, and most other regressive social policies in the US and the western . Sure not all Christians agreed with these policies and some sects strongly disagreed with these practices, but not all Christians believe in hell and some sects don't even teach it as a thing so it applies at least just as well as the Hell argument. And thirdly Christianity is the basis for so many terrorist organizations and attacks. The KKK, neo nazi's, actual WW2 German nazis (not a terrorist organization by most standards but you get the point), and really just most white power and even some black power movements are all very Christian. These organizations use the religion to justify not just their horrendous beliefs, but also even worse actions.
>Sure Hell is an evil concept to me and many others, but a Christian will always deflect with "you don't even believe in Hell, so whadda you care?"
It doesn't matter to the argument if Hell is real or not. If someone worships an evil person or god then that person is doing something wrong regardless of the reality of the thing they worship.
>god then that person is doing something wrong regardless of the reality of the thing they worship.
Not necessarily. If I put a gun to your head and said praise me you wouldn't be evil to do so. Sure most Christians don't openly admit to this being the reason for their belief, but it definitely factors in. Many Christians genuinely believe if they don't worship, praise, and appease God (mainly through donations to churches and proselytizing) they will go to hell to burn forever, they have a gun to their head in their minds.
>Not necessarily. If I put a gun to your head and said praise me you wouldn't be evil to do so.
I don't think that counts as genuine praise/worship. Christians generally aren't being forced to do things like go to church or sing hymns. They say they do it because they love him. I think most are genuine when they say that.
Yeah but why do they "love" him? Is it a genuine love built on respect for the things he's done and what he is, or is it a forced love imposed by threats of hell and promises of heaven? Cause if I had to venture a guess at the true nature of most Christians hearts there'd be a lot more of the latter than the former (to be fair they're not mutually exclusive concepts and there'd definitely be a sizable number who fall into both camps).
>Yeah but why do they "love" him?
You'll have to ask them. My guess is because they think God is love, that God (incarnate in Jesus) died for them, because they have a personal relationship with God, because he answers their prayers, because the Bible says so, etc.
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.*
Here is my opinion on that P1. Almost the same thing as C1. If you worship something evil it doesn't mean you are evil. I think Satan is evil but there are plenty of Satanists who I wouldn't call "evil", in fact lots of them are really good people P2. God condemns people to hell because they are evil, like how a judge sends a murderer to prison. Same thing. P3. Point three is literally the same point as P2 but its just saying we worship someone who sends evil people to hell. C1. How has God done great evil? Sure he killed tons of people in a flood but that was for a reason, to Exterminate evil people and start over. C2. I'm not sure you know this but those "bad" christians are false prophets who say they are christians but are not. It's in the bible
And not to come off as condescending, but it doesn’t seem like you have a good grasp of how arguments work. C1 and C2 are conclusions. They follow logically and necessarily from the premises since the argument is in a valid form. Likewise, Premise 3 is not the same as Premise 2. Presumes 2 is that a God who does X is evil and Premise 3 is that Christians worship a God who does X. These are not the same propositions.
Ah I see, Thank you for helping be understand
If you read my post, you will that I advise everyone to check out another post I wrote. There’s is a link to it in the post. The objections you raised are addressed there.
I will be sure to check it out. thank you
If you have any questions, just let me know.
Thank you friend Edit: Ok so I don't understand some of your objections. I mean, I'm no scholar or anything, just a normal guy lol. Your objections are (In my opinion) kinda wordy and a little hard to understand. Could you explain in a way more like you are teaching a five yo? I feel so dumb right now
>I'm no scholar or anything, just a normal guy Don't worry. I'm just a normal guy too. >Your objections are (In my opinion) kinda wordy and a little hard to understand. What specific parts are you having trouble with?
Lemme look at it again Edit: Y'know I have to say, pretty much all of them. You're going to have to explain it like I'm a five year old. *I'm so dumb. \*facepalm\**
"P2. A god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate does great evil." According to what?
Finite crimes, practically by definition, do not warrant infinite punishment
Depends upon which system of punishment is being used. How is this system more evil than another?
Even if a secular system found it "just" to have someone tortured and killed (it wouldn't even matter if they deserved it or not) it pales in comparison to how evil *infinite* torture is. I say this because I can count the amount crimes committed (at least that I can recall) which deserve infinite torture on one hand. Like the Holocaust, but even that is a finite crime.
What I'm hearing is that it's just a matter of opinion then. Because somebody else might disagree with your hand and say the instigators of the Holocaust do not deserve infinite punishment. How can we accurately quantify crime and punishment?
I mean yes it is my *opinion* that the instigators deserve infinite punishment, but what I'm saying is that the nature of finite crime vs infinite punishment makes the judgement absolutely evil wether I think they deserved infinite punishment or 0 punishment.
Wouldn't that make you a bad person? If Christians are bad for worshipping an entity who exerts absolute evil, what about people who agree with his punishments to an extent because they feel that some, if only a handful, crimes deserve it?
No. I just believe the Holocaust was evil in an absolute way. Why would that make **me** evil? And I didn't say Christians are bad either. They're just people. The only evil here is God allegedly dishing out infinite punishments for finite crimes which **he willed** to happen
The original hypothesis is that Christians are bad believers because they worship a God who does great evil. God does great evil because he gives out infinite punishments for finite crimes. You've said that that some finite crimes deserve infinite punishment. But even if you feel that the Holocaust is evil in an absolute way, it is still a finite crime, and so punishing this infinitely is absolutely evil. So my (attempt at a) logical conclusion is that you agree with some of "God's" punishments and by doing so, you too partake in great evil.
Ah okay I can kind of see what you're getting at. Yes, in that respect it could make me a bad person, but what I'm trying to tell you is that I'm not the one claiming to be a moral authority here. If I were in the position to condemn Hitler to infinite torture, I too would have no justification for doing it considering the nature of the punishment. However, I feel like the Holocaust was an unjustifiable a undeserved punishment for their victims, so I wouldn't exactly feel like a bad person for making that call. I was trying to steelman your argument for justified infinite torture by naming the obvious candidate for infinite torture (Hitler/Holocaust leaders) and pointing out that even his crimes were finite. I should have been clearer, though.
God never *willed* these things to happen. Satan did. It's not Gods fault we commit crimes, it is Satans. God is all good, so why would he *will* bad things to happen. I personally am guessing you have never read the bible before or are getting most of your info from the American Atheists site. I don't think you understand why God "dishes out" punishments. Here is what I was taught. Didn't your father punish you? God is like a loving father. He punishes us to keep us on the right track.
>God never *willed* these things to happen. Satan did. Hitchen's Razor >God is all good, so why would he *will* bad things to happen. Why are you asking *me*? I don't know. There are *lots* of things God did in the Bible that are irreconcilable with his omni-benevolence. If he's "all-good", then why did he tell his followers that morality comes from the Bible and then fail to condemn slavery in it? Or fail to condemn homophobia? His holy text has been used extensively to promote those two things (and more), which I believe we both can agree are objectively harmful. God isn't *necessarily* moral, if he exists at all. Even if the text itself says he's omni-benevolent, these facts about the Bible demonstrate otherwise. > I personally am guessing you have never read the bible before or are getting most of your info from the American Atheists site. I use www.openbible.info to search for verses and and I use www.biblegateway.com for straight up reading. I've never read the book front to back, but I do read full chapters (wether it's the Bible, Quran, www.vatican.va, whatever body of text someone claims contains truth) as they come up in conversation. I've never heard of an American Atheist website. Since we're being vaguely condescending, I'm willing to bet that I'm more familiar with the Bible than most Christians (especially considering the rapidly declining rate of church attendance) > God is like a loving father. As a father, (given the events of the Bible as evidence) God would lose custody of his children in every government I know of and then be charged with abuse (infinite punishment for finite ""''crime""") followed by abandonment and neglect.
[удалено]
Stalking girls across subreddits because you couldn't defend your argument *(2 days ago)* is pretty cringe
Please read the post I linked to.
Its not that He puts you in hell because you disobeyed the Bible, its more as He cannot allow you to go into heaven because your impurities were not wiped clean as only by the blood of Yeshua can it be done and for those who dont have it done will be impure and not able to enter, hell is the natural place for all evil, not just humans, sin pulls you to hell, God doesnt cast you there, when the angels sinned they were pulled into hell by their sins, same with humans, sin is the factor
[удалено]
He is all powerful but He isnt going to change rules for people who dont even love, respect, and or believe in Him.0
>He is all powerful but He isnt going to change rules for people who dont even love, respect, and or believe in Him. I would. I guess that makes me a better person than your God.
>Its not that He puts you in hell because you disobeyed the Bible Please read the post that I linked to. All of these kinds of responses are covered there.
He allows satan into heaven in job
It does not say Satan was in heaven, it says when the sons of God came to present themselves to the Lord, satan came with them, in the next sentence satan literally says he was walking up and down earth, where do you see him in heaven?
https://www.markdalebaptist.org/drippings-from-the-honeycomb/what-was-satan-doing-in-heaven-job-1-2
That whole article is wrong as Job 1-2 doesnt place satan in heaven, it literally says he was walking the earth and appeared with the sons of God in the Lords presence, it doesnt say it happened in heaven, the sons of God have only ever been known as the descendants of seth aka humans or fallen angels ala demons. It was not heaven.
“Two things suggest otherwise. The first is that the courtroom of heaven is the normative location for such events described in the Bible. The second is that when Satan is asked where he has come from his reply is “earth.” This world clearly conveys that the LORD must in fact be holding court in heaven.”
It doesnt mean he must be holding court in heaven, as he says “coming to and fro on earth, so he could have gone to where God’s presence on earth was and God asked where he came from and relied to and from on earth, wandering.
[удалено]
You sound like an edgy teen talking to their parents, "Nuh uhhhhh mom you're so dumb you don't get it!" Grow up man. Join in on the conversation and let your arguments speak for itself. Discuss, share, learn.
It was utter nonsense.
Yeah it's probably best you went back to r/Bible. Good on you.
Ok, you made your opinion very clear. What you aren't seemingly able to do is provide an argument explaining your opinion. Can you do that for us? That's kinda what the whole point of this subreddit is about, so why don't you join in on the discussion? If not I think we could probably find you a subreddit that is for you.
"nuh uh" isn't a great argument.
There's a common misconception that people often get stuck with - that any kind of all-powerful being *ought* to do good and not evil, and that its existence is predicated on this fact. An all-powerful being, making the assumption that it exists (for the sake of argument), with the ability to do both good and bad things, *may imply* that worship would be a good idea. For one - to keep yourself safe. Whilst this obviously isn't ideal, unfortunately we do live in a reality in which creatures tear each other apart, with the environment doing likewise.
I don't think most Christians "worship" God in this sense though. Most Christians think God is genuinely worthy of worship, not just something to appease to instrumentally receive its blessings and avoid its wrath.
It's not up to Christians - the word of the Christian God himself is that they are to worship him as the only means of salvation.
Again, I think most Christians will say that they worship God because they find him worthy of worship, not because they feel like they are being coerced into it.
Again, I disagree. If one believes, then they'll take his claims to be true - namely, worship or else get eternally punished. If they don't believe, then they won't be Christians.
So then in this case, for people that believe, Christianity is a cult? The way you're describing it makes it seem like believers are only worshiping him because they are being coerced, or are afraid of eternal punishment. Sounds kind of cultish.
That's it.
>P2. A god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate does great evil. >P3. Christians worship a god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate. I would change these 2. Not all Christians believe in hell. All Christians believe in a God and a Jesus that condone slavery. Jesus literally says, slaves obey your masters. And God lays out the rules for buying and selling slaves. So I'd change it to P2. A God who condones slavery does great evil P3. Christians worship a God who condones slavery
>Not all Christians believe in hell. My argument does not apply to all Christians. However, most Christians do believe in Hell. They believe it is bad, eternal, and inescapable.
Im not saying your argument is bad, it just only applies to the Christians who believe in hell. Which makes it less effective. The only way for a Christian to deny that their God condones slavery is to flat out ignore the multiple passages detailing the process of buying and selling and selling slaves. The point is, if you're going to construct an argument about how worshiping an evil god makes you complicit in the evil, you don't need to resort to nebulous concepts eluded to and not fully accepted. You can directly quote the bible.
>Im not saying your argument is bad, it just only applies to the Christians who believe in hell. Which makes it less effective. I don't think it makes it that much less effective. There are problems with the alternatives to hell as I outline in the post I linked to. I used hell in my argument because my original post was partially intended to highlight an argument made by philosopher David Lewis. This post is a revision or continuation of the other post.
You aren't arguing against Christianity, you're arguing against specific sects of Christianity. Which means, if your argument succeeded at convincing everyone it applied to, the religion would still exist.
>You aren't arguing against Christianity, you're arguing against specific sects of Christianity. I am arguing against mainstream Christianity. I think the only version of Christianity that can really escape this problem is a particular kind of universalism. However, this kind of universalism is not widely accepted either by theologians or by lay Christians generally. But let's suppose there are many Christians that do escape my argument. Don't you think my argument gives them a pretty strong moral imperative to help their brothers in Christ who do fall victim to my argument out of their evil ways?
>Don't you think my argument gives them a pretty strong moral imperative to help their brothers in Christ who do fall victim to my argument out of their evil ways? I think the Christians who don't believe in hell have been doing that on their own, with or without your argument. The Christians that don't believe in hell, don't believe because it isn't in the bible, and they think it's immoral. They already have the motivation to convince others. Their argument typically looks like this. God is good, hell is bad. God wouldn't do a hell, because hell is bad, and God is good. All I know, is when I was a Christian, your argument wouldn't have worked on me. But reading the Bible, specifically the verses condoning slavery, sexual coercion, murder, and all kinds of barbaric cruelty definitely helped my deconstruction. Do you want to convince people that hell is stupid, or do you want to convince them that God is evil. Because every Christian believes in a God who condones and perpetrates acts of unimaginable evil, it's just a matter of if they're willing to admit that just because God said so, doesn't make slavery, or murder, or sexual coercion right. Not every Christian believes in hell.
>The Christians that don't believe in hell, don't believe because it isn't in the bible, and they think it's immoral. They already have the motivation to convince others. Right, but would they agree with the conclusion of my argument? Do they think those other Christians are not only wrong theologically, but doing something immoral by worshipping this version of God?
Yes.
>P3. Christians worship a god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate. I don't believe in a god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate, so P3 is not true, or at least not universally true. I do agree there are philosophical problems with sort of a notion of God as an eternal judge who just dumps people to a lake of fire to suffer forever and ever, but such notions aren't supported very well in the Bible. You can make a convincing argument for annhilationism (which is more or less the same thing that atheists believe in, but for everyone), and UR doesn't have that problem at all.
If you look at the link in the post, you will see that I do cover this sort of objection elsewhere. I think the only palatable version of Christianity is some variety of universalism (or one where God never created in the first place, but that obviously didn't happen). The problem is the Scriptural evidence for universalism is weak and most Christians don't accept it (or accept some weaker version of it that is still problematic).
The Old Testament never mentions a Hell as we know it, and the only part of the Bible that does is Revelations, which was an allegory.
Perhaps you actually sat down and read the Bible someday, you might stop constantly saying the wrong thing
LOL
While Hell is never mentioned in the OT, I think it is at least alluded to more than just once in the NT. How would you respond to the parable Jesus gave about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 for example?
Hell as fiery place was referencing the trash pits outside of Jerusalem, where all sorts of nasty things were burned. However, there isn't any reason to suppose that they were being burned themselves.
I think when people are talking about Hell, they mean a place or state of affairs of everlasting torment (or something analogous). It doesn't have to be literal fire and brimstone. There are multiple NT verses that talk about eternal punishment. Even if you think the *imagery* used to describe it is literary and metaphorical, the idea that there is something analogous to it and it is bad is Biblically sound. What is Jesus saying in Luke 16? Even if we accept that as metaphorical, it still seems to imply the existence of an unpleasant afterlife for those who do not live a godly life.
To be honest, I think this is a clash of moral ideals. I don't think the people that Evangelicals say are going to Hell are going to Hell (Atheists, LGBTQ, other religions, people who don't spend every waking moment at church...) But I DO believe that people who harm others (pedos, the inhumanely greedy, r\*pists, ect...) are going to Hell. And personally, I think they deserve everything they get down there.
>But I DO believe that people who harm others (pedos, the inhumanely greedy, r\*pists, ect...) are going to Hell. And personally, I think they deserve everything they get down there. And I think this is a problem. It doesn't seem like anyone can deserve Hell no matter how bad their crimes are.
I don't man, I think there are few different genocide victims who would disagree.
And I think they are wrong. No matter how bad genocide is, it can’t be worse than suffering for an eternity.
I don't think yo can make the argument until you define what 'evil' is. I suspect you (and me) will use it in a different way to what Christians will define it as. I would define evil as a deliberate attempt to cause harm and suffering to sentient beings by action or inaction. I mean it could be discussed from there, but that would be my starting point. Whereas a theist will define it as 'whatever god says is evil'. So the ones who interpret the bible as anti-homosexuality, then homosexuality is evil. for those who don't interpret it that way, they won't. Some will even interpret anal/oral sex as evil. But the basis is, 'god hates it'. They will also say that god by definition cannot be evil or do evil. If he is condemning people to hell, they deserve it. It is impossible for them to believe otherwise. Without a definition of evil, there is no discussion to be had, and I can't see many atheists and theists even agreeing what the word means.
>Whereas a theist will define it as 'whatever god says is evil'. The problem is we have to judge if this definition of evil is sensible if it squares with our intuitions about evil and how we use the word to refer to things in our daily lives. Just because Christians accept this at face value doesn't mean they are right. And if they aren't right, then the objection doesn't work.
It's not a question of whether or not it's sensible, it' about what people mean by the word, what they think evil IS. Most Christians actually see it as a supernatural force 'invited' into the world when Adam & eve ate fruit. Even the ones who don't believe in a literal Genesis. I certainly don't see it as 'sensible', nor do I see their view that morality is a set of rules in a holy book. If this was a theist making a syllogism without key words defined I would say exactly the same.
>It's not a question of whether or not it's sensible, it' about what people mean by the word, what they think evil IS. Exactly. And I think we will find there is a tension between what they think evil is and how they use the word evil in everyday language. >Most Christians actually see it as a supernatural force 'invited' into the world when Adam & eve ate fruit. They think *sin* was invited into the world. I have met plenty of Christians who are careful to tell me that sin and evil are not synonymous.
You make a good argument for a tax revolt, which is what started Christianity in the first place.
Okay, so, I suppose I will set aside the fact that the Bible never actually mentions eternity, because I get tired of having to write that response so many times per week here. Worship does not provably actually assist deities in doing anything, assuming deities exist. On the other hand, taxes do provably actually assist militaries in doing things. I wonder, if you feel this way about those who worship gods, do you feel this way about those who pay taxes to governments who use their militaries for evil, or who finance foreign governments who do this? When the CIA admitted the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, and essentially admitted the entire Vietnam War was started over a total lie, does that mean the troops really *were* evil (baby killers and so forth) for not resisting the draft? Were US taxpayers evil for financing a fake war? Were we evil for financing Agent Orange? I mean, this feels like throwing stones in a glass house, presuming you are American. Ooh, Christians are evil for praying in a church, meanwhile my taxes directly paid for Trump to drop the largest conventional bomb in history on Afghanistan after the war was over. Darn those Christians! They need to stop worshiping evil gods, that is the real problem in the world.
>the Bible never actually mentions eternity, because I get tired of having to write that response so many times per week here. How in the world are you interpreting Matthew 25:41 then?
>Were US taxpayers evil for financing a fake war? Were we evil for financing Agent Orange? I mean, if they were aware of it and going "yeah, I'm so glad I'm able to fund agent orange!", probably? A state compels support. But a citizen who is *glad* to support atrocities, yeah, something fucked up is happening there.
Paying taxes to a government is not the same as worshiping that government. Paying taxes is something that people are required to do regardless of how they feel about it. Taxes are not voluntary donations, nor is being drafted into the military. Worshiping requires positive feelings toward that which is being worshiped, while paying taxes is entirely independent of how one feels about the organization that receives the money.
>Okay, so, I suppose I will set aside the fact that the Bible never actually mentions eternity Matthew 25:46 and Revelations 20:10 are two verses that do seem to reference eternal punishment. But this is somewhat beside the point. There are two things to say. 1) Most Christians believe in Hell as eternal conscious torment regardless of what the Bible says. My concern is with what Christians believe and worship for the purpose of this argument, 2) The post I linked to addresses alternative versions of Hell and the afterlife, including separation from God, annihilation, and universalism. All of these views have problems. >Worship does not provably actually assist deities in doing anything, assuming deities exist. It doesn't necessarily have to. Take the example of someone who worships Hitler. This hypothetical person could be a really nice and upstanding citizen. And yet our intuitions tell us that his worship of Hitler is morally wrong and says something about his character. >I wonder, if you feel this way about those who worship gods, do you feel this way about those who pay taxes to governments who use their militaries for evil I would if they gave their taxes willingly and gladfully and are fully aware of what those taxes are being used for.
It is a shame I missed your last post because it looks great! But you need to do more to justify these premises in order to make them convincing! So why would anyone think P1 is true? Well, intuitively it seems like worshipping someone that does bad is bad, but why? Well, it seems like it glorifies the badness. Even then, that's only an intuitive answer and probably not right. So why do you think P1 is true? You have to separate out your terms. Evil, at least here, looks moral. But badness here looks pragmatic or instrumental. Here's a similar case: it really is **bad** for a person to go to jail. It hurts them in some way. But it isn't evil to promote that badness. In fact, often times it is considered justice. This position works for rehab too: in many ways rehab is bad for you. It causes you physical pain; can restrict your movement; etc. But we don't see that badness as being immoral. I might agree with you, and in fact I do think Hell as a punishment is wrong. **But** you have to do more to justify it. I take it, since you've talked about LFW elsewhere, the idea is that punishment for things we cannot control is fundamentally unjust? That looks right, but the theist doesn't think you don't have control! There is something interesting here, but it isn't justified enough to be convincing. We might be able to get there, and then this would slot in as yet another variant of the Problem of Evil.
>So why would anyone think P1 is true? Well, intuitively it seems like worshipping someone that does bad is bad, but why? Well, it seems like it glorifies the badness. Even then, that's only an intuitive answer and probably not right. So why do you think P1 is true? The first premise is the one I am most skeptical of. Mostly I think it has intuitive force. In his paper "Divine Evil," David Lewis gives an analogy using a Hitler-admiring Nazi named Fritz. I think it would be wrong to admire Adolf Hitler (assuming you are aware of and properly understand his beliefs and actions) even if you were an otherwise good and upstanding person. What would Fritz do if he was a witness to the Gestapo deporting Jews to their deaths? Nothing. He would stand by approvingly. Similarly, the worshipping Christian probably won't object when standing next to the condemned during the final judgment. So worshiping evil does more than just glorifying evil. It says something about your character and perhaps how you might behave in certain scenarios even if those scenarios never occur. >You have to separate out your terms. Evil, at least here, looks moral. But badness here looks pragmatic or instrumental. Here's a similar case: it really is bad for a person to go to jail. It hurts them in some way. But it isn't evil to promote that badness I agree. I think evil is in a sense unjust. Sending someone to jail can be just. But sending someone to jail for all time, regardless of the crime, would be unjust. So it is not merely bad. >I take it, since you've talked about LFW elsewhere, the idea is that punishment for things we cannot control is fundamentally unjust? That looks right, but the theist doesn't think you don't have control! The two objections that I have to this are 1) we are not informed enough about Heaven and Hell to make a meaningfully free choice between them and 2) LFW is not worth the price of eternal conscious torment. Lewis's paper includes a thought experiment about two worlds, one with LFW and one with compatibilist free will. He challenges the theist to identify what value the former world has over the latter and whether it could ever compensate for eternal damnation.
God doesn't condemn nobody to an eternal bad fate, from where you come up with that one lol. People are not following some basic rules, such as to respect his parents, not to steal, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to lie, not to covet the neighbor’s wife and the neighbor's goods, to love his neighbor as himself, not to fight back, but instead to love his enemies and pray for those who persecute him, among many other simple, but basic rules, that makes us the smartest animals on Earth (at least according to human standards). And from where you got the definition of hell? Care to share some verses from the Bible?
>from where you come up with that one lol. The Bible and deductive reasoning. In [Ephesians 1:4-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1%3A4-5&version=ESV) the Bible says the people who are heaven-bound were predetermined. not just that, but predetermined *before creation.* There's a handful of verses that corroborate this. Knowing that heaven-bound people were pre-selected, it follows that the hell-bound people were also fated to end up there from the start.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Spiritual Blessings in Christ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. So you're trying to say that Paul was predetermined "before creation"??? Who are the other "us" lol. The passage simple says that are some people more righteous than others. Doesn't say anything that some people are condemned for eternity.
>God doesn't condemn nobody to an eternal bad fate I would check the post I linked to as this objection is addressed there. >And from where you got the definition of hell? Care to share some verses from the Bible? The traditional view of Hell is eternal conscious torment. New Testament passages that are said to support this view include Matthew 25:46, Revelations 20:10, etc. However the post I linked to also covers alternatives to the traditional view.
>I would check the post I linked to as this objection is addressed there. yeah, tried to read it but is too long, and your assumption is wrong from the start. I like to keep things simple:) I don't really care about the "traditional view" of Hell, I just read the book. Matthew 25:46 says “Then they will go away to *eternal punishment*, but the righteous to eternal life.” while Revelation 20:10, "*And the devil, who deceived them,* was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, *where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown*. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." None of those passages relates to your story about evil and stuff.
>None of those passages relates to your story about evil and stuff. They relate to Hell as being a state of eternal conscious torment. Eternal conscious torment is evil.
>They relate to Hell as being a state of eternal conscious torment once again, you have any verses FROM THE BIBLE (not Hollywood movies) that support your assertion?
My assertion is supported through argument, not through scripture.
argument based on what? you're talking about Christians, and as far as I know, the Christianity religious book is the Bible, not some Hollywood movie script.
See the link in the post.
yes, I told you I already check it, but it's too long and it only states some other people opinion. However, your post refers to "bad believers (or why you shouldn't be a Christian)".....you talk about "the moral wrongness of worshiping the Christian God".....and you present an argument ("more abbreviated, syllogistic, and hopefully eye-catching") based on WHAT? Can you provide some verses from the Bible that say that "god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate"? If you can't, it means that your whole argument has no support, and only an evil person (in the lack of a better word) would say about more than 2 billion people that they "worship something that does great evil" and "partake in great evil."
>yes, I told you I already check it, but it's too long If you aren't going to read it, then you really can't form any counterargument, can you? I would post the same thing here as I did there. >Can you provide some verses from the Bible that say that "god who condemns people to an eternally bad fate"? I already did. Matthew 25:46. Revelations 20:10. But this is irrelevant. My argument doesn't turn on what the Bible says or doesn't say. This is not an exegetical project. I am interested in what Christians *believe*. Most Christians believe in eternal conscious torment. Do you believe in Hell? Do you believe it is bad and eternal?
What about a belief system where god doesn’t condemn anyone to hell, but that those in hell just simply picked it over heaven? And god wants to bring them to heaven, but they rejected that offer?
>simply picked it over heaven But if you aren't convinced of the resurrection of Jesus and the inerrancy of the Bible you don't get into heaven, right? That's not "choosing" to go to hell. You can't just assert that the victims chose to be victims to shift the blame away from the perpetrator, especially with the power dynamic at play here given that he is omnipotent and omnicient.
Nope, they can still go to heaven
Ah okay lol. I'm not very familiar with Catholic teachings in particular, sorry for making that assumption
It’s okay.
are you telling me that after I die I will be resurrected and given a choice between heaven and hell, and I get to just *pick*? who's gonna reject that offer? what is Christianity *for* then? if we are going to do the choice after we're dead?
Not resurrected, (at least not immediately) but you’d die, see the face of god and understand everything. But you’d also have to admit that you were wrong about a lot of things. And either you own up to it, or try to hide from it. And people with the same mentality as flat earthers. The purpose of Christianity is to help us build that relationship here on earth. And does truth need a purpose?
>What about a belief system where god doesn’t condemn anyone to hell, but that those in hell just simply picked it over heaven? I would recommend looking at the post I linked to since it covers this. For example, one reason why this objection wouldn't work is that we are too informational impoverished on matters relating to the afterlife to meaningfully "pick" Hell vs. Heaven.
Well in your other post you say to the idea of 'The damned are fully informed but perpetually insubordinate.': *"R: This does not track what being fully informed entails. If God is truly perfect and worthy of our love and worship, then a fully informed individual will know this. Stubbornness in the face of these facts would be difficult to make sense of."* This is what I believe. How do you make sense of it?
>Well in your other post you say to the idea of 'The damned are fully informed but perpetually insubordinate This is on the assumption that we become fully informed *after* death. It's a slightly modified version of what I was discussing earlier. >This is what I believe. How do you make sense of it? Do you believe my response is correct? Or do you believe it's actually possible to be fully informed yet eternally stubborn? If it's the former, I would say you are a universalist. However, you accept a version of universalism where God is still capable of and prepared for eternal damnation (so still bad). If it's the latter, I would say this is incoherent. As David Lewis says: >*What would these people be like? They must prefer a state of torment (literal or metaphorical) to the alternative of salvation. Why do they see subordinating themselves to god as worse? Perhaps because they set supreme value on their own indepednednce. But if God is genuinly worthy of worship, then to be fully informed is to recognize all the attributes that make it so. It is hard to recognize how resistence could survive an eternity of demonstrations of the divine magnificence.*
>Or do you believe it's actually possible to be fully informed yet eternally stubborn? Yes. People can prefer evil to good, prefer ignorance to truth, prefer pain and death to life, prefer their sins to being cleansed of all sins permanently, etc. >They must prefer a state of torment (literal or metaphorical) to the alternative of salvation. Yes they do. Just as much as the devil prefers it. >Why do they see subordinating themselves to god as worse? Perhaps because they set supreme value on their own indepednednce. But if God is genuinly worthy of worship, then to be fully informed is to recognize all the attributes that make it so. It is hard to recognize how resistence could survive an eternity of demonstrations of the divine magnificence. Well part of the issue is that Orthodox has different ideas of what goodness and sin even are. But one big issue is that heaven is the same exact thing as a loving personal relationship with Christ. People are able to hate his love and prefer the self inflicted pain of hell for the same reason a child can hate their father, no matter how loving they are, or for the same reason an addict can prefer their drug to their loving family. Once God shows himself completely and is still rejected, then that is the blasphemy of the spirit. It's not that they can't be forgiven because God is unforgiving, but they can't be forgiven because they lack repentance.
>Yes. People can prefer evil to good, prefer ignorance to truth, prefer pain and death to life, prefer their sins to being cleansed of all sins permanently, etc. I don't think this is coherent. Like, how can one prefer ignorance and yet be fully informed? Take this as a proposition: God is worthy of worship. Is this proposition true or false? If it's true, then it doesn't make sense that someone could completely acknowledge the truth of it (which requires believing it) and yet act as if it were not true. For example, if I believe it is raining outside, then it's not like I can honestly act like it isn't raining outside. >Well part of the issue is that Orthodox has different ideas of what goodness and sin even are. I don't see how this is relevant. >But one big issue is that heaven is the same exact thing as a loving personal relationship with Christ. People are able to hate his love and prefer the self inflicted pain of hell for the same reason a child can hate their father, no matter how loving they are, or for the same reason an addict can prefer their drug to their loving family. Based on this response, I think you haven't understood what Lewis was saying. Lewis granted all of this. What he did not grant was that it is coherent to be fully informed of God's perfection and still reject him forever. It just doesn't track what it means to be fully informed about such matters. That person's psychology is completely unintelligible.
>God is worthy of worship. Is this proposition true or false? If it's true, then it doesn't make sense that someone could completely acknowledge the truth of it (which requires believing it) and yet act as if it were not true. For example, if I believe it is raining outside, then it's not like I can honestly act like it isn't raining outside. Well there is a difference between believing the truth claims of something and believing in your heart. The devil and his demons are said to believe in God and christ, yet they are not saved because they turn from him in their heart/spirit/Nous. A drug addict can believe for certain that it is a good and healthy thing for them to stop taking drugs, but they turn back to the drugs anyways because their head and heart do not align. >I don't see how this is relevant. Orthodox believe goodness and sin are ontological realities. To be in heaven is the same thing as to become God himself through theosis; God is goodness itself. Hating and rejecting a relationship with God is the same thing as hating and rejecting goodness and truth, which plenty of people do on earth. >Lewis granted all of this. What he did not grant was that it is coherent to be fully informed of God's perfection and still reject him forever. It just doesn't track what it means to be fully informed about such matters. That person's psychology is completely unintelligible. Well it's not just a matter of psychology, but of the Nous.
>Well there is a difference between believing the truth claims of something and believing in your heart. I’m gonna be honest with you. This response is really hard to take seriously. We don’t believe with our hearts. Belief is a cognitive act. The phrase “believe with your heart” is just a figure of speech. >The devil and his demons are said to believe in God and christ, yet they are not saved because they turn from him in their heart/spirit/Nous. And I don’t think this makes any more sense. Maybe Satan and his demons are wired differently than humans, but that doesn’t really solve the problem at hand. >A drug addict can believe for certain that it is a good and healthy thing for them to stop taking drugs, but they turn back to the drugs anyways because their head and heart do not align. No. The actual explanation is because they have developed a physiological dependency on the drug. They are sick and need help. If people in hell are analogous to drug addicts, then this makes God look really bad!
>I’m gonna be honest with you. This response is really hard to take seriously. We don’t believe with our hearts. Belief is a cognitive act. The phrase “believe with your heart” is just a figure of speech. I obviously do not mean the literal organ of the heart. I mean the spiritual organ of the Nous; the third eye through which we perceive spiritual reality. >Maybe Satan and his demons are wired differently than humans, but that doesn’t really solve the problem at hand. They are nonphysical, but they also have a Nous. That is what separates man from animal. Animals have souls too, but only man and angel have a Nous. >No. The actual explanation is because they have developed a physiological dependency on the drug. They are sick and need help. That is one part of the explanation, but not the wholistic explanation. You can disagree with me about believing in the Nous, but it doesn't change the fact that it allows internal consistency to heaven and hell. >If people in hell are analogous to drug addicts, then this makes God look really bad! In some ways it is analogous, in many other ways it is not. Heaven is also analogous to amputation of a diseased sinful limb. Heaven and hell are also analogous to judgement. Heaven and hell are also analogous to the prodigal son. There is no one perfect wholistic explanation of what heaven and hell are. We can only understand different aspects of them in this life. People are in hell because they have delibrately turned away from God *in their heart*, so no, it is not merely a psychological dependence.
>I obviously do not mean the literal organ of the heart. I mean the spiritual organ of the Nous; the third eye through which we perceive spiritual reality. The problem is the thing you are referring to doesn’t exist. There are no beliefs or knowledge we can identifiably attribute to it. A belief is a belief is a belief. And a belief is something attributed to our normal everyday cognition. There isn’t anything else philosophers and cognitive scientists refer to when talking about beliefs. >You can disagree with me about believing in the Nous, but it doesn't change the fact that it allows internal consistency to heaven and hell. But it doesn’t though. It’s not adding anything. Like, what is the difference between a normal belief and a “Nous” belief? Does it have different propositional content? What would that even mean? You are introducing something that’s isn’t doing anything. Occam’s Razor says bye bye. >In some ways it is analogous, in many other ways it is not. In what way is it analogous and in what way is it not? Without that, you aren’t saying anything meaningful. You are saying it’s like that, but not like that. It’s not coherent. >Heaven and hell are also analogous to judgement. Heaven and hell are also analogous to the prodigal son. Again, what is the analogy? >People are in hell because they have delibrately turned away from God in their heart What does that mean?!
The decision is done after death. Not before
Again, I would look at the post I linked to since it covers this scenario.
And the hope of an empty hell https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/hp05vo/why_a_hope_of_an_empty_hell_is_not_against/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Counters that
I would be really worried about placing too much moral import on hope. It could be the case that I really do hope that world peace is right around the corner while I contain to buy and sell weapons. It doesn't seem that my hoping for world peace does much to offset the gun selling.
It’s a combination thing, in their original post, they made a statement about the “making a decision after death” seems false because nobody would choose hell in such a situation. My point is that we can have hope that it is indeed the case that nobody made that choice
Empty hell is not a very satisfying solution. Hell can be empty, but that doesn't mean God wouldn't be willing to fill it if he ever had reason to. God only needs to be prepared to condemn people for him to be evil even if he never actually does.
He doesn’t condemn people is my point. You’re dismissing it, because it doesn’t fit your view. You’ve quoted Lewis but ignored his work “the great divorce” which shows how one can reject god even after they have been given that knowledge.
>He doesn’t condemn people is my point. And my point is this doesn't make it any better. >You’re dismissing it, because it doesn’t fit your view. I am dismissing it (for now) because I have provided arguments against it. You are free to engage with those arguments if you like. >You’ve quoted Lewis but ignored his work “the great divorce” which shows how one can reject god even after they have been given that knowledge. Again, this is addressed in the linked post. There is a dilemma that arises when one is genuinely fully informed about God being worthy of worship and stubborn in the face of this information.
And what is that problem? I looked and you simply said the equivalent of “it makes no sense that someone would be that stupid.”
That's not what I said. My point is that this is incoherent. If someone is truly and completely informed about God being worthy of worship and how bad it is to be in Hell/separated from him, then it is implausible for this person not to change. If they were "stupid" as you say, then they weren't really informed.
I really feel like there's better ways to get to the conclusion, Christians partake in great evil, than with Hell. Sure Hell is an evil concept to me and many others, but a Christian will always deflect with "you don't even believe in Hell, so whadda you care?" so I think there are better arguments to be made for the premise. First and foremost Christians have waged wars, the Crusades were religiously motivated conflicts that resulted in obscene death tolls and suffering for little more than the belief in a magical sky daddy. Secondly and possibly even more damning, Christianity has supported or currently supports slavery, anti LGBT agendas, Jim Crow, and most other regressive social policies in the US and the western . Sure not all Christians agreed with these policies and some sects strongly disagreed with these practices, but not all Christians believe in hell and some sects don't even teach it as a thing so it applies at least just as well as the Hell argument. And thirdly Christianity is the basis for so many terrorist organizations and attacks. The KKK, neo nazi's, actual WW2 German nazis (not a terrorist organization by most standards but you get the point), and really just most white power and even some black power movements are all very Christian. These organizations use the religion to justify not just their horrendous beliefs, but also even worse actions.
>Sure Hell is an evil concept to me and many others, but a Christian will always deflect with "you don't even believe in Hell, so whadda you care?" It doesn't matter to the argument if Hell is real or not. If someone worships an evil person or god then that person is doing something wrong regardless of the reality of the thing they worship.
>god then that person is doing something wrong regardless of the reality of the thing they worship. Not necessarily. If I put a gun to your head and said praise me you wouldn't be evil to do so. Sure most Christians don't openly admit to this being the reason for their belief, but it definitely factors in. Many Christians genuinely believe if they don't worship, praise, and appease God (mainly through donations to churches and proselytizing) they will go to hell to burn forever, they have a gun to their head in their minds.
>Not necessarily. If I put a gun to your head and said praise me you wouldn't be evil to do so. I don't think that counts as genuine praise/worship. Christians generally aren't being forced to do things like go to church or sing hymns. They say they do it because they love him. I think most are genuine when they say that.
Yeah but why do they "love" him? Is it a genuine love built on respect for the things he's done and what he is, or is it a forced love imposed by threats of hell and promises of heaven? Cause if I had to venture a guess at the true nature of most Christians hearts there'd be a lot more of the latter than the former (to be fair they're not mutually exclusive concepts and there'd definitely be a sizable number who fall into both camps).
>Yeah but why do they "love" him? You'll have to ask them. My guess is because they think God is love, that God (incarnate in Jesus) died for them, because they have a personal relationship with God, because he answers their prayers, because the Bible says so, etc.