Outside the Camp

[Mayabird]

That may be more a Protestant thing than a general Christianity thing. They're the ones who ran with the "saved by faith alone, not works" doctrine, which yes, is completely disgusting plus probably is bad for society.

I don't think it is a protestant thing per se. It is more a thing of some protestant sects. Heck, all the protestants I know are huge on performing good deeds.

Possibly then just an American bastardization. I remember growing up with the Southern Baptists and the like who would go on and on and on about how they were only saved by faith, not by works. They harped on it, faith alone, faith alone. They had goddamned* T-shirt lines where they would brag about it in tacky fonts quoting some Bible verses. I saw them all over the place, those shirts saying that they were saved only by faith in Jesus Christ. There was even this youth minister who showed up at the school regularly who would go on about how they were superior to Catholics because Catholics believed in acts and not in faith. Seriously. Gaaaaah.

To calm down my hatred-of-georgia rage, I will note that since I got the hell out of that state, I haven't seen any of those bullshit religious T-shirts anywhere when during my childhood I couldn't set something on fire without seeing someone walking by and wearing one.

*Pun intended.

[Formless]

Helping people out was highly recommended and viewed as the natural result of believing in and loving Jesus.

Yeah, in some ways the Catholic version is more insidious; the whole idea that atheists are immoral/amoral and that non-believers are naturally inclined to be bad? Comes right from Catholicism. Ever heard of "original sin"? Catholicism. You know what the role of the "holy spirit" is? To grant people christians "virtues" (which are as divorced from actual virtue ethics as to make the term meaningless) upon being confirmed. All those missionaries throughout history who destroyed so many native cultures? It wasn't just because they wanted to "save" the heathens from eternal damnation. It was to "save" them from their own percieved sinfulness.

To be fair, its the logical conclusion of all Divine Command moralities. And that is why religion is evil.

[Akhlut]

Helping people out was highly recommended and viewed as the natural result of believing in and loving Jesus.

Yeah, in some ways the Catholic version is more insidious; the whole idea that atheists are immoral/amoral and that non-believers are naturally inclined to be bad? Comes right from Catholicism. Ever heard of "original sin"? Catholicism. You know what the role of the "holy spirit" is? To grant people christians "virtues" (which are as divorced from actual virtue ethics as to make the term meaningless) upon being confirmed. All those missionaries throughout history who destroyed so many native cultures? It wasn't just because they wanted to "save" the heathens from eternal damnation. It was to "save" them from their own percieved sinfulness.

To be fair, its the logical conclusion of all Divine Command moralities. And that is why religion is evil.

I think that this glosses over things a bit and eliminates a lot of subtleties from the RCC (and Orthodox Christianity, due to a lot of shared doctrine between the two).

Firstly, Original Sin is, essentially, a philosophical model for all of humanity's proneness to evil action, regardless of one's religion. Secondly, and more importantly, the RCC does recognize the ability of non-Christians to be moral, virtuous people (hence many Doctors of the Church using Aristotle, a decidedly non-Christian person, to argue for the philosophical reality of YHWH and Jesus) as a result of the Holy Spirit imbuing all humans with a virtuous nature.

And missionaries did destroy native cultures, but that was mostly as a by-product of destroying religions, which were generally the largest portions of a society's culture (especially prior to the 1800s). Plus, it did not usually completely obliterate said cultures; a great deal of Native Americans in Central and South America still carry a great deal of cultural distinctiveness, not only from the Spanish, but from each other, while missionaries failed to eliminate the cultures of the Irish, the Poles, or the Norwegians. While they certainly augmented them, that is true of any conquering people spreading new ideas; Egypt did not remain the same after the Roman invasion, nor did Russia after Viking and Mongol invasions, nor did China after Manchurian invasions. So, while the RCC does deserve its fair share of blame, one cannot paint such a simplistic, black and white picture of it, I think. One has to remember that the RCC is not a monolithic entity either, and that there have been dozens of different cliques within it, all fighting for supremacy and all having different ideas on how to evangelize and how to operate as a religion. For instance, in spite of the actions of lay Catholics during colonization of the Caribbean, it was the priest and friar Bartolomeo de las Casas who argued against enslavement and mutilation of the non-Christian natives and argued that doing so was a grave sin against God. Similarly, one saw the spread of Liberation Theology throughout the globe by Catholics who were trying to make the world a lot more egalitarian than what most other people in the globe were trying to do.

[Thanas]

Egypt did not remain the same after the Roman invasion

This is a really bad example to prove your point because Augustus took great pains to keep the Egyptian structures intact. Compared to the hellenic invasion, Rome was very non-interfering in Egyptian matters as long as the grain flowed.

[Akhlut]

Egypt did not remain the same after the Roman invasion

This is a really bad example to prove your point because Augustus took great pains to keep the Egyptian structures intact. Compared to the hellenic invasion, Rome was very non-interfering in Egyptian matters as long as the grain flowed.

I was confusing/conflating the two to get a post out on my coffee break; my bad. At anyrate, the Macedonians put their own leaders into place and did alter the religions a bit by equivocating Egyptian deities with Greek ones.

[General Mung Beans]

That may be more a Protestant thing than a general Christianity thing. They're the ones who ran with the "saved by faith alone, not works" doctrine, which yes, is completely disgusting plus probably is bad for society. Catholics IIRC are supposed to do good deeds...former and current Catholics, help me out here, please? Same with anyone more familiar with the Orthodox churches and so forth.

Well most Evangelicals will still argue that good works are the fruit of salvation and that if you don't do good works it may be a sign you aren't saved. And some fundamentalist/hardline Catholics will tell you that there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church and that if you aren't baptized you aren't saved which would seem to atheists more unfair since even if you believe but get run over by a truck before you get baptized you go to Hell.

Also most theologians and clergymen would tell you that God doesn't directly decree evil: He just permits it or gives men free will which results in evil. And by "harden someone's heart" it is meant that God simply locks them into their sins.

[Kanastrous]

Well here's the discussion point: Do you their interpretation of the Gospel and God is a correct view derived from the Bible? Because if their view of God is true I might quite frankly end up a misotheist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheist

So you propose to go from adoring an imaginary literary character, to detesting an imaginary literary character.

Man, I wish that I had the time to waste on that sort of thing.

[Simon_Jester]

Well most Evangelicals will still argue that good works are the fruit of salvation and that if you don't do good works it may be a sign you aren't saved.

Which is, when you think about it, precisely equivalent to saying "good works don't matter." If you can't improve your status in the afterlife by committing good works, they aren't relevant... which leads back to the observation that the fundies' idea of God is indifferent to good and evil and cares only about your submission. Which would be bad enough if he hadn't explicitly designed the universe so you have no way to avoid horrible eternal torture but submission to him...

And some fundamentalist/hardline Catholics will tell you that there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church and that if you aren't baptized you aren't saved which would seem to atheists more unfair since even if you believe but get run over by a truck before you get baptized you go to Hell.

Since children are normally baptized so young they can't be said to believe anything, that doesn't strike me as any worse. It's just as bad, but not really worse.

I mean, how is a god who says:
"I demand your unconditional submission as my price for taking you off this conveyor belt to eternal agony that I constructed"
really any better than one who says:
"I demand your unconditional submission and that one of my agents sprinkle some water over your head and mumble some Latin as my price for taking you off this conveyor belt to eternal agony that I constructed."

Compared to the basic demand of unconditional submission and the fact that he's the one who built the conveyor belt to agony, the water-sprinkling is kind of irrelevant.

Also most theologians and clergymen would tell you that God doesn't directly decree evil: He just permits it or gives men free will which results in evil. And by "harden someone's heart" it is meant that God simply locks them into their sins.

This still involves God making a conscious decision that leads directly to evil. Remember the legal concept of "accessory before the fact:" someone who knows that a horrible crime is about to occur, has the power to avert it, and does not do so, is effectively guilty of the same crime.

That is especially true of a being who designed and created the entire cosmos, knowing ahead of time that the whole thing would become a giant conveyor belt to eternal agony at the hands of the most evil being in creation. There's really no way to disavow responsibility for that, not when one is supposed to be omniscient.

[General Mung Beans]

Well most Evangelicals will still argue that good works are the fruit of salvation and that if you don't do good works it may be a sign you aren't saved.

Which is, when you think about it, precisely equivalent to saying "good works don't matter." If you can't improve your status in the afterlife by committing good works, they aren't relevant... which leads back to the observation that the fundies' idea of God is indifferent to good and evil and cares only about your submission. Which would be bad enough if he hadn't explicitly designed the universe so you have no way to avoid horrible eternal torture but submission to him...

By that logic good works aren't relevant to atheists since you'll end up the same no matter what. However atheists do good works because it will improve the lot of humanity-same reason why anyone else would do good works.

[Simon_Jester]

Well most Evangelicals will still argue that good works are the fruit of salvation and that if you don't do good works it may be a sign you aren't saved.

Which is, when you think about it, precisely equivalent to saying "good works don't matter." If you can't improve your status in the afterlife by committing good works, they aren't relevant... which leads back to the observation that the fundies' idea of God is indifferent to good and evil and cares only about your submission. Which would be bad enough if he hadn't explicitly designed the universe so you have no way to avoid horrible eternal torture but submission to him...

By that logic good works aren't relevant to atheists since you'll end up the same no matter what. However atheists do good works because it will improve the lot of humanity-same reason why anyone else would do good works.

Thing is, atheists don't try to use the absence of an afterlife to justify their actions. Christians routinely base their conduct on the afterlife; that's why they bother to try converting people, to save their souls.

That said, my previous description was poorly worded. What I mean is that in a faith-alone model of theology, good and evil and good works are irrelevant to God. Which doesn't say much about your person obligations as a moral person, but which says a great deal about God... and whether God is a moral being. In that context, it's hard to justify saying that divine commandments should be followed for their own sake. Because you then go on to say that God doesn't care whether you are good or evil as long as you're suitably submissive to him.

Now "Kneel before God or he will crush you like an insect because he can do that!" still works, but divine might does not make for divine right.

[LionElJonson]

Firstly, Faith Alone sects believe that good works are the result of faith; if you don't do good works, you probably don't have faith and probably aren't saved. Much like how Internet asshattery is often the result of Atheism; you don't have to be an atheist to be an asshole on the Internet, but if you are an athiest, you're probably also an asshole.

Secondly, God isn't cruel; claiming his is is ignorance due to the assumption time is linear, and I don't believe it is. It's branching; every decision makes a branch, and our choices merely choose which branch we travel down, and we do have free will to make those choices. God didn't create Evil; our own choices create Evil, and our own choices are what prevents us from going to Heaven unless we accept God's forgiveness. If you don't, then God isn't sending you to Hell. You knowingly chose to go there.

[Simon_Jester]

Firstly, Faith Alone sects believe that good works are the result of faith; if you don't do good works, you probably don't have faith and probably aren't saved.

In which case there is no reason to say God cares whether you are good or evil; he will give you the same rewards if you have faith in him but are evil as if you have faith in him but are good.

Moreover, this still leaves God making the horrid and perverse demand "submit to me unconditionally, in the exact way I deem fitting, as the price of being removed from this conveyor belt to infinite torture at the hands of my creation, which I knew was going to do this to you ahead of time."

Much like how Internet asshattery is often the result of Atheism; you don't have to be an atheist to be an asshole on the Internet, but if you are an athiest, you're probably also an asshole.

Citation needed. Seriously, that's a lousy excuse for trolling.

"I know you are but what am I?" Come on, what next, "neener neener?"

Secondly, God isn't cruel; claiming his is is ignorance due to the assumption time is linear, and I don't believe it is. It's branching; every decision makes a branch, and our choices merely choose which branch we travel down, and we do have free will to make those choices. God didn't create Evil; our own choices create Evil, and our own choices are what prevents us from going to Heaven unless we accept God's forgiveness. If you don't, then God isn't sending you to Hell. You knowingly chose to go there.

And yet under faith-only doctrine, God knew what the whole tree was going to look like, and thus knowingly chose to bring into existence branches leading to Hell, a Hell which is occupied by fallen angels he knowingly chose to create knowing that they would rebel against him and knowing that they would labor with all their might to make as many people go to Hell as possible and knowing that they would succeed.

God cannot be absolved of responsibility for building a conveyor belt to eternal torture by the claim "well, you chose not to get off the conveyor belt by refusing to give him your eternal submission in the exact way he wants!" Especially not when you are not in fact allowed to SEE your impending doom, or the conveyor belt, or the infinity of torture at the end. You are merely INFORMED that these things exist. You are often informed by unreliable fools, who rely on arguments no sane person would consider for a moment were they not being made about a big invisible judgemental beard in the sky.

Seriously, if God actually felt it to be important that the message of Christianity be given to every human being, in a convincing fashion that would make them believe it, he would not rely on Christians to do it.

[LionElJonson]

Firstly, Faith Alone sects believe that good works are the result of faith; if you don't do good works, you probably don't have faith and probably aren't saved.

In which case there is no reason to say God cares whether you are good or evil; he will give you the same rewards if you have faith in him but are evil as if you have faith in him but are good.

Moreover, this still leaves God making the horrid and perverse demand "submit to me unconditionally, in the exact way I deem fitting, as the price of being removed from this conveyor belt to infinite torture at the hands of my creation, which I knew was going to do this to you ahead of time."

God is outside of time; he doesn't know anything "ahead of time", since that implies he experiences linear time like we think we do.

Secondly, God isn't cruel; claiming his is is ignorance due to the assumption time is linear, and I don't believe it is. It's branching; every decision makes a branch, and our choices merely choose which branch we travel down, and we do have free will to make those choices. God didn't create Evil; our own choices create Evil, and our own choices are what prevents us from going to Heaven unless we accept God's forgiveness. If you don't, then God isn't sending you to Hell. You knowingly chose to go there.

And yet under faith-only doctrine, God knew what the whole tree was going to look like, and thus knowingly chose to bring into existence branches leading to Hell, a Hell which is occupied by fallen angels he knowingly chose to create knowing that they would rebel against him and knowing that they would labor with all their might to make as many people go to Hell as possible and knowing that they would succeed.

God cannot be absolved of responsibility for building a conveyor belt to eternal torture by the claim "well, you chose not to get off the conveyor belt by refusing to give him your eternal submission in the exact way he wants!" Especially not when you are not in fact allowed to SEE your impending doom, or the conveyor belt, or the infinity of torture at the end. You are merely INFORMED that these things exist. You are often informed by unreliable fools, who rely on arguments no sane person would consider for a moment were they not being made about a big invisible judgemental beard in the sky.

Seriously, if God actually felt it to be important that the message of Christianity be given to every human being, in a convincing fashion that would make them believe it, he would not rely on Christians to do it.

God's just giving you what you wanted; an afterlife away from Him. You chose to go there when you repudiated his forgiveness; that was entirely your own decision, made with the Free Will God gave to you. Would you rather he drag you into Heaven against your will? Why would you want to spend all of eternity with someone you clearly despise?

[Formless]

I think that this glosses over things a bit and eliminates a lot of subtleties from the RCC (and Orthodox Christianity, due to a lot of shared doctrine between the two).

Firstly, Original Sin is, essentially, a philosophical model for all of humanity's proneness to evil action, regardless of one's religion. Secondly, and more importantly, the RCC does recognize the ability of non-Christians to be moral, virtuous people (hence many Doctors of the Church using Aristotle, a decidedly non-Christian person, to argue for the philosophical reality of YHWH and Jesus) as a result of the Holy Spirit imbuing all humans with a virtuous nature.

You are of course aware of the fact that the RCC has not always been as moderate in their position as it is now? Also, I said inclined, not always. I'm a former catholic too, you know. And lets not forget that "holy spirit granted man virtue" is a blatant contradiction of the doctrine of original sin (though I doubt we disagree here). And no, I've been through all that confirmation stuff: it only grants the Seven Virtues to those who have been baptized and confirmed. So you DO in fact have to be a catholic to get the benefits according to catholicism, even though its not the sole determiner of whether or not you are virtuous or sinful.

So, while the RCC does deserve its fair share of blame, one cannot paint such a simplistic, black and white picture of it, I think.

I think you misunderstand. My point was simply to highlight the motivation of missionaries and the disgusting belief it stems from, not to put the blame solely on their feet for the destruction of native cultures.

One has to remember that the RCC is not a monolithic entity either, and that there have been dozens of different cliques within it, all fighting for supremacy and all having different ideas on how to evangelize and how to operate as a religion. For instance, in spite of the actions of lay Catholics during colonization of the Caribbean, it was the priest and friar Bartolomeo de las Casas who argued against enslavement and mutilation of the non-Christian natives and argued that doing so was a grave sin against God. Similarly, one saw the spread of Liberation Theology throughout the globe by Catholics who were trying to make the world a lot more egalitarian than what most other people in the globe were trying to do.

We are talking about an organization that says the Pope's word is God, you know. The Church may have its internal factions, but that's largely unimportant in the scale of things.

[Simon_Jester]

God is outside of time; he doesn't know anything "ahead of time", since that implies he experiences linear time like we think we do.

This changes nothing. If anything it makes matters worse, since God would then create the Conveyor Belt to Infinite Torture and immediately perceive all the infinity of torture it will cause.

He would still be responsible for the infinity of torture, having made it happen when it could never have happened without his efforts to make it happen.

God's just giving you what you wanted; an afterlife away from Him. You chose to go there when you repudiated his forgiveness; that was entirely your own decision, made with the Free Will God gave to you.

This would not absolve God of responsibility for creating a situation in which it would actually be an ethical decision to repudiate him, as a vile and amoral entity.

Nor would it make him any less perverse for saying:

"Give me your unconditional submission, in the exact manner I desire, with no obvious reason to choose that exact manner save the instructions of my most foolish and untrustworthy minions. This is the price for being removed from the conveyer belt to infinite torture at the hands of my other, rebellious, minions, who I created in the knowledge that they would be your enemies and would do you as much harm as they could, using their superhuman abilities."

Seriously, that's a really freaky and disturbing god.

EDIT: This raises a question. Why did God assign his superhuman minions to the "torture people" part of the cosmos, while assigning his merely human minions to the "convert people before they die so as to keep them from being tortured" part of the cosmos?

Would you rather he drag you into Heaven against your will? Why would you want to spend all of eternity with someone you clearly despise?

What makes you think that I despise God? I do not despise God at all. I merely think you are a heretic, a follower of bad doctrine, doctrine that is so obviously bad that no sane person would convert to your version of the faith.

I think that you believe God to be evil, and simply have not yet realized it. I reject the notion that God is evil- either God is not at all, or God is not evil.

[LionElJonson]

God is outside of time; he doesn't know anything "ahead of time", since that implies he experiences linear time like we think we do.

This changes nothing. If anything it makes matters worse, since God would then create the Conveyor Belt of Infinite Torture and immediately perceive all the infinity of torture it will cause.

He would still be responsible for the infinity of torture, having made it happen when it could never have happened without his efforts to make it happen.

Better to be tortured for all of eternity than to cease to exist (or to have never existed at all).

God's just giving you what you wanted; an afterlife away from Him. You chose to go there when you repudiated his forgiveness; that was entirely your own decision, made with the Free Will God gave to you.

This would not absolve God of responsibility for creating a situation in which it would actually be an ethical decision to repudiate him, as a vile and amoral entity.

Nor would it make him any less perverse for saying:

"Give me your unconditional submission, in the exact manner I desire, with no obvious reason to choose that exact manner save the instructions of my most foolish and untrustworthy minions. This is the price for being removed from the conveyer belt to infinite torture at the hands of my other, rebellious, minions, who I created in the knowledge that they would be your enemies and would do you as much harm as they could, using their superhuman abilities."

Seriously, that's a really freaky and disturbing god.

No, it isn't. You just have to have faith. Also, you keep calling it a "conveyor belt to infinite torture". It's not. You chose your own path; it's your own fault if you go to Hell. There is nothing stopping you from going to Heaven except your own choices. There might be a nigh-infinite number of branches where you choose to go to Hell, but there's also a nigh-infinite number of branches where you make the right choice and go to Heaven. Besides, it's better to burn in Hell than to cease to exist; the existence of Hell is evidence of God's endless mercy.

Would you rather he drag you into Heaven against your will? Why would you want to spend all of eternity with someone you clearly despise?

What makes you think that I despise God? I do not despise God at all. I merely think you are a heretic, a follower of bad doctrine, doctrine that is so obviously bad that no sane person would convert to your version of the faith.

I think that you believe God to be evil, and simply have not yet realized it. I reject the notion that God is evil- either God is not at all, or God is not evil.

Don't be silly. God is infinitely good. He's also omnipotent, but doesn't like using that power to break the rules of the universe he created; presumably because if you're going to do so, what's the point of creating a universe with consistent laws of physics in the first place?

[The Vortex Empire]

Better to be tortured for all of eternity than to cease to exist (or to have never existed at all).

Are you fucking kidding me? Can you imagine what eternal torture would be like? It would be an abomination on such a scale that I wouldn't condemn Hitler to such a fate. Far better to be destroyed than tortured.

No, it isn't. You just have to have faith. Also, you keep calling it a "conveyor belt to infinite torture". It's not. You chose your own path; it's your own fault if you go to Hell. There is nothing stopping you from going to Heaven except your own choices. There might be a nigh-infinite number of branches where you choose to go to Hell, but there's also a nigh-infinite number of branches where you make the right choice and go to Heaven. Besides, it's better to burn in Hell than to cease to exist; the existence of Hell is evidence of God's endless mercy.

First off, for many people like myself, there's no choice involved. I could no more choose to believe in God then I could choose to believe in Santa. I am psychologically incapable of believing in things with no proof.

Second, what the fuck kind of fucked up "mercy" is eternal torture? Ceasing to exist after death is just fine and dandy, eternal torture is a living hell. (heh)

Don't be silly. God is infinitely good. He's also omnipotent, but doesn't like using that power to break the rules of the universe he created; presumably because if you're going to do so, what's the point of creating a universe with consistent laws of physics in the first place?

If God exists, it is not infinitely good. He would be a manipulative sadistic bastard for the whole "you are condemned to hell if you use the logic that I planted in your head" thing.

[Simon_Jester]

Better to be tortured for all of eternity than to cease to exist (or to have never existed at all).

That is a foolish statement.

No, it isn't. You just have to have faith.

Any faith I may have informs me that God is not evil enough to set things up the way you describe. Loving faith in a god evil enough to do things the way you describe isn't faith at all; it's a masochistic fantasy.

Also, you keep calling it a "conveyor belt to infinite torture". It's not. You chose your own path; it's your own fault if you go to Hell.

Nonsense! You did not make an informed decision! Your only "choice" was "Do I trust the word of this unreliable fool that I will suffer infinite torture if I do not express your unconditional submission to his god in exactly the manner he desires."

What sane person would say "yes" to that?

Besides, it's better to burn in Hell than to cease to exist; the existence of Hell is evidence of God's endless mercy.

This is not a smarter statement than it was the first time you made it.

What makes you think that I despise God? I do not despise God at all. I merely think you are a heretic, a follower of bad doctrine, doctrine that is so obviously bad that no sane person would convert to your version of the faith.

I think that you believe God to be evil, and simply have not yet realized it. I reject the notion that God is evil- either God is not at all, or God is not evil.

Don't be silly. God is infinitely good. He's also omnipotent, but doesn't like using that power to break the rules of the universe he created; presumably because if you're going to do so, what's the point of creating a universe with consistent laws of physics in the first place?

I agree with what you say. But your own faith-alone doctrines do not agree with that: they hold that God is evil, and should be loved for his evil, because his evil actions are acts of mercy and love.

No wonder civilization is moving beyond you. It is a great pity for Christendom that you have so much effective control over the tone of the Christian faith today, for you are a miserable set of heretics.

[Junghalli]

Would you rather he drag you into Heaven against your will? Why would you want to spend all of eternity with someone you clearly despise?

I take it you don't believe in a torturous Hell.

Because if you do this argument is rather disingenious. If I "choose" to go to a torturous Hell it's almost certainly because I made that choice based on ignorance of the true reality of the situation - which is kind of God's fault for failing to provide any evidence of His existence besides a set of stories with nothing to obviously distinguish them from the vast number of false ones that also exist. This is basically sending people to Hell for making logical conclusions based on the evidence that God has provided them.

Of course the idea that an omnibenevolent entity would subject people to torture for failing to love it is just hilariously broken period. That is the act of a selfish narcissist.

[LionElJonson]

Would you rather he drag you into Heaven against your will? Why would you want to spend all of eternity with someone you clearly despise?

I take it you don't believe in a torturous Hell.

I don't believe I have enough information either way, but even a torturous Hell is better than non-existence.

Because if you do this argument is rather disingenious. If I "choose" to go to a torturous Hell it's almost certainly because I made that choice based on ignorance of the true reality of the situation - which is kind of God's fault for failing to provide any evidence of His existence besides a set of stories with nothing to obviously distinguish them from the vast number of false ones that also exist. This is basically sending people to Hell for making logical conclusions based on the evidence that God has provided them.

God's given us all the information we need to make the choice. It's not His fault if some of of choose to ignore it, and spurn His love. Even then, though, he demonstrates his love by granting you eternal existence in Hell.

Of course the idea that an omnibenevolent entity would subject people to torture for failing to love it is just hilariously broken period. That is the act of a selfish narcissist.

He's not sending you to hell for failing to love Him. He's sending you to Hell because you're a flawed being, and unworthy of being in his presence (and, very likely, incapable of surviving the experience). It's only through accepting his gift of forgiveness that your sins are forgiven, and you're rendered capable of going to Heaven.

[Serafina]

What's this crap about "free will" anyway?

Humans do not have absolutely free will in the first place. It's obvious that we can not do anything we want - the laws of physics do not bend to our whim. And our will is even more limited than that, there are many things you can NOT choose to ignore, create or controll - emotions, compulsions, physical reactions (vomiting etc.) are often there no matter what you choose.
So the argument already fails there. We do not have completely free will. God could just have created humans without the possiblilty to "choose eternal torture" and it would be no less immoral than any of the other things that we can not controll.

But there is more. Because people do not "choose hell". No one would.
But if you believe that unbelievers go to hell, then you believe that 90%+ of all humans that ever lived were condemned to hell without any chance. Because they never heard of your god. And you can't believe in something without having an idea of it.
Indeed, people do choose their religion very, very rarely. Most people are brought up with their religion and just never question it enough to change it.

Last but not least, if you believe that God created everything, he specifically chose to create a place where everyone who doesn't worship him mindlessly is tortured for all eternity. That he has minions who do the torture doesn't matter, he is still the one who is ulitmately in charge.
Why would any benevolent being do that? No one - and if you believe that your god did that, then your god is the worst monster in all of history.

I don't believe I have enough information either way, but even a torturous Hell is better than non-existence.

That's bullshit.
Humans will choose death if they are subject to a torture with no hope of escape (and that includes other very bad situations as well). Everyone would do that - those who don't manage to retain a small amount of hope or do it for someone else. But neither would be the case in your supposed hell.
I would certainly prefer non-existance - and even a complete wiping of me from history, not just my existance ending - to eternal torture.

Besides, an omnipotent god could just create a non-tortorous place for his non-chosen. But if you believe he created hell, then you have a god who takes delight in torturing billions for all eternity.

[LionElJonson]

What's this crap about "free will" anyway?

Humans do not have absolutely free will in the first place. It's obvious that we can not do anything we want - the laws of physics do not bend to our whim. And our will is even more limited than that, there are many things you can NOT choose to ignore, create or controll - emotions, compulsions, physical reactions (vomiting etc.) are often there no matter what you choose.
So the argument already fails there. We do not have completely free will. God could just have created humans without the possiblilty to "choose eternal torture" and it would be no less immoral than any of the other things that we can not controll.

You're misunderstanding the nature of free will. It's the ability to make decisions, not violate the laws of physics or totally control our bodies. It's "Do I want a cheese sandwich or a ham sandwich? Do I want to murder my mother, or care for her? Do I want to worship God, or spurn him?"

But there is more. Because people do not "choose hell". No one would.
But if you believe that unbelievers go to hell, then you believe that 90%+ of all humans that ever lived were condemned to hell without any chance. Because they never heard of your god. And you can't believe in something without having an idea of it.
Indeed, people do choose their religion very, very rarely. Most people are brought up with their religion and just never question it enough to change it.

If God created humanity, all of humanity had the opportunity to know and worship him. It's just that some of them turned away from God, began worshipping idols, and taught their children and grand-children to do the same. They're probably all burning in Hell, yes, but then, so did everybody prior to Jesus's death and ressurrection; they just went a relatively nice portion of it. Then Jesus came down when he died, and brought them all to Heaven with him before he came back to life.

Last but not least, if you believe that God created everything, he specifically chose to create a place where everyone who doesn't worship him mindlessly is tortured for all eternity. That he has minions who do the torture doesn't matter, he is still the one who is ulitmately in charge.
Why would any benevolent being do that? No one - and if you believe that your god did that, then your god is the worst monster in all of history.

Because even eternal torture is better than non-existence. Anything at all is better than not existing. That's axiomatic.

I don't believe I have enough information either way, but even a torturous Hell is better than non-existence.

That's bullshit.
Humans will choose death if they are subject to a torture with no hope of escape (and that includes other very bad situations as well).

I wouldn't, and I'm not being an Internet Tough Guy about that, either. I am totally serious when I say that anything at all is better than non-existence, and my faith isn't strong enough that I'm willing to die. I'm not a very good Christian, that way.

Everyone would do that - those who don't manage to retain a small amount of hope or do it for someone else. But neither would be the case in your supposed hell.
I would certainly prefer non-existance - and even a complete wiping of me from history, not just my existance ending - to eternal torture.

That's insane. I literally cannot comprehend how someone would prefer non-existence to existence; it's why I cannot fathom why someone would believe in reincarnation. When you cease to exist, you're gone. At least in Hell, you're still You. I would definitely prefer eternal torture to non-existence.

Besides, an omnipotent god could just create a non-tortorous place for his non-chosen. But if you believe he created hell, then you have a god who takes delight in torturing billions for all eternity.

Even a torturous Hell is better than non-existence, and there's probably areas that are less-torturous for the relatively minor sinners.

[Serafina]

You're misunderstanding the nature of free will. It's the ability to make decisions, not violate the laws of physics or totally control our bodies. It's "Do I want a cheese sandwich or a ham sandwich? Do I want to murder my mother, or care for her? Do I want to worship God, or spurn him?"

No, i am not misunderstanding it.
My point was that we often do NOT have the freedom of choice - because we are incapable of making that choice, or because there simply is no choice.
If there is no cheese, i have to stick with the ham. And if there is no one telling me about your god, i can not believe in him.
Hence, most people in this world can not choose between heaven or hell. Because they have no choice in believing in your god or not - because you can not believe in something you have no concept about.

If God created humanity, all of humanity had the opportunity to know and worship him. It's just that some of them turned away from God, began worshipping idols, and taught their children and grand-children to do the same. They're probably all burning in Hell, yes, but then, so did everybody prior to Jesus's death and ressurrection; they just went a relatively nice portion of it. Then Jesus came down when he died, and brought them all to Heaven with him before he came back to life.

A blatant lie, or blatant ignorance.
Humams do not start out with knowledge about your god. A newborn child is born without religion. If you do not teach it your religion, it will not know about your religion.
Hence, it can not make a choice - since it lacks an option to choose, since there is only one option.

Also, you just admitted that your god is a cruel mass-murderer if he damned everyone prior to Jesus to hell.

Because even eternal torture is better than non-existence. Anything at all is better than not existing. That's axiomatic.

I demand that you provide proof for that assertion.

I wouldn't, and I'm not being an Internet Tough Guy about that, either. I am totally serious when I say that anything at all is better than non-existence, and my faith isn't strong enough that I'm willing to die. I'm not a very good Christian, that way.

For you, perhaps. But not for everyone - indeed, if you were subjected to such torture, you
would most likely change your mind.

That's insane. I literally cannot comprehend how someone would prefer non-existence to existence; it's why I cannot fathom why someone would believe in reincarnation. When you cease to exist, you're gone. At least in Hell, you're still You. I would definitely prefer eternal torture to non-existence.

If your existence is nothing but eternal torture, does it have any value?
But hey - i did not mind not existing before i was born, so i do not see why i should mind after i am dead either.
However, i would mind being tortured.
Hence, not existing is the preferable option.

Besides, what does reincarnation (a form of eternal existance) have to do with not existing after death? You are apparently utterly clueless about other religions.

Even a torturous Hell is better than non-existence, and there's probably areas that are less-torturous for the relatively minor sinners.

So your god deliberately tortures billions of people.
Nice fella.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't believe I have enough information either way, but even a torturous Hell is better than non-existence.

Pray you are never unhappy enough to question that bizarre notion of yours; that would make you luckier than many people deserve.

God's given us all the information we need to make the choice. It's not His fault if some of of choose to ignore it, and spurn His love.

How could anyone "spurn his love" when they do not know who he is? The fact that some fool comes up to me and says "submit to God in the way I say you should to avoid infinite torture!" does not mean the fool is telling the truth.

That's not enough information to make any choice, even a trivial one. Even less is it enough information to make a choice where the penalty for being wrong is infinite torture. I mean, what if you converted because someone said "repent, sinner, and pray this way!" and got it wrong? What if you followed the wrong faith-alone religion, had faith in the wrong version of God? A being who sets up an infinite amount of torture as the penalty for simply not knowing it exists will hardly be merciful to someone who sings its praises off-key.

Even then, though, he demonstrates his love by granting you eternal existence in Hell.

The stark insanity of this statement is the best sign I can imagine of just how far into heresy and madness you have sunk, and how far the entire faith-alone doctrine has sunk.

That, or you are simply making up whatever bizarre remarks will provoke the greatest response. I hope so; I'd rather believe that you are a sad lunatic who enjoys telling lies than that you are a frothing lunatic who believes the lies.

He's not sending you to hell for failing to love Him. He's sending you to Hell because you're a flawed being, and unworthy of being in his presence (and, very likely, incapable of surviving the experience). It's only through accepting his gift of forgiveness that your sins are forgiven, and you're rendered capable of going to Heaven.

This changes nothing. An omnipotent god could make you capable and worthy of anything it wanted you to do. It would not be a question of "earning forgiveness" by submitting to the god. It would be a matter of common decency. Any creature that can be described as anything but horribly evil would do nearly anything to save someone from infinite torture.

The only way this argument makes sense, the only way to say "you do not go to Heaven because you are unfit for the divine presence," is if there is an alternative to going to Heaven that is NOT INFINITELY BAD. Infinite torture is bad. Any decent being would try to save people from it, and any decent omnipotent being would succeed.

If there were a third option, a Limbo of some sort that is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, I could see it- souls go to Limbo unless they submit to God. Because then God would be doing you a favor, not just doing the duty of any decent entity in the universe to save people from hideous eternal torture.

But by claiming the existence of infinite torture in Hell for those your god does not choose to save, the faith-alone heresy makes it, by obvious implication, your god's duty to save everyone. And since it is always within your god's power to save anyone he pleases, the fact that he fails this duty means he chooses not to undertake it... which means that he is an evil god. All the more so because he created the entire system- the Hell in which countless billions are being tortured this very minute could not exist without him having put it there.

Face the facts, Jonson; you worship an evil god. You just didn't recognize it, because you lack the basic grounding in philosophy to see the enormous flaw in your own heresy.

[Shroom Man 777]

Also most theologians and clergymen would tell you that God doesn't directly decree evil: He just permits it or gives men free will which results in evil. And by "harden someone's heart" it is meant that God simply locks them into their sins.

Meaning they can't change their minds. So, where's the free will in that? God deliberately made the Pharaoh hard hearted, so God would have a shit excuse to murder people. Yay God!