What about Universalism? What about believing in God but not Hell? What if you aren’t a Christian?
What about them? You have something to say?
Christian Universalists believe that everybody goes to Heaven, regardless of your beliefs or actions. (Granted, most Christians aren’t Universalists.)
There are a lot of people who believe in God but not Hell … I am an example of which. My believe in the afterlife is like a combination of futurism and universalism. I believe even atrocious people will exist again, but they will be heavily modified to fit the needs of the future. Even good people will be altered, but not as much.
As far as not being a Christian, this kind of goes along with my second argument - the belief in God but not Hell. The title of this thread is Why God is Inherently Wrong but should be titled Why the Christian God is Inherently Wrong (Except for a Universalist God). In any case, there’s probably just as many people who believe in God and think non-believers are going to Hell as much so as the ones that don’t believe in Hell. And that reminds me…
What if you believe in God, believe in Hell, but believe that only bad people go to it, completely disregarding faith? There’s plenty of moderate Christians who believe in such a notion.
In any case, this argument completely falls apart once you realize how narrow a viewpoint it (and the people who believe in this) really is.
I don’t think you understand the argument then. This has all been hashed out throughout this thread. We’ve come to a general consensus that either God is not all-loving or just or hell is not eternal. The point of the argument, once you actually pick apart the OP, is that God’s omnibenevolence and the eternity of hell are not logically compatible (the “inherently” part of the title was a hint at that). There’s a lot of logical inconsistencies that people like to dig up about formal Christian doctrine. I thought I stumbled across another, one that I don’t recall anyone pointing out before. I thought it was a neat argument… so I posted it.
Gibgib,
Can “only” stand in for “all”? Also, is this speculating about “individually just” aspects from that of an eternal being doled out to individuals based on their relationship with him, other beings, and the natural world wherein we experience human form?
Wendy, darling, [size=50](<-- wanted to say that since you changed your name)[/size]
“Only” could stand in for “all”; “all” is supposed to be the archaic version of “omni” ← so whatever that means. “Only” seems to insinuate that God never hates, and that’s a kind of “omni”.
As to your other question, I think “justice” is supposed to insinuate objectivity–as in blind justice–blind because she is not swayed by bias or prejudice, as a judge might be if the accused were a family member. I think love has to supplement justice because of this–because blind justice on its own is cold–fair, but cold–it is nothing but indifferent calculation, the weighing of the scales. For the Christian God to be the loving father he is depicted to be, his cold, calculated justice must be supplemented with the warmth of love–and if the two ever come into conflict–for example, it being necessary to punish an extremely wicked person–God could do nothing but weep for the poor soul.
But Gibgib,
We’re talking of a Father helping his children with advice, with discipline, with eternity. Does a good parent rule over all with an iron fist? Or does he tailor his guidance to each individual child? This is what religions fail to let people understand, your relationship with your grandest parent is between you and him, not them. He’d probably give you another “Do Over” if you chose to segue towards evil, repeatedly, at some point during eternity, you’ll probably wise up, but Men are much more stubborn than Women. Most Men refuse medical treatment until they’re about to lose a testicle, so God has his work cut out for him.
This whole argument comes from a Christian standpoint then.
From my unique approach to God, this argument is completely pointless. My definition of God is the Omniverse, a panendeism version of such a notion. I also consider things like Milky Way’s center and our Sun to be deities. The sun can make a sunny day, but it can force you to be happy? No. A hot, summer day can make it feel like Hell, but is it Hell literally? Of course not! There will always be days where it gets colder.
I get it. From a Christian standpoint you are saying that YAHWEH has to either possess some sort of malevolence or Hell itself cannot take place for eternity. The funny thing is, from a Muslim-viewpoint this is true. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Muslims believe that everybody goes to paradise/Heaven, but only after their “trail” by fire, per se.
I would say that your argument comes across as if everybody has a pure intention. Think about it. Maybe there are truly evil people in this world, who will always be evil no matter what they do to fix it. I’m talking about people that are sociopaths, psychopaths, or people with conduct disorder. Do you want God to give these kinds of people the same privilege as those who act saintly in their lifetimes? Maybe for the eternally sinful they should be in Hell for eternity. If you start letting the rapists, murderers, and child molesters into Heaven, well it wouldn’t be Heaven anymore, would it?
(I don’t agree with anything I said regarding the last paragraph, I’m simply trying to play devil’s advocate.)
Wendy,
So how would you say this changes things as far as God’s justice goes? Would it not be objective? Would it be inconsistent? Would justice be determined more on what one particular child may be satisfied with but not another?
^ Now, now, Darling, let’s not take this to a sexist place. 
Mackerni,
I do that all the time. 
Umm… I think God can change DNA
gib.
- The belief in a personal God? check!
- The belief in Heaven or Hell? check!
- The belief in sola fide? check!
This is pretty Christian, in my point of view.
No. Panendeism. Let me educate you. Pantheism is the belief that everything inside the Universe is God. Pandeism is the belief that everything inside the Universe is God, but that when the Universe was created, it lost its power to regulate itself. Panentheism is the belief that something outside the Universe is God but not the Universe itself, and yet still is a personal God like pantheism. Panendeism is the belief that something outside of the Universe is God, but it has no control or say in our Universal affairs. So, in retrospect, theism means personal God, deism means impersonal God, pan- means all, and panen- everything outside of the Universe. There’s also omnitheism, the belief that all Gods are real, omnism, the belief that all religions are true, and omnideism, the belief that all God are real, but they are impersonal. (I swear the only thing I made up in this whole paragraph is omnideism.)
As regarding your last part of your paragraph, this is why I am also a henotheism. Henotheism is the belief in one God above all else, but that there are deities below which that exists. I believe stars, galactic black holes, and superclusters all have their unique properties that ‘keep things together’.
As I say below, I don’t agree with it I just played devil’s advocate. My belief is that when we return to form, we will be ‘programmed’ to not be able to do certain things.
Well, then, we have something in common. 
Gibgib wrote
Do you desire a spoiled rotten soul Gibgib? How do you feel when you misbehave a little? A lot? Any regrets? Any self-forgiveness?
Ecmandu,
But would he be obligated to?
Let’s suppose that DNA could determine a person’s status as “evil” (rediculous as far as I’m concerned, but let’s just say). Then once the person’s born, that person is evil. God may be able to undo that by changing the person’s DNA, but another perfectly good response to evil is to punish it. So God would not be in the wrong to do so.
Mackerni,
Dude, guess what, I just invented a new religion today! I call it Barbraism. It involves:
- The belief in a personal God.
- The belief in a Heaven and Hell.
- The belief in sola fide.
It also involves the belief in a chick named Barbra who was born 300 years ago from a virgin hippopotamus and claimed to be the daughter of God (the Mother). She says we all gotta eat perogies every Tuesday and Thursday or go to Hell for all eternity. Too bad she was crucified–she was a nice chick–but she did it for all our non-perogy eating sins such that even if we fall off the horse on the odd Tuesday or Thursday, we can call upon her for forgiven and she will deliver.
^ That was just today. So while you may have had a point yesterday, as of now, my arguments apply to at least Barbraism in addition to Christianity.
So what would a henotheist say about the role of human beings and their ability to love one another in relation to other “higher” dieties? For example, would you consider mother Earth–Gaia–a demigoddess who protects and provides for us, and in that sense cares for us?
You like playing Devil’s advocate, I like playing around with logic.
Wendy,
Yeah, kind of, except it doesn’t have to be a spoiled soul–just picking one soul and catering to their idea of justice. But it sounds like you have in mind a God who looks right to the depths of a person’s soul and finds out exactly what they need to learn and grow. This could be objective justice–assuming there is an objective fact of the matter concerning what a person needs in order to learn and grow–but also subjective since it is based on a person’s needs which is a culminations of desires, wants, emotional dispositions, tastes, opinions, values, etc. (in addition to a whole bunch of objective factors).
Still, though, I’m finding it hard to imagine how such needs can be met for every single individual on this planet when we live in a world of conflicting needs and wants, limited resources, clashing values and beliefs, etc. ← Essentially everything Biggy gripes about. Surely there must be some scenarios in which God can’t (short of performing miracles) satisfy the needs of two or more people who’s needs are in conflict. Say they’re both wondering in the desert and they don’t have enough water to keep them alive until they get to civilization, but each one could kill the other and take the water for himself, which would be enough, just barely, to keep him alive until he gets to civilization.
I have no soul. 
Gib,
Not Obligated to ??
I thought the discussion was about eternal punishment and not just punishment !!
Seems a bit harsh if God can change hearts and DNA at will, don’t you think??!?’
Just wanted to drop by to say this isn’t true. That punishments should fit the crime in this way is a moral judgment, not a logical conclusion.
Gibindenial,
Why no soul? No conscience? No remorse?
Ah, I see.
I hope you are joking. As someone who has studied most theological concepts on Wikipedia and a former pantheist-turned-into-panendeist, as someone who has read part of a bibliography on Spinoza, and coming from someone claiming to be pantheism himself… You are trolling me. 
Ah, yes. A perfectly valid question. Shall we worship the self, who feeds himself? Shall we worship the mother and the father for providing for him? Shall we worship the companies, the institutions, the government, the organizations and societies which give him a sense to live? Shall we worship the Earth herself, for being able to provide nutrition and water to him?
These all stem back to the seven things that make us divine. The questions - who, where, what, how, which, when, and why of God is a testament for the ages. For example, the self, myself, has lived for just over 27 years. My parents are older than me. The companies are even older. The government is even older. The societies are older. The Earth is older. The Sun is older. The galactic center of the Milky Way is older. The superclusters of galaxies is older. The Universe is older. The Multi-verse is older. The Omniverse is older.
The way I see it, the self is the most personal thing that can be viewed as some sort of demigod, whilst the Omniverse is very impersonal, yet the most characteristic of a God (besides conscious behavior). I do not believe in self-worship, nor do I believe in the worship of parents, or corporations, governments, societies or Earth. To me that is too direct. If you live on Earth, if you take a part in government (we all do in some way), if you buy that thing from a corporation, if you respect your parents (and they deserved it), and most important you take care of yourself - that is in my view a sense of self-awareness. Being aware doesn’t need deification.
However, you don’t live on the Sun. It is the first thing that is impersonal, yet holds incredible amounts of power. The reason why everything exists the way it does, and Earth isn’t just some form of ice-rock floating in space, is the fact that the Sun has been here for so long. It possesses much more characteristics of a God than anything here on Earth (including the Earth itself). Almost everything that is living on this planet gets some benefit from the Sun. The Sun, as well as every single star in the Universe, should be deified for what they are - a potential spot for the cultivation of life. Now, I know that planets that are too close to a star are too hot, while other planets too far away are too cold for live to exist. The system ain’t perfect, I realize this. But without stars, there would be nothing.
I know it’s an odd way of deifying something, as an impersonal-but-massive God and personal-but-smaller deities, but this is what makes sense to me. If other people shared my same point of view, I would go to events for solar holidays. But I’m not a pagan and I’d feel uncomfortable attending in event like that.
Ecmandu,
The question isn’t whether or not God can–we already know he can, he’s omnipotent–the question is: does he?
Ucci,
Yes, and it’s not the only one we could make. I remember posting a topic once about how in order for a justice system to be perfectly effective, it would have to be unjust. The idea I had in mind was that if the point of a justice system was deterrence, the punishment would have to outweigh the crime. The crime would have to be not worth the punishment. Otherwise, criminals would just say: maybe I will, maybe I won’t–we’ll see how I feel. Something similar could be brought in here to argue a case for God wanting to teach through punishment. If the point of Hell is to teach the person not to commit sins, then the longer and the more intense, the better. Eternal punishment would still make no sense since it throws the baby out with the bath water: how is the sinner supposed to have officially “learned his lesson” if the punishment never ends?
But getting back to eye-for-an-eye justice, I don’t think it’s so much untrue what I said as it’s that it doesn’t follow without the necessary premises. You’re right that I didn’t supply the premise that: justice = eye-for-eye. ← I took it for granted that this would be implicitly agreed upon. I think that most people do agree on this, but maybe not.
Wendy,
Devil sucked it out of me long ago… 
Just kidding.
Of course I have a conscience! Of course a feel remorse! Silly girl!
But what’s all this leading to?
Mackerni,
Yes, Mackerni, I’m joking. I’m a bit of an ass, but you can be assured I’m almost always joking… which puts me dangerously close to trolling.
I’m not sure I follow. Yes, I can see how you can draw out this structure which is a kind of hierarchy of size or age, but what are the 7 things that make us divine? And how do they relate to this hierarchy? And the ‘w’ questions ← well, same questions here.
Sure, and that sounds like good common sense. And I can see how you interpreted my question about the role of love in the universe given a henotheist way of looking at things. I wasn’t quite getting at worshiping the structures greater than us, just a bit of contrast between your views about the role of love in the universe (given your henotheism) and mine (given my indifferent pantheistic God). I mentioned that love is a role that we humans play and it is directed at each other (and that as part of the universe, we are that part of God which loves man). You responded to that (i.e. the “last part of my paragraph”) saying that’s why you’re a henotheist. I wasn’t sure whether that meant you were agreeing with me or differing with me. I thought you were trying to add a bit of contrast to my view–as in, for you gib, man is the source of love for other men and women, but for me, there are higher (demi)gods who also love man.
So Suns perform the function of providence of life. Is this a form of love (not necessarily requiring worship), or have we drop that subject already?
Well, it’s certainly an interest correlation you’ve noticed there–I never thought of it that way–and it certainly seems true (to an extent)–the smaller (or closer to home) the structure, the more personal it seems to be, and the bigger (more far away), the less personal.
-
What is God? God is omnipotent. (Unlimited energy.)
→ The Omniverse has unlimited energy. If something inside the Omniverse, which held the energy of the entire Universe, existed, then the Omniverse must have unlimited potential. -
Who is God? God is unique. (For there can only be one.)
→ There is only one Omniverse. By the very definition of the Omniverse there can only be one of which. -
Where is God? God is ubiquitous. (God is everywhere.)
→ The Omniverse is everywhere. -
When does God exist? God is eternal. (God always existed.)
→ The Omniverse always existed. -
How does God appear? Wise. (God has infinite wisdom.)
→ This is a trait only living things can have. But Instead of phrasing it like that, someone could say, “Knowing the Omniverse would grant someone infinite wisdom.” Which actually makes a lot of sense. -
Why does God exist? God exists to be benevolent. (God is good.)
→ Same as before. The Omniverse isn’t conscious so it cannot be good, but like being wise, “Knowing the Omniverse would give someone infinite benevolence.” In both cases the Omniverse gives the creation the power to be those things. Therefore, I consider that a pure thing. -
Which can God choose? Anything. (God is versatile.)
→ And again, unconscious things cannot choose anything, but again, “Knowing the Omniverse would give someone infinite possibilities.” Therefore, the Omniverse has the first four qualities in whole, and the living can get the last three by knowledge of the Omniverse. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Omniverse ultimately made conscious creatures so that one day the living and the ultimate space-time can become one.
The Sun, the galactic black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy, the Universe, the multiverse, and the Omniverse do not necessarily “love” us. Only things that are conscious can “love” something. I would say that they have, “unintentional attentions”. The Sun focuses a small part of its energy on the Earth, thereby giving attention to it, but it being incidental, by it not knowing what good it has done for life. Boy … if the Sun had consciousness, it probably would give less energy to Mercury and Venus and more energy to Mars - just enough for all planets to harbor life. That isn’t the case, so I don’t see the Sun as, “love”. I can love the Sun for what it does, but it can not love me back.
“Unintentional attentions”. Humans should love the Sun - even to the point of worshipping it. That makes a lot of sense to me. But the Sun, given its power to give a “providence of life” is not a star’s ultimate goal. I don’t think that anything that doesn’t have a conscious can give love, or have a goal.
By the way, I mentioned before that the Omniverse created us for us to achieve its goal. This goal, this love, this thing that the Omniverse has done for us, is purely “unintentional attentions”. The Omniverse, and even the Universe, is not a hotbed for life. If it’s intentions were to make life then there would be a lot more of it. But it does give attention to those who seek it. In a way, this is a form of love - but I wouldn’t necessarily call it so.
From the thread I just created…
I would like to note that religion itself is similar in many ways. Baha’i Faith has seven million, Unitarian Universalism has 800-thousand, Terasem has 32-thousand, and my faith, is well … my faith. But I identify with UUism before the Baha’i Faith, like a identify with Terasem before UUism, and I identify as Exaltist before I’m part of Terasem. The more personal you go the less you have to sacrifice yourself to a “higher power”.
“Given eye for an eye = justice” is a pretty huge given, yeah. A think a lot of people have sympathy for that position, but if you go that way, your argument is basically of the form “Given moral system X, God is immoral”. That’s a really easy argument to make, isn’t it? I mean, everything and everybody is immoral given some moral system or another. It doesn’t really rise to the level of logical incoherence- especially since it’s always been clear that disobedience to God is a wrong of some measure in and of itself according to the monotheisms, not merely as a consequence of the harm it causes other humans.
The other thing to consider is that moral calculus isn’t actually math. When we compare one harm to another, we aren’t actually measuring anything, we’re comparing a vague impression that we have to another vague impression that we have; though that can be disguised when we inject numbers into it (2 people dying vs 1 person dying). Maybe God in his eternal-ness suffers incalcuably every time you lie or masturbate or charge interest, such that suffering in hell forever is a mercy by comparison. I mean, I don’t really think so, I’m just saying moral calculus is never neat, and especially not when dealing with gods.