Hell and an Agnostic Atheist

[KenV]

[quote=KenV]I have a whole bit about Hell and how someone like me will inevitably be punished eternally for being wrong (Pascal's Wager), but that's a different topic for a different day.[/quote]
[quote=Byblos]
Start a thread, we'll disscuss.
[/quote]

Excuse me if this is the wrong forum, it is a splinter from my other post about the meta universe and God.

So in the other thread we were talking about my inability to come to a logical conclusion supporting the existence of God. However, in the case that I'm wrong, I wonder why others believe I should be punished for eternity? Some believe the punishment will be simply not knowing God, others think it's a bit more horrific and painful than that. But why?

I was created by God, presumably, to be a very rational, logically driven individual. Should I/Will I be punished for simply not coming to the right conclusion? It has nothing to do with how good of a person I am or how I decide to live my life... but simply that I was too unintelligent/philosophically void to come to the right conclusion. Does that make sense?

Also, if God is all-powerful, surely he is above time, right? If he is above time, he knows everything that will happen, he knows that I will be an atheist and condemned to hell before I even exist. I have had people tell me "He chooses not to know" or "He gives you choices and doesn't know which you'll pick", but I refuse those answers. I refuse them on the basis that there is no way in the world anyone could know that he would make the decision not to know something, if that was even possible, as far as I know it doesn't say anything about this at all in the Bible.

So what are your thoughts on this? Am I condemned to a fiery grave because at the age of 17 I made the wrong move of deciding only to believe what makes the most sense to me, do I share the fate of the average rapist and murderer for my intellectual faults?

[jlay]

Ken,

Conclusions are always dependent on premises. I am amazed that someone can ask, "how could God condemn me?" And, then in the same breath say they have no evidence.

You are conceiving of god, what he would think of you, and how he would judge, yet no evidence. Yet on the other hand, you can conceive of a meta-verse and suddenly, evidence. Consistent? Me thinks not.

Am I condemned to a fiery grave because at the age of 17 I made the wrong move of deciding only to believe what makes the most sense to me

We have no way to go back to when you were 17 and see if your premises were sound. You are presuming that those premises were the best to determine what made sense.

I was created by God, presumably, to be a very rational, logically driven individual. Should I/Will I be punished for simply not coming to the right conclusion? It has nothing to do with how good of a person I am or how I decide to live my life... but simply that I was too unintelligent/philosophically void to come to the right conclusion. Does that make sense?

So, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

[Katabole]

I was wondering Ken where did you get this idea that those who don't believe will be punished eternally? Did you come to this conclusion yourself, or did other Christians tell you?

I believe the God of the Bible is righteous and that He makes a distinction of things that He perceives to be right and wrong. Because He is righteous, reward and punishment evidently follow that premise. I am not a Hellist and I do not believe in the concept of a buring hell in which sinners will suffer eternal punishing, nor do I believe there are any Biblical grounds to hold to this doctrine (for which I have received much criticism). I do however believe that God is a God of justice and that he will eventually annihilate all things evil bringing ultimate justice to our Universe and that in the end, wickedness, sin, death, evil and injustice will simply not exist.

One of my methods of study is to make a list of questions and then open the Bible to discover the answer to my questions and let the chips fall where they may. I made a list of questions and answers regarding this topic of Hell, maybe it will help you understand.



Will there come a day of destruction for wicked people?

Job 21:30 That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath.

Will the wicked be pardoned?

Job 10:14 If I sin, then thou markest me, and thou wilt not acquit me from mine iniquity.

Nahum 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.

So will the wicked have a trial?

Heb 10:29 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

So the wicked won't be sentenced without a trial?

Isa 30:18 And therefore will the LORD wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

How are the wicked supposed to learn?

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

John 13:13 Ye call me Master(teacher) and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

So Jesus is going to teach the wicked?

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

So then, during the Day of the Lord, that is, the thousand years, the wicked are going to be taught by Christ, who along with the true believers who will be priests, will teach the wicked also. What will they teach the wicked?

Eze 44:23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

So then on judgment day, the wicked will be judged according to what they did on earth while they lived in the flesh and they will be judged by what they learned during the Lord's day?

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

But I thought God didn't judge based on works?

Matt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

That makes sense. God doesn't judge the faithful Christians according to works, instead, God rewards the faithful according to their works but God judges the wicked according to theirs. So how will the wicked be destroyed?

Psalm 21:9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

How does God feel about those who sin?

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

What will happen to evildoers?

Psalm 37:9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.

What will happen to the wicked?

Psalm 37:10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Will the wicked go on living throughout eternity?

Psalm 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

So the wicked will be destroyed and not burn forever?

Psalm 37:38 But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off.

But doesn't "cut off" only mean they will be separated from God?

Psalm 68:2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.

So then this must mean that the wicked will be erradicated completely?

Psalm 104:35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.

Is there a second witness to attest to this?

Oba 16 For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.

What about a third witness?

Psalm 59:13 Consume them in wrath, consume them, that they may not be: and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth. Selah

So then, there will be a final destruction of the wicked, they will not burn in hell for eternity?

Psalm 145:20 The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.

What method will God use to destroy the wicked?

Isa 47:14 Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.

But I thought the soul never dies?

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Will the wicked be burned up completely?

Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

Matt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

How does God feel about the final destruction of the wicked?

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

So after the destruction of the wicked, sin will never rise up again?

Nah 1:9,10 What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time. For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry.

Does the New Testament talk about the destruction of the wicked?

Matt 7:35 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Does the New Testament speak about the soul dying?

Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

When will all of this take place?

Matt 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world (age).

Matthew 25:41 and 46 mention the word(s) eternal, everlasting fire for the wicked. Does it go out?

Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

These cities are not burning today. The judgment by fire was extinguished after everything was burned up. Likewise, everlasting fire will go out after it has turned the wicked to ashes correct?

Mal 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts

The effects of the fire are everlasting, but not the burning itself then. But doesn't Matthew 25:46 say the wicked will receive "everlasting punishment"? How can that be reconciled?

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

NOTE: Notice the word is the noun punishment, not the adjective punishing. Punishing would be continuous, while punishment is the acting out of a sentence The punishment of the wicked is death, and this death is everlasting, meaning forever. Nowhere in Scripture will you find that the wicked will receive eternal life, only the righteous. Eternal existence in Hell is still eternal life and the wicked are not granted eternal life, therefore no eternal life, even eternal life in Hell is granted to the wicked.

So the righteous will be granted eternal life. What will the wicked be granted?

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

What example does the Bible use to show that God will destroy the wicked by fire?

2Pet 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

2Thess 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

2Thess 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

What will happen to the saved?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Could you explain this word perish?

Strong's Concordance note.

Greek word for perish:

622
apollumi
ap-ol'-loo-mee
from apo - apo 575 and the base of oleqroV - olethros 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

And what is God's will regarding all people? Does God want people to live forever or perish?

2Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

So those who believe will not die like the wicked then, for the souls of the wicked will perish. What is the end result of sin?

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What will happen to the devil, will he be destroyed also?

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Eze 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Isa 14:25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.

Isa14:26 This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.

Isa 14:27 For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?

Shall we as believers see with our own eyes what God is eventually going to do to the wicked and Satan the devil at that time?

Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

Isa 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Psalm 37:34 Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.

Why is it impossible for sinners to be in the presence of God?

Deut 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Could you explain the word consuming?

Strong's concordance note.

Hebrew word for consuming:

398
'akal
aw-kal'
a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively):--X at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up), dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in...wise(-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite.

Greek word for consuming:

2654
katanalisko
kat-an-al-is'-ko
from kata - kata 2596 and analiskw - analisko 355; to consume utterly:--consume.


Will sinners suffer pain forever or will God get rid of pain?

Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

Did God ever appear in the form of a fire to an individual?

Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Did God ever appear in the form of a fire to a group of people?

Exo 24:17 And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.

But Jesus was a man not a fire? I'm confused.

Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire.

What will happen then during the last part of the Day of the Lord?

John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

What will God do to those who fail?

Exodus 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

And those who pass?

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Could you explain this word "BLOT"?

Strong's concordance note:

Hebrew word for Blot:

4229
machah
maw-khaw'
a primitive root; properly, to stroke or rub; by implication, to erase; also to smooth (as if with oil), i.e. grease or make fat; also to touch, i.e. reach to:--abolish, blot out, destroy, full of marrow, put out, reach unto, X utterly, wipe (away, out).

Greek word for Blot:

1813
exaleipho
ex-al-i'-fo
from ek - ek 1537 and aleifo - aleipho 218; to smear out, i.e. obliterate (erase tears, figuratively, pardon sin):--blot out, wipe away.

Where will the fire come from?

Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

What kind or type of fire is it?

Zephaniah 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.

So God then is the source of the fire and his judgment is wrath by fire that eminates from Him due to His jealously?

Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

But I thought the rich man from Luke ch 16 was in Hell? Can you explain?

Note: Luke 16 regarding the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. The rich man was on the other side of Paradise in heaven, called Hades, expressed in this scripture as the English word 'Hell' or the place of the dead. Lazarus was in paradise also but he was on the other side or good side of Paradise being welcomed by Abraham. According to scripture Jesus went to the place where the rich man resided while He was in the tomb and preached the Gospel to those who had died but unlike Abraham or Lazarus for that matter failed in life as described in 1Pet 3:18 and 1Pet 4:6.

What is the second death?

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

NOTE: The Greek words Thantos and Hades for death and hell respectively are not material things but concepts, so this lake of fire is not a literal lake and so from all the other examples it must be a description of God's wrath, eminating from God Himself. Are there any more verses that talk about the second death?

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

What about the verse in Revelation 20:10 where it talks about the devil, the beast and false prophet being tormented for ever and ever. Doesn't that show that hell fire is forever or eternal?

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

NOTE: In Jonah 2:6, "for ever" means only "three days and nights." In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah the "eternal" fire took only a night.

Jon 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

In the case of the human soul, forever means "as long as it lives" or "until death." The fire of God's jealous wrath will burn until there is nothing to consume for the pupose of the fire is to consume evil.

Here is a link to a short discourse on the words Everlasting, Eternal and Forever as used in the Bible:

http://www.levendwater.org/companion/append151.html

[KenV]

Ken,

Conclusions are always dependent on premises. I am amazed that someone can ask, "how could God condemn me?" And, then in the same breath say they have no evidence.

You are conceiving of god, what he would think of you, and how he would judge, yet no evidence. Yet on the other hand, you can conceive of a meta-verse and suddenly, evidence. Consistent? Me thinks not.

Am I condemned to a fiery grave because at the age of 17 I made the wrong move of deciding only to believe what makes the most sense to me

We have no way to go back to when you were 17 and see if your premises were sound. You are presuming that those premises were the best to determine what made sense.

I was created by God, presumably, to be a very rational, logically driven individual. Should I/Will I be punished for simply not coming to the right conclusion? It has nothing to do with how good of a person I am or how I decide to live my life... but simply that I was too unintelligent/philosophically void to come to the right conclusion. Does that make sense?

So, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Evidence for what? For why God would condemn me? I thought the Bible, or some interpretations of the Bible, was obvious evidence. Still, your entire reply confuses me. Why do we need to go back to when I was 17? If anything you could treat it as a hypothetical.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I have a whole bit about Hell and how someone like me will inevitably be punished eternally for being wrong (Pascal's Wager), but that's a different topic for a different day.

Pascal's Wager is something most people haven't a clue about. From what I can gather, people think it is essentially ''It is in my interest to believe in God because I have more to gain if He exists than I have to lose if He isn't real.''

Sorry, that isn't the Wager. If it were, Pascal will spend eternity in hell. When you actually read the Wager - which meanders through many pages - 12 pages, actually, in small type - of his Pensées it becomes evident that Blaise Pascal was a saved Christian who put his life into the hands of Jesus Christ.

So: read the real thing if you want to refer to the Wager. Atheists are supposed to be into facts, right?

FL

[KenV]

I have a whole bit about Hell and how someone like me will inevitably be punished eternally for being wrong (Pascal's Wager), but that's a different topic for a different day.

Pascal's Wager is something most people haven't a clue about. From what I can gather, people think it is essentially ''It is in my interest to believe in God because I have more to gain if He exists than I have to lose if He isn't real.''

Sorry, that isn't the Wager. If it were, Pascal will spend eternity in hell. When you actually read the Wager - which meanders through many pages - 12 pages, actually, in small type - of his Pensées it becomes evident that Blaise Pascal was a saved Christian who put his life into the hands of Jesus Christ.

So: read the real thing if you want to refer to the Wager. Atheists are supposed to be into facts, right?

FL

Sorry if that upset you? I'm not attacking Pascal or anything, just trying to illuminate my point. Although I'm fairly sure what I said was factually accurate. He reasons that if you can't come to the conclusion that God exist logically then you should wager that he does because what do you have to lose for both conclusions? What you just said assumes that I meant Pascal himself took the wager, and that's not what I'm saying because this isn't a topic about why Pascal was a christian, a topic I'm thoroughly not interested in. Its referred to as Pascal's Wager because that line of argumentative strategy in the realm of apologetics is attributed to him.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Sorry if that upset you? I'm not attacking Pascal or anything, just trying to illuminate my point. Although I'm fairly sure what I said was factually accurate. He reasons that if you can't come to the conclusion that God exist logically then you should wager that he does because what do you have to lose for both conclusions? What you just said assumes that I meant Pascal himself took the wager, and that's not what I'm saying because this isn't a topic about why Pascal was a christian, a topic I'm thoroughly not interested in. Its referred to as Pascal's Wager because that line of argumentative strategy in the ream of apologetics is attributed to him.

You missed my point! You are not stating anything that is ''factually accurate'' about the Wager so stop refering to it unless you know what you are talking about. Atheists deal in facts, right? If the God of the Bible exists, Pascal - and anyone else - would be toast with what you conceive his ''wager'' to be. This is my point: You do not know what you are talking about when you refer to Pascal's Wager. So, stop refering to it unless you actually have read it and understood it.

The Wager itself is in Section III (Of the Necessity of the Wager) of Pascal's Pensées. To get the context, you'll also have to read Section II, The Misery of Man without God and Section IV, Of the Means of Belief. And since you may decide to buy the book in order to know what you are talking about, why not read it all? You'll be all the richer for the experience.

FL

[StMonicaGuideMe]

There are a few fundamental assumptions here, and a misguided focus. I'll give you a few examples by quoting you:

"Am I condemned to a fiery grave because at the age of 17 I made the wrong move of deciding only to believe what makes the most sense to me",

I put emphasis on the end of your sentence because that alone sets the tone of the entire post. Things don't have to "make sense" to a person for it to be true -- it objectively is or is not based on the laws of logic that is founded upon. If you've chosen something that subjectively "makes sense" then there is huge potential it is not rational at all and merely a conclusion that you've determined to be true based on a myriad of qualifiers that simply are not truth. This is the same problem that lies within moral relativism and is pervading your thought here.

Also, you do not understand Christian theology surrounding punishments, that much is clear. First of all, if one has absolutely NO knowledge of God or His teachings, they are not condemned to Hell. He is not unjust and would not punish someone who had not known of him rationally -- which is why babies who die do not go to Hell, they had no ability to even know of Him.
Secondly, there is no knowing "what circle of hell" one will be in. Hell, in Christian Theology, is the suffering of the absence of God for all eternity. and specific punishments for the sins that caused us to be there. No one condemns us to hell but ourselves; God is just. Do you think God, out of love for those who did faithfully love and obey Him, think it's "fair" to have those who did not in the same realm? Moreover, do you think He'd want his children who obeyed and loved Him to be surrounded by people who may have even persecuted them for their faithfulness? That would not be a just God, and yet hardly anyone thinks of it in that way; most of the time they're too busy talking about their "lack of sinfulness" in comparison to a murderer or a rapist (like you just did).
Thirdly, I really, REALLY recommend you read up on the Omnipotence of God.

Lastly, if you define yourself as an atheist, and if you're really seeking truth (and it looks like you are since you're engaging with the opposing side here), you will come to find that your own worldview is self refuting and thus illogical to live-by. Give it time and thought and you know what -- offer a prayer. You never know, right? You can't be sure there is no God, so why not throw caution into the wind and ask "Show me the way if there is one" and I promise you, He will listen and He will provide.

Welcome again

[KenV]

Sorry if that upset you? I'm not attacking Pascal or anything, just trying to illuminate my point. Although I'm fairly sure what I said was factually accurate. He reasons that if you can't come to the conclusion that God exist logically then you should wager that he does because what do you have to lose for both conclusions? What you just said assumes that I meant Pascal himself took the wager, and that's not what I'm saying because this isn't a topic about why Pascal was a christian, a topic I'm thoroughly not interested in. Its referred to as Pascal's Wager because that line of argumentative strategy in the ream of apologetics is attributed to him.

You missed my point! You are not stating anything that is ''factually accurate'' about the Wager so stop refering to it unless you know what you are talking about. Atheists deal in facts, right? If the God of the Bible exists, Pascal - and anyone else - would be toast with what you conceive his ''wager'' to be. This is my point: You do not know what you are talking about when you refer to Pascal's Wager. So, stop refering to it unless you actually have read it and understood it.

The Wager itself is in Section III (Of the Necessity of the Wager) of Pascal's Pensées. To get the context, you'll also have to read Section II, The Misery of Man without God and Section IV, Of the Means of Belief. And since you may decide to buy the book in order to know what you are talking about, why not read it all? You'll be all the richer for the experience.

FL

... First of all, lets try to be a bit more civil and less insulting please. I do not have any interest in someone who is going to speak to me like a child or try to belittle me about something that has no relevance to this conversation at all. But, for your information, I've read the section of Pascal that is relevant to this conversation, I fully understand who he was, what you are saying and what he was saying. You, however, have thoroughly missed my point. I referred to it flippantly, and it was accurate how I referred to it. Here's where you went wrong:

You assumed I have a superficial understanding of Pascal's Wager. I don't, I had to read it in my philosophy of world religions class in college and again in my decision theory course. While it was a bit ago, I still have a fairly decent understanding of it. His wager, if you can call it that, was to accept the idea of having faith, if only superficially, in order open oneself to the idea and perhaps that faith could be reconciled later as genuinely believe. He recognized that superficial faith in God for the sake of gaining rewards in the afterlife was meaningless but accepting it first superficially for those superficial reasons could later provide you with a basis that would in the end grant you the best results. It's come up for me several times as I practice Law and they love to reference it here in the south.

And while putting things in italics and claiming your opponent is ignorant is all well and good, lets try not nitpicking phrases used for simplicity to obtain a false intellectual edge, it's insulting. At the very least you could ask me if I've read it before, flat out assuming I have not is just childish.

EDIT: Then again, I'm fairly sure he lays out the reasoning for believing in god is that it "is" a wager and therefor you have nothing to lose but everything to gain. I think you better re-read it.

[KenV]

There are a few fundamental assumptions here, and a misguided focus. I'll give you a few examples by quoting you:

"Am I condemned to a fiery grave because at the age of 17 I made the wrong move of deciding only to believe what makes the most sense to me",

I put emphasis on the end of your sentence because that alone sets the tone of the entire post. Things don't have to "make sense" to a person for it to be true -- it objectively is or is not based on the laws of logic that is founded upon. If you've chosen something that subjectively "makes sense" then there is huge potential it is not rational at all and merely a conclusion that you've determined to be true based on a myriad of qualifiers that simply are not truth. This is the same problem that lies within moral relativism and is pervading your thought here.

Right... but how what reason would I have for adopting an ideology that doesn't make sense to me subjectively? There is no logical reason to adopt a believe when it doesn't make sense to you. My train of thought could certainly be wrong, but there are plenty of faiths out there that would land me in hot water with other faiths depending on the faith. Simply put, for someone to adopt something it has to make sense to them, if it doesn't make sense to them it is asinine for them to adopt it.

Also, you do not understand Christian theology surrounding punishments, that much is clear.

Are you unaware of how many versions of this there are? I'm sure you aren't, so how can you say I don't understand it? I understand some versions, maybe I lack information on others. In any case, how can we know which interpretation is right? There is little in the way certainty when it comes to this.

First of all, if one has absolutely NO knowledge of God or His teachings, they are not condemned to Hell. He is not unjust and would not punish someone who had not known of him rationally -- which is why babies who die do not go to Hell, they had no ability to even know of Him.

Irrelevant here, obviously, since I obviously have knowledge of his teachings.

Secondly, there is no knowing "what circle of hell" one will be in. Hell, in Christian Theology, is the suffering of the absence of God for all eternity. and specific punishments for the sins that caused us to be there.

Before I respond to this, please explain to me what you meant by this part: "and specific punishments for the sins that caused us to be there." Because that, to me, sounds like the lake of fire/torture rhetoric we hear in the Bible.

No one condemns us to hell but ourselves; God is just. Do you think God, out of love for those who did faithfully love and obey Him, think it's "fair" to have those who did not in the same realm? Moreover, do you think He'd want his children who obeyed and loved Him to be surrounded by people who may have even persecuted them for their faithfulness? That would not be a just God, and yet hardly anyone thinks of it in that way; most of the time they're too busy talking about their "lack of sinfulness" in comparison to a murderer or a rapist (like you just did).

I think it's fair to have faithful in the same realm as the faithless, yes, because to me what makes someone worthy of praise is their character, not their beliefs. I think people that persecute the faithful shouldn't because that is reflective of their bad character. I think faith is a philosophical concept and one shouldn't be judged on it based on what he perceived to be as true. It's an asinine measure, in my opinion, that is far less meaningful than say, being a good person all your life.

Thirdly, I really, REALLY recommend you read up on the Omnipotence of God.

I just kind of assumed God was all powerful and could do what ever he wanted because he was God. Am I wrong here? Is God limited?

Lastly, if you define yourself as an atheist, and if you're really seeking truth (and it looks like you are since you're engaging with the opposing side here), you will come to find that your own worldview is self refuting and thus illogical to live-by. Give it time and thought and you know what -- offer a prayer. You never know, right? You can't be sure there is no God, so why not throw caution into the wind and ask "Show me the way if there is one" and I promise you, He will listen and He will provide.

I seek to learn. However, I have not been convinced that my world view is illogical or self refuting. If you'd like to explain to me why you think this, I'd love to offer my explanations.

I have offered up prayers before, I've asked the unanswering sky to show me the way if one existed... but so far nothing really has come of that. And trust me, I felt a little silly doing it, but I had the same thought: What could it hurt? Well, it didn't hurt anything but nothing came of it either. Still, if he wants me to start believing then I'm still open to the idea, just going to need a lot more than what I've been given.

[RickD]

Ken, just keep asking the questions you need answers to. Just your being here shows me you're searching for answers. If you are sincere, God will make Himself known to you in His way.

Proverbs 8:17:
17 “I love those who love me;
And those who diligently seek me will find me.

Ken, That's a promise of God. He is faithful.

[neo-x]

Proverbs 8:17:
17 “I love those who love me;
And those who diligently seek me will find me.

Ken, That's a promise of God. He is faithful.

Excellent post, Rick

[StMonicaGuideMe]

Hmm, your tone and the wording you're using, eg: "the unanswering sky" definitely is negative. Please don't tell me you actually expect a verbalized answer

I will definitely answer your contentions soon, I'm heading off to sleep now so I don't think, in my current sleepy state, I could adequately answer you. But soon!

I would contend God already answered you: you're here now, conversing with those who can definitely walk you through the topics you wish to know more about. Very few of us in life will have the "St. Paul" experience to turn them from an unbeliever into a believer. It's a slow and steady process for all of us. However, it's not just the mind that has to be open, but also the heart.
May I recommend you read "The Everlasting Man" and "The Man who was Thursday" by Chesterton? I have a sense you will appreciate it.

I think that's a huge step in the right direction. You'd be shocked at how many do not make that step out of fear of being wrong, fear that their pride will be dented, etc. I commend you on the "leap of faith" you took, not only asking God, but then putting faith in us to talk to you rationally and compassionately. See, you're coming along quite well Goodnight and God Bless you!

[neo-x]

Simply put, for someone to adopt something it has to make sense to them, if it doesn't make sense to them it is asinine for them to adopt it.

Agreed, so what have you done so far as to make sure you have tried your best to understand faith? I mean, aside from coming here and asking in a prayer? It will help understand your background and probably the context much better.

Are you unaware of how many versions of this there are?

This is irrelevant, Ken. If you find truth, it will all come to you.

Irrelevant here, obviously, since I obviously have knowledge of his teachings.

Can you tell me what teachings do you have knowledge about. I sure hope, it is better then Wikipedia. But even if you have knowledge, what perspective did you learn it from. e.g we had an atheist here who said she'll introduce their children about major religions and of course atheism and let them make their own minds. Sure, sounds all good huh? But what she obviously didn't care to say was that she will always tell her children, this is Christianity, its all a big pile of hoaxes, stacked on top of each other, screw it all cuz there ain't no God. See you may have knowledge about it, but from what perspective? were you studying it (assuming that you did) for a better understanding in its context or looking to pick out stories that you can find fault with. Best is to go unbiased. That means you give equal weight to all statements your's and ours. This means that when you read the story of Jonah and the fish that swallowed him, you don't laugh your head off but try to see possibilities, rational thoughts, cuz believe me, we are not all idiots, worshipping unicorns here. If you're in it for learning, best open up to at least a level where you give a fair shot to it or else you are wasting our time.

because to me what makes someone worthy of praise is their character, not their beliefs.

Obviously, this is not a universal given. Most people have their character based on their believes.

I think faith is a philosophical concept and one shouldn't be judged on it based on what he perceived to be as true.

Subjective ethics is a problem, isn't it? what is good? define good? in Nazi Germany, it was good to kill a non-Aryan, one who didn't belong to master German race. Most of them had no guilt. If good is just what you perceive it to be, then it is unstable. The Aztec believed it good to have human sacrifices. It was a good in their society. If you had been born in Aztec, to you it would have been perfectly fine or normal to have human sacrifices, cuz that is what you would have been taught and it would not be in conflict of your own conscience. In Hinduism, burning a widow with her husband is considered good, it is called the ritual of "sati". In Islam, one can kill his wife on account of suspicion of her cheating him, without proof, and it would be considered a proud act.

So don't give me that, I believe in goodness, thing. What goodness? Unless it is defined and unchanging on philosophical bases and not just circumstances, it is not good. Where do you get that? Obviously not atheism, since I know what great morals they have penned down.

Religion is a not just a concept, it is a system, and so is atheism. we have our morals jotted down, our system works on that, it is regardless if I go against it, since it can convict me always. But when stalin butchered millions and razed some 42000 churches to the ground, he never had tinge of a guilt. Why do you think that was? because he was doing something good, It certainly seemed good to him. I mean we are not talking about the guy who kills and then goes to confession. We are talking about the guy, who kills and think he has done right, good, a service to society. But in this case this guy is an atheist. Now please tell me, on what grounds do you have a case against him? That he is killing millions? No, that doesn't matter to him, that is the bad in his world. He doesn't share your definition of good.

Please Ken, convince me, lets for a moment think that I am an atheist (I'm a ex-atheist anyway) and I think religious people are a danger to society. I am in power, I'm the head of a state, you are fellow atheist and you think Im doing wrong. CONVINCE ME.

I'm sure you will love this conversation between us. lets play roles. Lets see how you can show me that your definition of good is better then mine. since you think I am wrong. Even if I refuse to agree, you can still show me where the obvious flaw in me lies.

Looking forward to it.

[jlay]

Evidence for what? For why God would condemn me? I thought the Bible, or some interpretations of the Bible, was obvious evidence. Still, your entire reply confuses me. Why do we need to go back to when I was 17? If anything you could treat it as a hypothetical.

You are the one who brought up what you did at 17, did you not? You asked a quetions pertaining to this. I am challenging your claim of a 'logical conclusion.' I'm challenging all the premises of your thinking, to see if you are actually being logical.

I agree, the bible is obvious evidence.

Why would God condemn you? Good question. Do you consider yourself a good person?

Are you unaware of how many versions of this there are? I'm sure you aren't, so how can you say I don't understand it? I understand some versions, maybe I lack information on others. In any case, how can we know which interpretation is right? There is little in the way certainty when it comes to this.

Can you give us a specific example.

Edited my post to keep from going off track