The idea that "you send yourself to hell"

[Gerard]

Calvinism has this pretty much covered with predestination aka infralapsarianism. You don't send yourself to hell. The unending providential God does. And we love him!

Gerard

[Randy Carson]

I've never quite gotten the idea that you send yourself to hell.  I'm not sure if it's a purely Christian concept, but I've mostly seen Christians saying it.

"God doesn't send you to hell, you send yourself there!"

Yes, this is a common understanding among Christians.

This ignores a few things.  One, that god created hell as punishment.  A place of eternal punishment and torture.  It's kind of like putting someone in the worst prison in the world, and saying "Well,they sent themselves there!"  Sure, but there's also prisons where you don't burn in a lake of fire for eternity.  Why does punishment require torture?  Surely a good god would not torture people.

This ignores a few things. One, that someone who has lived a life of sin would WANT to be in the presence of an all-holy God. The reason that people "choose hell" is because in the next life we see ourselves as we really are. And some of us have spent an entire lifetime here on earth opposed to God and all that He represents. So, God is not going to force people who hate Him to spend an eternity in His presence. And if you read the handouts closely, you'll note that the greatest torments of hell are the absence of God and regret - and these are not active tortures but the absence of good things.

Then you have the fact that some people are sent there for various reasons.  If god were real, I'd be going (apparently) because I'm a lesbian.  I'd get the same punishment as Hitler, who was responsible for the death of six million Jews.  So my crime is liking boobs while Hitler's is murdering six million people.  It reminds me of the old religious argument "Why would atheists have morals?  Without god, what would stop you from raping people?"  If I'm going to hell for liking boobs, why shouldn't I kill six million people?  I'm sending myself to hell for liking boobs after all.

And this ignores a few things. One, that both the lesbian and Hitler have chosen their own paths and will above that of God. So, it's not really about equating the holocaust to lesbianism...it's about the fact that neither of you wants to obey God or be in His presence. You're just in defiance in different ways.

[Baruch]

That is so true.  He can't even be given responsibility for creating evil or suffering because nobody wants to think of him as the creator of bad things, BUT he created everything...but evil, because Satan!

There is a direct quote of G-d in the Bible, saying this ... that all things are of G-d.  But nobody wants to worship a prick like that ... I sure don't ;-)

Theodicy is one of the greatest stupid magic tricks that casuists use to get G-d off the cross.  I would say ... you put yourself there, you masochist!

[Blackleaf]

Yes, this is a common understanding among Christians.

A common assumption, more accurately. If you believe the Bible, and I suspect you do, it directly contradicts this assumption.

This ignores a few things. One, that someone who has lived a life of sin would WANT to be in the presence of an all-holy God. The reason that people "choose hell" is because in the next life we see ourselves as we really are. And some of us have spent an entire lifetime here on earth opposed to God and all that He represents. So, God is not going to force people who hate Him to spend an eternity in His presence. And if you read the handouts closely, you'll note that the greatest torments of hell are the absence of God and regret - and these are not active tortures but the absence of good things.

The Bible describes Hell as a place of fiery torture. Your pussy Hell is not supported anywhere in your holy book, so where are you getting it from?

Sending unbelievers to Hell is an act of mercy? What gives you the idea that unbelievers don't want to spend an eternity with God? Maybe the reason they don't believe in God is because he doesn't bother to show himself, and they don't have anything against the idea of God. Do they get to go to Heaven?

And if spending eternity with an all-holy God is torture, then how is separation from God also a form of torture? Which is it?

And this ignores a few things. One, that both the lesbian and Hitler have chosen their own paths and will above that of God. So, it's not really about equating the holocaust to lesbianism...it's about the fact that neither of you wants to obey God or be in His presence. You're just in defiance in different ways.

Calling lesbianism and the Holocaust "defiance in different ways" is equating them. You imply that both were sinful choices made, but being a homosexual is not a choice. The objective observations we call science supports this, as do the words of people who have first-hand experiences with homosexuality and actually know what they're talking about.

[Randy Carson]

A common assumption, more accurately. If you believe the Bible, and I suspect you do, it directly contradicts this assumption.

The Bible describes Hell as a place of fiery torture. Your pussy Hell is not supported anywhere in your holy book, so where are you getting it from?

I did not say that Hell is not an unpleasant place. Where are you getting THIS from? In the absence of God, both humans and fallen angels will be left to their own devices including how they treat one another. Consequently, I expect that Hell is a pretty miserable place to be. Additionally, none of the saints who have written about their visions of hell have described it in pleasant terms.

Sending unbelievers to Hell is an act of mercy?

Yes. If you don't want to serve God, He will not force you to do so.

What gives you the idea that unbelievers don't want to spend an eternity with God?

Oh, gee, I dunno...their general lack of interest in Him in this life for starters.

But to be fair, different folks have different reactions to God ranging from indifference to open hostility. Then there are quotes from folks like Hitchens who basically said (and I'm paraphrasing), "Even if God does exist, I want nothing to do with him."

So, these are some of the observations that have given me the idea that "unbelievers don't want to spend an eternity with God".

Maybe the reason they don't believe in God is because he doesn't bother to show himself, and they don't have anything against the idea of God. Do they get to go to Heaven?

Some might, some might not. Every situation requires God's perfect judgment as to the heart of the individual.  And maybe the reason that He doesn't bother to show himself is that people aren't actually looking. He can't simply post banners in the sky announcing His existence, you know?

And if spending eternity with an all-holy God is torture, then how is separation from God also a form of torture? Which is it?

It depends on the disposition of the person, doesn't it? Here's a simple analogy: Imagine a teenager and his grandmother decide to spend an evening together attending a concert. One option is a performance of several works written by Mozart performed by the NY Philharmonic. The other option is a death metal band, Suffocation.

Which is heaven and which is hell? It depends. The kid might be a concert pianist preparing to attend Juilliard while Granny is a head banger who never really left the 70's. Or maybe it's the other way around; the kid's a stoner with a bad attitude and his grandmother is as sweet as apple pie.

My point is that attending only ONE of these concerts is going to be fun for one and miserable for the other. Just like being in God's presence will be miserable for those who want nothing to do with Him.

Calling lesbianism and the Holocaust "defiance in different ways" is equating them.

Not even a little.

You imply that both were sinful choices made, but being a homosexual is not a choice. The objective observations we call science supports this, as do the words of people who have first-hand experiences with homosexuality and actually know what they're talking about.

This is not a topic I really want to discuss at this point; however, let me simply point out that while homosexuality may or may not be a choice, homosexual ACTS clearly are. Most of us have boundaries in one form or another:

Alcoholics cannot drink. Period.
Pedophiles cannot rape children. Period.
Heterosexuals who are married can't sleep with their neighbors' wives. Period.
Homosexuals cannot engage in homosexual acts. Period.

[Baruch]

Posting on Atheistforums is an act .... that may or not be sinful ;-)  Of course most people here, don't recognize sin ... though they may recognize other names for transgression.

[Randy Carson]

Posting on Atheistforums is an act .... that may or not be sinful ;-)  Of course most people here, don't recognize sin ... though they may recognize other names for transgression.

Agreed.

[TopCat]

Well Christians are going to hell too. Getting to heaven is like getting into an ivy league college.

[widdershins]

That depends on whether time requires a universe of space and matter in order to exist, or if it has an existence independent of the universe.  I'm not sure that time has any meaning in an environment in which there are no objects to move and space to move them in, and in that case infinite time might be the same as no time at all.

Time has been intimately linked to space within our universe.  That is not to say, of course, that time requires space, but like matter/energy, space/time are, I believed, considered to be essentially the same thing.  Also, after I posted this I saw someone using this argument to argue that it is impossible for the universe to have existed forever based on this same argument.  Of course this argument implies that time has always existed in its current form.  Since it is a factor of the universe as we know it and, according to current understanding, the universe was not always in the form in which we know it, time almost certainly has not always existed in the form in which we know it and may not have existed at all "before" the big bang.  This, of course, is a very difficult concept to get across since this would mean that technically there was no "before" the big bang, and yet there was.  We just don't have the language to explain something existing outside of time, easily, at least.

[Mike Cl]

This is not a topic I really want to discuss at this point; however, let me simply point out that while homosexuality may or may not be a choice, homosexual ACTS clearly are. Most of us have boundaries in one form or another:

Alcoholics cannot drink. Period.
Pedophiles cannot rape children. Period.
Heterosexuals who are married can't sleep with their neighbors' wives. Period.
Homosexuals cannot engage in homosexual acts. Period.

This is, of course a load of bullshit.  Typically, as a theist you make broad pronouncements and expect them to be taken at face value.  You have your 'values' and that is all they are.  Yours.  Yet you think.......no, insist........that we all take those 'values' as something we must live by or be damned.  Well, fuck your 'demand'.  I have never believed in your make believe god.  Your make believe holy book is simply a cobbled together batch of writing written by goat herders with no science in their background or even much common sense.  You can take your heaven and hell--places as real as Paul Bunyan's home--and shove them.  You come on this board in your 'slick, sly manner' without introducing yourself or saying what you are about.  Your are an inherently dishonest person--but then you are a theist--most likely a christian--, so it figures.  Simply typical.

[peacewithoutgod]

Alcoholics cannot drink. Period.
Pedophiles cannot rape children. Period.
Heterosexuals who are married can't sleep with their neighbors' wives. Period.
Homosexuals cannot engage in homosexual acts. Period.

What are you doing here, Randy - did the bigger forum ban you? It's about time they did!

Those who read all of the post which the quoted
garbage came from probably want their time back, and wish as much as I that they could take it beck from this avatars with interest. Well, consider yourselves warned - he does that garbage-dump tactic all the time - always far more than its worth the time dealing with!

The above quoted garbage is presented as a comparison between groups of people who have socially-harmful problems and homosexuals, who do not. Randy, you absolute shithead, the most important difference between a gay male prostitute and a white Christian bigot is that the latter (that`s you) causes more social harm. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are not prostitutes. If you think nobody should harass you for having a heterosexual relationship with a consenting adult (on the somewhat doubtful presumption that you are an adult), then you need to let the gays be!

[Blackleaf]

This is not a topic I really want to discuss at this point; however, let me simply point out that while homosexuality may or may not be a choice, homosexual ACTS clearly are. Most of us have boundaries in one form or another:

Alcoholics cannot drink. Period.
Pedophiles cannot rape children. Period.
Heterosexuals who are married can't sleep with their neighbors' wives. Period.
Homosexuals cannot engage in homosexual acts. Period.

I don't have time right now to address the entire reply, but I'll respond to the part that has some here in a fit. I won't lose my patience with you, because I once had the same opinion, and I know that people calling me names never did anything to change my mind.

First, you make a distinction between behavior and condition, but you don't seem to understand the real difference. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder, but it is similar to alcolism in one way: the condition is characterized by physical differences in the brain. An alcoholic doesn't stop being an alcoholic when they stop drinking. Their mind is permanently altered by their addictive behavior. Similarly, a homosexual will not stop being a homosexual if they stop engaging in "homosexual acts."

There are important differences, however. First, for something to be considered a disorder, it has to negatively affect the ability of a person to function. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, etc, would not say that their condition causes them to lose their ability to function, except in the ways that others discriminate against them because of it.

Second, issues like alcoholism are the result of behavior. Homosexuality is the result of biology. They were programmed to be that way, and it cannot change.

Third, try to imagine what you are suggesting a homosexual should do with their lives. You're telling them that they should not develop relationships with the people they're attracted to. So they either marry someone of the opposite sex that they have no attraction to and cannot be happy with, or they deny themselves the joys of marriage and family and live alone for the rest of their lives. Imagine if the roles were reversed. How would heterosexuals respond if they were told they needed to give up on love?

There's a reason that people of the LGBT community have a higher rate of depression and suicide. Growing up, they know they're different, and they're conditioned to be afraid and ashamed of it. They're told that they're sinful, that they're going to Hell, and that the feelings they have are wrong. This creates an impossible situation with no possible outcome that ends in their favor.

[doorknob]

right and a lot of homosexuals are outcast from their own families the people who can hurt you the most. At least I know my family are the only people who can hurt me every one else holds much less weight.

I couldn't have said that better myself. Even when I was a christian I always thought what the church was asking of homosexuals was unreasonable and unfair.

Try going your whole life with out sex or a relationship and see how well you do at that. Good luck sir!

one last note that I wanted to add here. Why is it every time a christian comes here we auto ban them?

I for one am not threatened. Education Education Education! If we educate them maybe we can open his eyes a bit. I was an annoying christian once too!

[peacewithoutgod]

I don't have time right now to address the entire reply, but I'll respond to the part that has some here in a fit. I won't lose my patience with you, because I once had the same opinion, and I know that people calling me names never did anything to change my mind.

You may have had Randy's opinions, but I doubt you ever would have had that dickhead's smug attitude, really poor manners, and self-obsessed blather-spewing without even a thought to how redundant, illogical, and cruelly wishful it all is. This is why he deserves none of our patience.

[Randy Carson]

You may have had Randy's opinions, but I doubt you ever would have had that dickhead's smug attitude, really poor manners, and self-obsessed blather-spewing without even a thought to how redundant, illogical, and cruelly wishful it all is. This is why he deserves none of our patience.

The members of this forum can read our respective posts and decide for themselves which of us is exhibiting poor manners.