Why are heaven or hell the only options

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

You did not address the paradox, which is why would an omnipotent god create people he knew would “choose” to suffer in eternity?

Scripture addresses this paradox, but only by saying that humans lack standing to ask the question. Romans 9:18-20: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God..."

You seem to think that you have discovered some difficulty never before contemplated in two thousand years of Christianity. And that God owes you some kind of answer on this. But you lack standing to put God on trial. Create your own universe from nothing and then you can judge whomever you wish.

That is just your belief of what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

You did not address the paradox, which is why would an omnipotent god create people he knew would “choose” to suffer in eternity?

Scripture addresses this paradox, but only by saying that humans lack standing to ask the question. Romans 9:18-20: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God..."

You seem to think that you have discovered some difficulty never before contemplated in two thousand years of Christianity. And that God owes you some kind of answer on this. But you lack standing to put God on trial. Create your own universe from nothing and then you can judge whomever you wish.

That is just your belief of what happened.

Of course it's my belief. I wrote the post. What a fatuous remark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

You did not address the paradox, which is why would an omnipotent god create people he knew would “choose” to suffer in eternity?

Scripture addresses this paradox, but only by saying that humans lack standing to ask the question. Romans 9:18-20: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God..."

You seem to think that you have discovered some difficulty never before contemplated in two thousand years of Christianity. And that God owes you some kind of answer on this. But you lack standing to put God on trial. Create your own universe from nothing and then you can judge whomever you wish.

I don't have evidence that any god exists so he doesn't owe me squat, any more than a leprechaun owes me a pot of gold.

And yes I know this is an age old question, asked for thousands of years (Thanks, Epicurus!) But it has never been successfully answered. Your scripture quote is exactly "He's God, so STFU", which is the classic definition of begging the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

NP. I'm not sure why you think it is cruel. You have a choice. You live with the consequences. Are you not able to accept that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

You did not address the paradox, which is why would an omnipotent god create people he knew would “choose” to suffer in eternity?

Scripture addresses this paradox, but only by saying that humans lack standing to ask the question. Romans 9:18-20: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God..."

You seem to think that you have discovered some difficulty never before contemplated in two thousand years of Christianity. And that God owes you some kind of answer on this. But you lack standing to put God on trial. Create your own universe from nothing and then you can judge whomever you wish.

I don't have evidence that any god exists so he doesn't owe me squat, any more than a leprechaun owes me a pot of gold.

And yes I know this is an age old question, asked for thousands of years (Thanks, Epicurus!) But it has never been successfully answered. Your scripture quote is exactly "He's God, so STFU", which is the classic definition of begging the question.

It's not question begging to point out a category error. The premises supplied by you and PP had to do with a God who had at least some passing resemblance to an Abrahamic one, if not a Christian one. Now we're back to the childish leprechaun stuff and, I suppose, flying spaghetti monster tropes, etc.

In which case I grant you. Nothing is known or can be known. Maybe it's all, like, a simulation dude. Trying to get down to your level here, but it's tough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mostly like my religion but this is where I get confused, on one side God claims to be merciful and love each of us many times more than any mother can and on other side, he can't take disobedience and feels like people should burn in hell.

It’s not that he “can’t take disobedience.”

God is by definition perfect. There can be no sin in His presence. You make the choice between remaining in a sinful state or seeking the redemption he offers.

God created sin. And then decided we all do it and have to grovel to be forgiven or we burn for eternity? Is that your perfect deity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

[Anonymous]

Please do not feed the troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mostly like my religion but this is where I get confused, on one side God claims to be merciful and love each of us many times more than any mother can and on other side, he can't take disobedience and feels like people should burn in hell.

It’s not that he “can’t take disobedience.”

God is by definition perfect. There can be no sin in His presence. You make the choice between remaining in a sinful state or seeking the redemption he offers.

God created sin. And then decided we all do it and have to grovel to be forgiven or we burn for eternity? Is that your perfect deity?

No, God did not create sin. Man created sin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mostly like my religion but this is where I get confused, on one side God claims to be merciful and love each of us many times more than any mother can and on other side, he can't take disobedience and feels like people should burn in hell.

It’s not that he “can’t take disobedience.”

God is by definition perfect. There can be no sin in His presence. You make the choice between remaining in a sinful state or seeking the redemption he offers.

God created sin. And then decided we all do it and have to grovel to be forgiven or we burn for eternity? Is that your perfect deity?

No, God did not create sin. Man created sin.

No. Christian scripture and tradition teach that sin entered the world by one man (Adam). But he did not create sin. The first sin we know of was the war in heaven led by Satan, after which 1/3 of the angels were cast out of heaven. Jesus himself said he saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. All of this occurred in eternity past and was indeed very sinful. Man had not even been created yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

You did not address the paradox, which is why would an omnipotent god create people he knew would “choose” to suffer in eternity?

Scripture addresses this paradox, but only by saying that humans lack standing to ask the question. Romans 9:18-20: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God..."

You seem to think that you have discovered some difficulty never before contemplated in two thousand years of Christianity. And that God owes you some kind of answer on this. But you lack standing to put God on trial. Create your own universe from nothing and then you can judge whomever you wish.

I don't have evidence that any god exists so he doesn't owe me squat, any more than a leprechaun owes me a pot of gold.

And yes I know this is an age old question, asked for thousands of years (Thanks, Epicurus!) But it has never been successfully answered. Your scripture quote is exactly "He's God, so STFU", which is the classic definition of begging the question.

It's not question begging to point out a category error. The premises supplied by you and PP had to do with a God who had at least some passing resemblance to an Abrahamic one, if not a Christian one. Now we're back to the childish leprechaun stuff and, I suppose, flying spaghetti monster tropes, etc.

In which case I grant you. Nothing is known or can be known. Maybe it's all, like, a simulation dude. Trying to get down to your level here, but it's tough.

It is 100% begging the question as it presumes the truth of its own conclusion. That is not debatable.

And as I have said so many times, if you can tell me why referencing leprechauns is childish when discussing supernatural beings, I will stop doing it. This is another fallacy of yours, known as “special pleading”: my supernatural being has special rules and privileges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

You did not address the paradox, which is why would an omnipotent god create people he knew would “choose” to suffer in eternity?

Scripture addresses this paradox, but only by saying that humans lack standing to ask the question. Romans 9:18-20: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God..."

You seem to think that you have discovered some difficulty never before contemplated in two thousand years of Christianity. And that God owes you some kind of answer on this. But you lack standing to put God on trial. Create your own universe from nothing and then you can judge whomever you wish.

I don't have evidence that any god exists so he doesn't owe me squat, any more than a leprechaun owes me a pot of gold.

And yes I know this is an age old question, asked for thousands of years (Thanks, Epicurus!) But it has never been successfully answered. Your scripture quote is exactly "He's God, so STFU", which is the classic definition of begging the question.

It's not question begging to point out a category error. The premises supplied by you and PP had to do with a God who had at least some passing resemblance to an Abrahamic one, if not a Christian one. Now we're back to the childish leprechaun stuff and, I suppose, flying spaghetti monster tropes, etc.

In which case I grant you. Nothing is known or can be known. Maybe it's all, like, a simulation dude. Trying to get down to your level here, but it's tough.

It is 100% begging the question as it presumes the truth of its own conclusion. That is not debatable.

And as I have said so many times, if you can tell me why referencing leprechauns is childish when discussing supernatural beings, I will stop doing it. This is another fallacy of yours, known as “special pleading”: my supernatural being has special rules and privileges.

You seem not to have passed your philosophy intro class. Googling "question begging" and "logical fallacies" and pasting the results here has not elevated your reasoning skills or your understanding of logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

You did not address the paradox, which is why would an omnipotent god create people he knew would “choose” to suffer in eternity?

Scripture addresses this paradox, but only by saying that humans lack standing to ask the question. Romans 9:18-20: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God..."

You seem to think that you have discovered some difficulty never before contemplated in two thousand years of Christianity. And that God owes you some kind of answer on this. But you lack standing to put God on trial. Create your own universe from nothing and then you can judge whomever you wish.

I don't have evidence that any god exists so he doesn't owe me squat, any more than a leprechaun owes me a pot of gold.

And yes I know this is an age old question, asked for thousands of years (Thanks, Epicurus!) But it has never been successfully answered. Your scripture quote is exactly "He's God, so STFU", which is the classic definition of begging the question.

It's not question begging to point out a category error. The premises supplied by you and PP had to do with a God who had at least some passing resemblance to an Abrahamic one, if not a Christian one. Now we're back to the childish leprechaun stuff and, I suppose, flying spaghetti monster tropes, etc.

In which case I grant you. Nothing is known or can be known. Maybe it's all, like, a simulation dude. Trying to get down to your level here, but it's tough.

It is 100% begging the question as it presumes the truth of its own conclusion. That is not debatable.

And as I have said so many times, if you can tell me why referencing leprechauns is childish when discussing supernatural beings, I will stop doing it. This is another fallacy of yours, known as “special pleading”: my supernatural being has special rules and privileges.

You seem not to have passed your philosophy intro class. Googling "question begging" and "logical fallacies" and pasting the results here has not elevated your reasoning skills or your understanding of logic.

No, you are wrong, and the evidence is that you avoid the specifics.

You committed two logical fallacies in your post, begging the question and special pleading. End period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

By definintion in the religions that use the terms, heaven and hell mean that you either choose to live in God's love, or you choose to be forever separated. So it is binary by definition.

When you talk about other options, you are removing the discussion from the faiths that use these terms, so the discussion ceases to have anything to do with heaven and hell, and is really about other ideas and theories and belief systems and the possibility that in the universe they all coexist.

But doesn't god know in advance who will "choose" to live "in his love" and who will not? And he creates them anyway? Isn't that cruel?

I know you won't answer or address this, because it shows how your god is logically impossible. You'll probably respond with a petulant comment like "you don't understand and are not worth addressing" which is what people do when they have no response to simple logic that goes against their beliefs. I'll give you respect and a mea culpa if you prove me wrong and try to respond.

Yes. Christianity does not offer (or even pretend to offer) a defense of this paradox. Some people will say that the existence of love requires the existence of the will which in turn logically requires the existence of evil. But this is not something that scripture supplies, it's just human philosophizing.

What scripture does say is that the potter has the right to do with the clay anything he wishes. And it says that before they had done anything good or bad, God said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated".

Some Christians are more comfortable with so-called double predestination than others.

I agree with this. Also, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is cruel and it certainly doesn’t prove that God is an impossibility. You might not like that God, but it doesn’t mean that this God can’t exist.

In fact, there is a strong argument that it shows God’s kindness that he puts millions of people on earth who do wonderful, great things for humanity and yet have no allegiance to him whatsoever — people who actively work against him. If you have an employee who was working against you, you would probably fire him. But God through common grace allows these people to achieve much good in the world.

Here’s the other problem — if you don’t believe in predestination, then you have to believe that reaching God is some sort of cosmic rat race — that your salvation is based upon your own individual merit and achievement and success and how “good” you are. That means that people who have problems or issues getting it together in life (like me!) have no chance at all. That’s a lot more cruel than a system whereby God has provided a pathway to salvation through simple faith in him and endless forgiveness, grace, and mercy.

You did not address the paradox, which is why would an omnipotent god create people he knew would “choose” to suffer in eternity?

Scripture addresses this paradox, but only by saying that humans lack standing to ask the question. Romans 9:18-20: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God..."

You seem to think that you have discovered some difficulty never before contemplated in two thousand years of Christianity. And that God owes you some kind of answer on this. But you lack standing to put God on trial. Create your own universe from nothing and then you can judge whomever you wish.

That is just your belief of what happened.

Of course it's my belief. I wrote the post. What a fatuous remark.

Some people are convinced that it's 100% truth, not just a belief in their head.