Why Would a Loving God Create Hell?

quote:

---

Evil/right/wrong do not make sense in a world apart from Christ, who is the standard of goodness.

---

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. That clears up what those nice guys in the Phalange militia were telling me. Now if you'll excuse me, being a godless atheist, I need to go cheat the poor and eat a few babies.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

This is irrelevent since my argument is NOT Christian are good people, therefore Christ is the standard of goodness. In fact some of the nicest people I know are agnostic or atheist. Each group has its own set of irrational,emotional,illogical, biased followers .

---

So, you acknowlege that one needs not use Christ as a standard of goodness to live a good life. You personally define Christ as a standard of goodness. Atheists do not, and use commonly accepted social norms to define a standard of goodness. They coincide. The particular "standard" is thus irrelevant - we use the same standard.

quote:

---

I am simply saying that in the atheistic world, it doesn't make sense to have evil or good since there is no standard to measure these concepts by.

---

Actually, it does. First off, there are social memes. Societies which turn to rampant crime and anarchy are self-destructive; they cannot compete with other nations, and cannot last in the long run. Humans achieve strength only through unity and (relative) order. Societies which encourage such behaviors, whether through a religion (of which there are many) or through state-codified laws (Hammurabi, and earlier) are more likely to survive.On the individual level, there are consequences for actions. There are laws, and if you break them, you suffer consequences - often severe. These consequences go against instinctive human wants and needs.On the mental level, there is a further issue: meaning. To pursue anything in life, you need a sense of purpose. A primitive creature may be able to simply consider whatever its desires are as "purpose", but in a highly social, thinking creature, who doesn't spend its life focused soley on subsistance, there needs to be meaning to life. Without it, why go on living? Each person has to define their own meaning in the universe.If you believe in God, then you probably have defined the universe's meaning around your conception of "God's Plan". This may be quite different from many other people's perception of "God's Plan", but that's irrelevant - you have purpose and reason to exist. What about the atheist? An atheist must consciously accept the fact that whatever meaning they ascribe to the universe is irrelevant, and an arbitrary construct. This is the basis of existentialism.You will find that most atheists simply choose the "easy" route and define things in line with the social memes. Typically, this aligns with the concept of "good". Some take it a step further, and choose "deliberate good". There is no promise of reward, no eternal benefit, but we choose things that are often of a detriment to ourselves for the benefit of others. These, such as myself, are a specific category of existentialists - humanists.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

1) Actually, Job speaks of Sheol, what the poster was referencing. Here's a reference:SHEOL - JewishEncyclopedia.com2) Name one piece of evidence that Job is contemporary with Genesis. Here's some that indicates that it wasn't:The word "Rahab" is used twice in Job:

quote:

---

If he snatches away, who can stop him?
Who can say to him, "What are you doing?"
God does not restrain his anger;
even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet. (Job 9:12-13)

​

By his power he churned up the sea;
by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces.
By his breath the skies became fair;
his hand pierced the gliding serpent. (Job 26:12-13)

---

Rahab is a refernce to Egypt (Isaiah 30:7, Psalm 87:4, Psalm 89:9-10, Isaiah 51:9-10, etc) and the Exodus.The earliest reference to Rahab in the chronological portions of the Bible is that Psalm 87 was written by the sons of Korah, and Psalm 89 by Ethen the Ezrahite, so this would put it at the earliest during the time of David or Solomon; this would place Job as being written at some point between David and Isaiah.You can get clues also in that Job's behavior - serving as a priest to his house - correlates to the time of judges (sacrifice was not the exclusive domain of priests in a central tabernacle then).Also, Job is not unique; see Keret, Ludlul bel Nemeqi, etc.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

The hebrew word is Rahab. Here's the definition:Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible1) Storm, arrogance (but only as names)
a) mythical sea monster
b) emblematic name of Egypt.Besides, if you're silly like the KJV and translate it as "proud", the other passages that I referenced don't make sense.The Hebrew reads that by his understanding, he smote Rahab. Rahab is the name of Egypt (and also a sea monster, but that wouldn't make sense).Now that I've provided evidence that Job is notably later that Genesis, what do you have to suggest that it was contemporary?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you have no basis for your claims. While I acknowledge that both views contain followers within it that act both bad and good, and that atheists have a sense of right and wrong, the logical dilema that they have is that their worldview can not account for this.

---

But I just did account for it - natural selection. More specifically, memetic selection.

quote:

---

They have to borrow from the Theistic world view in order to make these claims of alleged injustice.

---

From our perspective, you're subject to such selection as well - and that developed your standards, not some God. Again, if you're looking at our worldview, you need to look at the whole worldview.

quote:

---

Atheism as a philisophical system can not account for laws of morality, laws of science or any other universal invariant abstract entity. You can make a claim that raping a child is wrong, but I would demand you show me evidence.

---

Exactly. Did you read my discussion of existentialism? "Meaning" and "purpose" are abitrary constructs which the invidual defines on their own. Typically, they define them on the "path of least resistance" - in line with social memes.

quote:

---

The only way around this is for you to deny that there are moral absolutes. I would then argue that you are choosing a much more complicated and unbelievable system of thought, than that wich is the obvious answer.

---

Harder to accept, yes. However, relativity is harder to accept than Newtonian physics. But it's more accurate. Quantum theory is much harder to accept still. And yet, it's more accurate. Just because you want something to be true, and it makes your life easy, doesn't make it true.

quote:

---

Does this prove Christianty? In and of itself perhaps not, however it at least provides a starting point for our discussion on whether or not Christianity is a valid religion. Atheists continue to complain about scraps that they see. They continue to pose problems of evil, problems of injustice in how God might or might not be. In doing this, they are demonstrating that these universal invariant abstract entities exist, yet their worldview can not account for them. This is illogical and irrational at best.

---

No, when we talk about "evil" and "injustice", since the world has no meaning, we simply define them around terms in common use. If we described them by anything other than terms in common use, we wouldn't be communicating, now would we? In an atheistic world, devoid of universal meaning and purpose, "evil" and "injustice" as humans define them are expected. They are not, however, necessarily predicted in a theistic world. In one with a God of infinite power and infinite compassion (as we know the word - some argue that God's definition of "good" is different from ours, but that's circular), explaining "evil" and "injustice" isn't so simple. [quote][quote]Societies which turn to rampant crime and anarchy are self-destructive;

quote:

---

Agreed. Perhaps this is why God chose to reveal the concept of sin to us. Not because He wanted to be the great party kill joy but perhaps because He understands the destructive nature of immoral behavior.

---

Ah, and here we look across the divide of belief. You see it as God trying to help humanity. I see it as memetic selection. Both of us see the same thing, but interpret it differently because of our different paradigms of reality.

quote:

---

This still does not address the problem of a lack of moral absolute truths. If moral truths were defined to be relative, or that which is perceived by an individual to be right or wrong, then the culture that tortures their young in sacrifice to some god are not really wrong. They are doing what makes sense to themselves and are therefore justified in doing this.

---

And the answer you're not expecting.... Yes. That is correct. Now, from my worldview with my arbitrary definitions of meaning and purpose, what they are doing is wrong. However, from theirs, what they are doing is right. There are no absolute realities.However, as I stated earlier, such a society will, in the long run, be selected against.

quote:

---

I can hear you now, "but if it causes harm to others then it violates there happiness and is therefore not allowed".

---

Nope. It may surprise you, but I don't believe that, and neither do most philisophical atheists. A drive for happiness is just an instinct; instincts have no more universal purpose than anything else in reality. One can *define* their instincts to have relevance, but it is an arbitrary definition to add purpose to reality.

quote:

---

Even still there is no justification for even making this claim apart from what ever you have arbitrarily decided to produce. I am simply stating that the universe does not make sense if there is no God, with no absolutness.

---

Actually, it makes perfect sense without God (I could go into how a universe with a God in it, which created the universe that it exists in, makes no sense). What is missing without a God is *purpose* for the universe. *Meaning*. Etc.

quote:

---

Even still this line of reasoning is still irelevant. The fact that you do good, for non-selfish reasons, has no relevance as to the validity of the claims I am making. In fact they actually provide more evidence suggesting the theist worldview is correct, since you are demonstrating that there is a concept of right and wrong, which you might claim to adhere to.

---

Actually, no. There are values which are positively selected, and values which are negatively selected. Societies which feel a sense of "right" and "wrong" that corresponds to our modern definition of such concepts are selected for. Again, we're back to memetic selection.

quote:

---

Thanks for the feedback...
Christe eleison

---

Actually, I've really enjoyed this conversation. It's been a while since I've had a good philisophical debate. Normally on this site, I'm simply having to deal with explaining how you can't have 6 miles of rain fall in a global flood without a huge change in potential energy, or how evolutionists don't believe in Larmarkism or Hopeful Monsters, or explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for the 1000th time... it's nice to have a different topic, one that is rarely covered. - Karen Pease------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

First, I do not know anything about Blue Letter Bible. They could be some fly-by-night, hack organization, or they could be completely valid in terms of scholarship.

---

The Blue Letter Bible gets more hits on the internet than "New Living Translation", which is what I was brought up with by my Catholic mother. It's no fly-by-night group (as if fly-by-night groups do entire bible translations).Here's a search of how different bibles translate Rahab:New International Version (NIV): God does not restrain his anger; even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet.
New American Standard Bible (NASB): God will not turn back His anger; Beneath Him crouch the helpers of (1) Rahab.
The Message (MSG): God doesn't hold back on his anger; even dragon-bred monsters cringe before him.
Amplified Bible (AMP): God will not withdraw His anger; the [proud] helpers of Rahab [arrogant monster of the sea] bow under Him.
New Living Translation (NLT): And God does not restrain his anger. The mightiest forces against him[1] are crushed beneath his feet. (Footnotes: 9:13 Hebrew The helpers of Rahab, the name of a mythical sea monster that represents chaos in ancient literature.)
King James Version (KJV): If God will not withdraw his anger, the proud helpers do stoop under him.
English Standard Version (ESV): God will not turn back his anger; beneath him bowed the helpers of Rahab.
Contemporary English Version (CEV): 13When God showed his anger, the servants of the sea monster [1] fell at his feet. (Footnotes:9.13 the sea monster: The Hebrew text has "Rahab," which was some kind of sea monster with supernatural powers (see the notes at 3.8 and 26.12)).
New King James Version (NKJV): God will not withdraw His anger, The allies of the proud[1] lie prostrate beneath Him. (Footnotes: 9:13 Hebrew rahab)
21st Century King James Version (KJ21): "If God will not withdraw His anger, the proud helpers do stoop under Him.
American Standard Version (ASV):God will not withdraw his anger; The helpers of Rahab do stoop under him.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT): God doth not turn back His anger, Under Him bowed have proud helpers.
Darby Translation (DARBY): God withdraweth not his anger; the proud helpers stoop under him:
New International Version - UK (NIV-UK): God does not restrain his anger; even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet.I count 5 of 14 translating it as proud; of these, 3 are different versions of the King James bible.

quote:

---

I would like to present a quote, however, from "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" which has a copyright of 1890 and has been widely used in theological circles since then, because of its proven accuracy. (FYI: the numbers refer to the system used to link the uses of words through out the Bible to their definition in the textbook. The word looked up was "proud", found to be in the forementioned two passages of Job.)

---

Ah, you use a book from 1890, and I use books that have taken into account everything since then as well. Since when has "the older it is, the more accurate it is" been at all an accurate axiom?Let's see all of the definitions that I can find:
Rahab, - Smith's Bible Dictionary Online (Smith's Bible Dictionary)
Rahab - Easton's Bible Dictionary - (Easton's Bible Dictionary)
http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB72.htm (Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, KJV version)
Who is RAHAB? - WebBible Encyclopedia - ChristianAnswers.Net (Web Bible Encyclopedia)
(I could go on).If you look through them, you'll see that the ones that trace where they get the word "proud" for it from, they get it from... Isaiah! Who is using it as a reference to Egypt. There is absolutely no other evidence to suggest that this word ever once meant "proud". Isaiah uses it in reference to Egypt, to basically call Egypt a "toothless monster" because of its pride (Rahab was a sea monster of legend). There's always the possibility that Job just coincidentally is talking about God striking down the sea monster (from the region at the time there are archaological references to a story of God fighting a sea monster called Rahab). But proud? Proud is "ge' " or "ge' eh". Pride is "ge'ah", "ga'avah", or other similar forms.

quote:

---

I say this because of the proven accuracy of the work it comes from.

---

The KJV? Proven accuracy? The KJV is a mess. They flat outright made up stuff in parts (such as the "coat of many colors" - how anyone can translate pac/pas (which means "of the hand or foot", and is used in that manner throughout the entire bible) as "many colors" is beyond my comprehension.). Of course, you probably cyclicly define the KJV to be correct, and use its supposed correctness for your definitions.

quote:

---

Also, the translation "proud" has a more harmonious connection to the immediate context.

---

Except for the fact that the sentence is past tense.

quote:

---

This is because both passages are statements against the position of stating you have knowledge and not recognizing Him from whom all knowledge comes. This would be a proud man, one who lifts himself up in the face of God impudently. This idea is also harmonious with the larger context of the debate that goes on between Job and his friends over the course of the book.

---

Ah, so "By his power he stilled the sea, by his wisdom he smote Rahab" isn't a reference either to Egypt or a sea monster (which, I assume coincidentally, was named Rahab)?

quote:

---

Thus far you haven't proven the KJV translation to be errant logically, grammatically, historically, or in any other way. So your considering it "silly" seems to be a rush to judgement instead of an accurate conclusion. As far as it not fitting in with your passages of scripture, that is not valid to the argument.

---

Want a couple of translation errors? From a page *defending* the KJV, we get:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

​

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

​

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

​

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

​

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

​

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

​

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

​

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

​

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

​

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

​

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

​

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

​

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

​

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

​

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

​

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

​

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

​

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

​

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

​

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

​

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

​

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

​

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

​

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

​

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

​

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

​

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

​

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

​

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

​

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

​

Revelation 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 [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

---

There's a lot more (this was just one category of errors), but I'll stop here.

quote:

---

The reason I say this is because the usage of a word (or words) in multiple passages of scripture does not unify those passages uness the definition can be seen to be synonymous, and that definition must include contextual considerations. I could add more about this (because the original hebrew, and even the english translation, is in a format called 'ancient hebrew poetry', and thus affects contextual consideration) but that is not the main issue.

---

But the word proud is being taken from Isaiah.

quote:

---

The original point was the knowledge of an afterlife before Babylonian exile. This is true because of, for one example, Job's statement in Job 19:25-26.
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."

---

Yes, Job talks of an afterlife: the word he uses is Sheol. I gave you a link that discusses Sheol. Sheol is not a "lake of fire" or a place in the clouds; it is similar to the Greek concept of hades.

quote:

---

Many factors indicate this book predates the Babylonian exile.

---

If there are many factors, surely you can name at least one.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-13-2003]

A good point, that this is going off topic. However, to my defense, Apostlos's post was about the same percentage discussing Rahab vs. Sheol as mine; I responded in kind. Of course, as any mother would know, that's no good excuse. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

In an article about Justice Roy Moore's ouster from the Alabama Supreme Court:Alabama Panel Ousts Judge Over Ten Commandments - The New York Times----------
The verdict stunned the hushed courtroom over which he once presided. As soon as it was read, Mr. Moore's shoulders drooped. His wife winced. His supporters let out a gasp. In the marbled corridors outside, shouting matches broke out between friends of the ousted judge and a handful of atheists."Thanks for destroying our country," one man said to Larry Darby, president of the Atheist Law Center in Montgomery."Go to hell!" another man told Mr. Darby, bumping him."I can't," Mr. Darby said, straightening himself. "Hell doesn't exist."------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

my condolances, Percy... that must be hard...------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Is this really the time to prosthelytize? Implicit in your statement "and it is my hope that Judy had accepted the loving God who created heaven." is the statement "because if she didn't....", which is a really mean thing to bring up, especially in a thread about Hell.Should I have responded to Percy's statement with, "and I sincerely hope that if she did believe in Christ, with all her heart, that she was right and didn't end up in another God's hell as punishment for believing in the wrong God or following the wrong commandments."? No. Why? Because it's not nice to use someone else's loss to try and score points for your side in a debate.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-17-2003]