This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Looking at common apologetics about Hell.

#21Lord_IchmaelPosted 2/4/2013 7:23:47 PM
fudrick posted...
I find it odd how quickly you jumped back into this atheist personality...


Hoo boy. When I first deconverted I was an ultra-angstheist who saw Christianity as nothing more than a cult of brainwashing led by evil control freaks. He could be having a milder version of that.
#22SilviiroPosted 2/4/2013 7:28:25 PM
I'm going with the second. Again, minimal evidence for his existence. I see the very concept of Hell being 'necessary' as a disproof in itself, despite this being a false dichotomy that insinuates we automatically trust God if we believe he authored the Bible, but thats another topic.

That's fine and is logically consistent. In regard to it being a false dichotomy, the system was based on the possibility of God existing as described in the Bible. If a trickster god of some sort wrote it, it would fall under him not existing as described.

Didn't I just say something about the priori good argument generally pushing atheists further away from your religion?

That's fine, people disliking things has no bearing on truth whatsoever so they are free to dislike it and disbelieve as well as others are free to dislike it and believe.
---
"I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." -- Ecclesiastes 1:14
#23SirThinkALotPosted 2/4/2013 7:32:47 PM
DarkContractor posted...
Basically, then in God's sovereignty, why create us in the first place? Basically, the person who won't get saved is doomed from birth to literally never accomplish anything that will last, suffer the evils of this world, and his friends and family will grow to know him, only to literally never see him again. God knows all of this from the get go, and refuses to pull the plug. its like say a woman got pregnant and KNEW (for the purposes of this parallel to God, we're going with 'knew' instead of 'predicted') for a fact that the baby would not survive infancy, that we waited up until the very last second, like 8 months and 3 weeks into pregnancy, to commit the abortion.


I think its safe to say that God can(and does) use non-believers on occasion for his purposes. Indeed we see examples of such in the Bible, like the Babylonian invasion and occupation being God's judgement upon Israel.

I think some other aspects of this question belong to the broader question of the problem of evil in general. Which I'll concede I dont have a completely adequate answer for.
---
Learn real history and economics at liberty Classroom
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=1305
#24DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/4/2013 7:37:01 PM(edited)
From: Lord_Ichmael | #021
fudrick posted...
I find it odd how quickly you jumped back into this atheist personality...


Hoo boy. When I first deconverted I was an ultra-angstheist who saw Christianity as nothing more than a cult of brainwashing led by evil control freaks. He could be having a milder version of that.


its not that at all. I wouldn't consider myself angstheist. I know I had a bit of a meltdown in my de-conversion topic, that was just an initial kneejerk reaction to all the no true scotsmen about me being saved. Of course, my depression I described from realizing I didn't think God's real contributed. But as I said, I believe religion is a beautiful thing that helps people go through difficult times, myself included. However this is a debate board, and the former sentence was an appeal to emotion. It could just be that I legitimately honestly notice these things in Christian theology. No angst driven pathos.

in fact, just last night, I was encouraging a friend to go on a mission trip. if thats defined as angstheism, then I'm totally cool with being called angsty. well, as I think about it, I'm cool with it regardless, but as I said, I enjoy debate.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#25Lord_IchmaelPosted 2/4/2013 7:46:26 PM
DarkContractor posted...
From: Lord_Ichmael | #021
fudrick posted...
I find it odd how quickly you jumped back into this atheist personality...


Hoo boy. When I first deconverted I was an ultra-angstheist who saw Christianity as nothing more than a cult of brainwashing led by evil control freaks. He could be having a milder version of that.


its not that at all. I wouldn't consider myself angstheist. I know I had a bit of a meltdown in my de-conversion topic, that was just an initial kneejerk reaction to all the no true scotsmen about me being saved. Of course, my depression I described from realizing I didn't think God's real contributed. But as I said, I believe religion is a beautiful thing that helps people go through difficult times, myself included. However this is a debate board, and the former sentence was an appeal to emotion. It could just be that I legitimately honestly notice these things in Christian theology. No angst driven pathos.

in fact, just last night, I was encouraging a friend to go on a mission trip. if thats defined as angstheism, then I'm totally cool with being called angsty. well, as I think about it, I'm cool with it regardless, but as I said, I enjoy debate.


No, I'm not saying you're an angstheist, just that you're being somewhat confrontational pretty quickly. Might be a side effect of the de-conversion rather than being something in spite of it.
#26SirThinkALotPosted 2/4/2013 7:49:13 PM
In fact to add to my previous post, I highly recommend you read the book of Habakkuk, which basically can be summed up like this:

Habakkuk: God the Isrealites are really mean and I dont like it. Do something about it.

God: Okay I'll send the Babylonians to take care of them.

Habakkuk: But, God the Babylonians are even bigger meanies.

God: Hey thats how I'm gonna do, just trust me, I got this.
---
Learn real history and economics at liberty Classroom
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=1305
#27TheRealJiraiyaPosted 2/4/2013 7:50:11 PM
Lord_Ichmael posted...
fudrick posted...
I find it odd how quickly you jumped back into this atheist personality...


Hoo boy. When I first deconverted I was an ultra-angstheist who saw Christianity as nothing more than a cult of brainwashing led by evil control freaks. He could be having a milder version of that.


Most people who deconvert carry some level of bitterness with them afterwards. An angstheist is actually closer to a Christian than your standard atheist because.. well.. they care.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#28DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/4/2013 7:53:26 PM
From: Silviiro | #022


That's fine and is logically consistent. In regard to it being a false dichotomy, the system was based on the possibility of God existing as described in the Bible. If a trickster god of some sort wrote it, it would fall under him not existing as described.


I would have to disagree on the system's base. I'm not assuming the Bible, I'm assuming God wrote it in order to criticize the theology of Hell. at that point, I'm believing God said he's as described in the Bible, not believing God is as described in the Bible.


That's fine, people disliking things has no bearing on truth whatsoever so they are free to dislike it and disbelieve as well as others are free to dislike it and believe.

Agreed, my lack of belief doesn't mean God is not real, nor does your belief mean God is real. As I said, I take a God being as Biblically described, and a Hell as Biblically described a disproof. You see it that the Hell as Biblically described is good as God says. I can't help but see that as basically taking an Occam's razor in some hole in logic. the logic in concluding that Hell is not good COULD be wrong, isn't demonstrable, just assumed.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#29DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/4/2013 8:03:43 PM
From: SirThinkALot | #026
In fact to add to my previous post, I highly recommend you read the book of Habakkuk, which basically can be summed up like this:

Habakkuk: God the Isrealites are really mean and I dont like it. Do something about it.

God: Okay I'll send the Babylonians to take care of them.

Habakkuk: But, God the Babylonians are even bigger meanies.

God: Hey thats how I'm gonna do, just trust me, I got this.



He only has a purpose for the existenceless bound Babylonians he created because of the existenceless bound Isrealites he created. And the ultimatum of it all is to just trust anything God does is again a priori perfect good, which clearly, as an atheist, I don't trust him on that. I would think I would trust God if he did reveal himself, I might mention. But without him revealing himself, I have zero motivation to trust God. It's all silly anyways. the Babylonians God given purpose was to sin? So he created something bound for inexistence that will suffer along the way (all ignoring that he has to be burned to nothing to cease to exist), all while giving him a purpose to sin, literally supposed to be the unfulfilling neverlasting pleasure of the world. I will admit you made a good point though.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#30SilviiroPosted 2/4/2013 8:04:47 PM
I would have to disagree on the system's base. I'm not assuming the Bible, I'm assuming God wrote it in order to criticize the theology of Hell. at that point, I'm believing God said he's as described in the Bible, not believing God is as described in the Bible.

Unless the meaning of this is beyond my math-worn brain, that seems to be describing a trickster god.

As I said, I take a God being as Biblically described, and a Hell as Biblically described a disproof. You see it that the Hell as Biblically described is good as God says. I can't help but see that as basically taking an Occam's razor in some hole in logic. the logic in concluding that Hell is not good COULD be wrong, isn't demonstrable, just assumed.

It is demonstrable from the given axioms. You are free to disagree with the axioms, but Hell being necessary is a logical conclusion from the intersection of the statements: "There exists God as described in the Bible" and "There exists a Hell."
---
"I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." -- Ecclesiastes 1:14